New Life in the Countryside: Conservation and Sustainability of Vernacular Architectural Facade Characteristics in the Jiangnan Region, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.       The title is simple, good and expresses the idea

2.       The summary can be shortened simply

3.       Keywords that express the research topic well

4.       The introduction contains a number of references to the core of the research

5.       The scientific methodology followed is sound and scientific

6.       Pictures, figures, and tables are arranged, clear, and meet the purpose and objective of the research

7.       The results are good and acceptable in the research field

8.       The references used are recent references and appropriate to the research topic

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The research is not very original as an analytical method, because to answer the research questions, there is no need to resort to mathematical methods; it would suffice to cite books on architectural history and design. However, it appears interesting because it can provide a standardized design tool available to everyone for improving building design according to effective design standards that adhere to well-defined aesthetic and construction principles. It would have been interesting to include a thorough historical analysis of facade composition.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript presents an overview of the vernacular architectural facade characteristics in Jiangnan region, in China. The authors state that the main objective is to propose a method and a tool for objectively analize the characteristics of these traditional facades. The importance of this method and tool for the scientific community and for practitioners is not clear and the paper has a lot of repeated information lacking of clarity. Additionally, the concept of sustainability in this paper needs to be clearly identified. It seems to me that this paper is best suited for a journal of conservation and restoration of buildings (e.g., Heritage from MDPI). I have the following comments/suggestions for the authors: 

L. 24 - This sentence should not start with an "And". Kindly revise the sentence accordingly.

L. 24-25 - This information is already included in L. 18-19 of the manuscript, where the authors state that the main purpose of the study is to develop a method and tool to explore the characteristics of architectural facade forms. Therefore, the information in L. 24-25 should be revised, accordingly. Moreover, what is the difference between the "method" and the "tool" that the authors want to develop? 

The abstract is too long and with repeated information. The results are only mentioned in L. 32 onwards. This means that authors need 20 lines (i.e., from L. 11 to L. 31) to identify the objectives of their study. The abstract must be revised to be more clear and more focused on the results of the study.

L. 70-73 - The information in these lines is also a repetition of the information/ideas already presented in the first paragraph of the introduction. Authors should be more concise throughout the text instead of repeating trivial information. 

L.74 - What do you mean by "is deeply rooted in people's hearts"? Please remember you are writting a scientific paper.

L. 87-onwards - The authors state that "This study uses the complex network theory to define and analyze the network relationships between different elements in an architectural facade". Why is this important? Do we really need to use complex network theories to identify and reproduce architectural features of traditional facades? The importance of this study for the scientific community is not clear.

A flowchart with the methodology used in your study in the beginning of Section 3 would be very useful to understand the different steps of your study.

 L. 555-556 - The authors state that the important contribution of the study is to propose an objective analysis tool for extracting characteristics of architectural facade form. Do I really need to use your tool to do this? What are the advantages of using your tool/method? 

What is the real contribution of your study to the practitioners and scientific community? 

L.566-568 - Repeated information again. Please revise the manuscript to avoid repeating information.

After reading your conclusions, I have a question: What is the main conclusion of your paper? Is it that "exist a similar compositional approach to the facade forms of traditional vernacular architecture and contemporary vernacular architecture in the Jiangnan region."? Do I really need to develop a method/tool and to use complex netwoorks to conclude this? The outputs of the study are not clearly stated. 

The concept of Sustainability is not clearly identified in the manuscript. In my opinion, this paper is best suited for a journal of conservation and restoration of buildings (e.g., Heritage from MDPI). The authors should clearly identify the concept of Sustainability in the paper. The preservation of the vernacular architecture is not enough considering the scope of this journal.

Minor revisions are needed.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have significantly improved the quality and content of the manuscript after considering my comments and suggestions. Therefore, the paper can be accepted for publication.