Studies on the Utilization of Walled Towns in the Aspect of Fortifications and Military Heritage—Focusing on the Haemi-eupseong Walled Town in Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article REVIEW:

«Studies on the Utilization of Walled Towns - Focusing on the Haemi-eupseong Walled Town in Korea» by Doo Won Choa.

The presented article examines very interesting aspects of the preservation of the typical fortress city of Hami Yong based on the ICOMOS Manual on Fortifications and Military Heritage, officially adopted in 2021 by ICOMOS (the advisory body on Cultural Heritage under the UNESCO World Heritage Committee). The author has done a lot of research.

However, the stated goal of the study, "Recommendation on the Strategies for sustainably preserving the importance of the Haemi-Eupseong Walled Town", is not specified in terms of the specifics of the Haemi-Eupseong Walled Town. Only general positions indicated, simply repeating the ICOMOS Recommendations. This significantly reduces the scientific, methodological and practical value of the presented study.

To improve the quality of the Article, I recommend:

1. To identify the mostinterestingsitesandobjects in theterritory of the fortresscity of Haemi-eupseong from the point of view of historical and culturalvalue.
2. Addillustrationsshowing the currentstate of the most interestingparts of the Haemi-eupseong fortresscity(photo,locationin the structure of the complex).
3. Describe the possibilities of preserving,furtherdevelopingandensuring the display of the most interestingparts of the Haemi-eupseong fortresscity(foreachof the identifiedobjects): - a) Conservation in pavilions with limited accessibility of existing objects (ideas of preserving heritage in its current state, put forward by John Ruskin);                                  - - b) Historically adequate restoration of existing objects for active use (ideas of exhibiting the fully restored heritage of Eugène Viollet-le-Duc);                                                              - c) Pseudohistorical reproduction of lost objects for active exhibition (reproduction not of the form, but of the spirit of the place).
4. Specify the locations of possible archaeological work in the Haemi-eupseong Fortress City Complex (taking into account the possibility of demonstrating this process to tourists).
5. Specify the location, composition, and architectural and artistic forms of new objects necessary for the active display of the most interesting parts of the Haemi-eupseong Fortress City (excursion bureaus, exhibition halls, conference pavilions, souvenir kiosks, cafes, public toilets, security rooms, utility systems units). Determine the possibilities of placing these objects inside the Haemi-eupseong Fortress City or outside the historically valuable territory.

Author Response

Comment 1. To identify the most interesting sites and objects in the territory of the fortress city of Haemi-eupseong from the point of view of historical and cultural value.

Response 1. Thank you for pointing this out. However, this manuscript examines the authenticity of Seosan Haemi-eupseong Walled Town, which is currently under consideration for UNESCO World Heritage application. Given its status as a heritage site of fortifications, it proposes alternative approaches for research, utilization, and reuse, based on the theoretical and methodological framework of the ICOMOS Guidelines on Fortifications and Military Heritage. Therefore, a multi-faceted and multidisciplinary approach centered on the heritage site of fortifications was considered.

The title of the manuscript was also developed from ‘Studies on the Utilization of Walled Towns-Focusing on the Haemi-eupseong Walled Town in Korea’ to ‘Studies on the Utilization of Walled Towns in the Aspect of Fortifications and Military Heritage – Focusing on the Haemi-eupseong Walled Town in Korea’.

 

Comment 2. Add illustrations showing the current state of the most interesting parts of the Haemi-eupseong Walled town city (photo, location in the structure of the complex).

Response 2. Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment. Since Haemi-eupseong is a heritage site of fortifications, a legend has been organized to provide detailed explanations, with illustrations focusing on the fortress facilities and Figure 1 [page 4] and Figure 4 [page 7]. Additionally, Figure 2 [page 4], Figure 5 [page 10], Figure 8 [page 11], and Figure 10 [page 16] have been included to help readers understand the on-site scenes that showcase the authenticity of Haemi-eupseong Walled Town.

 

Comment 3. Describe the possibilities of preserving, further developing and ensuring the display of the most interesting parts of the Haemi-eupseong Walled town city(for each of the identified objects):

1. Conservation in pavilions with limited accessibility of existing objects (ideas of preserving heritage in its current state, put forward by John Ruskin);                                 

     b. Historically adequate restoration of existing objects for active use (ideas of exhibiting the fully restored heritage of Eugène Viollet-le-Duc);                                           

     c. Pseudohistorical reproduction of lost objects for active exhibition (reproduction not of the form, but of the spirit of the place).

Response 3. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. This section ends with suggestions on how to preserve, further develop, and showcase Haemi-eupseong. I partially agree with your ideas. You can find this in pages 20-23, lines 776-878. It also includes a proposal for a methodology to create an exhibition hall within the town wall. While John Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc are seen as ideal examples of European regional cultural heritage conservation principles, they do not fully meet the ICOMOS Guidelines on Fortifications and Military Heritage or the UNESCO World Heritage operational standards guidelines.

 

Comment 4. Specify the locations of possible archaeological work in the Haemi-eupseong Walled town City Complex (taking into account the possibility of demonstrating this process to tourists).

Response 4. Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment. The achievements in preservation, restoration, reconstruction, and utilization of relics through excavation and research conducted since the designation as a national cultural property in 1963 are detailed in Figure 10 [page 16] and Table 4 [page 16] in Paragraph 5.1 [pages 15-16].

 

Comment 5. Specify the location, composition, and architectural and artistic forms of new objects necessary for the active display of the most interesting parts of the Haemi-eupseong Walled town City (excursion bureaus, exhibition halls, conference pavilions, souvenir kiosks, cafes, public toilets, security rooms, utility systems units). Determine the possibilities of placing these objects inside the Haemi-eupseong Walled town City or outside the historically valuable territory.

Response 5. 

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment.

This manuscript addresses two key issues: the interpretation and methods based on the value of fortified heritage, as outlined in the ICOMOS Guidelines for Fortified Heritage, and the objective approach based on the authenticity guidelines of the UNESCO World Heritage Operational Guidelines. Including the proposed items could obscure the overall argument of the manuscript. The facilities related to the two key issues are illustrated in Figure 1[page 4] and Figure 10 [page 16].

However, the conclusion on pages 20-23, lines 776-878, offers suggestions for a more concrete and experience-based interpretation method, focusing on the exhibition halls and religious facilities located within and around the fort.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Kindly add section on Objectives of the study after introduction section.
2. In Figure 6 and Figure 10 add Lat and log coordinates for clarity.
3. Support conclusions with data from analysis section.

Author Response

Comments 1. Kindly add section on Objectives of the study after introduction section.

Response 1. To facilitate the smooth flow of research and improve the system, the following has been reorganized:
• Foreword
• Research background and methodology
• Historical background
• Analysis using UNESCO and ICOMOS criteria
• Conclusion

 

Comments 2. In Figure 6 and Figure 10 add Lat and log coordinates for clarity.

Response 2. Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment.

You can find the revised and supplemented coordinates in Figure 1 [page 4] and Figure 7 [page 11].

 

Comments 3. Support conclusions with data from analysis section.

Response 3. Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment.

The conclusion ends with suggestions on how to preserve, further develop, and showcase Haemi-eupseong. You can find this in pages 20-23, lines 776-878. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Consider whether the first part of the title could be more precisely formulated in the context of cultural heritage related to walled towns. Given that the stated goal of the paper is "to explore theoretical approaches to heritage value, develop systematic methods for heritage utilization, and propose strategies for sustainably preserving the importance of heritage", a more focused and thematically aligned title might be: “Studies on Heritage Utilization of Walled Towns: The Case of Haemi-eupseong Walled Town in Korea”. The title should better reflect both the theoretical and practical components of the research and clearly situate the study within the broader discourse on heritage management of fortified historic towns.

 

2. The initial sentences of the abstract (Lines 8–14) are too general and do not establish a clear and direct connection with the core topic of walled town protection. Furthermore, these same sentences appear almost identically in the Introduction section, where they are more suitably placed. It is therefore recommended to revise the beginning of the abstract in order to better reflect the main hypotheses and research focus of the paper, and to avoid unnecessary repetition.

 

3. The introduction section should be supplemented with relevant references (endnote links), including key sources such as the current Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, as well as charters, conventions and recommendations related to cultural and natural heritage that are applicable to walled towns. Additionally, documents on heritage cultural policy that are relevant to this research study should be included. It is also recommended to provide a general overview of the current state of the Haemi-eupseong walled town, particularly in terms of heritage protection and cultural policy frameworks, to contextualize the case study within existing protection practices and policy orientations.

 

4. The visual materials (figures) provided in the paper are rather limited, both in number and in the way they are presented. Many illustrations are of insufficient size and resolution, which hinders the reader’s ability to properly assess the content. It is also necessary to include legends on the maps presented, as well as close-up illustrations of the Haemi-eupseong city walls and the fortress.

To support the analysis more effectively and improve the overall clarity of the visual materials, it is recommended to enhance and expand the visual documentation. This should include more high-quality, well-annotated images, such as enlarged site plans, detailed views of the Haemi-eupseong city walls, comparative images, documentation of restoration phases, and photographs showing the site's current condition. In addition, it is especially recommended to include photographs related to the intangible heritage aspects of Haemi-eupseong, such as traditional practices, festivals, or community activities, to provide a more holistic understanding of the site's cultural value.

 

5. In several places throughout the paper, it is necessary to provide proper references, particularly when direct citations or specific claims are made. For instance, the passage in lines 312–317 includes a quotation or paraphrased content that requires a clear and properly formatted citation.

 

6. The table referenced in line 349 is labeled asTable 1, but it should be labeled asTable 3 in order to maintain consistency with the numbering sequence of tables throughout the paper. 

 

7. In subsection 3.3.6Language and Intangible Cultural Heritage, the role of language in relation to the site's Outstanding Universal Value and authenticity is not clearly articulated. The connection between the linguistic aspects and the intangible cultural heritage associated with the Haemi-eupseong site, as well as its tangible elements (particularly the city walls), remains vague. It is recommended to elaborate more clearly on how language contributes to the understanding, transmission, and preservation of both the intangible traditions and the material heritage of the site. A more explicit discussion would strengthen the interpretation of the site's cultural significance and the integration of intangible and tangible heritage components.

 

8. Regarding the Results section, it is necessary to provide a clearer explanation of how the seven stated objectives, pertaining to fortifications and military heritage, were formulated and how they specifically relate to the use and reuse of the Haemi-eupseong walled town. Moreover, further clarification is needed on how these objectives inform the methodological approach used to assess the current conditions and to propose future directions for in-depth research and policy development in heritage conservation, and how they support the overall goals of sustainable heritage management.

 

9. The subheading“4.3. The lack of knowledge of the formal and functional characteristics of the fortification can be much greater than for other types of heritage structures”is currently phrased as a statement rather than a proper title. It is recommended to rephrase it into a more concise and neutral heading format that reflects the content of the section without asserting a claim.

 

10. Considering that the Haemi-eupseong walled town is designated as a national heritage site, it already falls under established conservation and management practices. However, the seven objectives presented in the paper, along with their accompanying explanations, do not sufficiently address the current level of protection or outline the specific cultural policy strategies related to the use and reuse of this site. Instead, the provided explanations appear more as general theoretical frameworks, broadly aligned with ICOMOS policies on the preservation of fortified structures. It is therefore recommended to specify exactly which ICOMOS guidelines, charters, or position papers the proposed objectives correspond to, and to cite the relevant sources accordingly. For example, references should include key documents such as theICOMOS Guidelines on Fortifications and Military Heritage(2021) and the ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas (Washington Charter, 1987), etc.

 

11. It is recommended to provide a clearer explanation of how the formulated objectives relate to the core heritage conservation concepts of authenticity, integrity, and sustainability. Additionally, the interrelationship between these three principles should be discussed in the context of the use and reuse of the Haemi-eupseong Walled Town. Clarifying how each objective contributes to maintaining the site's authenticity, safeguarding its physical and contextual integrity, and ensuring its sustainable management would strengthen the conceptual foundation of the study and align it more closely with international heritage conservation standards, such as those outlined in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.

 

12. The paper is generally well-structured and demonstrates a clear research direction. However, several sections require further elaboration and improvement based on the suggestions provided above. These revisions primarily concern the clarification of theoretical foundations, the strengthening of references to international heritage guidelines, and the enhancement of visual documentation. The paper can be considered for acceptance pending the successful implementation of the recommended corrections and revisions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved.

Author Response

Comments 1. Consider whether the first part of the title could be more precisely formulated in the context of cultural heritage related to walled towns. Given that the stated goal of the paper is "to explore theoretical approaches to heritage value, develop systematic methods for heritage utilization, and propose strategies for sustainably preserving the importance of heritage", a more focused and thematically aligned title might be: “Studies on Heritage Utilization of Walled Towns: The Case of Haemi-eupseong Walled Town in Korea”. The title should better reflect both the theoretical and practical components of the research and clearly situate the study within the broader discourse on heritage management of fortified historic towns.

Response 1. Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment. The title of the manuscript has been revised from ‘Studies on the Utilization of Walled Towns - Focusing on the Haemi-eupseong Walled Town in Korea’ to ‘Studies on the Utilization of Walled Towns in the Aspect of Fortifications and Military Heritage – Focusing on the Haemi-eupseong Walled Town in Korea’ on page 1, lines 2-4 to highlight a multi-faceted and multidisciplinary approach centered on the heritage site of fortifications.

 

Comments 2. The initial sentences of the abstract (Lines 8–14) are too general and do not establish a clear and direct connection with the core topic of walled town protection. Furthermore, these same sentences appear almost identically in the Introduction section, where they are more suitably placed. It is therefore recommended to revise the beginning of the abstract in order to better reflect the main hypotheses and research focus of the paper, and to avoid unnecessary repetition.

Response 2. Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment. The revised text can be found on page 1, lines 9-15, as follows: Throughout history, humans have used the environment to build structures for defense. Fortifications are clear examples of buildings created to better protect important settlements and homes. Over time, these structures have gone beyond their original purpose of shielding residents inside and around the walls, now functioning as complex centers for political, economic, administrative, and cultural governance. Additionally, communication networks have been established between strongholds, forming a defensive system for a region or country.

 

Comments 3.  The introduction section should be supto protect the human environment (endnote links), including key sources such as the current Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, as well as charters, conventions and recommendations related to cultural and natural heritage that are applicable to walled towns.

Additionally, documents on heritage cultural policy that are relevant to this research study should be included. It is also recommended to provide a general overview of the current state of the Haemi-eupseong walled town, particularly in terms of heritage protection and cultural policy frameworks, to contextualize the case study within existing protection practices and policy orientations.

Response 3. Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment.

A brief overview of the current state of the walled city, especially its heritage protection and cultural policy system, is provided in 3. Historical Background [page 4, lines 118-147].

The chronological achievements in preservation, restoration, reconstruction, and utilization of relics through excavation and research conducted since the designation as a national cultural property in 1963, within existing protection practices and policy directions, are detailed in Figure 10 [page 16] and Table 4 [page 16] in Paragraph 5.1 [pages 15-16].

 

Comments 4. The visual materials (figures) provided in the paper are rather limited, both in number and in the way they are presented. Many illustrations are of insufficient size and resolution, which hinders the reader’s ability to properly assess the content. It is also necessary to include legends on the maps presented, as well as close-up illustrations of the Haemi-eupseong city walls and the fortress. 

To support the analysis more effectively and improve the overall clarity of the visual materials, it is recommended to enhance and expand the visual documentation. This should include more high-quality, well-annotated images, such as enlarged site plans, detailed views of the Haemi-eupseong city walls, comparative images, documentation of restoration phases, and photographs showing the site's current condition. In addition, it is especially recommended to include photographs related to the intangible heritage aspects of Haemi-eupseong, such as traditional practices, festivals, or community activities, to provide a more holistic understanding of the site's cultural value.

Response 4. Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment. Since Haemi-eupseong is a heritage site of fortifications, a legend has been organized to provide detailed explanations, with illustrations focusing on the fortress facilities and Figure 1 [page 4], Figure 2 [page 4], Figure 5 [page 10], Figure 8 [page 11], and Figure 10 [page 16].

have been included to help readers understand the on-site scenes that showcase the authenticity of Haemi-eupseong Walled Town. Furthermore, Attached is Figure 9 [page 16] related to the intangible cultural heritage aspects of Haemi-eupseong. 

 

Comments 5. In several places throughout the paper, it is necessary to provide proper references, particularly when direct citations or specific claims are made. For instance, the passage in lines 312–317 includes a quotation or paraphrased content that requires a clear and properly formatted citation.

Response 5. Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment.

Revised lines 157, 333, and 546 regarding references to quotations. Each reference is provided on pages 22-23. 

 

Comments 6. The table referenced in line 349 is labeled asTable 1, but it should be labeled asTable 3 in order to maintain consistency with the numbering sequence of tables throughout the paper. 

Response 6. Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment.

Table 1 [line 372], which was incorrectly labeled, has been corrected to Table 3.

 

Comments 7. In subsection 3.3.6Language and Intangible Cultural Heritage, the role of language in relation to the site's Outstanding Universal Value and authenticity is not clearly articulated. The connection between the linguistic aspects and the intangible cultural heritage associated with the Haemi-eupseong site, as well as its tangible elements (particularly the city walls), remains vague. It is recommended to elaborate more clearly on how language contributes to the understanding, transmission, and preservation of both the intangible traditions and the material heritage of the site. A more explicit discussion would strengthen the interpretation of the site's cultural significance and the integration of intangible and tangible heritage components.

Response 7. Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment. In paragraph 4.3.6, the heritage attributes related to ‘language’ are described within their geographical, historical, and military contexts, along with the origins of place names [page 14, lines 510-519]. In this context, the historical background that led the area to serve as a center of intense Christian persecution is detailed, along with other intangible cultural heritage, on page 14, lines 554-563.

 

Comments 8. Regarding the Results section, it is necessary to provide a clearer explanation of how the seven stated objectives, pertaining to fortifications and military heritage, were formulated and how they specifically relate to the use and reuse of the Haemi-eupseong walled town. Moreover, further clarification is needed on how these objectives inform the methodological approach used to assess the current conditions and to propose future directions for in-depth research and policy development in heritage conservation, and how they support the overall goals of sustainable heritage management.

Response 8. Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment.

In the conclusion on [page 21, lines 806-817], [page 21, lines 830-849], and [page 22, lines 858-863], the approach to heritage utilization is outlined, and specific implementation plans are presented.

 

Comments 9. The subheading“4.3. The lack of knowledge of the formal and functional characteristics of the fortification can be much greater than for other types of heritage structures”is currently phrased as a statement rather than a proper title. It is recommended to rephrase it into a more concise and neutral heading format that reflects the content of the section without asserting a claim.

Response 9. Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment.

The title of paragraph 4.3 is changed from ‘the lack of knowledge of the formal and functional characteristics of the fortification can be much greater than for other types of heritage structures’ to ‘the importance of knowledge concerning the characteristics of fortifications [page 17, line 637].’

 

Comments 10. Considering that the Haemi-eupseong walled town is designated as a national heritage site, it already falls under established conservation and management practices. However, the seven objectives presented in the paper, along with their accompanying explanations, do not sufficiently address the current level of protection or outline the specific cultural policy strategies related to the use and reuse of this site. Instead, the provided explanations appear more as general theoretical frameworks, broadly aligned with ICOMOS policies on the preservation of fortified structures. It is therefore recommended to specify exactly which ICOMOS guidelines, charters, or position papers the proposed objectives correspond to, and to cite the relevant sources accordingly. For example, references should include key documents such as theICOMOS Guidelines on Fortifications and Military Heritage(2021) and the ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas (Washington Charter, 1987), etc.

Response 10. Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment.

The newly added section "3. Historical Background[page 4, lines 118-147]" outlines specific cultural policy strategies related to the use and reuse of Haemi Fortress. Furthermore, section "5.6. Fortification and Urban Landscape and Territorial Dimensions" contextualizes the Washington Charter [page 19, lines 726-729] for a more concise explanation.

 

Comments 11. It is recommended to provide a clearer explanation of how the formulated objectives relate to the core heritage conservation concepts of authenticity, integrity, and sustainability. Additionally, the interrelationship between these three principles should be discussed in the context of the use and reuse of the Haemi-eupseong Walled Town. Clarifying how each objective contributes to maintaining the site's authenticity, safeguarding its physical and contextual integrity, and ensuring its sustainable management would strengthen the conceptual foundation of the study and align it more closely with international heritage conservation standards, such as those outlined in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.

Response 11. 

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment.

Authenticity: The authenticity attributes examined according to the Operational Guidelines were categorized into seven groups, adequately covering the considerations for World Heritage nomination.

Integrity: The functional attributes of Seosan Haemi-eupseong Walled Town, based on the ICOMOS Guidelines on Fortifications and Military Heritage, an international standard for historic town walls, were considered sufficient to demonstrate the site's integrity.

Sustainability: The introduction and historical background sections cover aspects of excavation, investigation, research, and the reuse of resources in line with cultural heritage preservation policies since its designation as a national heritage site in 1963. This provides important guidance for sustainable heritage research and conservation at local, regional, and national levels, as well as for exploring the current value of the World Heritage site. projects.

 

Comments 12. The paper is generally well-structured and demonstrates a clear research direction. However, several sections require further elaboration and improvement based on the suggestions provided above. These revisions primarily concern the clarification of theoretical foundations, the strengthening of references to international heritage guidelines, and the enhancement of visual documentation. The paper can be considered for acceptance pending the successful implementation of the recommended corrections and revisions.

Response 12. Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment.

To clarify the theoretical foundation, a separate "3. Historical Background" section [page 4, lines 118-147] was added after the methodology section. This section outlines regional, local, and national concerns surrounding cultural heritage conservation policies since the designation as a national heritage site in 1963. This structured the research flow on the characteristics of the fortified heritage site as a World Heritage site and the authenticity attributes in the operational guidelines.

Furthermore, many figures were replaced to improve visual documentation. Since Haemi-eupseong is a heritage site of fortifications, figures focusing on the fortress facilities such as Figure 1 [page 4], Figure 2 [page 4], Figure 5 [page 10], Figure 8 [page 11], and Figure 10 [page 16] have been included to help readers understand the on-site scenes that showcase the authenticity of Haemi-eupseong Walled Town. Additionally, attached is Figure 9 [page 16], which relates to the intangible cultural heritage aspects of Haemi-eupseong.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Studies on the Utilization of Walled Towns – Focusing on the Haemi-eupseong Walled Town in Korea”

This manuscript presents an in-depth study of Haemi-eupseong, a walled town in Korea, contextualising it within broader discourses on fortification heritage, authenticity, and adaptive reuse. By aligning the analysis with the UNESCO Operational Guidelines and the ICOMOS Guidelines on Fortifications and Military Heritage, the author offers a theoretically informed framework for assessing both the historical value and current conservation strategies of Haemi-eupseong.

The paper’s strengths lie in its ambition to integrate tangible and intangible attributes of heritage, its grounding in national and international guidelines, and its detailed historical account. However, the manuscript would benefit from clearer structuring, improved synthesis of key arguments, and greater critical engagement with comparative cases.

1.  

• The manuscript is long and densely packed with historical data, which makes it difficult for the reader to follow the core argument.

• Consider revising the structure to better guide the reader through the paper. A clear division into the following would help:

  • Introduction

  • Methodology

  • Historical Background

  • Analysis using UNESCO and ICOMOS criteria

  • Discussion and Comparative Insights

  • Conclusion

for example, the author could add short introductory paragraphs at the beginning of major sections to signpost what will be covered and why it matters.

• While the depth is appreciated, the manuscript occasionally reads more like a chronicle than an analytical paper. Several digressions (e.g., the price of salt, detailed accounts of pirate invasions) could be more tightly linked to the central research questions.

• The paper would benefit from sharper thematic focus—particularly in demonstrating how Haemi-eupseong can serve as a model or case study for other walled towns globally. for example, the author could weave in a more comparative lens—how does Haemi-eupseong compare to other fortified towns in East Asia or Europe in terms of reuse, authenticity, or strategic adaptation?

• The manuscript would benefit from professional language editing for fluency and conciseness.

• It is recommended to use figures and tables not just as background but as tools to support or contrast analytical claims.

• The conclusion restates the main findings but could go further in drawing broader implications for policy, research, or practice in fortification heritage. Currently, it reads more as a summary than a forward-looking reflection. A suggestion for the author: Conclude with clearer recommendations or insights for heritage professionals, especially regarding the site's nomination to the World Heritage List or its potential for international collaboration.

Overall: 

This is a promising and valuable contribution to military heritage scholarship and deserves publication after editorial refinement. The author demonstrates deep knowledge and commitment to the subject. With improved organisation, language clarity, and stronger analytical synthesis, the paper has the potential to resonate with both national and international audiences.

Author Response

Comments 1. Consider revising the structure to better guide the reader through the paper. A clear division into the following would help: 

• Introduction
• Methodology
• Historical Background
• Analysis using UNESCO and ICOMOS criteria
• Discussion and Comparative Insights
• Conclusion

 Response 1. Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment.

To clarify the theoretical foundation, a separate "3. Historical Background" section [page 4, lines 118-147] was added after the methodology section.

 

Comments 2. The author could add short introductory paragraphs at the beginning of major sections to signpost what will be covered and why it matters.

While the depth is appreciated, the manuscript occasionally reads more like a chronicle than an analytical paper. Several digressions (e.g., the price of salt, detailed accounts of pirate invasions) could be more tightly linked to the central research questions.

Response 2.  Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment.

Emphasize the importance of each section as suggested at the beginning of the section.

The importance of each section was emphasized in the manner suggested at the beginning of each section.

In particular, the key points of each section, 4.3. A Study on the Authenticity of Haemi-eupseong, were clearly stated at the beginning: 4.3.1. Location and Setting [page 6, lines 200-206]; 4.3.2. Materials and Substance [page 8, lines 290-300]; 4.3.3. Form and Design [page 9, lines 243-247]; 4.3.4. Use and Function [page 11, lines 389-395]; 4.3.5. Traditions, Techniques, and Management Systems [pages 12-13, lines 447-463]; and 4.3.6. Language and Other Forms of Intangible Heritage [page 14, lines 510-518].

 

Comments 3.  The paper would benefit from sharper thematic focus—particularly in demonstrating how Haemi-eupseong can serve as a model or case study for other walled towns globally. for example, the author could weave in a more comparative lens—how does Haemi-eupseong compare to other fortified towns in East Asia or Europe in terms of reuse, authenticity, or strategic adaptation?

Response 3. Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment.

In the section explaining the authenticity of Haemi-eupseong, comparative studies with other Asian fortresses, such as the Agra Fort in India [page 9, lines 334-336] and the Goryokaku Fort in Japan [page 11, lines 382-387], further clarify the argument. Such comparative studies are considered a future task for researchers on Haemi-eupseong.

 

Comments 4. It is recommended to use figures and tables not just as background but as tools to support or contrast analytical claims.

Response 4. Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment. 

Since Haemi-eupseong is a heritage site of fortifications, a legend has been organized to provide detailed explanations, with illustrations focusing on the fortress facilities and Figure 1 [page 4], Figure 2 [page 4], Figure 5 [page 10], Figure 8 [page 11], and Figure 10 [page 16] have been included to help readers understand the on-site scenes that showcase the authenticity of Haemi-eupseong Walled Town. Furthermore, Attached is Figure 9 [page 16] related to the intangible cultural heritage aspects of Haemi-eupseong. 

 

Comments 5. The conclusion restates the main findings but could go further in drawing broader implications for policy, research, or practice in fortification heritage. Currently, it reads more as a summary than a forward-looking reflection. A suggestion for the author: Conclude with clearer recommendations or insights for heritage professionals, especially regarding the site's nomination to the World Heritage List or its potential for international collaboration.

Response 5. Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment.

In the conclusion on [page 21, lines 806-817], [page 21, lines 830-849], and [page 22, lines 858-863], the approach to heritage utilization, such as multidisciplinary collaborations, is outlined, and specific implementation plans are presented.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the authors for the reviews, I am happy with all amendments and I believe that this manuscript is ready to get published now.