How Community Engagement Approach Enhances Heritage Conservation: Two Case Studies on Sustainable Urban Development in Historic Cairo

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Both the abstract and the title reflect the objective of the study. However, the results presented in the abstract are too general; adding an additional sentence may help clarify them. The authors should revise the entire paragraph between lines 22 and 27, as there are multiple punctuation errors.

Similar punctuation issues are frequent throughout the text, the most common being the use of a period (“.”) before the brackets when citing references.

Another frequent—and overly recurring—error is the presence of “Error! Reference source not found” which appears 16 times throughout the text.

The first subchapter of the Literature Review (2.1. Community Engagement) contains very little that qualifies as a literature review on community engagement. The content is more relevant to subchapter 3.1.

The remaining subchapters of the Literature Review are also weak in terms of fulfilling the expectations of a proper literature review. A strong literature review should address the following three questions:

1. Is it clear what is already known about the topic?
2. Is the research question clearly outlined?
3. Is the research question justified, given what is already known?

For instance, the title of subchapter 2.3 would be more appropriately phrased as “Phases of the Community Engagement Process” rather than being presented as a conclusion. Additionally, a literature review subchapter supported by only two references does not meet the standard for academic rigor.

There is a labeling error in Figure 11.

The study does not include a section on its limitations.

The Results and Conclusions sections do not adequately address key aspects expected in academic research. The results are not sufficiently discussed from multiple perspectives, nor are they clearly placed within a broader context. Additionally, the conclusions do not effectively respond to the stated aims of the study and lack strong support from either references or the presented results.

Although the work presented in the Methodology section is commendable and the project appears to have a strong positive impact, the Results section resembles a business report rather than an academic article.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

sustainability-3555929

Case Report

How Community Engagement Approach Enhances Heritage Conservation: Two Case Studies on Sustainable Urban Development in Historic Cairo

 

General remarks: The proposed topic is of great interest. The authors review the projects carried out so far in the historical part of Cairo. The presentation of case studies, projects carried out and qualitative search engines are well structured by reviewing the literature and by the connection found between the information provided by the literature and the exploration procedures presented by the authors as an output tool. Attention should be paid to the presentation of results and discussions, and a chapter of conclusions and future plans is welcome. The authors do not point out their own contribution very well, there are some mistakes related to references or links. The figures can be improved, by switching to a higher resolution, but also by correcting some legends. The acquisition of copyrights should be specified, and some editing errors and putting them in the journal format should be corrected.

 

Abstract: It accurately reflects the content of the manuscript.

 

Introduction:

The Introduction is well structured. It starts from the general framework of such a case study. For Egypt, such an approach is very welcome. The authors use a gradual introduction of the concepts, the purpose, the specific objectives and how they can be achieved. The literature from recent years is cited.

 

Literature review:

2.1. Community engagement:

The authors substantiate their approach using definitions and explanations based on literature and citations from the literature. The focus is on the description of the project called Urban Regeneration Project for Historic Cairo (URHC). The inclusion of residents in sustainable conservation projects in the area of ​​historic Cairo is well presented.

Also, main implemented projects are summarized in this chapter.

2.2. Types of Community Engagement:

It provides a schematic presentation of how communities are engaged in this type of sustainability-related activities. The definitions necessary for a good understanding of the case studies are provided.

Rows 199 – 200: I don't understand what the statement refers to; please correct it.

2.3. The Process of Community Engagement Consists of Five Interconnected Phases:

Rows 218-219: I don't understand what the statement refers to; please correct it. Perhaps here and in the rest of the manuscript where such errors appear is from the wrong copying of a link.

2.4. Tools of Community Engagement:

No comments to do.

The types of working instruments used were well described, using quotation marks, except in some situations, see above, where it is not clear which quotation marks are being referred to.

3. Methodology

3.1. Historical and Cultural Significance of Al-Darb Al-Ahmar Heritage Site:

A brief historical introduction is made to understand the importance of the area to be studied.

3.2. Process of (Community Engagement) in Project 1: Urban Regeneration Project for Historic Cairo (URHC). Al-Darb Al-Ahmar Housing Rehabilitation Program,Cairo, Egypt:

It describes what has been achieved so far since the initiative was launched in 1991.

Row 307; 328: the same remark consisting of reference error.

Rows 330 – 334: A paragraph is repeated: please verify and delete.

“With an emphasis on participatory approaches, the 322 overview focuses on tools which invite active involvement from community members ra-323 ther than passive observation or contribution. Participatory approaches seek to empower 324 communities by enabling them to voice their own needs, concerns or ambitions in relation 325 to a project (Donagh Horgan, 2018).”

Rows 390 – 391: errors again!

Otherwise, this chapter summarizes a project by providing concrete data on its development.

3.3. Project 2 Process of (Community Engagement): JSPS PROJECT (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science). Project for Sustainable Conservation in the Historic Cairo/Community Development with the Participation of Local Residents:

This project is also presented in detail; there are more references to errors; the text is less well edited, and the photos need a more explicit captions.

Attention should be paid to copyright and reproduction rights.

Some images are not clear, an observation valid for the entire text.

4. Results

It is not very clear what the conclusions refer to. And what the authors' contribution is. Rather, they seem to be conclusions on the exhaustive analyses in the previous chapters.

5. Discussion

This last chapter could be restructured together with the previous one as Results and Discussion. Separate the part of the results on the analysis of the projects from a part that refers to the discussions on these results. Although things are apparently well structured, as in the whole manuscript, it does not appear very distinct what distinguishes this final part from the previous ones. A separate chapter drawn from parts 3 and 4 would be welcome as a Conclusion.

 

The article deals with an important aspect of the cultural and tourist impact in Egypt. It is well written, comprehensive, and the presentation style is appropriate. I recommend publishing it.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

2.2. Types of Community Engagement (lines 152-200) require revision, as the content seems to have been generated directly by AI. Similarly, the text within the titles of 2.3 (lines 204-227) and 2.4 (lines 228-246) must also be reviewed. The current text lacks transparency and clarity, and it needs to align with the principles of scientific writing. Greater attention must be given to ensuring logical flow, coherence, and precision throughout these sections.

Line 199, which reads: 'Error! Reference source not found. shows the organization of Collaborative/Community-Led,' requires revision. The reference error appears in multiple locations and must be corrected. Additionally, an explanation should be provided to clarify the intended content and context. The sentence's appearance is unclear and lacks transparency regarding how this study was constructed, requiring further revision and clarification.

All figures should be clearly identified and thoroughly explained within the text to ensure accurate interpretation and proper analysis of the diagrams and other visuals.

The methodology outlined in lines 248–253 needs to be expanded upon and thoroughly explained. The current approach does not align with established scientific criteria. The authors must clearly identify the processes and foundational principles adopted for the methodological framework of this study.

The entire methodological approach requires reconstruction, as it does not adhere to established scientific criteria. The authors must clearly outline the processes, justify the choices made, and provide a detailed explanation of the foundational principles and methodologies employed in the study. This will ensure transparency, rigor, and alignment with scientific standards.

The references are not formatted in accordance with MDPI guidelines. They need to be revised and standardized to ensure compliance with the publication's referencing rules.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the comments and suggestions from the first phase of the review. In this version, I noticed only a small typo in Chapter 4 and some formatting issues in the reference list.

Author Response

Response on: Peer Review Report / Sustainability-3555929

Reviewer One.

Reviewer's Comment	Author’s Response
·       Only a small typo in Chapter 4 and some formatting issues in the reference list.	Chapter 4 typo has been corrected and  has been revised the reference list to ensure it fully adheres to the MDPI formatting guidelines.
·       Reference source errors remain in the text.	All “Error! Reference source not found” issues have been resolved. Each missing reference has been correctly restored, including figure numbers, captions, and in-text callouts.
·       Methodology needs more detail and clarity.	Methodology section has been fully revised using a structured format that presents the research design, data collection tools, analytical approach, and justification for each step.
·       Link between literature review and methodology is weak.	Methodology has been revised with the literature review with better explain how theoretical concepts such as participatory planning and engagement frameworks guided the methodological design.
·       Better explain types and phases of community engagement.	Sections 2.2 and 2.3 have been rewritten to clearly define the types and five-phase structure of community engagement used in the case studies, supported by academic literature.
·       Reorganize methodology and clarify data/results.	The Methodology section has been reconstructed for clarity and transparency. All figures referenced in the results have been explained in the body text.
·       Justify methodology and principles applied.	A new paragraph has been added explaining the rationale for choosing a qualitative case study approach and the participatory tools used.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Subject: Feedback on Manuscript Improvements

Thank you for addressing the points raised during the review process. The changes made to the manuscript and found that the improvements are satisfactory. Your efforts in refining the study have positively enhanced the overall quality of the work.

The manuscript would benefit from further revisions. Specifically, there are still instances of "Error! Reference source not found," which should be addressed to ensure consistency and accuracy throughout the text.

The methodology section requires additional detail and clarity. The authors are encouraged to thoroughly describe the processes and foundational principles that form the basis of the study's methodological framework. Furthermore, the connection between community engagement and the literature review remains unclear. Greater elaboration on the types of community engagement employed, as well as their relation to the phases of engagement, would significantly enhance the manuscript's comprehensiveness.

To improve readability and coherence, it is recommended to reorganize the methodological approach. A clearer presentation of the methodological process, collected data, and results will help to better convey the study's framework and findings. Additionally, all figures should be accompanied by detailed explanations to ensure their relevance and value are fully understood.

The authors are also advised to justify their methodological choices more explicitly and provide comprehensive explanations of the principles and methods applied. Such revisions will contribute to greater transparency, scientific rigor, and adherence to standard research practices.

Finally, the references are not formatted in accordance with MDPI guidelines. Revising them to align with the required standards is essential.

Author Response

Reviewer's Comment	Author’s Response
·       Results and discussions should be clarified.	The Results and Discussion have been  restructured .  The Results section now focuses on factual findings, while the Discussion provides interpretation and contextualization.
·       Authors’ own contribution is unclear.	A new paragraph has been added after conclusion section to highlight the authors' unique contribution to academic literature and policy implications.
·       Reference/link mistakes.	All reference errors and broken links have been carefully corrected in the latest version.
·       Figures require higher resolution, corrected legends, and copyright clarification.	Figures have been replaced with high-resolution versions. Legends have been revised for clarity, and copyright notes have been added where applicable.
·       Copyrights should be clarified.	Copyright information for all images has been verified and included as required.
·       Editing and formatting errors.	The formatting and figure callouts in these lines have been corrected to remove placeholder text and clarify visual content.

 

Response on: Peer Review Report / Sustainability-3555929

Reviewer Two.