Research on Morphological Resilience and Assessment Methodology in Historic Districts: A Case Study of Jinan Historic Commercial District

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The subject of the research needs some improvement to better show the research outline 

Line 88, what do you mean by pressure? Which kind of pressure do you mean?

How can these items be quantified in your research? For example, in figure 4, the land in the center of the figure with greater accessibility to a wider street should have greater accessibility.

Line 207, who did you decide to choose the AHP approach, while the AHP belongs to human decision and integration

Who did you make a raster for GIS interpolation? Which interpolation is the best choice in your analysis?

Figure 9 is not clear. Also, the color selection is not suitable

How does the resolution of the study affect the research result?

What's the limitation in the face of such a study?

 What's the novelty of such research? What aspect of your research differentiates your work from other past published papers in the past

Compare the results of this paper in the context of global research papers

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The following comments shall be considered for further refinement of the manuscript:

1. I feel that the abstract section is incomplete. No quantitative outcomes or findings from the present work are reported. Please revise the abstract and improve the clarity for the benefit of the readers.
2. Figure 2 looks redundant and is not able to convey the importance of the same. The complete map and then the specific area map can be presented as a single figure. 
3. What is the rationale behind the selection of specific commercial district in this work?
4. Please clarify how the 1-9 scale is used in this work to construct the judgment matrix of the findings.
5. Conclusions are not looking like a real conclusion. They are just summaries. The important quantitative findings are to be added as the real conclusions.
6. What are the limitations of the present work? Also, it is suggested to add the scope for further work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented an interesting topic and method. However, the authors need to review and correct their references, since some of the references are not relevant to this paper. For example,

1. Page 1, row 34, reference [1] is not related to resilience of historic districts but about Atlantic hurricane.
2. Page 1, row 38, reference [2] does not discuss morphological resilience. Please provide more details how this reference supports the sentence.
3. Similarly, other literature, such as [3]-[6], may not be correctly referenced. Please review and ensure the literature is correctly referenced.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses a clear research gap: most resilience studies on historic districts are qualitative, while this work proposes a quantitative framework grounded in Conzenian urban morphology. By introducing morphological resilience zones, it advances heritage conservation from descriptive theory toward measurable and actionable urban planning tools. This contribution is both timely and relevant, especially for Chinese historic districts under rapid urban transformation.

1- Try to include in your introduction several historical building assessments to make it more international. The following case from Lebanon is useful: https://doi.org/10.61706/sccee120113

2- In the methodology section, limited discussion on indicator sensitivity or robustness of weighting choices.

3- In addition, the AHP relies heavily on expert judgment, which may introduce subjectivity.

4- In the methodology section, the Temporal dynamics of resilience (how resilience changes over time) are not addressed.

5- The study is geographically limited (Jinan). Broader comparative cases could strengthen generalizability.

6- There are occasional grammatical awkwardness; some methodological details (equations, indicator formulas) could be explained more clearly for non-specialist readers.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a valuable and timely study on creating a quantitative framework for assessing the morphological resilience of historic districts. While the research is promising, some areas require clarification and strengthening to enhance the paper's scientific rigor and impact. The comments below are offered to help the authors improve the manuscript for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Found some grammatical errors (e.g., "Foudation). Authors need proofread

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Respond to question #2 is not convincing. Regarding the mentioned figure, it's clear that the region in the southern part of the figure has a great accessibility value in comparison to the central part. Also, the "regarding the content of figure 4" should be removed.

Respond to question #3 is not convincing. It's important to show that your decision on AHP approach is suitable for your analysis.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for addressing my comments. I have no further comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No more comments

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

thanks for your correction and modifcation