Assessment of Visual Values as a Tool Supporting the Design Decisions of the Cultural Park Protection Plan. The Case of Kazimierz and Stradom in Kraków
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I am not an architect, and therefore my comments deal only with the concept of urban park from an environmental perspective and the holistic vision of cultural landscape that needs integration and cooperation.
The Introduction is quite long and articulated, detailing several aspects. However, I have to observe that, in the text, the continuous reference to ‘historical urban space’ missed two basic, interdisciplinary, points:
- There are no mention of the clear historical value (at least the chronology); the Medieval to modern chronology of the city is mentioned in the second chapter of the paper, a very large time range, that it seems not expressly referred to the parks
- There are no mention of the plants (species, habit/trees or shrubs, age/dimensions) in the park(s) and it is not evident if some species, garden or plant distribution has some cultural/historical value
My questions is: is it possible ‘to assess the visual value’ and perception of this urban cultural landscape without considering the precise historical dimension (culture) and the park composition (semi-natural elements)? It should be a quite modern, integrated approach, to consider these parts of the landscape system as important for citizens/people as the other elements “to preserve the most precious visual resources for protection and securing diversity of cultural heritage and landscape”.
Line 67 = please, explain what do you mean with ‘spatial objects’ (example?)
Line 134 = what is considered to be ‘pollution’ ? Chemical pollution? It is important to define it just as mentioned this term that can be ambiguous.
Line 587 = the sentence “This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex.” can be deleted.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
At the outset, I would like to thank you for taking a review of my manuscript and delving into the subject matter. The detailed reference to the comments is as follows.
Point 1: There are no mention of the clear historical value (at least the chronology); the Medieval to modern chronology of the city is mentioned in the second chapter of the paper, a very large time range, that it seems not expressly referred to the parks.
Response 1: The topic of the article is the use of the original method of view analysis. Landscape is treated here as a spatial form perceived by man. The main subject of research is the construction of space. The question of historical values and detailed chronology has been the subject of research by a team of historians.The view analysis used its effects in the form of the assessment of historical substance (Table 2) and used source materials to the extent necessary for the analyses. View analysis is one of the threads next to the analysis of cultural and natural values. It defines the spatial framework, and detailed guidelines for historical resources and their specialized conservation are developed as a separate survey. This data are combined in the form of a comprehensive draft protection plan.
Point 2: There are no mention of the plants (species, habit/trees or shrubs, age/dimensions) in the park(s) and it is not evident if some species, garden or plant distribution has some cultural/historical value.
Response 2. The answer to this question is partially contained in the answer above. The term "park" can be confusing but this is what it sounds like in the Polish legal vocabulary, although it concerns the urban structure. A Cultural Park is the opposite of a natural park.The word park in Polish means here rather "form of protection" using analogies to the terms "national park" or "landscape park". It covers a large urban area and constitutes a form of integrated protection. Specialized studies are performed as part of the protection plan project. Regarding the cultural and natural substance, the visual analysis focuses on the spatial form without delving into the details of the species of trees or shrubs, using a formal generalization necessary due to the problematic view and scale. The nature study deals with this issue and it finds a suitable place in the conservation plan. In the next stages, detailed studies are taken into account and lead to the final project
Point 3: My questions is: is it possible ‘to assess the visual value’ and perception of this urban cultural landscape without considering the precise historical dimension (culture) and the park composition (semi-natural elements)? It should be a quite modern, integrated approach, to consider these parts of the landscape system as important for citizens/people as the other elements “to preserve the most precious visual resources for protection and securing diversity of cultural heritage and landscape”.
Response 3. The visual analysis is one of the components of the studies performed for the purposes of the cultural park protection plan. As part of it, the following studies have been prepared:
- History and development of the place;
- Cultural, landscape and natural values of the proposed cultural park areas objects, complexes of objects, areas,
- structural visual and scenic connections, local and regional importance, supra-regional
- Spatial conditions, analysis of the state of land development - place and condition of its components landscape
- Binding planning arrangements (adopted in the voivodship plan, studies of conditions and plans local municipalities)
- Ownership Conditions
- Formal and legal conditions
The conservation plan as a whole is a holistic approach to planning by integrating natural, cultural and scenic issues. However, in order to make sizing, one must first analyze the individual components and such an analysis of one of them - viewing resources- is presented in the presented article.
Point 4: Line 67 = please, explain what do you mean with ‘spatial objects’ (example?)
Response 4: ‘spatial objects’ here mean spatial forms - elements of the structure of space.In this case it is mainly about buildings but it can be trees, small architecture, infrastructure facilities.
Point 5: Line 134 = what is considered to be ‘pollution’ ? Chemical pollution? It is important to define it just as mentioned this term that can be ambiguous.
Response 5: 'Pollution' here refers to the view. It means that the view is cluttered and the reception is disturbed.The explanation of this concept and the justification for its use can be found in chapter 3.1.3 Visual pollution. However, since it is not clear, an additional explanation has been introduced in the indicated place
Point 6: Line 587 = the sentence “This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex.” can be deleted
Response 6: Thank you for pointing out this oversight. Of course, the sentence was removed.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article sets out the application of a method of visual assessment of the urban landscape to a specific district of the city of Krakow. While the contribution is original and the results are interesting, the lack of clarity in the article's approach seems an issue to solve.
The abstract states that this article has two objectives: 1. Presents a Cultural Park Project; 2. Define a visual evaluation method. Instead, the article exposes the application of a method. This lack of clarity is especially pronounced in the abstract and the introduction which confuses the reader to the methodology, where it is truly understood what the objective of the article is.
Keywords should be sorted alphabetically and could be improved, providing more specific terms.
Therefore, both parts, abstract and 1. Introduction, would need a reformulation, where it is clear what the starting point is and the main objective of the article. Perhaps removing expressions such as "we apply the form..." (line 12) could help the reader understand its structure.
Likewise, the use of existing methodologies must be clarified and referenced, this is the case of the, cited several times, "visual assessment" sometimes using italics (line 113) and on other occasions not (lines 178, 179).
It's not until part 2. Material and Methods, when it is finally understood that this study is carried out as part of the proposal to create a Cultural Park. This data should be more accurate, specifying when the project is proposed (date) and referencing the law referred to from line 165.
Paragraph 3. Results is well structured, although tables and images are difficult to understand. Figures 2 and 3 do not allow reading, and Tables 1, 2, and 3 would require some kind of legend to explain the letters and acronyms used (for example, K, C, S, or M, H, L).
Finally, the inclusion of references to previously used methods, lines 514 and 515, should be made in the state of art and not during the discussion.
The article is well referenced, however I would suggest to check British methodologies for visual studies, such as “Seeing the History in the view” a method for assessing heritage significance within views, very similar to what it is referred in Figure 2.
The following are a series of localized errata or comments:
11: missing comma between preservation and protection.
25: double full stop.
26: Keywords: I have recommended to include them in alphabetical order and improved them, providing more specific terms.
42: double end space.
78: the then.
95: the acronym WAK requires a note or explanation when first named.
134: ne.
140: double full stop.
144: double initial space + missing "a" layered system.
150: errata streest.
202: errata substantation.
2126 to 228: Check the text of the box: Historical value, Composition (distance,
237 and 238: displaced titles.
240: errata comprisies.
272: double dot in the title.
322: title displaced.
336: double brackets in Table 3.
337: errata occurence.
342: errata occurence.
353: errata siginificant.
362: double space at the beginning of the sentence.
433: errata indicats.
438: errata occurence.
456: errata clearning.
461: missing full stop.
469: errata occured.
490: AND in uppercase letters.
497: double space at the beginning of the sentence.
501: errata possiblities.
544: use brackets for the acronym GLVIA.
575: errata developement.
581: errata agressive and eastate.
586: errata developement.
587: missing space at the beginning of the sentence
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Thank you for reading my manuscript very carefully. I appreciate all the comments that are factual, precise yet kind at the same time. Each of them is very valuable because it allows me to improve the manuscript and make it more readable, and allows me to develop my own scientific workshop.
Point 1: The article sets out the application of a method of visual assessment of the urban landscape to a specific district of the city of Krakow. While the contribution is original and the results are interesting, the lack of clarity in the article's approach seems an issue to solve.
The abstract states that this article has two objectives: 1. Presents a Cultural Park Project; 2. Define a visual evaluation method. Instead, the article exposes the application of a method. This lack of clarity is especially pronounced in the abstract and the introduction which confuses the reader to the methodology, where it is truly understood what the objective of the article is.
Therefore, both parts, abstract and 1. Introduction, would need a reformulation, where it is clear what the starting point is and the main objective of the article. Perhaps removing expressions such as "we apply the form..." (line 12) could help the reader understand its structure.
Response 1: The comment has been taken into consideration. Both the abstract and the introduction have been partially redrafted to make the purpose of the study clear.
The starting point was explained and the purpose of the article was extracted. The wording (line 12) has been rewritten, I hope that the corrections clarify and explain the indicated issues. Thank you.
Point 2: Keywords should be sorted alphabetically and could be improved, providing more specific terms..
Response 2: The comment has been taken into consideration. Keywords have been sorted and supplemented
Point 3: It's not until part 2. Material and Methods, when it is finally understood that this study is carried out as part of the proposal to create a Cultural Park. This data should be more accurate, specifying when the project is proposed (date) and referencing the law referred to from line 165.
Response 3: As suggested in the previous comments, this issue was presented in the introduction with an explanation of the legal grounds.The dates and the relevant regulations have been given.
Point 4: Results is well structured, although tables and images are difficult to understand. Figures 2 and 3 do not allow reading, and Tables 1, 2, and 3 would require some kind of legend to explain the letters and acronyms used (for example, K, C, S, or M, H, L).
Response 4: Improved readability of tables and figures.Figures 2 and 3 have been enlarged and the captions have been supplemented. Tables 1, 2 and 3 received appropriate explanations in the table description.
Point 5: The inclusion of references to previously used methods, lines 514 and 515, should be made in the state of art and not during the discussion..
Response 5: The comment has been taken into account and references are provided in the appropriate section of the manuscript.
Point 6: The article is well referenced, however I would suggest to check British methodologies for visual studies, such as “Seeing the History in the view” a method for assessing heritage significance within views, very similar to what it is referred in Figure 2
Response 6: Thanks for this tip. I studied the method and referred to it in the text. Indeed, it is worth recalling in this context.
Point 7: 95: the acronym WAK requires a note or explanation when first named.
Response 7: An explanation of the acronym is provided as suggested in the text, but the first letters of the explanatory words are not the same as it. The acronym refers to the Polish name of a landscape analysis method (JARK-WAK). Changing the acronym into English is not advisory due to the fact, that it is an oryginal name.
Point 7: Errors and typos
Response 8: I am very grateful for the editorial correction of errors and typos, they have all been corrected
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript presents a new method to analyze and assess visual values in historical urban landscapes as a potential tool for planning, within the context of UNESCO regulations and the principles of cultural parks. The study sounds relevant, and the workflow could be relevant for other scholars and practitioners dealing with the same kind of context. However, I wonder if the results are relevant enough to justify the publication of this paper within Sustainability since I think it may be a too focused, too small-scale study, which does not engage too much with wider academic discussions.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
At the outset, I would like to thank you for taking a review of my manuscript and delving into the subject matter. Hopefully the following explanation will clarify the context and the need to address this topic in a broad scientific discussion. This problem, although presented on a local example, is important for all landscape structures, both urban and rural.
Point 1: This manuscript presents a new method to analyze and assess visual values in historical urban landscapes as a potential tool for planning, within the context of UNESCO regulations and the principles of cultural parks. The study sounds relevant, and the workflow could be relevant for other scholars and practitioners dealing with the same kind of context. However, I wonder if the results are relevant enough to justify the publication of this paper within Sustainability since I think it may be a too focused, too small-scale study, which does not engage too much with wider academic discussions.
Response 1: As the Reviewer kindly noted, the presented study is relevant, thank you for this. Its important role is to raise two issues. Firstly, it focuses on landscape and spatial resources, and secondly, it treats these resources as an object of sustainable management.
Exposing this issue is important, in particular, in Poland, where development is very often determined by economic considerations, while the issues of landscape protection go to the background or are not taken into account at all. On the other hand, the architectural approach to landscape is often replaced by a natural or historical approach. Meanwhile, the European Landscape Convention clearly defines that it is a "perceived area ...". In this context, the article presents the use of the proprietary method of studying landscape as a spatial form, being one of the elements of the complex process of planning a cultural park. In this context, the scenic resource is treated as a common good. On the basis of the ELC, the landscape should be the subject of appropriate management. On the basis of the ELC, the landscape should be the subject of appropriate management so also the issue of its perception becomes an important element of this process. A proper approach to the viewing resource gives a chance that it will be a renewable resource. This means that the proper arrangement of space will allow for development that preserves the existing values for future generations.
The methodology presented in the article fits the series "Sustainable urban and rural development" as a contribution to the methods relating to sustainable spatial development in the urban context and planning for sustainable urban features. It also fits into the special issue as a voice raising the problem of aesthetics and quality of urban space, the possibility of its protection in the course of planned development. The presented approach to scenic analysis is part of a holistic protection plan. It emphasizes the importance of the compositional form and the need to take this issue into account in planning cities, in particular historic urban structures.
It proposes the application of modern tools and methods and presents their application in the planning process. The article also presents a methodology with a high degree of flexibility and the possibility of wide application. It can be used for the visual analysis of all urban and rural compositions. Due to its universal nature, this approach can be widely used both in terms of territories and problems.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The use of existing methodologies must be clarified and referenced, this is the case of the, cited several times, "visual assessment" sometimes using italics (line 23, 104, 154, 215, 216, ) and on other occasions not (lines 324, 556, 610).
In image 2 the texts are still too small, the enlarged texts have been positive for the rest of the images, but this requires another type of editing to be able to read; image 3 appears to me displaced outside the sheet. Finally, I suggests to put commas in some sentences, something that might still review.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The use of existing methodologies must be clarified and referenced, this is the case of the, cited several times, "visual assessment" sometimes using italics (line 23, 104, 154, 215, 216, ) and on other occasions not (lines 324, 556, 610).
Response 1: The amendment was introduced. The spelling has been sorted out and the appropriate references have been provided
Point 2: In image 2 the texts are still too small, the enlarged texts have been positive for the rest of the images, but this requires another type of editing to be able to read; image 3 appears to me displaced outside the sheet. Finally, I suggests to put commas in some sentences, something that might still review.
Response 2: The images were improved and properly positioned
Thank you again for your engagement and effort
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper contains an interesting piece of applied research in the field of cultural heritage and urban planning. Within the context of a UNESCO World Heritage urban site, the authors apply a new method to assess the visual values of this historical city. The categories and the methods used are described, and results are presented and discussed. In my opinion, the article is sound, with clear applications for urban planning practitioners. However, I have concerns considering the clear room for improvement I observe in the paper regarding the analysis and discussion of these results, in addition to their incorporation to broader debates on historical urban sites, cultural landscapes, and heritage values. It would be great if the authors could develop that section of the article in order to make it more relevant to a wider readership from a more global context.
First, regarding structure, I would suggest the authors divide the current "1. Introduction" section in order to create a new section with the 'state of the art'/"theoretical discussion"/"context". The way it is presented, the reader finds much more than a simple introduction to the paper there. In fact, relevant bits of theoretical discussion, the general context for the research, and so on are there, and they may be overlooked in a quick reading.
I think the manuscript could be more relevant to wider audiences if the authors were able to invest some extra effort to contextualise better their case study in a wider context. Can such problems, as those considered here regarding the city of Kraków, be found in other international cities? How do UNESCO prescriptions deal with these themes from a double perspective of urban planning and heritage management? Are there any other applied investigations similar to this one being developed somewhere else? Coming out from urban planning and landscape architecture, how heritage scholars are dealing with these themes within the frame of Urban Geography, Cultural Heritage Resources Management; Heritage Sciences, Archaeology, Urban Sociology...? I do not intend the authors to address all those angles, but it may be interesting if they could engage some of those disciplines. For example, although the topic is indirectly mentioned (lines 62-69) the authors do not mention the concept 'gentrification', which is one of the more relevant topics for discussion in Heritage studies or Urban Geography within the last few decades. The considerations by authors such as David Lowenthal or David Harvey, and those who have followed their proposals in different specific subfields or applied research, would be relevant for this study. The same regarding 'Cultural Parks': what are the debates regarding their description, considering the specific case study you are developing here on visual values? Authors such as the anthropologist Pablo Alonso-González have addressed wide overviews to consider (the book Cultural Parks and National Heritage Areas: Assembling Cultural Heritage, Development and Spatial Planning).
When you briefly describe the historical past of the city under study (lines 143-157) no references are provided, although I am pretty sure there are lots of History and Archaeology works on the city that provided that context. Those works should be correctly mentioned. The same with the problems due to tourism in the city (lines 158-164), which I am sure they would be addressed in public reports, by the local media, neighbourhood associations, and political instances. After that, local regulations are described (lines164-171), but: are those regulations being correctly applied? Any problems or challenges in their application?
Section 3 includes an overview of the assessment developed by the authors' outcomes, which in my opinion is clear enough. But, in my opinion, sections 4 (discussion) and 5 (conclusions) could be improved in line with my previous comments: how this case study may be relevant for scholars or practitioners from other cities worldwide? Sections 4 and 5 emphasizes quite vehemently the relevance of the paper. But, I do not find a correlation between such claims and the results presented: I would ask for more examples, and more connections with urban geography, heritage sciences, urban history, social issues from current inhabitants of the city, the political aspirations of the local neighbours, the impact of tourism, the challenges for developing sustainable tourism, and any other themes for discussion that may be relevant for scholars and practitioners worldwide. This is a relevant observation, in my opinion, to sustain the full acceptance of this manuscript in a global international journal. If such more ambitious goals could not be achieved, I would recommend the publication of this manuscript either in a regional journal or in a more specific journal in terms of the discipline of urban planning.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: In my opinion, the article is sound, with clear applications for urban planning practitioners. However, I have concerns considering the clear room for improvement I observe in the paper regarding the analysis and discussion of these results, in addition to their incorporation to broader debates on historical urban sites, cultural landscapes, and heritage values. It would be great if the authors could develop that section of the article in order to make it more relevant to a wider readership from a more global context.
Response 1: Thank you for those words, and thank you for the tips that helped put this article in its proper context. This is especially valuable in view of the very high visual value of UNESCO sites which, in my opinion, require an appropriate approach and protection in the context of the usually intensive development and their surroundings. This approach is especially important in countries where the scenic values are not properly protected.
Point 2: First, regarding structure, I would suggest the authors divide the current "1. Introduction" section in order to create a new section with the 'state of the art'/"theoretical discussion"/"context". The way it is presented, the reader finds much more than a simple introduction to the paper there. In fact, relevant bits of theoretical discussion, the general context for the research, and so on are there, and they may be overlooked in a quick reading.
Response 2: The amendment was introduced, and the part concerning the state of the art was separated from the introduction
Point 3: I think the manuscript could be more relevant to wider audiences if the authors were able to invest some extra effort to contextualise better their case study in a wider context. Can such problems, as those considered here regarding the city of Kraków, be found in other international cities? How do UNESCO prescriptions deal with these themes from a double perspective of urban planning and heritage management? Are there any other applied investigations similar to this one being developed somewhere else? Coming out from urban planning and landscape architecture, how heritage scholars are dealing with these themes within the frame of Urban Geography, Cultural Heritage Resources Management; Heritage Sciences, Archaeology, Urban Sociology...? I do not intend the authors to address all those angles, but it may be interesting if they could engage some of those disciplines
Response 3:
The case study has been placed in a broader context. the topic of UNESCO heritage was the key to broadening the research background and attracting the attention of a wider audience was. The regulations in this regard were referred to. Other studies in this area were referred to. The achievements of humanistic geography, urban geography and Cultural Heritage Resources Management were also referred to; Heritage Sciences and Archeology.
Thank you very much for this tips
However, I would like to point out that the article deals with the architectural and urban approach to the issues of heritage and the ways of its protection and sustainable development. Architectural and urban planning tools and methods are universal, they are used in planning all over the world. Thus, the presented approach, based on the approach in the field of architecture and town planning, does not mean that the problem is narrowed down to the local scale. On the contrary, it can be used in planning and design all over the world, because this language and procedure for designers are understandable.
Point 4: For example, although the topic is indirectly mentioned (lines 62-69) the authors do not mention the concept 'gentrification', which is one of the more relevant topics for discussion in Heritage studies or Urban Geography within the last few decades. The considerations by authors such as David Lowenthal or David Harvey, and those who have followed their proposals in different specific subfields or applied research, would be relevant for this study.
Response 4: I admit that the subject of gentrification and social problems regardingthis type of space are very important. As suggested by the Reviewer it was mentioned and its presence was signaled in the manuscript , reference was made to research in geography and sociology, and a broader literature on the subject was also referenced. However, this thread has not been developed very much, due to the desire to highlight the architectural, urban and landscape approach and tools. however, these remarks broadened my horizons and the analysis from this angle may become a contribution to further research. Thank you
Point 5: The same regarding 'Cultural Parks': what are the debates regarding their description, considering the specific case study you are developing here on visual values? Authors such as the anthropologist Pablo Alonso-González have addressed wide overviews to consider (the book Cultural Parks and National Heritage Areas: Assembling Cultural Heritage, Development and Spatial Planning).
Response 5: Thank you very much for this suggestion. In the text, I referred to the indicated items and this thread was included in the discussion, and although it has not been heavily exposed, I will use it in the future
Point 6: When you briefly describe the historical past of the city under study (lines 143-157) no references are provided, although I am pretty sure there are lots of History and Archaeology works on the city that provided that context. Those works should be correctly mentioned. The same with the problems due to tourism in the city (lines 158-164), which I am sure they would be addressed in public reports, by the local media, neighbourhood associations, and political instances. After that, local regulations are described (lines164-171), but: are those regulations being correctly applied? Any problems or challenges in their application?
Response 6: Due to the fact that the history of Krakow is widely known in Poland, it was treated as an obvious matter, without reference to literature, of which there are 200 items in the Culture Park study. Of course, this required a correction. This issue was supplemented and the most important items were referred to. Similarly with the question of tourism and regulations. Problems and challenges as well as differences in approach are presented.
Point 7: Section 3 includes an overview of the assessment developed by the authors' outcomes, which in my opinion is clear enough. But, in my opinion, sections 4 (discussion) and 5 (conclusions) could be improved in line with my previous comments: how this case study may be relevant for scholars or practitioners from other cities worldwide? Sections 4 and 5 emphasizes quite vehemently the relevance of the paper. But, I do not find a correlation between such claims and the results presented: I would ask for more examples, and more connections with urban geography, heritage sciences, urban history, social issues from current inhabitants of the city, the political aspirations of the local neighbours, the impact of tourism, the challenges for developing sustainable tourism, and any other themes for discussion that may be relevant for scholars and practitioners worldwide.
Response 6: In the discussion and the results, reference was made to the expanded background of the research. The issue of binding recommendations and recommendations of UNESCO was raised (see point 3). In addition, reference was made to contemporary tourism and social problems bearing in mind the main topic, i.e. the issue of scenic values.
Thank you very much for all your comments and taking the time to study the text in depth.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
