Dynamics and Types of Traditional Housing in the Kara Urban Agglomeration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author(s);
-
Although the manuscript is generally written in a comprehensible manner, some sections contain awkward phrasing and grammatical errors. A thorough proofreading by a native English speaker is recommended.
-
To enhance the currency of the literature review, it would be beneficial to include recent studies published in the last few years.
-
In order to improve the clarity and readability of the data, the captions and explanations of the tables and figures should be revised in a more detailed and informative manner.
-
The conclusion section is relatively brief. The unique contributions of the study should be stated more explicitly and emphatically, and suggestions for future research should also be included.
Dear Editor;
While the overall content is scientifically sound, there are a few minor issues that need to be addressed before the manuscript is suitable for publication. My specific comments are as follows:
-
Although the manuscript is generally comprehensible, certain sections contain grammatical errors and awkward phrasing. I recommend that the authors have the manuscript carefully reviewed by a native English speaker or a professional editing service.
-
The literature review would benefit from the inclusion of more recent references to ensure that the study reflects the current state of research in the field.
-
The captions and explanations of the tables and figures should be revised to provide more detailed and informative descriptions, which would help readers interpret the data more effectively.
-
The conclusion section is rather brief. It would be helpful if the authors could emphasize the original contributions of their work more clearly and provide brief suggestions for future research directions.
Author Response
We would like to thank you for the interest and valuable time you devoted to reading our manuscript and for the relevance of your comments. In general, all contributions and additions are underlined in yellow throughout the document.
- Although the manuscript is generally comprehensible, certain sections contain grammatical errors and awkward phrasing. I recommend that the authors have the manuscript carefully reviewed by a native English speaker or a professional editing service.
Answer 1: We had the entire document proofread by an English speaker and corrected grammatical errors, poor wording and improved wording.
- The literature review would benefit from the inclusion of more recent references to ensure that the study reflects the current state of research in the field.
Answer 2: We have also reviewed the literature, adding a few more references to further illustrate the reasoning.
- The captions and explanations of the tables and figures should be revised to provide more detailed and informative descriptions, which would help readers interpret the data more effectively.
Answer 3: This comment has been taken into account throughout the revised document by improving the analyses, comments and interpretations of the results.
- The conclusion section is rather brief. It would be helpful if the authors could emphasize the original contributions of their work more clearly and provide brief suggestions for future research directions.
Answer 4: This comment has also been taken into account in the conclusion section and the additions are underlined in yellow. However, the emphasis on the initial contributions of the authors' work rests essentially on the identification and presentation of the different types of traditional habitat, the summary of the different components of which in the conclusion section is underlined in green from line 762 to line 779.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 65: Traditional architecture is not the same as vernacular architecture. Authors should note the distinction and elaborate on their definitions.
Line 135: Authors mention existing categories of traditional housing. Are they the same as what authors comes up with in the discussion/conclusion part?
Line 146: Authors keep saying "urban agglomeration of Kara" without saying how many households or number of residents there.Table 2 mentions some parts of Kara in some detail, but the overall population of Kara needs to be mentioned earlier in the paper.
Line 195: Observation part needs more explanation. How long did the researchers stay in Kara for observation? When did the site visits occur?
Line 526: External influence from where? Other countries? Could you be more specific? There must be a reason behind it as well.
Figure 19: I am a bit confused about the data in figure 19. I understand that there is a co-relation between the level of education and the housing type. But the graph seems to suggest that it is not simply co-relation (meaning the people with higher education tend to live in type 2 and 3) but an exact match. For instance all the 58.2% of the whole population who live in the original house are uneducated or have only primary level, and that all those 31.1% who live in type 1 housing have secondary education those who live in type 2 housing have secondary and higher education. This seems highly unlikely. For instance, someone who is living in type 2 housing can also have only secondary or primary level education.
Author Response
We would like to thank you for the interest and valuable time you devoted to reading our manuscript and for the relevance of your comments. In general, all contributions and additions are underlined in yellow throughout the document.
Line 65: Traditional architecture is not the same as vernacular architecture. Authors should note the distinction and elaborate on their definitions.
Answer 1: We have replaced vernacular architecture with ancestral architecture.
Line 135: Authors mention existing categories of traditional housing. Are they the same as what authors comes up with in the discussion/conclusion part?
Answer 2: Yes, the existing categories of traditional housing are the same as those set out in the conclusion/discussion section.
Line 146: Authors keep saying "urban agglomeration of Kara" without saying how many households or number of residents there. Table 2 mentions some parts of Kara in some detail, but the overall population of Kara needs to be mentioned earlier in the paper.
Answer 3: this information on the population of the urban agglomeration of kara was added in the summary section by notifying the number of households surveyed out of the total size of households in the study area.
Line 195: Observation part needs more explanation. How long did the researchers stay in Kara for observation? When did the site visits occur?
Answer 4: This part has been reviewed in the observation section by completing the precise period of observation by the authors in the field, although this dynamic is continuous and not static. So the observation phase is still ongoing.
Line 526: External influence from where? Other countries? Could you be more specific? There must be a reason behind it as well.
Answer 5: firstly, internal influences between the North and the South, and secondly external influences between neighbouring countries. This information has been added to in the manuscript.
Figure 19: I am a bit confused about the data in figure 19. I understand that there is a co-relation between the level of education and the housing type. But the graph seems to suggest that it is not simply co-relation (meaning the people with higher education tend to live in type 2 and 3) but an exact match. For instance, all the 58.2% of the whole population who live in the original house are uneducated or have only primary level, and that all those 31.1% who live in type 1 housing have secondary education those who live in type 2 housing have secondary and higher education. This seems highly unlikely. For instance, someone who is living in type 2 housing can also have only secondary or primary level education.
Answer 6: Figure 18 and Figure 19 have been revised to provide more detailed information to make it easier for readers to understand. We have presented the rates of monthly income and level of education for each type of traditional dwelling in order to highlight the proportion of uneducated; 1st cycle educated and 2nd cycle educated or more within each type. Then the proportion of occupants below the minimum wage, between the minimum wage and 100,000 CFA francs, and between 100,000 CFA francs and 200,000 CFA francs and more for each type of traditional dwelling.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
