Visual Quality Evaluation of Historic and Cultural City Landscapes: A Case Study of the Tai’erzhuang Ancient City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Peer Review Report on ‘Visual Quality Evaluation of Historic and Cultural City Landscapes: A Case Study of the Tai'erzhuang Ancient City’

 This paper is thorough, well-presented & conforms to scientific rigour in terms of the research design, data derived, and appropriate processing.  However, some of the conclusions drawn are inappropriate. This relates to some important omissions in Section 1.1 Methods for Landscape Visual Quality Assessment. In the selective overview, the significant work on landscape visual preferences by the Kaplans** has not been mentioned.  The impetus in the 1970s for the Kaplans’ work was to prevent environmental & heritage damage being done to significant landscapes due to development.

 The 1980s work of the Kaplans & others led to major changes by the World Heritage Convention & ICOMOS^## in terms of identifying & conserving landscape heritage including the relevance of the ‘curtilage’, see##

Because of this omission, some of the discussion and recommendations in seeking to increase tourism are in conflict with international policies on heritage landscapes such as, Line 549 -552, ‘By arranging landscape elements reasonably and providing clear visual guidance, viewers can more easily capture and comprehend landscape information, thereby enhancing their viewing experience’. and Finding 5 in the Conclusion, Line 601-604 ‘5. Strategies for the enhancement and optimized protection of historic and cultural city landscapes are proposed. These strategies aim to optimize landscape design to improve viewers' visual experience and perception…’

Lines 165-186 provide a succinct summary of the case studies, but it does not include the ways in which the landscape interfered with or inhibits the viewer’s experience.  This could help explain why the landscape setting need to be altered.

Despite the concerns raised, the rigour of the research described in this paper does allow for a different recommendation that builds on the technology described, namely the use of portable virtual reality, for example, 5.Enhance Landscape Interactivity with Technological Approaches: With the development of technology, advanced techniques such as Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) can be utilized to enhance the interactivity and entertainment of landscapes, thereby attracting more attention and participation from audiences. (Lines 568-571).  

The paper, however, needs to be amended to include the visual preference research of the 1980s and the changed World Heritage protocols and enhance finding 5.

Other comments

1.2, line 104, the early Q-sort photos for preference studies could be included here.

2.1 Research ‘Region’ is unusual term in this context.

Figure 1 needs an explanatory caption

2.3 line 198 Experimental – correct spelling

2.3.2 – line 221 ‘…ability to evaluate landscape aesthetics…’ How was this determined?

2.3.6 – Table 2 – include an explanation of superscript ‘a, b, c, d, e,’ used in table

Table 3 – explain the difference between ‘aesthetics’ and ‘attractiveness’ in caption

 

Suggested Resources

*KAPLAN, R. (1985) "The analysis of perception via preference: a strategy for studying how the environment is experienced." Landscape Planning 12: 161-176.

*KAPLAN, R. and S. KAPLAN (1989) The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

 ## ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscapes (ISCCL)

The purpose of the ISCCL is to promote world-wide cooperation in the identification, increased awareness, study, education and training for protection, preservation, restoration, monitoring, and management of cultural landscapes.

## 

https://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/

https://whc.unesco.org/en/hul/

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:  

We sincerely appreciate your thorough review of our manuscript and the valuable feedback you provided. Your comments have played a crucial role in improving the quality of our work. We have addressed each of your suggestions in detail. In the resubmitted document, all modifications and corrections have been clearly marked in accordance with your recommendations. We believe these revisions have significantly enhanced the clarity, rigor, and overall presentation of the study.  All modified sections have been marked in red font.

For specific details, please refer to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this is a relatively complete study with certain research contributions. To keep it brief, I have listed some of my views here, hoping they can help the authors improve the quality of the paper.

Abstract:

It would be better to mention the philosophical stance, whether it is qualitative, quantitative, or mixed, before specifying the methods.

The use of numerical lists (e.g., 1, 2, 3) after the findings is acceptable, but I suggest replacing them with descriptive words.

1. Introduction:

I believe it should be clarified that Zaozhuang City is located at the center of the Beijing-Hangzhou Grand Canal. Tai'erzhuang is a district within Zaozhuang City. The authors should consider that Tai'erzhuang Ancient City is not well-known to an international audience.

In Section 1.1:

The format is inconsistent when mentioning some people's full names while using initials for others.

There is a lack of transitional sentences between references, making it feel like a mere pile-up of literature.

Similar issues occur in Subsection 1.2, with too many author names and viewpoints listed without a clear review by the authors.

The use of the word "our" in Line 138 is inconsistent with the rest of the text.

2. Materials and Methods:

2.1 Research Region: There is an excessive amount of description here. It seems like the authors may have copied and translated from some reports or materials without citing the sources.

Figure 1 is not clearly demarcated. Which area represents Tai'erzhuang Ancient City? There is no textual indication. How does the Beijing-Hangzhou Grand Canal pass through this place? Moreover, the caption is incomplete, merely stating "research region."

2.2 Research Methodology: This section should not be titled "methodology." What you have written is merely a description of the methods. The authors seem to have confused these two terms.

2.3 Experimental Design: It is essential to add a diagram illustrating the relationships between image selection, participants, experimental equipment, and procedures.

2.3.2 Participant Selection: Please specify the criteria used for selection.

2.3.3 Experimental Equipment: Please provide photographs of the equipment.

2.3.6 Data Analysis: Visualize this section with a concise diagram.

3. Results and 4. Discussion:

I think these sections are very well done, but there are too few images. Many parts require me to rely on my own experience to visualize the findings. I suggest using more images from the eye-tracking study process to demonstrate the authenticity of the research and the discoveries made.

4.4 Limitations: It seems that there is a missing second limitation in Line 580.

5. Conclusions: I recommend adding some recommendations at the end.

References: There is a significant lack of references from 2025.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:  

We sincerely appreciate your thorough review of our manuscript and the valuable feedback you provided. Your comments have played a crucial role in improving the quality of our work. We have addressed each of your suggestions in detail. In the resubmitted document, all modifications and corrections have been clearly marked in accordance with your recommendations. We believe these revisions have significantly enhanced the clarity, rigor, and overall presentation of the study.  All modified sections have been marked in blue font.

For specific details, please refer to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

authors response all comments and modified manuscript carefully.