PONE-D-24-28746A Study on the Evolution of Original Sites of Fortifications from the Perspective of HUL: Cases of Paris, Beijing, and MoscowPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Xu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The reviewers' comments are as follows;

Reviewer 1

This manuscript presents an important contribution to the field of urban studies and offers valuable insights into the historical and contemporary significance of fortification sites. The suggestions are as follows:

The term "stratification process" is an important concept but has not been clearly defined in the manuscript. It is recommend to providing a concise explanation of what this entails in the context of fortifications and urban landscapes.

The current literature review could be expanded to better situate your findings in the broader academic discourse. Discussing previous studies on urban fortifications and their transformations will demonstrate the novelty of your research and highlight existing gaps that your work addresses.

Methodology: How were the data collected? What criteria were used for the selection of case studies? It is recommend to including this information to improve the reliability of the research.

Consider exploring how specific socio-political and historical contexts in each city shaped the unique outcomes of their fortification sites. These differences could provide deeper insights into the stratification processes you describe. In the discussion part, the authors could discuss more about how can the lessons from these three cities be applied to similar projects in other cities?

Reviewer 2

The manuscript provides a comprehensive perspective to understand the similarities and differences of different cities in dealing with historical fortification sites by comparing three cities under different cultural and political backgrounds, and provides meaningful experience for the protection and development of fortification sites in other cities. However, the manuscript still needs to be improved in the following aspects:

1.The reason for dividing into three stages is not clearly explained. Why are these three periods? Judging from Figure 14, the time spans of these three fortifications are very different. Moscow's fortifications span 200 years, while Beijing's only has 50 years. Their phases are the same. What is the reason behind this?

2.The manuscript, while providing a comprehensive perspective, lacks a crucial element-a three-dimensional analysis of the fortifications of the three cities. The urban landscape, with its planar and three-dimensional changes, is a key aspect of understanding urban history. It is recommended to add an analysis of the three-dimensional aspect through photos or 3D models as this will significantly enhance the readers' understanding of the subject.

3.The discussion of strategies in each period is relatively general. To truly understand the differences in strategies among the three cities, it is essential to have specific strategy analysis diagrams. These could include analyzing the changes in city walls, roads, greenery, and pedestrian spaces from a sectional perspective. Figure 15, while informative, is also quite general and does not clearly depict the differences in strategies. Therefore, the addition of specific strategy analysis diagrams is recommended to enhance the readers' understanding.

4.Minor error: On line 491, "Comparative Analysis of the Three Cities in Phase Two", it should be Phase Three.

Reviewer 3

Many typographical errors throughout the entire document. Odd spacing, parts of words, and inconsistent capitalizations.

Although the research is solid, the main premise of the research, beautiful city, is not clearly laid out. No background, examples, or definitions are provided, only general terms about harmonious development. It is unclear if this is a strategic design agenda (a Beautiful City initiative) or just a category developed by the authors (generally designing beautiful cities). This needs to be corrected for the findings and conclusions to be accurately assessed. Currently, there is no clear description of the “beautiful city” development practices.

Additionally, tourism is described as “green, low-carbon, and environmentally friendly nature of tourism” in the last paragraph of page six. This is a broad assumption with no supporting data. Furthermore, one of the ways tourism and urban development is later assessed is the increase in car ownership. This creates a paradox - - how can tourism be “green” but it’s success be measured on the increase in car-ownership?

Lastly, the overall purpose of the research is unclear. What is the intention of this coupling model? There is no clear need or application offered.

Reviewer 4

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the perspective of HUL, this paper discusses the evolution of original sites of fortifications in three cities. The paper is well written and has novel ideas, but there are some areas where the clarity and accuracy of scientific reporting could be improved:

Abstract and Introduction: An explanation of the results can be appropriately included in the summary, so that readers can get the relevant information more quickly. The introduction may appropriately set the background of the fortifications, but additional explanations of key theories and frameworks can enhance the reader's understanding, especially for interdisciplinary readers unfamiliar with the subject.

Text description: The overall structure of the article can be more clear. For example, in the case analysis of each city, a unified analytical framework can be adopted, such as following the sequence of "historical evolution of the fortress - demolition and planning - construction process and problems - reflection and renewal strategies", so that readers can compare the similarities and differences between different cities more easily.

Methodology: This paper studies the historical landscape of the city from HUL's novel perspective, but it does not clearly point out how the method is realized. At the same time, the frequency of HUL mentioned in the whole paper is low.

Results Presentation: The overall structure of the article is rigorous, but suggestions for city builders can be added in the conclusion part by summarizing these three case cities.

Discussion and Conclusion: When discussing the similarities and differences of the evolution of the three urban fortress sites, the depth of analysis can be further deepened. For example, in the common part, in addition to pointing out similar stages and planning methods, we can also explore the deep-rooted reasons behind these commonalities, such as the macro trend of global urbanization process, and the general influence mechanism of similar urban development needs (such as traffic improvement, population accommodation, etc.) on the evolution of fortress sites.

Scientific Language: Overall, the language is formal and suitable for a scientific audience. But some parts of the paper, particularly in the literature review and conclusion, could be more concise.

Limitations: The study identified some key limitations, such as not having enough long-term, continuous data, which is important for scientific transparency. Expanding the generality of how these limitations affect the findings will strengthen the paper.

Reviewer 5

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for the opportunity to read your paper. From a general perspective your topic is a real interest one, even the research is mostly at a descriptive level. So, to increase the consistency of your paper I recommend to include some statistics about the profile of these alpha cities (population, PIB, density etc), preferably with a global perspective (the rank of each city by various criteria into a global score).

Also, please review carefully your text, I suppose that at 491 it is actually Phase Three and not again Two (as it is at 318).

Reviewer 6

The article examines the transformation of historic fortifications in Paris, Beijing, and Moscow over time. While initial plans included green and walkable spaces, actual deconstruction (of fortified area) and their redevelopment often sacrificed those plans to provide for automobiles. This led to typical urban ills including increasing pollution, decreasing connectivity and so forth. However, all three of these cities are now in the process of rethinking their approaches to these historic sites.

Overall, this article is an engaging read and presents an interesting comparison of three phased processes in three major cities of the world. The analysis of the parallels between the cities is fascinating but I was left wondering how they diverged. I think more engagement with that as well as the broader planning history literature is needed. Also, the crux of the analysis focuses on one smallish area per city, yet no mention is given to how that particular area within each city was chosen (apologies if I missed it) nor is evidence provided as to how representative each particular area is to the changes occurring along the rest of the fortification areas in the cities.

Major comments:

• Lines 1-57 seem to be lacking references. Same for lines 87-94. Same for lines 190-204. More engagement with the existing literature is needed throughout.

• I think it would be useful to further the discussion of the economic, military and political reasons for dismantling the fortifications. This could perhaps be in the form of a table with the three sites as columns, and econ, military, and political reasons as rows with bullet points for each row/sites.

• In Figures 9 and 12, I think it would be helpful to label the streets (especially Blvd des Marechaux and the Périphérique). Similarly, any street or building mentioned in the text, should ideally be labeled on the respective figures to aid in orienting the reader who might not be familiar with the layout of all three of these cities especially on such a fine scale.

• I think the paper would benefit from having a series of pictures of the modern day setting of the three areas of focus (from Google Street View perhaps). It would help situate statements such as this one “Galaxy SOHO and the Petroleum Building, are enormous, not only creating a significant sense of oppression for pedestrians but also severely clashing with the surrounding urban image”

• It is difficult to compare the figures to each other and see the evolution of the different land uses over time. Is there a way to combine these figures so that they are more easily comparable? Also, since these look like GIS files, could you calculate the area devoted to each land use for each city and graph it over time (as a new figure)? Ideally, this would be both for the three smallish areas you focus on and the entire fortified ring area.

• To synthesize your research, maybe you should talk about the process of place making around the fortifications that has taken a long time but that seems to be coming to fruition (finally – after a few setbacks), but how under the guide of the HUL the fortified areas have evolved into pedestrian/bike networks but also important from recreation, environmental sustainability issue as well as cultural stand points (although I’m not sure that was the case in all three cities- perhaps something to discuss in more detail).

• Bringing the discussion back to the HUL is needed in the conclusions.

• I don’t think you should have an abbreviation in the title.

Minor comments:

• Lines 95-104 instead of “this study conduct”, “It analyzes” and other instances, consider saying “we conducted”, “we analyzed”.

• Fig 1. Consider increasing the font on the legend (and a little on the scale bar). Also, I think it would be great to have an inset map that shows a close up (and extent rectangle) of where the sites you focus on in subsequent figures are located relative to the cities themselves, i.e. where is Porte de Vanve in Paris, etc.

• L104, the mention of Figure 1 here seems misplaced. Maybe add it early on when you justify the focus on those three cities?

• Throughout, the periods should come after the parenthetical references, for example, “(10).”

• Figures 4 and 5, since green spaces are the light green, and you are showing trees as the small darker green stars (I’m assuming although that needs to be added to the legend), it’s a bit confusing to have light green with dark green dots as No-building zones (unless you mean parks, or vegetated walkable spaces but then please clarify)?

• When you first mention Hua Nangui and Liang Sicheng, please state who they are (pardon my ignorance).

• Table 1, “construction time” is the start of the construction? Because it took more than a year (at least for Paris), no?

• L223 (but check for other instances for ex L231) the “the” is missing before “Garden ring”

• Also, L226, the verb is missing for “new bridges over the Moscow River” (probably “were built”)

• Lastly, I think that the Moscow River is actually (even in English) referred to as the Moskva River. Similarly, Boulevards of Marshals is called the Boulevard des Maréchaux. I would be inclined to suggest it might be best not to translate all these place names.

• L227, do you mean “in and around the garden rings”?

• L235 “Owing to the Garden Ring’s excessive number of lanes, some sections have up to eight lanes, encroaching on the city’s public space” this sentence needs to be rephrased.

• Somewhere around L260 I think it would be beneficial to mention that the Périphérique is just on the outside of the former fortifications (nearly adjacent to it and essentially marks the boundary between the City of Paris and the suburbs) and that the Périphérique is the reason for the difficulties in going from the City of Paris to the suburbs; not the former fortifications and roads that are within that zone.

• L312, typo “These”

• Consider combining Figures 14 and 15 into one figure as you have a lot of figures and I think it would help comprehension and legibility.

• L384-385 “a 14-kilometer noise barrier” around what?

• L386, what area exactly is “the Crown”?

• L414, add “as well as” between “continuity. Increase”

• L420, maybe specify that the V stands for Vélo (or Bicycle) and not the roman numeral five.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 13 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Samuel Kofi Tchum, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that Figures 1-13 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1-13 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer 1

This manuscript presents an important contribution to the field of urban studies and offers valuable insights into the historical and contemporary significance of fortification sites. The suggestions are as follows:

The term "stratification process" is an important concept but has not been clearly defined in the manuscript. It is recommend to providing a concise explanation of what this entails in the context of fortifications and urban landscapes.

The current literature review could be expanded to better situate your findings in the broader academic discourse. Discussing previous studies on urban fortifications and their transformations will demonstrate the novelty of your research and highlight existing gaps that your work addresses.

Methodology: How were the data collected? What criteria were used for the selection of case studies? It is recommend to including this information to improve the reliability of the research.

Consider exploring how specific socio-political and historical contexts in each city shaped the unique outcomes of their fortification sites. These differences could provide deeper insights into the stratification processes you describe. In the discussion part, the authors could discuss more about how can the lessons from these three cities be applied to similar projects in other cities?

Reviewer 2

The manuscript provides a comprehensive perspective to understand the similarities and differences of different cities in dealing with historical fortification sites by comparing three cities under different cultural and political backgrounds, and provides meaningful experience for the protection and development of fortification sites in other cities. However, the manuscript still needs to be improved in the following aspects:

1.The reason for dividing into three stages is not clearly explained. Why are these three periods? Judging from Figure 14, the time spans of these three fortifications are very different. Moscow's fortifications span 200 years, while Beijing's only has 50 years. Their phases are the same. What is the reason behind this?

2.The manuscript, while providing a comprehensive perspective, lacks a crucial element-a three-dimensional analysis of the fortifications of the three cities. The urban landscape, with its planar and three-dimensional changes, is a key aspect of understanding urban history. It is recommended to add an analysis of the three-dimensional aspect through photos or 3D models as this will significantly enhance the readers' understanding of the subject.

3.The discussion of strategies in each period is relatively general. To truly understand the differences in strategies among the three cities, it is essential to have specific strategy analysis diagrams. These could include analyzing the changes in city walls, roads, greenery, and pedestrian spaces from a sectional perspective. Figure 15, while informative, is also quite general and does not clearly depict the differences in strategies. Therefore, the addition of specific strategy analysis diagrams is recommended to enhance the readers' understanding.

4.Minor error: On line 491, "Comparative Analysis of the Three Cities in Phase Two", it should be Phase Three.

Reviewer 3

Many typographical errors throughout the entire document. Odd spacing, parts of words, and inconsistent capitalizations.

Although the research is solid, the main premise of the research, beautiful city, is not clearly laid out. No background, examples, or definitions are provided, only general terms about harmonious development. It is unclear if this is a strategic design agenda (a Beautiful City initiative) or just a category developed by the authors (generally designing beautiful cities). This needs to be corrected for the findings and conclusions to be accurately assessed. Currently, there is no clear description of the “beautiful city” development practices.

Additionally, tourism is described as “green, low-carbon, and environmentally friendly nature of tourism” in the last paragraph of page six. This is a broad assumption with no supporting data. Furthermore, one of the ways tourism and urban development is later assessed is the increase in car ownership. This creates a paradox - - how can tourism be “green” but it’s success be measured on the increase in car-ownership?

Lastly, the overall purpose of the research is unclear. What is the intention of this coupling model? There is no clear need or application offered.

Reviewer 4

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the perspective of HUL, this paper discusses the evolution of original sites of fortifications in three cities. The paper is well written and has novel ideas, but there are some areas where the clarity and accuracy of scientific reporting could be improved:

Abstract and Introduction: An explanation of the results can be appropriately included in the summary, so that readers can get the relevant information more quickly. The introduction may appropriately set the background of the fortifications, but additional explanations of key theories and frameworks can enhance the reader's understanding, especially for interdisciplinary readers unfamiliar with the subject.

Text description: The overall structure of the article can be more clear. For example, in the case analysis of each city, a unified analytical framework can be adopted, such as following the sequence of "historical evolution of the fortress - demolition and planning - construction process and problems - reflection and renewal strategies", so that readers can compare the similarities and differences between different cities more easily.

Methodology: This paper studies the historical landscape of the city from HUL's novel perspective, but it does not clearly point out how the method is realized. At the same time, the frequency of HUL mentioned in the whole paper is low.

Results Presentation: The overall structure of the article is rigorous, but suggestions for city builders can be added in the conclusion part by summarizing these three case cities.

Discussion and Conclusion: When discussing the similarities and differences of the evolution of the three urban fortress sites, the depth of analysis can be further deepened. For example, in the common part, in addition to pointing out similar stages and planning methods, we can also explore the deep-rooted reasons behind these commonalities, such as the macro trend of global urbanization process, and the general influence mechanism of similar urban development needs (such as traffic improvement, population accommodation, etc.) on the evolution of fortress sites.

Scientific Language: Overall, the language is formal and suitable for a scientific audience. But some parts of the paper, particularly in the literature review and conclusion, could be more concise.

Limitations: The study identified some key limitations, such as not having enough long-term, continuous data, which is important for scientific transparency. Expanding the generality of how these limitations affect the findings will strengthen the paper.

Reviewer 5

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for the opportunity to read your paper. From a general perspective your topic is a real interest one, even the research is mostly at a descriptive level. So, to increase the consistency of your paper I recommend to include some statistics about the profile of these alpha cities (population, PIB, density etc), preferably with a global perspective (the rank of each city by various criteria into a global score).

Also, please review carefully your text, I suppose that at 491 it is actually Phase Three and not again Two (as it is at 318).

Reviewer 6

The article examines the transformation of historic fortifications in Paris, Beijing, and Moscow over time. While initial plans included green and walkable spaces, actual deconstruction (of fortified area) and their redevelopment often sacrificed those plans to provide for automobiles. This led to typical urban ills including increasing pollution, decreasing connectivity and so forth. However, all three of these cities are now in the process of rethinking their approaches to these historic sites.

Overall, this article is an engaging read and presents an interesting comparison of three phased processes in three major cities of the world. The analysis of the parallels between the cities is fascinating but I was left wondering how they diverged. I think more engagement with that as well as the broader planning history literature is needed. Also, the crux of the analysis focuses on one smallish area per city, yet no mention is given to how that particular area within each city was chosen (apologies if I missed it) nor is evidence provided as to how representative each particular area is to the changes occurring along the rest of the fortification areas in the cities.

Major comments:

• Lines 1-57 seem to be lacking references. Same for lines 87-94. Same for lines 190-204. More engagement with the existing literature is needed throughout.

• I think it would be useful to further the discussion of the economic, military and political reasons for dismantling the fortifications. This could perhaps be in the form of a table with the three sites as columns, and econ, military, and political reasons as rows with bullet points for each row/sites.

• In Figures 9 and 12, I think it would be helpful to label the streets (especially Blvd des Marechaux and the Périphérique). Similarly, any street or building mentioned in the text, should ideally be labeled on the respective figures to aid in orienting the reader who might not be familiar with the layout of all three of these cities especially on such a fine scale.

• I think the paper would benefit from having a series of pictures of the modern day setting of the three areas of focus (from Google Street View perhaps). It would help situate statements such as this one “Galaxy SOHO and the Petroleum Building, are enormous, not only creating a significant sense of oppression for pedestrians but also severely clashing with the surrounding urban image”

• It is difficult to compare the figures to each other and see the evolution of the different land uses over time. Is there a way to combine these figures so that they are more easily comparable? Also, since these look like GIS files, could you calculate the area devoted to each land use for each city and graph it over time (as a new figure)? Ideally, this would be both for the three smallish areas you focus on and the entire fortified ring area.

• To synthesize your research, maybe you should talk about the process of place making around the fortifications that has taken a long time but that seems to be coming to fruition (finally – after a few setbacks), but how under the guide of the HUL the fortified areas have evolved into pedestrian/bike networks but also important from recreation, environmental sustainability issue as well as cultural stand points (although I’m not sure that was the case in all three cities- perhaps something to discuss in more detail).

• Bringing the discussion back to the HUL is needed in the conclusions.

• I don’t think you should have an abbreviation in the title.

Minor comments:

• Lines 95-104 instead of “this study conduct”, “It analyzes” and other instances, consider saying “we conducted”, “we analyzed”.

• Fig 1. Consider increasing the font on the legend (and a little on the scale bar). Also, I think it would be great to have an inset map that shows a close up (and extent rectangle) of where the sites you focus on in subsequent figures are located relative to the cities themselves, i.e. where is Porte de Vanve in Paris, etc.

• L104, the mention of Figure 1 here seems misplaced. Maybe add it early on when you justify the focus on those three cities?

• Throughout, the periods should come after the parenthetical references, for example, “(10).”

• Figures 4 and 5, since green spaces are the light green, and you are showing trees as the small darker green stars (I’m assuming although that needs to be added to the legend), it’s a bit confusing to have light green with dark green dots as No-building zones (unless you mean parks, or vegetated walkable spaces but then please clarify)?

• When you first mention Hua Nangui and Liang Sicheng, please state who they are (pardon my ignorance).

• Table 1, “construction time” is the start of the construction? Because it took more than a year (at least for Paris), no?

• L223 (but check for other instances for ex L231) the “the” is missing before “Garden ring”

• Also, L226, the verb is missing for “new bridges over the Moscow River” (probably “were built”)

• Lastly, I think that the Moscow River is actually (even in English) referred to as the Moskva River. Similarly, Boulevards of Marshals is called the Boulevard des Maréchaux. I would be inclined to suggest it might be best not to translate all these place names.

• L227, do you mean “in and around the garden rings”?

• L235 “Owing to the Garden Ring’s excessive number of lanes, some sections have up to eight lanes, encroaching on the city’s public space” this sentence needs to be rephrased.

• Somewhere around L260 I think it would be beneficial to mention that the Périphérique is just on the outside of the former fortifications (nearly adjacent to it and essentially marks the boundary between the City of Paris and the suburbs) and that the Périphérique is the reason for the difficulties in going from the City of Paris to the suburbs; not the former fortifications and roads that are within that zone.

• L312, typo “These”

• Consider combining Figures 14 and 15 into one figure as you have a lot of figures and I think it would help comprehension and legibility.

• L384-385 “a 14-kilometer noise barrier” around what?

• L386, what area exactly is “the Crown”?

• L414, add “as well as” between “continuity. Increase”

• L420, maybe specify that the V stands for Vélo (or Bicycle) and not the roman numeral five.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: N/A

Reviewer #6: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript presents an important contribution to the field of urban studies and offers valuable insights into the historical and contemporary significance of fortification sites. The suggestions are as follows:

The term "stratification process" is an important concept but has not been clearly defined in the manuscript. It is recommend to providing a concise explanation of what this entails in the context of fortifications and urban landscapes.

The current literature review could be expanded to better situate your findings in the broader academic discourse. Discussing previous studies on urban fortifications and their transformations will demonstrate the novelty of your research and highlight existing gaps that your work addresses.

Methodology: How were the data collected? What criteria were used for the selection of case studies? It is recommend to including this information to improve the reliability of the research.

Consider exploring how specific socio-political and historical contexts in each city shaped the unique outcomes of their fortification sites. These differences could provide deeper insights into the stratification processes you describe. In the discussion part, the authors could discuss more about how can the lessons from these three cities be applied to similar projects in other cities?

Reviewer #2: The manuscript provides a comprehensive perspective to understand the similarities and differences of different cities in dealing with historical fortification sites by comparing three cities under different cultural and political backgrounds, and provides meaningful experience for the protection and development of fortification sites in other cities. However, the manuscript still needs to be improved in the following aspects:

1.The reason for dividing into three stages is not clearly explained. Why are these three periods? Judging from Figure 14, the time spans of these three fortifications are very different. Moscow's fortifications span 200 years, while Beijing's only has 50 years. Their phases are the same. What is the reason behind this?

2.The manuscript, while providing a comprehensive perspective, lacks a crucial element-a three-dimensional analysis of the fortifications of the three cities. The urban landscape, with its planar and three-dimensional changes, is a key aspect of understanding urban history. It is recommended to add an analysis of the three-dimensional aspect through photos or 3D models as this will significantly enhance the readers' understanding of the subject.

3.The discussion of strategies in each period is relatively general. To truly understand the differences in strategies among the three cities, it is essential to have specific strategy analysis diagrams. These could include analyzing the changes in city walls, roads, greenery, and pedestrian spaces from a sectional perspective. Figure 15, while informative, is also quite general and does not clearly depict the differences in strategies. Therefore, the addition of specific strategy analysis diagrams is recommended to enhance the readers' understanding.

4.Minor error: On line 491, "Comparative Analysis of the Three Cities in Phase Two", it should be Phase Three.

Reviewer #3: Many typographical errors throughout the entire document. Odd spacing, parts of words, and inconsistent capitalizations.

Although the research is solid, the main premise of the research, beautiful city, is not clearly laid out. No background, examples, or definitions are provided, only general terms about harmonious development. It is unclear if this is a strategic design agenda (a Beautiful City initiative) or just a category developed by the authors (generally designing beautiful cities). This needs to be corrected for the findings and conclusions to be accurately assessed. Currently, there is no clear description of the “beautiful city” development practices.

Additionally, tourism is described as “green, low-carbon, and environmentally friendly nature of tourism” in the last paragraph of page six. This is a broad assumption with no supporting data. Furthermore, one of the ways tourism and urban development is later assessed is the increase in car ownership. This creates a paradox - - how can tourism be “green” but it’s success be measured on the increase in car-ownership?

Lastly, the overall purpose of the research is unclear. What is the intention of this coupling model? There is no clear need or application offered.

Reviewer #4: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the perspective of HUL, this paper discusses the evolution of original sites of fortifications in three cities. The paper is well written and has novel ideas, but there are some areas where the clarity and accuracy of scientific reporting could be improved:

Abstract and Introduction: An explanation of the results can be appropriately included in the summary, so that readers can get the relevant information more quickly. The introduction may appropriately set the background of the fortifications, but additional explanations of key theories and frameworks can enhance the reader's understanding, especially for interdisciplinary readers unfamiliar with the subject.

Text description: The overall structure of the article can be more clear. For example, in the case analysis of each city, a unified analytical framework can be adopted, such as following the sequence of "historical evolution of the fortress - demolition and planning - construction process and problems - reflection and renewal strategies", so that readers can compare the similarities and differences between different cities more easily.

Methodology: This paper studies the historical landscape of the city from HUL's novel perspective, but it does not clearly point out how the method is realized. At the same time, the frequency of HUL mentioned in the whole paper is low.

Results Presentation: The overall structure of the article is rigorous, but suggestions for city builders can be added in the conclusion part by summarizing these three case cities.

Discussion and Conclusion: When discussing the similarities and differences of the evolution of the three urban fortress sites, the depth of analysis can be further deepened. For example, in the common part, in addition to pointing out similar stages and planning methods, we can also explore the deep-rooted reasons behind these commonalities, such as the macro trend of global urbanization process, and the general influence mechanism of similar urban development needs (such as traffic improvement, population accommodation, etc.) on the evolution of fortress sites.

Scientific Language: Overall, the language is formal and suitable for a scientific audience. But some parts of the paper, particularly in the literature review and conclusion, could be more concise.

Limitations: The study identified some key limitations, such as not having enough long-term, continuous data, which is important for scientific transparency. Expanding the generality of how these limitations affect the findings will strengthen the paper.

Reviewer #5: Dear authors,

Thank you very much for the opportunity to read your paper. From a general perspective your topic is a real interest one, even the research is mostly at a descriptive level. So, to increase the consistency of your paper I recommend to include some statistics about the profile of these alpha cities (population, PIB, density etc), preferably with a global perspective (the rank of each city by various criteria into a global score).

Also, please review carefully your text, I suppose that at 491 it is actually Phase Three and not again Two (as it is at 318).

Reviewer #6: The article examines the transformation of historic fortifications in Paris, Beijing, and Moscow over time. While initial plans included green and walkable spaces, actual deconstruction (of fortified area) and their redevelopment often sacrificed those plans to provide for automobiles. This led to typical urban ills including increasing pollution, decreasing connectivity and so forth. However, all three of these cities are now in the process of rethinking their approaches to these historic sites.

Overall, this article is an engaging read and presents an interesting comparison of three phased processes in three major cities of the world. The analysis of the parallels between the cities is fascinating but I was left wondering how they diverged. I think more engagement with that as well as the broader planning history literature is needed. Also, the crux of the analysis focuses on one smallish area per city, yet no mention is given to how that particular area within each city was chosen (apologies if I missed it) nor is evidence provided as to how representative each particular area is to the changes occurring along the rest of the fortification areas in the cities.

Major comments:

• Lines 1-57 seem to be lacking references. Same for lines 87-94. Same for lines 190-204. More engagement with the existing literature is needed throughout.

• I think it would be useful to further the discussion of the economic, military and political reasons for dismantling the fortifications. This could perhaps be in the form of a table with the three sites as columns, and econ, military, and political reasons as rows with bullet points for each row/sites.

• In Figures 9 and 12, I think it would be helpful to label the streets (especially Blvd des Marechaux and the Périphérique). Similarly, any street or building mentioned in the text, should ideally be labeled on the respective figures to aid in orienting the reader who might not be familiar with the layout of all three of these cities especially on such a fine scale.

• I think the paper would benefit from having a series of pictures of the modern day setting of the three areas of focus (from Google Street View perhaps). It would help situate statements such as this one “Galaxy SOHO and the Petroleum Building, are enormous, not only creating a significant sense of oppression for pedestrians but also severely clashing with the surrounding urban image”

• It is difficult to compare the figures to each other and see the evolution of the different land uses over time. Is there a way to combine these figures so that they are more easily comparable? Also, since these look like GIS files, could you calculate the area devoted to each land use for each city and graph it over time (as a new figure)? Ideally, this would be both for the three smallish areas you focus on and the entire fortified ring area.

• To synthesize your research, maybe you should talk about the process of place making around the fortifications that has taken a long time but that seems to be coming to fruition (finally – after a few setbacks), but how under the guide of the HUL the fortified areas have evolved into pedestrian/bike networks but also important from recreation, environmental sustainability issue as well as cultural stand points (although I’m not sure that was the case in all three cities- perhaps something to discuss in more detail).

• Bringing the discussion back to the HUL is needed in the conclusions.

• I don’t think you should have an abbreviation in the title.

Minor comments:

• Lines 95-104 instead of “this study conduct”, “It analyzes” and other instances, consider saying “we conducted”, “we analyzed”.

• Fig 1. Consider increasing the font on the legend (and a little on the scale bar). Also, I think it would be great to have an inset map that shows a close up (and extent rectangle) of where the sites you focus on in subsequent figures are located relative to the cities themselves, i.e. where is Porte de Vanve in Paris, etc.

• L104, the mention of Figure 1 here seems misplaced. Maybe add it early on when you justify the focus on those three cities?

• Throughout, the periods should come after the parenthetical references, for example, “(10).”

• Figures 4 and 5, since green spaces are the light green, and you are showing trees as the small darker green stars (I’m assuming although that needs to be added to the legend), it’s a bit confusing to have light green with dark green dots as No-building zones (unless you mean parks, or vegetated walkable spaces but then please clarify)?

• When you first mention Hua Nangui and Liang Sicheng, please state who they are (pardon my ignorance).

• Table 1, “construction time” is the start of the construction? Because it took more than a year (at least for Paris), no?

• L223 (but check for other instances for ex L231) the “the” is missing before “Garden ring”

• Also, L226, the verb is missing for “new bridges over the Moscow River” (probably “were built”)

• Lastly, I think that the Moscow River is actually (even in English) referred to as the Moskva River. Similarly, Boulevards of Marshals is called the Boulevard des Maréchaux. I would be inclined to suggest it might be best not to translate all these place names.

• L227, do you mean “in and around the garden rings”?

• L235 “Owing to the Garden Ring’s excessive number of lanes, some sections have up to eight lanes, encroaching on the city’s public space” this sentence needs to be rephrased.

• Somewhere around L260 I think it would be beneficial to mention that the Périphérique is just on the outside of the former fortifications (nearly adjacent to it and essentially marks the boundary between the City of Paris and the suburbs) and that the Périphérique is the reason for the difficulties in going from the City of Paris to the suburbs; not the former fortifications and roads that are within that zone.

• L312, typo “These”

• Consider combining Figures 14 and 15 into one figure as you have a lot of figures and I think it would help comprehension and legibility.

• L384-385 “a 14-kilometer noise barrier” around what?

• L386, what area exactly is “the Crown”?

• L414, add “as well as” between “continuity. Increase”

• L420, maybe specify that the V stands for Vélo (or Bicycle) and not the roman numeral five.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes:  Bogdan NADOLU

Reviewer #6: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

A study on the evolution of original sites of fortifications from the perspective of Historic Urban Landscape: Cases of Paris, Beijing, and Moscow

PONE-D-24-28746R1

Dear Dr. Mo Xu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Samuel Kofi Tchum, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: