Evaluation of Satisfaction with Spatial Reuse of Industrial Heritage in High-Density Urban Areas: A Case Study of the Core Area of Beijing’s Central City
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper deals with a relevant topic for the scientific debate about built heritage conservation. However, it shows several issues that need to be addressed to make it suitable for publication:
- The introduction is too poor and limits the discourse to the Chinese context. The theme of industrial heritage adaptive reuse has been widely studied worldwide. Authors should better frame their research into the international debate about adaptive reuse and its challenging, thus better highlighting the potential and relevance of their study;
- Speaking about the "reuse validity" of industrial heritage necessarily requires speaking about this heritage value. Authors should refer to the broad theories about heritage values, thus justifying the choice of the approach they propose;
- A general "restructuring" work for the introduction is required. There are some abrupt transitions from a topic to another (i.e., in line 38 authors suddenly introduce the term validity, but in the previous line there is no mention of the necessity to evaluate the effects of reuse projects on industrial heritage.
- In sub-section 2.2 "Methodology for Research" authors should justify the choice of the IPA evaluation method. Furthermore, it would be interesting to mention other applications of this method to similar decision context. The bibliographic apparatus is almost nil: authors should expand it.
- It is not clear how the 6 evaluation dimensions were defined. There is plenty of scientific literature about this topic and the selection of evaluation dimensions should rest on a systematic literature review process, that now is completely missing. The same consideration applies for the selected 25 indicators.
- It the sub-section "3.2 Data analysis" authors should better explain how the answers to the questionnaire have been aggregated into the average value proposed for each indicators.
- Figure 3 is not readable at all.
- In Conclusions authors should clearly mention the existing limits of this research, which assumes a "community-oriented perspective" to the reuse topic. Indeed, it excludes the "expert" perspective, which is fundamental to ensure the protection of the "material" aspects of the considered assets. In this sense, they can take the discourse (to be implemented in the Introduction) about the multiple value dimensions of heritage assets and clearly stating that their looking at the reuse projects impacts concerning some specific value dimensions.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageA general revision of the writing form is required. Some passages in the text are telegraphic and do not suit the fluency required for a scientific paper (i.e., lines 36-37).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe subject is relevant and the paper is methodologically correct and well-written. Just a few minor remarks:
1. Please consider enlarging the lettering in Figure 1 to be the same size as the manuscript text. They are illegible.
Line 272 - please consider providing explanation what the "hutong" is. It seems like a local name for certian places. Please explain the charactericitic of a place named hutong.
I like the evaluationh system presented and I think it is usable in other parts of the world. The paper should be published.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of the study is interesting and the design and presentation of the study are okay.
The authors might need to extend a bit the introduction by including previous relevant studies on the topic from similar dense cities around the world.
Also, the discussion section needs more comparisons with previous literature on the same topic.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English is understandable, however, minor to moderate English language and style revision can be helpful.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
You have a nicely written paper. Please, deal with the next shortcomings.
1. At the end of the Introduction, the main contributions of Your paper should be stated. Maybe in the form of research questions... If so, mention them in the discussion and conclusion.
It could be interesting to write several sentences about cultural heritage. Perhaps this (and other articles therein) will help
https://doi.fil.bg.ac.rs/volume.php?pt=eb_ser&issue=akademac_nsk-2023-4&i=2
Also, the paper layout is missing.
2. Why is this paper worth publishing? Why is it better than existing ones with the same theme? Clearly emphasize that!
3. Why is the IPA method used? Give some explanation. Is there a chance to apply the AHP method?
4. What are the paper's limitations?
5. Please, provide the questionnaire you used in the Appendix.
6. Please, enhance the reference list, only 1/3 of cited references are from the last 5 years. Also, in reference 10, the name Industrial Construction is missing. In the reference 28, the date of access is missing.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper's subject concerns an assessing system establishment, using the IPA method, for the reuse validity of industrial heritage in Beijing's central area.
Despite the paper being well-structured, a detailed description of questionnaire procedure is missing which must be further developed. In addition, the paper has four main methodological weaknesses:
§ The sample size, which limit seriously the results conclusions.
§ Criteria used to choose the sample is unknown.
§ Limitations and suitability of IPA method to industrial heritage assessing.
§ The 25 indexes selection is unknown.
In addition, as the research don’t use any optimization procedure this term must be replaced in the manuscript (e.g. Abstract, Introduction, Discussion, Conclusions sections).
Furthermore, a couple of important issues should be improved that will make it clearer:
§ Introduction Section: Please add a paragraph describing the paper structure at the end of this section.
§ Materials and Methods Section: Please add the criteria used to choose the sample and justify it representativeness. In addition, explain the IPA [old] method selection instead new ones. Advantages and limitations of IPA method are welcomed in the industrial heritage assessing context.
§ Results Section: Please expand the tables 3 and 4 with the results obtained for the eight case studies.
§ Discussion Section: Please rewrite it, adding the current text to Results section and adding a discussion text highlighting this research with the previous works relationship.
§ Conclusions Section: Overall recommendations aren’t directly obtained from the results. Please focus the main conclusions with the results obtained.
§ References List: some references used in crucial statements are very old (e.g. references #1, #32, #33) and must be updated.
Minor improvements:
Lines 27-28: Please add data from past years to better understand the urbanization rate growth.
Lines 27-28: Please add references to support the statement.
Line 50: Subin Xu et al. is missing in references list.
Line 55: Huimin Luo et al. is missing in references list.
Lines 107-108: What is the guarantee of the statement being true? How was representativeness assessed? What means “meticulously selected”?
Table 1: Please check the “construction time” of Nanxinchang Cultural and Leisure Street
Line 174: Please check the alpha 0.923 which is incoherent with Table 3.
Line 192: Please replace “… 5.01~10.0010.01~20.00…” with “…5.01~10.00, 10.01~20.00…”
Figure 3: Please improve the legibility.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has benefited from the review process. However, there are some comments, which have not been addressed in a satisfactory way and on which authors are asked to focus:
- Comment 1: The framing effort of the research into the international debate is still too poor and doesn't return the complexity and plurality of positions about industrial heritage adaptive reuse.
- Comment 5: The systematic literature review process behind the selection of the evaluation dimensions is still missing. In lines 215-225 authors cite some sources, but this is something far from the scientific soundness required for a literature review within a paper to be published on an international journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
You have addressed all my comments. Congratulation!
Please, complete the reference 15 (some parts are missing)
Simjanović, D.; Randelović, B. The AHP approach to evaluation of cultural heritage in Sredačka Župa: The case of Mušnikovo village. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Scientific Conference the Importance of Media Interpretation for the Promotion of Cultural Heritage, Нaучнo-стручнa кoнференциja, Belgrade, Serbia, 30 September 2023; Volume 4, pp. 37–56, Article 2
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript was partially improved.
Despite the questionnaire inclusion on Appendix A (it isn’t called in the text), a detailed description of its procedure is still missing. In addition, the research doesn’t use any optimization procedure, so this term must be removed in the manuscript (e.g. line 20, line 124, line 208, etc.). The sample representativeness isn’t also guaranteed, and this term must be removed in the manuscript (e.g. line 201, line 397, line 408).
Furthermore, overall recommendations aren’t directly obtained from the results. Please focus the main conclusions with the results obtained.
Minor improvements:
Line 75: Please replace “Subin Xu et al.” with “Lei et al.”
Line 80: Please replace “Kai Wang and Huimin Luo et al.” with “Kai et al. and Huimin et al.”
Line 199: IPA method isn’t an ideal assessment method. Please replace “…it is an ideal tool for evaluating satisfaction. tool.” with “…it is a tool for evaluating satisfaction.”
Equation 1: Please improve it.
Lines 250-251: References are missing.
Equation 2: Please improve it.
Lines 254-255: References are missing.
Equation 3: Please improve it.
Equation 4: Please improve it.
Figure 3: Please improve the legibility.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have satisfactorily addressed the review suggestions.
