A Database for Second World War Military Landscapes in Sardinia: Toward an Integrative Strategy of Knowledge, Representation, and Adaptive Reuse

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is very good. I recommend its publication. I really enjoyed reading this article. I want to congratulate you, as it is very well written, very well thought out, and of enormous interest.
The methodology is very good, very well explained, and graphically complements each other very well. I would recommend consulting the research of Santiago Elía, who recently defended his doctoral thesis at the University of Valencia, on the cartographic perspectives of the Aragon front. I think it could complement his research.

I'd like to make a few suggestions, not so much about the article itself, but rather in case they're helpful for the extremely interesting database. I think it could be a huge source of future publications, cataloging each typology, establishing comparisons with other regions, drawing lessons for contemporary architecture, and even considering the impact this resounding architecture has had on more domestic buildings.

It's true that the article deals more specifically with the construction of the database, but I think that when they go into each one, it would be good if they explained the development of history, in which battles the structures were used, which armies and in what years arrived there, who built them and with what means, who used them, whether they were locals, familiar with the terrain, or rather members of the Army who came from other regions, etc.

I think this study could also be completed by making it accessible to the general population through an augmented reality application that would detect where a person is and offer all the information about the structure in front of them.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the generous and encouraging comments. We are grateful for the appreciation of our work, and we value the insightful suggestions that contributed meaningfully to the improvement of the article. Below, we address each point raised:

1)“I would recommend consulting the research of Santiago Elía, who recently defended his doctoral thesis at the University of Valencia, on the cartographic perspectives of the Aragon front.” We have followed this recommendation and added a reference to the work of Santiago Elía, whose research provides an important cartographic and territorial perspective. His contribution is now cited in the updated state of the art section, where it enriches our comparative framework and expands the methodological discussion on military landscape interpretation and mapping. (see Introduction)

2)“I think it could be a huge source of future publications, cataloging each typology, establishing comparisons with other regions, drawing lessons for contemporary architecture…” We fully agree with this perspective and have clarified in the revised version how the structure of the database allows for typological classification and comparative analysis across regions. Furthermore, we have slightly expanded the paragraph concerning future research directions and its potential relevance for broader architectural discourses (see Section 4.3).

3)“...when they go into each one, it would be good if they explained the development of history, in which battles the structures were used, which armies and in what years arrived there, who built them and with what means, who used them…”We have addressed this valuable suggestion by refining the structure of the database schema. Specifically, we added the field “Usage History” (alongside “Historical Evidence”), designed to document information regarding the military actors involved, the operational use of the structure, and its broader historical context when sources are available. This reinforces the historiographical and narrative dimensions of the platform (see Section 3.3).

4)“I think this study could also be completed by making it accessible to the general population through an augmented reality application…” This important suggestion resonates with the communicative aims of our project. Accordingly, we clarified and expanded the section regarding on-site interpretation and digital engagement (see Section 5.4), where we now explicitly mention the use of QR codes and the potential integration of augmented reality systems to enhance public access and immersive experience. Although not fully implemented at this stage, these technologies are part of the long-term vision of the platform. (see 6. Conclusions).

5)“...even considering the impact this resounding architecture has had on more domestic buildings.” We have addressed this point within the newly introduced framework outlining five recurrent forms of reuse observed across the Mediterranean Wall. The fifth category specifically concerns domestic, commercial, or functional reuse, in which bunkers are incorporated into private homes, hospitality venues, or local adaptations. This includes examples drawn from existing literature [24, 34], as well as a newly added visual reference (Fig. 15e) showing a bunker in Benidorm whose roof slab has been reused as the terrace floor of a seaside bar. These cases, though more sporadic, illustrate how fragments of wartime architecture can be reabsorbed into everyday spatial practices. However, a deeper architectural and theoretical reflection on the influence of this military heritage on modernist or brutalist tendencies lies beyond the scope of the present article and has been explored by the authors in previous research (see Section 5).

Once again, we thank the Reviewer for the careful reading and thoughtful observations, which significantly contributed to strengthening the quality and clarity of our work.

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper aims to present the II WW defense constructions of Sardinia. The introduction is clear, the presentation of the types of constructions is well prepared. The methodology presented in the paper is adequate and clearly shows all possibilities of investigation from traditional methods to modern technologies. The graphics are informative.

The possibilities of the reuse of the discussed constructions are understandable. It is good that some examples are presented. It would be necessary to show further examples of possible usage either based on referenced data or on own project proposals. Presentation could be in the form of a siteplan and a short description or some small visualisations.

The English language is appropriate. There are only a few small spelling mistakes.

The graphics are clear. In some cases now the graphics appear earlier in the paper as the place where they are referenced e.g. at Fig. 2. Please, check the ID letters used at the graphics as in some cases they appeared in reverse order e.g. at Fig. 1. b) is on the left while a) is on the right.

Please, improve your paper based on these comments! 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the positive and constructive comments. We are grateful for the appreciation of the article's methodology and graphic apparatus, and we have carefully addressed each of the suggestions as follows:

1) “It would be necessary to show further examples of possible usage either based on referenced data or on own project proposals. Presentation could be in the form of a siteplan and a short description or some small visualisations.” In response to this important recommendation, we have significantly expanded the section on reuse strategies. In particular, we now introduce five recurrent categories of reuse observed across the Mediterranean Wall, along with a sixth potential strategy focused on light musealisation and soft infrastructure design. These reflections are concretely exemplified through the addition of a new case study on the Is Mortorius battery, which includes a site plan and a narrative description of a hybrid proposal integrating light musealisation of the galleries, picnic areas, a landscape observatory, interpretive signage, and reversible installations. This enriched analysis has substantially extended the length of the manuscript, resulting in a broader and more articulated Section 5, dedicated to case studies.

2) “The English language is appropriate. There are only a few small spelling mistakes.” A comprehensive language review has been carried out to correct minor spelling issues and improve the fluency and consistency of the text.

3) “The graphics are clear. In some cases now the graphics appear earlier in the paper as the place where they are referenced… Please, check the ID letters used at the graphics…” All figures and captions have been carefully reviewed and corrected to ensure that the order, in-text referencing, and ID labels precisely match the corresponding visual content.

Once again, we thank the Reviewer for the careful reading and thoughtful observations, which have contributed significantly to enhancing the quality and clarity of our manuscript.

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf