Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors done an excellent research work on analyzing the Effectiveness of Heritage Revitalization on Community Planning, here are few comments to improve the article.

1. The introduction should clearly explain the key limitations of prior work that are relevant to this paper. 

2. The authors should explain clearly what the differences are between the prior work and the solution presented in this paper.

3. The authors should add a clear and detailed problem definition. 

4. The authors should first give an overview of their solution before explaining the details in the methodology

5. There is not enough discussion of the implication part

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The method should be more objectively accompaneid and reported of 3 indicators. The Interest in the exisisting heritage, being scientifically much debated; needs more frontier experimentale research and more specific literatures. The research scope in interesting and so is the questione, buta the effectiveness of the 3 indicators system on other methods already in use needs to be more strongly emphasized.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper provides valuable information. Nevertheless, to improve the quality of the paper to the Journal standards, a few comments have to be addressed, such as:

The novelty behind the study is not well clarified. The contribution of the study should be highlighted in a more accurate way. All information (literature review, problem, purpose, research methodology, results and discussion, conclusions) in the manuscript was inadequately given in order to understand what the contribution of this study to the related scientific area is. It is not clear how this study differentiates itself from the existing ones in the related literature. It should be highlighted how it fills a gap in the related literature for a better understanding of the contribution of the study.

The study needs a better description of the research approach. Particularly, please give more information on the data and present a more detailed analysis of the data. This helps the reader to clearly understand the contribution of the study. Also, this would strengthen the discussion and the conclusions of the paper.

Further discussion of the results is necessary.

Conclusions need to be strengthened. Please, improve it, add some key results supported with data, and make it more effective.

Based on the key findings and conclusions, it may be better to give more recommendations for future analyses.

The main title of the study should be clearer. Please improve the main title of the study.

In the manuscript, there are a few typographical errors. Please check it.

Clear information should be given for a better understanding of the contribution of the study. The manuscript should be rewritten in accordance with the scientific journal paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The abstract is informative, the research subject is interesting, and the paper is well written in English. However, there are some issues to mention: 

The introduction part can be extended. "Heritage Revitalization and Community Planning" part can be given with the literature part as it only explains the practices in different countries. It would be explanatory to add what is learnt through different practices in different countries. I also suggest the authors to include the information in a table in order to see the similarities and differences among to the countries/cultures.

Literature review can be extended and give some information on the roots of Heritage Revitalization.

Table 2 can be more explanatory by adding photos that demonstrate the explanations in the table.

Figure 3 and Figure 5 are not informative enough. They should be taken from a better view.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised manuscript was properly developed according to my comments. Thanks!

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Point 1: The revised manuscript was properly developed according to my comments. Thanks!

 

Response 1: Thanks for your advice.

Reviewer 4 Report

The subject is interesting, the manuscript has been developed however some of the figures and the photos needs to be improved.

It would be better to to show the whole bridge in Figure 5. Photo F and G are needed to be seen not as partly but as a whole.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

 

Point 1: The subject is interesting, the manuscript has been developed however some of the figures and the photos needs to be improved. It would be better to to show the whole bridge in Figure 5. Photo F and G are needed to be seen not as partly but as a whole.

 

Response 1: Thanks for your suggestions. Figure 5, and Photos F and G have been replaced for improvements.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf