Potential and Opportunities of Use of Postindustrial Buildings and Territories for Urban Development: Case Studies of the Historical Area in Lviv (Ukraine)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is well edited. The research problem is specified clearly enough. Research methods are selected adequately for the topic under consideration. Still, the work was based on a few examples (only 8), which in the case of a large and beautiful city like Lviv may not be very representative. This does not in any way exclude the authors' work and contributions, which are valuable and significant. Nevertheless, I would suggest (for the future) that further works on this subject should be expanded with more examples, at the same time expanding (perhaps) the base of attributes characterizing individual cases. These are, of course, only suggestions, but at the moment I have no further comments on the presented work.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your high estimation of our paper! 

Reviewer 2 Report

The study is mainly a practice for writing rather than a real academic research. The methods used are mainly based on web and secondary data. The analysis did not add new input into the data.

Author Response

Thank you for your opinion! We are afraid you are too strict to our work. We support the opinions by other reviewers. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article provides a historical excursion through the development of a city with areas included in the UNESCO patrimony. The authors give examples of implemented reuse, reconstruction and development of industrial areas, complexes and buildings, in an effort to find good practices or models for future implementations. They reveal the problem of inconsistency of previous city master plans with modern directions of urban development as well as infrastructural ones.

It is an interesting read. The paper is not addressed only to specialists, but it is of general interest to the public. 

Author Response

Thank you for your opinion! We did our best and it is nice to know that our work is interesting fo experts!

Reviewer 4 Report

I have read this article with great interest and would like to thank the editors for giving me a chance to engage with this work. The aim of this article is to identify the modern urban trends in the development process of post-industrial areas located in 21 the historic area of Lviv, as well as its compliance with the city development strategy. In my opinion, it is a very relevant and important undertaking; especially in the context of the current global era. But seems the article needs to work more on the theoretical part of the article in order to increase the internal validity and external visibility of the study. Bellow, you may find the required revisions:

Major revision

- It will be more descriptive if you present the relationship between " Post-industrial Buildings" with “Territories of the 2 Historical Area” by triangulations of your main keywords to highlight the importance of your study. There should be a justifiable discussion in the literature part of your study to develop the interrelation. The reason is that I still didn't get the main gap in the study. The relevance of the research problem for the discipline should be highlighted. Why this research is important and how urban planners can get benefit from the findings of this study would be highlighted as well. The author may need to highlight the importance of the study in the abstract and conclusion.

-Contribution to academia needs to be clearly highlighted in the abstract, introduction and conclusion part of the study. The contribution of the study needs to be explained in such a way that to increase the originality of the study.

 - The title of the article doesn’t convey the real objective of the study.

- Your abstract should cover Introduction and Reason for conducting the research, the Problem (knowledge gap), Methods, Outcomes (results), and Ramifications (Implications). The abstract should be re-written so that it encompasses summaries of the most important parts of the study results and authors' arguments.

- Introduction doesn’t have any scientific structure to highlight the problem of the study or gap in the literature. The introduction of the manuscript is not well-organized author may use the strategy of “ big umbrella” to focus on the main problem of the manuscript.  

-The thesis statement should come at the end of the introduction.

- The author may need to justify why this case study (s) and how the findings can be generalizable.

- It would be great to work a little bit more on the methodology part to be easily understandable for the readers. Maybe a graphical presentation will help readers to follow your study easily. You may refer to qualitative, systematic reviews or any other methods that are suitable for your study, so it needs some explanation, consider mentioning methods techniques and tactics of your research under a big umbrella.

- Restate the research problem addressed in the paper.

-lots of unnecessary figures are in the text. instead, the authors need to develop a logical comparison of the theoretical findings in the literature part of the text.

-in order to increase the internal validity of the text I am highly recommending to cite the following articles in the introduction part of the text: An Industrial Heritage Case Study in Ayvalik: Ertem Olive Oil Factory; Adaptive Reuse of the Industrial Building: A case of Energy Museum in Sanatistanbul, Turkey; Industrialization and Urbanization in Turkey at the beginning of the 20th Century; Towards the Egyptian Charter for Conservation of Cultural Heritages

- The ‘discussion part also needs to develop considering the aim of the article and how the author responds to the hypothesis of the manuscript. The functionality of the methodology and tactics used in the article needs to be discussed.

- The author may need to explain and develop the hypothesis of the study in the text accordingly.

- The conclusion needs to restructure, some essential information which supposes to be in the conclusion part is missing. For example, what are the findings to support the hypothesis of the study? how you described the contribution of your study to the existing literature?. or etc., the Conclusion of your study could be much more descriptive by the findings that you mentioned in the discussion part.

-the conclusion is your findings there shouldn't be any references. coherency of the text is also missing.

-Suggestion for future study is also missing from the last line of the conclusion.

 

Final Opinion

 

As indicated in the review, for all the reasons explained above, this reviewer suggests a major revision.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

From my point of view, the article is ready for publication.