Assessment of Saudi Arabia’s Classification and Selection Criteria for Heritage Sites: A Case Study of Barzan Heritage Area in Hail City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of the Manuscript “Assessment of Saudi Arabia’s Classification and Selection Criteria for Heritage Sites: A Case Study of Barzan Heritage Area in Ha’il City”

The relevance of the study, which examines the shortcomings of the existing criteria for protection of cultural heritage (in this case, architectural heritage of Saudi Arabia), is beyond doubt. Having a clear structure, the article is divided into two main parts. The first one is devoted to the current cultural heritage value in Saudi Arabia. The second one considers the specific situation regarding Barzan district area in Ha’il City Centre. Reading the article is easy and quite fascinating.

At the same time, there are several aspects that I would like to clarify.

1. Page 3. Lines 111–113. As the authors state, they made a SWOT analysis, according to which internal strengths and weaknesses and external opportunities and threats should be identified. However, the article focuses precisely on the weaknesses and threats (not strengths and opportunities!) of Saudi Arabia’s classification and selection criteria for heritage sites. Perhaps the authors could supplement the research by indicating some positive features of the mentioned criteria.  

2. Page 5. Lines 180–184. It is written that “the villages/districts criteria present seven standards as following: age, historical importance, rarity, status (demolition), style, architectural design and details, and the possibility of investment”. The next sentence states that “the buildings criteria show ten standards, which include the previous standards and an extra three; building function, architectural design and the architectural details and inscriptions”. It seems that the criterion “architectural design and details” is repeated twice, that is, it is already included in the previous seven criteria and is not included in the additional three criteria. In other words, the total number of the listed building criteria is nine (not ten, as stated). Perhaps an occasional error crept in here.

3. Page 22. Lines 761–762. I wonder why do the Conclusions end with the sentence “On the other hand, there is more implementation approaches that can be effectively applied as explained in the next chapter”, as if the article had a continuation after these words. Perhaps a copy-paste error crept in here.

In addition, there are also some misprints like “statues” instead of “status” (page 6, line 259, line 265). As I understand, this is about a state or a condition, but not about large art objects representing a person or an animal.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The methodology and the results of the research are clearly presented. The manuscript is very well structured and contributes to literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It is easy to follow your reasoning and critical comments on the criteria for classification and selection of cultural heritage. Especially important to compare tangible and intangible cultural heritage. Both of them are important when selecting new cultural heritage objects.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

While your overall argument about the way in which heritage places in Saudi Arabia are assessed is solid, it needs developing in a number of areas. First, there is far more written and published about valuing heritage places than you cite (it has been a major topic over decades) and a review of this would (a) strengthen your ability to talk about values and (b) provide you with stronger support for your argument. Second, you confuse instrumental values -- including tourist use etc. -- with the inherent value of heritage to communities: heritage is not just a tourist etc. resource but an integral component of group identity and this too is a measure of its value. Third, you concentrate on a system of numerical values while dismissing the more 'subjective' value assessments ('importance' etc.) more commonly applied in valuing heritage across the globe: these however are the province of expert judgement which is more reliable than the application of some abstract and arbitrary numerical scheme. Fourth, in your case study, the relevance and indeed meaning and significance of your figures is not at all clear: I was completely foxed by your graphs and your images were described in too little detail to explain what exactly I was looking at and why it mattered. These issues need to be revisited in order that your argument can be fully appreciated by a reader not well versed in Saudi heritage management systems. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is much improved for which thanks. Problems however remain with the reduction of the category of heritage to purely architectural features and heritage as a tourist resource. A fuller review of heritage literature would have indicated this: some reference to Smith's work on the 'authorised heritage discourse' from her Uses of Heritage [2006] and others who take a more critical approach -- Carman, Harrison, etc. would have helped here. It would also serve to emphasise the narrowness of perspective of the Saudi assessment system, which lies at the heart of the argument here. 

Having said this, we see little on heritage from the part of the globe represented by this article and since it does provide material of interest to the wider heritage scholarly community I am happy that it should be published as it stands.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf