Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this paper is quite interesting, and the use of materials from a 2024 seminar and workshop to examine issues related to natural–cultural heritage and urban green building is a promising approach. The attempt to extract deeper insights from a small sample is commendable. However, the paper still needs significant improvement in terms of the logic of the introduction, the representativeness of the sample, the depth of data analysis, and the quality of the discussion. With a clearer structure and more rigorous analytical approach, the paper would become much more convincing.

 

1. The introduction would benefit from a clearer and smoother logical flow. The transitions between paragraphs in the introduction feel somewhat abrupt, and the overall narrative is not fully coherent. I would suggest first clarifying why natural and cultural dimensions are important in heritage conservation and what issues currently exist, then explaining why the planning document is worth studying, and finally introducing the methods. This structure would help the introduction read more smoothly and avoid abrupt topic shifts.

 

2. Drawing general conclusions from a single-city case is somewhat overstretched. The paper relies solely on the case of Tel Aviv. While the White City is indeed a representative heritage site, heritage contexts around the world differ greatly. Using a single urban case to argue for generalizable patterns seems a bit too ambitious. It would be better for the authors to clarify the actual scope of applicability and avoid giving the impression that the findings can be extended to all heritage contexts.

 

3. The representativeness of the workshop participants needs further clarification. If the workshop was conducted in Jerusalem, there may be concerns about whether the participants were sufficiently representative, especially given the security conditions in 2024 that could have affected attendance. If most participants were local policymakers or master’s students, their practical experience with heritage management might be limited, which could influence the reliability of the findings. It would be helpful if the authors provided more explanation about the participant composition and the potential limitations.

 

4. The data analysis is largely descriptive and lacks depth. The analysis currently relies heavily on visualizations. While there are many figures, the interpretation stays at a descriptive level without exploring underlying drivers, sources of variation, or deeper patterns in the data. Employing more systematic statistical methods would significantly strengthen the study and provide more meaningful insights beyond descriptive summaries.

 

5. The discussion section mainly restates the results and lacks substantive scholarly dialogue. The initial parts of the discussion section essentially repeat the findings instead of offering critical reflection. There is little discussion of the implications of the results, their relationship to existing literature, possible explanations for similarities or differences, or directions for future research. The discussion should function more as a true discussion rather than another summary of the results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript looks at the planning heritage of Sir Patrick Geddes, which I think is a worthy and interesting topic. It investigates how planning documents across the Tel Aviv metropolis address the attributes of Patrick Geddes’ plan that underpin the UNESCO World Heritage inscription of the White City, and whether these attributes extend beyond the core heritage area. Generally, the topic falls within the journal’s scope. However, several unclear points require further clarification and elaboration, as outlined below:

1) It is suggested to briefly synthesize Patrick Geddes’s key points regarding natural-cultural planning and connect them to his practice.

2) The study requires a more rigorous scientific framework. In its current form, it remains unclear whether this is a teaching workshop/studio or an actual evaluation activity, given that several master’s students participated in the “study” and are credited as “experts” (see Table 1).

3) There are 5 “expert groups” in total (see Table 1), with “Fields Represented” and “Sectors Represented” specified. However, these categories are mixed: some professionals (e.g., policymakers) are included in 4 groups, and Group 2 consists solely of master’s students (designated as “experts”). Additionally, the roles of government agencies and developers are not addressed here. Authors should further clarify these points to enhance the study’s scientific rigor and reliability.

4) The presentation of “Results”, could use some visual approaches in order to make it more analytical and readable.

5) The writing of abstract can be better organized, and it is suggested to integrate it into a single paragraph, rather than three separate paragraphs.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I believe that the paper has the characteristics of a scientific paper, but that its scientific value is weak. The paper is quite extensive, and nowhere are specific conclusions or contributions to the paper itself given. You conducted a survey of participants and described in detail how they evaluated the plans, but no general and clear conclusion was drawn from this data. Everything remains at the level of interpretation, without solid evidence and without clear statistical analysis.

In my opinion, the paper should be significantly summarized and the data obtained should be used in a way to make a concrete statistical analysis. My suggestion is to consolidate all the data and to make a multi-criteria analysis, which would give a final result for each attribute and thus a clear basis for conclusions. In addition, it is necessary to emphasize everything with visual displays, graphs, and tables, so that the results are clear and convincing.

At the end of the paper, it is necessary to write a concrete conclusion that clearly shows what the analysis points to: what are the advantages, what are the disadvantages, what are the recommendations for future research, and what are the guidelines for decision makers. Without this, the paper remains sketchy and does not make a real contribution.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the revised manuscript and the reponses & clarification from author(s). Authors have taken efforts to appropriate address the review comments. The current verseion is clearer than the intial submission, it can be considered to accept for publication in the journal. I have no further comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I believe the manuscript is now sufficiently improved for acceptance.