A Research to Determine the Perception of the Tangible Cultural Architectural Heritage of Erzurum Castle and Its Surroundings in Turkey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject is up-to-date and in the submitted article for review, the authors tackled the perception of heritage.

Overall, the manuscript needs more organization. Several comments / questions are listed below.

- After the Introduction, the authors should state very clearly the main purpose and objectives of the study

- Literature review- in this section more titles must be added on the heritage studies conducted until now.

- The title Materials and methods appears twice; please replace the second title with Study area etc. or remove the first one.

- Lines 95-127 must be totally reformulated or deleted.

- Provide more information about the study area: geographical location and a brief description of tourism.

- The maps and pictures in fig. 1 and fig. 2 must have a better resolution, you can notice the pixels on the pictures. Please provide the source of the maps or the software you used for creating them.

- The sample size is rather small if we take into consideration the number of population of the province.

- Lines 190-203. Please differentiate the 2 questionnaires by adding more details: who were the respondents  in the first questionnaire and in the second questionnaire, it is not very clearly stated.

-Table 1- primary education meaning that children answered these complex questions about heritage?

- The hypotheses from the beginning should be better correlated with the processing of the data using the statistical software.

- Discussions should be separated by the conclusions. The authors should elaborate more specific ideas of the applied questionnaires and a short general conclusion on how the research objectives were achieved.

- Conclusions must be a separate section of the study, without too many citations. The authors must specify more directly the results of the method and more details on further research and limitations of this study. Also, they must specify to whom this study addresses (to which group of experts/stakeholders), What gap from the literature does the study cover? Can the results found and the used method be extrapolated at the country, or regional level of a territory?

Author Response

Manuscript Title: “Improving the Perception Towards the Protection of Tangible Architectural Heritage Monuments; The Case of Erzurum From Turkey

” Journal: Sustainability”

 Thank you very much for giving us a chance to resubmit the manuscript. We would like to express our gratitude towards the editor and the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions that helped improving the manuscript. We carefully considered and addressed all the comments from the editors and reviewers, point by point. The following paragraphs include a point – to – point response to reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We hope that the revised manuscript will satisfy the reviewers and editors. We appreciate your consideration of this manuscript for publication in your esteemed journal.

Best regards,

Nov. 2023

Dear reviewer

This document explains the changes made in the revised manuscript while dealing with the comments raised by the reviewers. The changes in the revised manuscript are marked inRed or using tracked change.

Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript

Response to Reviewer

1 Comments

Point 1:  After the Introduction, the authors should state very clearly the main purpose and objectives of the study

Response:Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. The main purpose and objectives of the study were added at the end of the introduction.

“This study was conducted with the aim of evaluating conservation and urban renewal projects carried out in the province of Erzurum using a participatory planning approach. Indeed, the study area hosts significant architectural landmarks dating back to the Anatolian Seljuk and Ilkhanid periods up to the present day. In this context, this research is important for preserving and passing on the urban architectural heritage to future generations, contributing to the city's identity, understanding the history and origins of the community, and highlighting the artistic, cultural, and aesthetic values that enrich the environment. Simultaneously, planning and implementing conservation and urban renewal efforts in a participatory manner are also important from economic, social, and cultural perspectives.

This study aims to assess the suitability of restoration and landscape renewal efforts in collaboration with local participants and experts, with the goal of providing alternatives and recommendations for urban renewal practices in the region based on the research findings. Additionally, another objective of the study is to enhance the community's awareness of architectural heritage in Erzurum, with a focus on sustaining historical buildings and their surroundings with an original design and preserving them for future generations in a sustainable manner.”

Point 2:  Literature review- in this section more titles must be added on the heritage studies conducted until now.

Response:Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. Added more information about Inheritance

“In the context of cultural heritage and its components, which are the objects of preservation, societies have developed different approaches throughout history to protect the values they have produced until they reached the current level of awareness. In this regard, expertise has emerged, relevant criteria have been established, legal regulations have been made, and new organizations have been established (Tuncer & Madran, 2012). In this historical process, the first concept used to represent cultural heritage was the term "monument." The content of the monument concept evolved over time. While it was associated with archaeology until the end of the 17th century, in subsequent periods, it became related to memory, collective memory, and aesthetics (Omay Polat & Can, 2008). In this historical evolutionary process, the concept and practices of preservation, as understood today, began to develop in the 19th century (Aydeniz, 2009).

Although historical and cultural heritage is local, it is also national and universal since it represents the common values of humanity. One of the most crucial conditions for the identity-based development of cities is the preservation of historical texture and structures. Therefore, ensuring this preservation is among the primary and inevitable obligations of the authorities responsible for urban planning and development (Ekinci, 2007).

According to the World Heritage Convention adopted by the UNESCO General Conference in 1972, cultural heritage includes areas, groups of structures, and site areas that possess historical, aesthetic, archaeological, scientific, ethnological, and anthropological value. Cultural heritage, in its essence, does not merely refer to a historic building but also includes the values of individuals, cultural accumulations, traditions, customs, ways of life, and the works created from these accumulations. The Amsterdam Declaration was issued to promote cooperation and exchange in the cultural field, as foreseen by the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in July 1975. Some of the fundamental ideas of the conference were: - Europe's architectural heritage, a priceless cultural value, instills awareness of common history and future in its peoples. Therefore, its preservation is crucial. - Architectural heritage includes not only individually superior structures but also all urban and rural areas with historical and cultural significance. (Anonim 2023b).

The need to preserve cultural assets arises from different forms and is derived from the values classified as intrinsic, socio-cultural, symbolic, economic, and external values in the 21st century (Demas, 2002; Levent, 2011). Protecting and preserving cultural assets that require protection due to their values is a common responsibility of humanity (Tuncer & Madran, 2012). The fulfillment of this responsibility by society necessitates the existence of a culture of preservation, which is a fundamental concept that concerns all cultural values. In societies where a culture of preservation has formed and spread, individuals from various segments of society participate in preservation processes by assuming responsibility, approaching them consciously, and prioritizing public interest over personal gain. Therefore, in addition to international and national regulations, it is necessary to create and develop a widespread culture of preservation throughout society for the preservation of our cultural heritage. Recognizing, adopting, integrating into life, and knowing that we are obliged to transmit these values to future generations require having a culture of preservation (Madran, 2007; Pickard, 2002; Borri & Corradi, 2019).”

Point 3:  The title Materials and methods appears twice; please replace the second title with Study area etc. or remove the first one.

Response: Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. Materials and methods title removed.

Point 4:  Lines 95-127 must be totally reformulated or deleted.

Response: Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. Lines 95-127 deleted.

Point 5: Provide more information about the study area: geographical location and a brief description of tourism. 

Response: Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. The location map has been renewed.

Point 6: The maps and pictures in fig. 1 and fig. 2 must have a better resolution, you can notice the pixels on the pictures. Please provide the source of the maps or the software you used for creating them.

Response: Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. It was stated that the location map was prepared using Photoshop 22.2 and Microsoft PowerPoint programmers. In addition, original and high-resolution pictures of the study area were included.

Figure 1. Location of the study area

                             (a)                                                                        (b)

                 (c)                                                                                      (d)

                                                                                                                    (e)

                     Figure 2. Views of the architectural structures in the study area and its immediate Surroundings

(a) Three Kumbets (b) Yakutiye madrasah (c) Double Minaret Madrasah (d,e) Erzurum castle and its surroundings (original).

Point 7: The sample size is rather small if we take into consideration the number of population of the province.

Response: Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. The city, which is the fourth largest province of Turkey, has 20 different districts and has a surface area of 25,005 km². The number of people living in the city centre is 348,156 according to 2022 data (Anonymous, 2023 c; Anonymous 2023d). In order to increase the reliability of the survey results in determining the population size in the study, the number of interviewers was determined as 758 279 people based on the city population instead of the city centre population information. In determining the sample size, the following formula used by Kalıpsız (1981), Özdamar (2003) and Saunders et al. (2009) was utilised. The number of subjects was found to be 384 and the survey was conducted with 400 people by considering the margin of error.

Point 8: - Lines 190-203. Please differentiate the 2 questionnaires by adding more details: who were the respondents  in the first questionnaire and in the second questionnaire, it is not very clearly stated.

Response: Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. The expert and local group was explained in detail.The expert group that the survey was conducted consists of people from various boards and commissions affiliated to the local administration and local administration in local governments, development agencies, higher education institutions and the private sector who are members of professional disciplines such as landscape architecture, architecture, interior architecture, urban and regional planning, history and art history. In the formation of the expert group, it was taken into consideration that they have knowledge about the field and have the competencies to make evaluations. The local community group was sampled according to the population of Erzurum city center, where the study will be conducted, and includes a group of people who currently reside in the city and have been to the area before (sightseeing, visiting and/or residing).

Point 9. Table 1- primary education meaning that children answered these complex questions about heritage?

Response: Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. Primary education meaning adults whose level of education is at primary (basic) level.

Point 10. The hypotheses from the beginning should be better correlated with the processing of the data using the statistical software.

Response: Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. The study hypotheses were updated.

Hypotheses of the study

Conservation and urban renewal works carried out in the historic environment;

1. a) Protection/Sensitivity perception
2. b) Perception of taste/visuality
3. c) Sustainability perceptin

1- H0 Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the opinions of the local people and the expert group in terms of Conservation Sensitivity, visuality and sustainability perception.

2- Hypothesis H1: There is a significant difference between the opinions of the local people and the expert group in terms of conservation sensitivity, visuality and sustainability perception.

Point 11. Discussions should be separated by the conclusions. The authors should elaborate more specific ideas of the applied questionnaires and a short general conclusion on how the research objectives were achieved. Conclusions must be a separate section of the study, without too many citations. The authors must specify more directly the results of the method and more details on further research and limitations of this study.

Response: Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. The mentioned corrections have been made and the conclusion has been detailed under a separate heading.

Conclusion

This study focuses on the protection, perception and perception of sustainability of historical environment and monuments in Erzurum. According to the findings, which are divided into categories and obtained from the perspectives of the expert group and local people, the city is generally not sensitive to the preservation of historical neighbourhoods and monuments, and urban transformation projects do not contribute to this preservation. In terms of visual perception, the newly developing regions did not offer housing projects in harmony with the historical environment, and the efforts made in this direction were insufficient.  Furthermore, Erzurum Castle plays a central role in the perception of the historic environment. In terms of sustainability, architectural restoration and landscape works have positive effects on cultural tourism, urban attractiveness, sense of belonging, quality of life and migration prevention. This study provides important findings that support the conservation of Erzurum's historic environment and building a sustainable future. It also emphasizes the necessity of an interdisciplinary approach to the conservation of historical environment and monuments. The results obtained from the study will form a basis for the studies to be carried out in the development process of the city, which has a very rich potential in terms of historical and cultural assets. In particular, it is thought that this research will provide important contributions to the issues to be considered in terms of visuality, sustainability and conservation perception in both restoration, construction and outdoor arrangements.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

A brief summary 

The paper aims to evaluate conservation and renewal efforts in the Erzurum province by considering both experts' and non-experts' opinions. However, several improvements are necessary.

a)     The title needs to be more specific and directly related to the paper's content.

b)     The abstract should include a concise summary of the paper's key findings.

c)      In the introduction, it is crucial to incorporate original references, particularly from UNESCO publications on the history of cultural heritage development, authenticity, integrity, and management of historic sites. Additionally, the introduction should clearly state the paper's objective.

d)     The paper mentioned the "Material and Method" section two times (instructions for authors not being removed). The maps provided for the study area are inaccurate; a detailed and accurate map displaying the main monument's location is essential.

e)   Please avoid lengthy sentences and general statements, especially at the beginning of chapters.

f) A separate conclusion section is necessary. The conclusion should be concise and clearly outlined. Furthermore, a brief version of the conclusion should be included at the end of the abstract section.

Considering these necessary modifications, please revise the paper accordingly before resubmitting it for future review.

General concept comments

Review

Specific comments 

Please avoid lengthy sentences and general statements, especially at the beginning of chapters.

Author Response

Manuscript Title: “Improving the Perception Towards the Protection of Tangible Architectural Heritage Monuments; The Case of Erzurum From Turkey

” Journal: Sustainability”

 Thank you very much for giving us a chance to resubmit the manuscript. We would like to express our gratitude towards the editor and the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions that helped improving the manuscript. We carefully considered and addressed all the comments from the editors and reviewers, point by point. The following paragraphs include a point – to – point response to reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We hope that the revised manuscript will satisfy the reviewers and editors. We appreciate your consideration of this manuscript for publication in your esteemed journal.

Best regards,

Nov. 2023

Dear reviewer

This document explains the changes made in the revised manuscript while dealing with the comments raised by the reviewers. The changes in the revised manuscript are marked inRed or using tracked change.

Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript

Response to Reviewer

1 Comments

Point 1:  The title needs to be more specific and directly related to the paper's content.

Response:Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. The title has been changed to "A research to determine the perception of tangible cultural architectural heritage of Erzurum castle and its surroundings in Turkey".

Point 2:  The abstract should include a concise summary of the paper's key findings.

Response:Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. The main findings of the study are added to the abstract as " As a result of the study, it has been determined that the city is generally not sensitive enough about the protection of historical neighbourhoods and monuments and urban transformation projects do not contribute to conservation efforts in terms of conservation, sustainability and visual perception. In addition, in terms of visual perception, it has been revealed that the newly developing regions of the city do not offer housing projects compatible with the historical environment and that the studies carried out in this direction are insufficient. The study also revealed that Erzurum Castle plays a central role in the perception of the historical environment. In terms of sustainability perception, it was determined that architectural restoration and landscape works have positive effects on cultural tourism, urban attractiveness, sense of belonging, quality of life and prevention of migration. ".

Point 3:  In the introduction, it is crucial to incorporate original references, particularly from UNESCO publications on the history of cultural heritage development, authenticity, integrity, and management of historic sites. Additionally, the introduction should clearly state the paper's objective.

Response: Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. The indicated corrections have been made and the main source of information on UNESCO                                “https://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/" has been utilised. In addition, the purpose of the study was added to the end of the introduction as follows.

“This study was conducted with the aim of evaluating conservation and urban renewal projects carried out in the province of Erzurum using a participatory planning approach. Indeed, the study area hosts significant architectural landmarks dating back to the Anatolian Seljuk and Ilkhanid periods up to the present day. In this context, this research is important for preserving and passing on the urban architectural heritage to future generations, contributing to the city's identity, understanding the history and origins of the community, and highlighting the artistic, cultural, and aesthetic values that enrich the environment. Simultaneously, planning and implementing conservation and urban renewal efforts in a participatory manner are also important from economic, social, and cultural perspectives.

This study aims to assess the suitability of restoration and landscape renewal efforts in collaboration with local participants and experts, with the goal of providing alternatives and recommendations for urban renewal practices in the region based on the research findings. Additionally, another objective of the study is to enhance the community's awareness of architectural heritage in Erzurum, with a focus on sustaining historical buildings and their surroundings with an original design and preserving them for future generations in a sustainable manner.”

Point 4:  The paper mentioned the "Material and Method" section two times (instructions for authors not being removed). The maps provided for the study area are inaccurate; a detailed and accurate map displaying the main monument's location is essential.

Response: Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript The "Material and Method" section has been edited and the location map has been updated.

Point 5: Please avoid lengthy sentences and general statements, especially at the beginning of chapters.

Response: Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. As you have indicated, the sentences have been made shorter and clearer. For example “The development of the understanding of conservation for the protection of urban spaces and cultural assets that people and society instinctively want to protect has emerged in Europe.  Over time, this situation has spread to all geographies in the process, and the examination of cultural assets, transferring them to future generations and ensuring their sustainability have gained great importance.”

Point 6: A separate conclusion section is necessary. The conclusion should be concise and clearly outlined. Furthermore, a brief version of the conclusion should be included at the end of the abstract section.

Response: Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. The mentioned corrections have been made and the conclusion has been detailed under a separate heading.

Conclusion

This study focuses on the conservation, perception and sustainability of historical environment and monuments in Erzurum. According to the findings, which are divided into categories and obtained from the perspectives of the expert group and local people, the city is generally not sensitive enough to the protection of historical neighbourhoods and monuments, and urban transformation projects do not contribute effectively to this protection. In terms of visual perception, housing projects that are compatible with the historical environment have not been presented in the newly developing regions, and the studies carried out in this direction have been insufficient.  However, Erzurum Castle plays a central role in the perception of the historical environment. Moreover, in terms of sustainability, architectural restoration and landscape works have positive effects on cultural tourism, urban attractiveness, sense of belonging, quality of life and prevention of migration. This study provides important findings that support the preservation of Erzurum's historic environment and building a sustainable future. It also emphasises the necessity of an interdisciplinary approach in the conservation of historic environment and monuments. The results obtained from the study will form the basis for the studies to be carried out in the development process of the city, which has a very rich potential in terms of historical and cultural assets. In particular, it is thought that this research will provide important contributions to the issues to be considered in terms of visuality, sustainability and conservation perception in both restoration, construction and outdoor arrangements.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Review Report

Title: Involving the Perception Towards the Protection of Tangible Architectural Heritage Monument: The case of Erzurum, Turkey

The paper focuses on tangible architectural heritage in Erzurum. Its aim is to assess the perception of heritage conservation among citizens and experts. The paper rightly uses qualitative and quantitative methods to gather and analyse information. It mentions the need to protect these monuments for future generations rather than for mere financial gains such as tourism.

The paper lacks the scientific framing: it has not identified a research problem and states two hypothesis without any basis. The investigation on tangible heritage is not original nor its findings are innovative. The authors have not addressed most important topics such as heritage values appreciated by the citizens vs. experts, conservation principals in international charters vs. local regulations or guidelines, etc.

Authors do not discuss any credible conclusions as such and makes no contribution to the advancement of knowledge.

Methodology of the research can be considered as useful, but the authors have used so many of them to confuse the reader. The references are useful and show that the authors made a serious effort but to study what or to find what.  

Authors should have the paper proof-read and rewrite in a more academic manner.

In our opinion, this paper is not publishable as it is. Authors should be given another opportunity, however, to improve it and make it more scientific.

Please see details in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Manuscript Title: “Improving the Perception Towards the Protection of Tangible Architectural Heritage Monuments; The Case of Erzurum From Turkey

” Journal: Sustainability”

 Thank you very much for giving us a chance to resubmit the manuscript. We would like to express our gratitude towards the editor and the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions that helped improving the manuscript. We carefully considered and addressed all the comments from the editors and reviewers, point by point. The following paragraphs include a point – to – point response to reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We hope that the revised manuscript will satisfy the reviewers and editors. We appreciate your consideration of this manuscript for publication in your esteemed journal.

Best regards,

Nov. 2023

Dear reviewer

This document explains the changes made in the revised manuscript while dealing with the comments raised by the reviewers. The changes in the revised manuscript are marked inRed or using tracked change.

Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript

Response to Reviewer

1 Comments

Point 1:  The sentence you mentioned in the Abstarct section has been corrected.

Erzurum, located in the east of Turkey, is home to one of the important cultural heritages of Eastern Anatolia. Erzurum, which is located in the centre of the city and has buildings such as "Erzurum Castle", "Great Mosque", "Double Minaret Madrasa", "Yakutiye Madrasa" and "Three Kumbets" from the Anatolian Seljuk and Ilkhanid Periods, is very rich in terms of history and faith tourism.

Point 2. "In addition, the fact that these immovable cultural and tourism assets can be visited in all seasons of the year is also very important for tourism. " was removed from the abstract.

Point 3. The introductory sentence has been reorganised.

“The development of the understanding of conservation for the protection of urban spaces and cultural assets that people and society instinctively want to protect has emerged in Europe.  Over time, this situation has spread to all geographies in the process, and the examination of cultural assets, transferring them to future generations and ensuring their continuity have gained great importance.”

Point 4. Added new information about the importance of cultural heritage

“In the context of cultural heritage and its components, which are the objects of preservation, societies have developed different approaches throughout history to protect the values they have produced until they reached the current level of awareness. In this regard, expertise has emerged, relevant criteria have been established, legal regulations have been made, and new organizations have been established (Tuncer & Madran, 2012). In this historical process, the first concept used to represent cultural heritage was the term "monument." The content of the monument concept evolved over time. While it was asso-ciated with archaeology until the end of the 17th century, in subsequent periods, it became related to memory, collective memory, and aesthetics (Omay Polat & Can, 2008). In this historical evolutionary process, the concept and practices of preservation, as understood today, began to develop in the 19th century (Aydeniz, 2009).

Although historical and cultural heritage is local, it is also national and universal since it represents the common values of humanity. One of the most crucial conditions for the identity-based development of cities is the preservation of historical texture and struc-tures. Therefore, ensuring this preservation is among the primary and inevitable obliga-tions of the authorities responsible for urban planning and development (Ekinci, 2007).

According to the World Heritage Convention adopted by the UNESCO General Con-ference in 1972, cultural heritage includes areas, groups of structures, and site areas that possess historical, aesthetic, archaeological, scientific, ethnological, and anthropological value. Cultural heritage, in its essence, does not merely refer to a historic building but also includes the values of individuals, cultural accumulations, traditions, customs, ways of life, and the works created from these accumulations. The Amsterdam Declaration was issued to promote cooperation and exchange in the cultural field, as foreseen by the Hel-sinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in July 1975. Some of the fundamental ideas of the conference were: - Europe's architectural heritage, a priceless cultural value, instills awareness of common history and future in its peoples. Therefore, its preservation is crucial. - Architectural heritage includes not only individu-ally superior structures but also all urban and rural areas with historical and cultural sig-nificance. (Anonim 2023b).

The need to preserve cultural assets arises from different forms and is derived from the values classified as intrinsic, socio-cultural, symbolic, economic, and external values in the 21st century (Demas, 2002; Levent, 2011). Protecting and preserving cultural assets that require protection due to their values is a common responsibility of humanity (Tuncer & Madran, 2012). The fulfillment of this responsibility by society necessitates the existence of a culture of preservation, which is a fundamental concept that concerns all cultural values. In societies where a culture of preservation has formed and spread, individuals from various segments of society participate in preservation processes by assuming re-sponsibility, approaching them consciously, and prioritizing public interest over personal gain. Therefore, in addition to international and national regulations, it is necessary to create and develop a widespread culture of preservation throughout society for the preservation of our cultural heritage. Recognizing, adopting, integrating into life, and knowing that we are obliged to transmit these values to future generations require having a culture of preservation (Madran, 2007; Pickard, 2002; Borri & Corradi, 2019).”

Point 5. The "Material and Method" section has been edited.

Point 6. The reviewer asked for questionnaires and survey questions. The five-point Likert-type questions are given in table 2.

Point 7. The referee requested a questionnaire and survey questions. Five-point Likert-type questions are given in Table 2. In addition, two different statistical analyses were used: One-Way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) for Income, Education, Field of Activity and Independent-Samples T Test (Independent-Samples T Test) for gender and participant group.

Point 8. In our opinion, this paper is not publishable as it is. Authors should be given another opportunity, however, to improve it and make it more scientific.

Response:Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript Thank you for taking your valuable time to review our article. This research was conducted within the scope of a scientific project and finalised with the review of many referees.  In the study, a survey of 400 people was conducted to determine the perception of visuality, conservation and sustainability of the city's tangible architectural heritage. In this respect, it is considered to be a very heavy criticism to characterise the study as unscientific. I hope that your criticisms will not be destructive against young academicians like me who do this profession with love and enthusiasm. Many articles have been rearranged as desired with the perception of cultural heritage.

Yours sincerely

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

While the study covers an interesting topic, it consists of certain unrelated fragments that do not fit together well.

The layout and content of the entire article require thorough improvement, organizing the content and supplementing the missing elements. The paper is not well structured - the main chapters required in academic papers does not contain adequate content, for example: chapter Materials and Methods contained twice repeated content and contained inappropriate information related to the topic of the article.

The results are presented in a vague way and do not result directly from the research conducted.

The literature should be supplemented with titles from abroad, not only Turkish authors.

The article should be supplemented with more illustrations and properly described in the text.

I suggest the authors make thorough corrections to the text in accordance with the publisher's requirements.

Author Response

Manuscript Title: “Improving the Perception Towards the Protection of Tangible Architectural Heritage Monuments; The Case of Erzurum From Turkey

” Journal: Sustainability”

 Thank you very much for giving us a chance to resubmit the manuscript. We would like to express our gratitude towards the editor and the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions that helped improving the manuscript. We carefully considered and addressed all the comments from the editors and reviewers, point by point. The following paragraphs include a point – to – point response to reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We hope that the revised manuscript will satisfy the reviewers and editors. We appreciate your consideration of this manuscript for publication in your esteemed journal.

Best regards,

Nov. 2023

Dear reviewer

This document explains the changes made in the revised manuscript while dealing with the comments raised by the reviewers. The changes in the revised manuscript are marked inRed or using tracked change.

Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript

Response to Reviewer

1 Comments

Point 1. Materials and Methods contained twice repeated content and contained inappropriate information related to the topic of the article.

Response: Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript The "Material and Method" section has been edited and the location map has been updated.

Point 2. The results are presented in a vague way and do not result directly from the research conducted.

Response: Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. The mentioned corrections have been made and the conclusion has been detailed under a separate heading.

Conclusion

This study focuses on the conservation, perception and sustainability of historical environment and monuments in Erzurum. According to the findings, which are divided into categories and obtained from the perspectives of the expert group and local people, the city is generally not sensitive enough to the protection of historical neighbourhoods and monuments, and urban transformation projects do not contribute effectively to this protection. In terms of visual perception, housing projects that are compatible with the historical environment have not been presented in the newly developing regions, and the studies carried out in this direction have been insufficient.  However, Erzurum Castle plays a central role in the perception of the historical environment. Moreover, in terms of sustainability, architectural restoration and landscape works have positive effects on cultural tourism, urban attractiveness, sense of belonging, quality of life and prevention of migration. This study provides important findings that support the preservation of Erzurum's historic environment and building a sustainable future. It also emphasises the necessity of an interdisciplinary approach in the conservation of historic environment and monuments. The results obtained from the study will form the basis for the studies to be carried out in the development process of the city, which has a very rich potential in terms of historical and cultural assets. In particular, it is thought that this research will provide important contributions to the issues to be considered in terms of visuality, sustainability and conservation perception in both restoration, construction and outdoor arrangements.

Point 3:  The literature should be supplemented with titles from abroad, not only Turkish authors.

Response:Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. The following new foreign references have been added to the study.

1. Li, Y., Du, Y., Yang, M., Liang, J., Bai, H., Li, R., & Law, A. (2023). A review of the tools and techniques used in the digital preservation of architectural heritage within disaster cycles. Heritage Science, 11(1), 199.
2. Lucchi, E. (2023). Renewable Energies and Architectural Heritage: Advanced Solutions and Future Perspectives. Buildings, 13(3), 631.
3. Moneta, A. N. D. R. E. A. (2020). Architecture, heritage, and the metaverse. Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review, 32(1), 37-49.
4. Addison, A. C., & Gaiani, M. (2000). Virtualized architectural heritage: New tools and techniques. IEEE multimedia, 7(2), 26-31.
5. Zhu, G. (2012). China's architectural heritage conservation movement. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 1(1), 10-22.
6. Croci, G. (1998). The conservation and structural restoration of architectural heritage(Vol. 1). WIT Press.
7. De Luca, L., Busayarat, C., Stefani, C., Véron, P., & Florenzano, M. (2011). A semantic-based platform for the digital analysis of architectural heritage. Computers & Graphics, 35(2), 227-241.
8. Li, Y., Du, Y., Yang, M., Liang, J., Bai, H., Li, R., & Law, A. (2023). A review of the tools and techniques used in the digital preservation of architectural heritage within disaster cycles. Heritage Science, 11(1), 199.
9. Zou, H., Ge, J., Liu, R., & He, L. (2023). Feature Recognition of Regional Architecture Forms Based on Machine Learning: A Case Study of Architecture Heritage in Hubei Province, China. Sustainability, 15(4), 3504.
10. Lucchi, E. (2023). Renewable Energies and Architectural Heritage: Advanced Solutions and Future Perspectives. Buildings, 13(3), 631.
11. Ronsivalle, D. (2023). Relevance and Role of Contemporary Architecture Preservation—Assessing and Evaluating Architectural Heritage as a Contemporary Landscape: A Study Case in Southern Italy. Sustainability, 15(5), 4132.

Point 4:  The article should be supported by more illustrations and appropriately described in the text.

Response:Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. The following pictures have been added to the manuscript. The location map has been updated.

Figure 1. Location of the study area

                                                                               (a)                                        (b)

                                                                             (c)                                         (d)

                                                                                                (e)

                     Figure 2. Views of the architectural structures in the study area and its immediate Surroundings

(a) Three Kumbets (b) Yakutiye madrasah (c) Double Minaret Madrasah (d,e) Erzurum castle and its surroundings (original).

Thank you for taking your valuable time to review our article. These corrections have been made. Thank you for your contribution.

Best regards....

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article was improved after the reviews.

There are still two issues to be modified.

Please modify the title with the Determination of the perception of tangible cultural .... or Analysis of the perception of tangible cultural......

In section 4, delete the words ''and conclusion''. It will remain only Discussions.

After these minor revisions, the article can be published.

Author Response

Point 1:  Please modify the title with the Determination of the perception of tangible cultural .... or Analysis of the perception of tangible cultural......

Response:Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. The title has been modified to be " A research to determine the perception of tangible cultural ar-chitectural heritage of Erzurum castle and its surroundings in Turkey " as you specified.

Point 2:  In section 4, delete the words ''and conclusion''. It will remain only Discussions.

Response:Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. The corrected fourth section you mentioned has been corrected to just "Discussions".

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

- Including a section that describes the profile and the background of the study area is necessary, in this section, all the key points related to the study area that are mentioned in the questionnaire should be included.

- On page 11 line 307 and ... , the P5, P6... are mentioned that are not in the mentioned table.

- It is not possible to understand the text in many parts due to the quality of the English Language. 

- Some key parts of the manuscript are not written in English (please see the tables).

Author Response

Point 1:  Including a section that describes the profile and the background of the study area is necessary, in this section, all the key points related to the study area that are mentioned in the questionnaire should be included.

Response:Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. Corrections have been made as follows as you specified.

Erzurum is a historical and cultural city located in the Eastern Anatolia Region of Turkey. Erzurum's history dates back thousands of years and has been home to various civilisations. The city attracts attention with both its historical richness and cultural her-itage. Erzurum has been an important centre of trade and cultural interaction since an-cient times due to its location on the historical Silk Road. Many different civilisations such as the Urartians, Persians, Romans, Byzantines, Seljuks, Mongols and Ottomans ruled in Erzurum. In addition, the city has many historical mosques, madrasas and külliye under the influence of Islamic civilisation [38]. Seljuk monuments in Erzurum are among the structures that enrich the cultural heritage of the region and offer important examples of Turkish-Islamic art. These works are of great historical and artistic importance. The com-plexes and tombs of the Seljuk period in Erzurum bear important traces of religious, cul-tural and social life. These complexes include many buildings such as mosques, mad-rasahs, mausoleums, tombs and fountains, and reflect the culture of the Seljuk period, creating an identity unique to the region.

 Double Minaret Madrasa and Ulu Mosque, built in the XIIth century, are important Islamic architectural works [39]. Especially Double Minaret Madrasa, one of the symbols of Erzurum, is one of the most important examples of Seljuk architecture. This madrasah, which attracts attention with its two minarets, is an artistic masterpiece not only in terms of architecture, but also with the decorations and details it contains.

Erzurum became a great centre of culture and art during the Seljuk period. The his-torical buildings built during this period reflect the beauties of Seljuk architecture. Seljuk artefacts in Erzurum represent a great richness not only in terms of architecture, but also in historical, cultural and artistic terms. These works contribute to the history and culture of the region by carrying the traces of the past to the present. At the same time, these arte-facts are an important attraction point for tourists and researchers. Because the Seljuk pe-riod presented prominent examples of Turkish-Islamic art. Structures such as Taşlıçay Bridge and Lala Mustafa Pasha Mosque bear the traces of this period [40], [41].

As an Ottoman city, Erzurum's traditional architecture is also very rich. There are examples of Turkish house architecture in many parts of the city. Woodwork, window details and the general urban texture reflect the cultural heritage of the region.  Erzurum has been open to the interaction of different cultures throughout history and a rich cultural heritage has emerged from these interactions. With its historical buildings, traditional lifestyle and natural beauties, Erzurum continues to be an important cultural and histori-cal destination for visitors. The Seljuk artefacts in Erzurum represent a great richness not only in terms of architecture, but also in historical, cultural and artistic terms. These arte-facts contribute to the history and culture of the region by carrying the traces of the past to the present. At the same time, these artefacts are an important point of attraction for tour-ists and researchers, as they offer outstanding examples of Seljuk-era Turkish-Islamic art.

Point 2. Page 11 lines 307 and ... refer to P5, P6 ..., which are not included in the table in question.

Response:Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. There has been a letter change in abbreviations due to translation. All abbreviations have been corrected according to English characters.

Point 3:  - It is not possible to understand the text in many parts due to the quality of the English Language. 

Response: Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. The specific names of historical buildings and the language of the article have been revised.

Point 4:  Some key parts of the manuscript are not written in English (please see the tables).

Response: Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. All Turkish characters in the tables and throughout the article have been corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Review Report

Title: Involving the Perception Towards the Protection of Tangible Architectural Heritage Monument: The case of Erzurum, Turkey

The paper focuses on tangible architectural heritage in Erzurum. Its aim is to assess the perception of heritage conservation among citizens and experts. The paper rightly uses qualitative and quantitative methods to gather and analyse information. It mentions the need to protect these monuments for future generations rather than for mere financial gains such as tourism.

The paper lacks the scientific framing: it has not identified a research problem and states two hypothesis without any basis. The investigation on tangible heritage is not original nor its findings are innovative. The authors have not addressed most important topics such as heritage values appreciated by the citizens vs. experts, conservation principals in international charters vs. local regulations or guidelines, etc.

Authors do not discuss any credible conclusions as such and makes no contribution to the advancement of knowledge.

Methodology of the research can be considered as useful, but the authors have used so many of them to confuse the reader. The references are useful and show that the authors made a serious effort but to study what or to find what.  

Authors should have the paper proof-read and rewrite in a more academic manner.

In our opinion, this paper is not publishable as it is. Authors should be given another opportunity, however, to improve it and make it more scientific.

Author Response

1 Comments

Point 1:   Authors should have the paper proof-read and rewrite in a more academic manner.

Response:Thank you for your precious time to review our manuscript. The article has been revised as you indicated.

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for your correctieons. 

Author Response

Dear reviwer, thank you for your interest and effort.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been improved but still requires serious English language revision, removal of repetitive phrases, and unifying the terms. 

It is necessary to provide the correct source for images. It is mentioned that images are original (it is not a source). It is also possible to find the same image on other websites for example in: 

https://www.trthaber.com/foto-galeri/erzurum-deprem-riskine-karsi-kentsel-donusumle-guclendiriliyor/60361/sayfa-1.html

If the images are open-source please include them, if not please change the images or reference them properly. If the authors took the photo, please give the proper reference. 

The base map in Figure 1, seems to be "Based on Open Street Maps modified by authors", please provide a correct reference. 

The manuscript requires serious English language revision, removal of repetitive phrases, and unifying the terms. 

Author Response

The requested corrections to the article have been made.
​

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf