Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper tackles an important topic - how to ensure that heritage status does not lead to tourism that promotes consumerism and destroys the nature of the communities that led, in the first place, to the recognition of cultural value. It approaches this topic in the context of the MENA region where the problem has already been observed.

The paper has clear aims (section 2) and the structure follows those aims. The heading numbers are repeated (two heading 5's). Other structural concerns are that the paragraph starting on line 477 seems out of place, coming after the discussion of resident satisfaction. It might be better before that discussion, after the timeline for the heritage status is presented. The paper needs a conclusion.

The methodology includes a survey which is described in section 3. The rationale for the approach to the survey sample is not explained. It seems to be based on convenience (WhatsApp and "the researcher contact list"). It would be useful to know how representative this sample is. For example, the age breakdown could be compared to the age profile of city residents. Also the focus on NGOs might lead to a biased sample and some discussion of this is necessary.

I have two other problems with the survey.

First the results are not accurately reported. In section 4, line 430, the number of dissatisfied residents is inflated by counting the 20 residents who were "neither satisfied nor dissatisfied" in the total of dissatisfied residents. In fact 56% were satisfied and only 24% were dissatisfied. The author is reporting the results in such a manner as to emphasise and exaggerate the dissatisfied and for this reason I raised an ethical concern above. To be clear, I think that having 24% (almost a quarter) of the residents dissatisfied is still problematic and does not detract from the paper's main arguement. Reporting the results accurately, without exaggeration will strengthen, not weaken the arguement. 

Second, the author states that the recommendations that are presented were derived from the survey (line 277) but when the recommendations are presented, they are not shown to derive from this data. The paper would be more rigorous if it were possible to show how the survey results led to these recommendations. For example, quote the recommendation made and how many people in the survey made each recommendation. 

There are a few points where the authors need to elaborate for clarity. (1) The paragraph describing the fate of El-Gamaleya market (lines 559-566) is confusing. The market is no longer used and yet there is physical deterioration. Is this in the surrounding areas or the market itself? (2) Line 584-585 raises the question as to whether geographical proximity is the only determinant of foreign funding. (3) What is meant by a "prime static value" (line 629)?

As far as the overall arguement goes, the authors have a case for the neglect of the connection between tangible and intangible dimensions of heritage being a source of dissatisfaction and negative outcomes (line 630-632). I think that this arguement needs to be made more explicit and strengthened with data from the survey and examples from other cities. Explain in more detail what tangible and intangible dimensions are when you introduce them in the paper (line 113). Give clear examples of how the developments in other cities and the responses of the residents of As-Salt show the connection between tangible and intangible heritage. Explain how the developments aimed at tourists neglect or interfere with this connection. This arguement appears to be the core of the paper and, if well supported, would improve the academic contribution of the paper. 

I find the relationship between the research and the SDGs a bit confused. I suppose that the authors see the SDGs as a framing mechanism for their recommendations, but I am not sure how helpful that is. The paper could be read as a (valid) criticism of the SDGs for lacking sufficient focus on heritage and the integration of heritage with sustainability, however the paper does not engage with the extensive literature critiquing the SDGs (and probably should not - that could be another paper). Despite the criticism, the authors accept the SDGs (aim 4) as something that As-Salt should aim to meet and they structure their recommendations in terms of the SDGs, revealing some ambivalence. This leaves me confused as to where the authors stand on the SDGs.

The term resilience is introduced in the discussion (lines 702 and 733)  and related to values and intangible heritage, but these are the only two mentions of resilience. If this concept is to be regarded as a serious contribution of the paper, then it needs to be introduced earlier, as part of the discussion of the connection between tangible and intangible dimensions of heritage, or omitted.

The paper would benefit from a separate conclusion that strongly makes the overall arguement. As it stands, the discussion trails off without a conclusion.

The paper makes use of a lot of acronyms and they are not always introduced with the full description. I would recommend using fewer acronyms to make the paper more accessible or providing a table of acronyms for reference.

The paper makes good use of the English language except for inappropriate pronouns, prepositions and occasional slips in verb forms. I have pointed out some of these in the annotated document, but the paper needs to be thoroughly edited.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Please find attached the reply for the review report

Please do check the amendments in the updated version of the paper 

Best Regards,

Bayan El Faouri & Magda Sibley

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is interesting from the point of view of regeneration of urban historical space and protection of heritage sites.

The authors contributed a new approach to the research which is based on analysis of a way of regeneration of different world heritage cities in the MENA region.

The study has good potential but the manuscript needs some structural corrections.

I have some comments regarding the redrafting of the manuscript:

1. The manuscript requires improvement, taking into account the adoption of the sections titles provided in the journal guidelines. Authors should adopt guidelines that are clearly presented taking into account the contents of the manuscript provided. This version of the manuscript is hard to read.
2. The manuscript is too long. I suggest that the authors shorten the introduction which is too long in this version of the manuscript. In the introduction, leave an explanation of the topic in a condensed form and define the basic assumptions of the research.
3. The introduction lacks information about the global significance of the presented research results. I mean, how the international audience could benefit from the solutions presented by you.
4. Research methodology and methods should be clearly presented. In this version it is unclear what were the stages of the research and the methods adopted. First of all, the interview research, the research procedure presented is unclear. The number of respondents also does not allow for reliable results. There is a lack of statistical research.
5. The authors based on comparisons and examples. I suggest to present a scheme of proceeding with the selection of comparative material in a simple scheme in the methodology section.
6. The discussion definitely lacks a comparison to other studies in this topic and indications of references.

Additionaly:

All maps with the location of the analyzed areas are unreadable from the point of view of a global reader.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Please find attached the reply for the review report

Please do check the amendments in the updated version of the paper 

Best Regards,

Bayan El Faouri & Magda Sibley

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have enjoyed this opportunity to review this manuscript as it suggest guidelines for urban regeneration according to international Agendas and Conventions in Mediterranean context. 

The manuscript as it is, I believe needs some improvements before being considered for publication. I hope that my suggestions below provide some guidance for the authors as they revise this manuscript.

The introduction is very long and doesn't seem to have a clear purpose in the manuscript. I would suggest that this section really needs to be summarised/shortened with clear connections made to the overall aim of the manuscript. I also found that the language structure/use in this section make it quite difficult to understand what you are trying to convey to your readers; for example there are too many citation. It is highly descriptive, but to me, lack any connection to the aim of the manuscript.

As I read the introduction I was left wondering what is the aim of this manuscript? What research questions are the authors trying to address? It wasn't until I reached the page 5 that I found the aims. This aim provided some insight into what the authors are trying to achieve, however, I found it to be extremely broad, unfocused and used rather confusing wording. 

As for the method section, I think this article mixes up too many issues that are not clearly related to each other. For example, third objective I think is completely off topic considering that the manuscript deals with a case study. If the urban regeneration practices of other cities are of any use, they can be summarily mentioned in the introduction. Conversely, if this article is intended to deal with case studies, then objectives 1 and 2 are off topic.

I would suggest to reduce the introduction and articulate the aim, along with the research questions at the end of the introduction so that the readers have a clear idea of what you are trying to achieve early on.

The title of section 4 is not complete and not clear, please amend. I would suggest to describe the case study in material and methods or in a separate section but not together with some kind of results, as it is now. From line 412 the results are reported so section 4 is not the correct one in which to talk about the questionnaires.

The results of the four objectives, introduced in methods, are partly distributed in section 4 and partly in section 5 but in an unclear way. The results must all be in the same section. I would ask the authors to reorganize the sections and paragraphs more clearly, removing all descriptive parts and being more succinct. Perhaps organizing the results into subsections can be more useful. 

Finally, I found the discussions very interesting and relevant.

Overall, the article deals with a very relevant and interesting topic but it is not very coherent and the contents of the different sections are disorganized. For this reason a major reorganization is suggested in order to consider the manuscript for publication.

There are some problems in the citations, I recommend to correct by carefully reading the editorial rules.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Please find attached the reply for the review report

Please do check the amendments in the updated version of the paper 

Best Regards,

Bayan El Faouri & Magda Sibley

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Well done on significant improvements to the paper. It is now more coherent and focused and the central argument is clear.

I think the table of recommendations (Table 2) needs some discussion of how the priorities were arrived at. It might be better to just categorise them as recommendations for the short-term, medium-term, long-term or some combination of these. I would think it is up to the municipality, in consultation with the residents to decide which are higher or lower priorities.

I also think it would be worth mentioning in the conclusion that further research is needed into what actions best support the retention of intangible heritage within WHSs and what benefits (other than jobs from tourism) accrue to the local populations in WHSs.

Otherwise, I am happy with the revised paper. There are very minor grammatical errors noted in the attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the very useful comments and feedback, Please find enclosed our respond to your report

Best

Bayan & Magda

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors corrected the text and improved the structure of the manuscript. The revised version of the manuscript may be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the very useful comments and feedback, please find enclosed our respond to your reporst

Best

Bayan & Magda

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I want to thank the authors for the changes made but the article, as it is, is not sufficient to receive a positive evaluation for publication.

The way it was presented in the revised version is difficult to read. But apart from this, there are formal and coherence problems, as I had already highlighted in the previous review. It looks like a report rather than a scientific article.

In line 325-326 is written that the qualitative analysis has been made by the author during his/her PhD but the paper has more than one author. I suggest to use a more generic sentence. In a scientific paper it is not relevant this information, the important issue is to say that the authors conducted the analysis. This is not a working report. Furthermore it is not clear in materials and methods how this questionnair was structured. 

The section 3 is very long and broad, please summarize and report only the important information for the purpose of the manuscript. Select only the relevant pictures for a scientific paper. 

Are the sections 4 and 5 the results? Why they are not in the result section? These sections are very broad and not consistent to each other and to the overall aim of the paper. 

The section 6 Result seems something in between results and discussion. 

The overall result of this article is confusing and the structure is not consistent. 

I advise authors to focus on what is really needed for the purpose of the article, eliminating the excessively repetitive, descriptive parts. It is not clear the use of all these images in a scientific article that wants to define guidelines and / or policy indications for urban regeneration. It is necessary to make some summaries, perhaps tables can help in explaining the results of sections 4 and 5.

Furthermore, all results must be entered in the "results" section. It is not clear the function of these intermediate sections between "materials and methods" and "results"

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the very useful comments and feedback, please find enclosed our respond to your reporst

Best

Bayan & Magda

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

I have read very carefully the revised version of the manuscript and the letter from the authors and I want to thank them for some small changes made, the repetitions have been eliminated. However, I understand that my comments and suggestions on the structure of the article were not accepted by the authors. In none of the previous reviews have I questioned the originality of the article or data, my comment is about how the research work is presented which looks like a very long reporting document.
At the moment I still believe that the intermediate paragraphs between materials / methods and results make the structure of the article unclear. So I accept the manuscript although I am still perplexed on this issue. It will be the editors who ultimately verify the structure of the article