Unfreezing the City: A Systemic Approach to Arctic Urban Comfort

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.         The abstract (Page 1) focuses primarily on the theoretical framework, offering limited detail on research methods, and major findings. The absence of field investigation specifics and empirical evidence renders the content overly abstract. Furthermore, the abstract should clearly highlight the innovative aspects and practical contributions of the LSM model, as well as its implications for advancing existing literature and future urban design practices. To enhance clarity and reader engagement, it is recommended to summarize key research methods, including investigation sites, timeframes, and data types collected, along with a concise presentation of significant findings.

2.        The paper references three field trips for data collection but lacks detailed quantitative analysis or measurable outcomes. The data is described as “visual surveys” supported by photographic documentation, with no additional empirical validation (Page 3). To strengthen the study’s credibility, the authors should incorporate quantitative tools or statistical analyses and present visualizations such as charts, graphs, or maps to better illustrate the findings and improve overall clarity.

3.         While the paper references Lefebvre’s concept of space production and other theoretical frameworks, the link between these theories and the proposed Life Support Module (LSM) model is unclear (Page 3). The authors should explicitly explain how these theories inform the development of the LSM model and provide practical examples to demonstrate how concepts like “context sensitivity” and “lived space” can guide Arctic urban design strategies.

4.         The study presents the LSM model in a theoretical framework but does not validate its applicability through real-world case studies or examples (Page 6). To strengthen the contribution, the authors should introduce case studies from other Arctic urban environments or pilot design examples to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of the LSM model.

5.         The paper critiques Soviet modernist urban design, mentioning wide streets channeling harsh winds, but lacks in-depth analysis or supporting data (Page 6). A more detailed analysis of design flaws should be provided, supported by measurable data such as wind speed studies, alongside proposed solutions like microclimate improvements or wind-mitigating urban elements to address the challenges.

6.         Key terms such as “context sensitivity,” “emotional coldness,” and “life support module” are not clearly defined or demonstrated, while tables and figures lack clarity in presenting relationships between spatial layers and adaptation levels (Page 5). The authors should clearly define critical terms, provide specific examples, and improve the coherence of Table 1 and Figure 3 by illustrating the interaction between design elements, challenges, and proposed solutions.

7.         The study critiques the “Southern perspective” and colonial urban practices but does not propose actionable strategies to address these issues (Page 10). To resolve this, the authors should suggest specific context-sensitive design frameworks that incorporate local cultural identity and knowledge, as well as provide practical design tools or methods to address global-local design conflicts in Arctic urbanism.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors need to refine the literature review section

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research scope is clearly stated and the research structure is coherent, meanwhile, a direct implementation of the findings can be added to verify the model presented. There is a need to deepen the analytical representation in terms of visualization and the actual demonstrations for the cases presented in the pictures, a suggestion of a more dynamic representation of the actual urban configuration, and analysis of the aspects assessed in terms of timing and seasonal setting as well a representation of demographics and expected reflection on citizens densities.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study presents a theoretical foundation and highlights the value of qualitative methods, particularly through visual surveys and interdisciplinary insights. However, several areas require refinement to improve the study’s clarity, empirical grounding, and practical relevance.

1. Empirical Validation & Methodological Rigor: While the qualitative approach is justified, the study lacks measurable outcomes and empirical validation. Incorporating structured analysis or visual representations such as spatial mapping, thematic coding, or frequency analysis would enhance clarity and credibility. Additionally, a clearer justification for excluding quantitative methods would strengthen the methodological argument.
2. Abstract & Introduction Clarity: The abstract effectively outlines the theoretical framework but lacks specific details on research methods, field observations, and key findings. A more precise description of data collection and analysis and an explicit summary of the study’s main conclusions would improve accessibility. Similarly, the introduction provides background context but does not clearly define the research gap or connect the study’s objectives to its findings. Strengthening these links would enhance coherence and establish a stronger foundation for the analysis.
3. Theoretical Framework & Practical Application: The study integrates multiple theoretical perspectives, but the extensive theoretical discussion makes extracting clear, actionable insights challenging. The Life Support Module (LSM) remains abstract, lacking a real-world application. Streamlining the theoretical discussion to focus on the most relevant concepts and incorporating at least one case study demonstrating the practical application of LSM in Arctic urban design would significantly improve the study’s impact.

Addressing these aspects would enhance the rigor, clarity, and applicability of the study, making it more accessible to both theoretical and practical audiences in urban planning and Arctic design research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript contributes to Arctic urban design by advocating for context-sensitive approaches and introducing the Life Support Module (LSM) concept. The authors have made substantial improvements in response to previous reviewer comments, particularly in clarifying research objectives, strengthening empirical grounding, and improving the discussion’s coherence. Integrating theoretical insights with qualitative field research is a key strength of the study.

However, while the revisions have significantly improved the manuscript, minor refinements are still required to enhance clarity, practical applicability, and empirical rigor. Below are specific recommendations for further improvement.

1. Clarify the practical application of the LSM concept—consider adding a case study or example to make it more tangible.
2. Explain why specific structured analysis techniques were not employed in qualitative data interpretation.
3. Streamline dense theoretical sections (e.g., media studies and urban materiality) to enhance readability and relevance.
4. Providing schematic diagrams or structural illustrations would help readers better visualize the different layers and functions of LSM.

Best regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf