Community Engagement and Heritage Awareness for the Sustainable Management of Rural and Coastal Archaeological Heritage Sites: The Case of Magarsus (Karataş, Turkey)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe equation between well-informed local communities and proper conservation of tangibles is a handbook proposition that, however, is rarely optimized in practical terms. Arguably, this becomes more challenging in the case of archaeological sites, as populations often feel less attached to these than to, say, traditional architecture or other heritage structures they have a direct group connection with. In any case, the paper starts by outlining standard notions on the sustainability of heritage and describes an urban site with coastal issues affecting its coherence. The brief excursion on the littoral specificity (p. 5) hints at some threat to the site, by alluding to international literature on the matter, but it remains unclear if and how this idea could be translated to the case study. Certain coastal sites are very well preserved and inland ones are not, so why this is mentioned in the first place? Further down, rural and coastal areas are matched more than once (why?) and again it is unclear in which way this coastal argument is useful to the explanation, as a large number of major cities are located along the coastlines of the Mediterranean, Turkey included. This reviewer would suggest having another look at these statements and change a few sentences so that the reader understands clearly why the location of this specific site next to the sea makes any difference, and why rural and coastal locations are taken as equivalent.
A premise for this research paper is that Turkish heritage discourse has not focused enough on rural and (again) coastal sites, resulting in a knowledge gap. There is plenty of archaeological research on non-urban Turkish sites but, admittedly, this may not have been transported to the level of heritage policies and management. The study itself consists mainly of a survey and data was processed through SPSS. This part of the paper offers the simplified results and their narrative description. Respondents seem to have centric / predictable perceptions on the key factors affecting conservation. The concluding model is presented as transferrable and this is certainly correct due to the generic nature of the three pillars (which represent a condensed summary of the survey results). For instance, the need for “Active involvement of residents in decision-making processes” is as much a worldwide, consensual apriorism in both policy and practice as it is the only reasonable outcome of the survey question as formulated in table 9 (in other words, it is no surprise that the largest group of respondents chose this answer). The paper is an interesting read, though. The first part is useful to the contextualization of the site and the topic but also (over)promises a holistic model that ends up as the linear interpretation of a survey. Also, there is initial reference to overcoming conceptual, methodological, and practical gaps in the literature and this is not apparent in the conclusions, again based on a single survey with mainstream questions. This reviewer would have preferred a more down-to-earth approach but believes in the merits of this paper and would like to see it published in a revised form.
Author Response
The author would like to express sincere thanks to the reviewer for the constructive and insightful comments provided. Suggested revisions have been carefully addressed, and relevant clarifications have been integrated into the manuscript to enhance its clarity, coherence, and contextual alignment.Detailed responses to each comment are provided below.
All modifications have been carefully integrated into the revised Word document and are highlighted in blue for clarity and transparency.
Sincerely,
Comment 1: [The equation between well-informed local communities and proper conservation of tangibles is a handbook proposition that, however, is rarely optimized in practical terms. Arguably, this becomes more challenging in the case of archaeological sites, as populations often feel less attached to these than to, say, traditional architecture or other heritage structures they have a direct group connection with. ]
Response 1: [The Introduction (p. 2) highlights the physical and symbolic detachment often observed between archaeological sites and local communities. Additionally, the importance of intangible cultural elements (e.g., culinary traditions, craftsmanship) in reinforcing community attachment is emphasized in Section 4.2. and 5.]
Comment 2: [ In any case, the paper starts by outlining standard notions on the sustainability of heritage and describes an urban site with coastal issues affecting its coherence. The brief excursion on the littoral specificity (p. 5) hints at some threat to the site by alluding to international literature on the matter, but it remains unclear if and how this idea could be translated to the case study. Certain coastal sites are very well preserved, and inland ones are not, so why is this mentioned in the first place? Further down, rural and coastal areas are matched more than once (why?), and again, it is unclear in which way this coastal argument is useful to the explanation, as a large number of major cities are located along the coastlines of the Mediterranean, Turkey included. ]
Response 2: [The manuscript frames Magarsus as a heritage site located within a hybrid rural and coastal setting. The rationale for emphasizing this dual character is clarified in the final paragraphs of the Introduction section (p. 5), where it is argued that such hybrid geographies remain underrepresented in the broader discourse on participatory heritage governance.
The coastal context is not intended to imply severe environmental degradation, but rather to situate the site within a broader framework of place-based vulnerabilities, including risks associated with seasonality, tourism dynamics, and erosion.This contextual framing is also reflected in the design of the survey instrument, which included specific questions on how respondents perceived the effects of rural and coastal characteristics on heritage values and tourism development (Section 4.5). These findings are discussed in Section 5, the second-to-last paragraph, and reinforced in the third paragraph of the Conclusions section.
Therefore, the coastal dimension serves to enhance the analytical depth of the study rather than offer a generalized environmental claim.
Comment 3: [Rural and coastal areas are matched more than once... unclear why ?]
Response 3: [The terms "rural" and "coastal" are used in conjunction to reflect the dual character of the Magarsus site, which is simultaneously located in a sparsely populated agricultural hinterland and along the Mediterranean coastline. The rationale for this combined framing is already outlined in the final paragraphs of the Introduction, which emphasize that such hybrid landscapes, though culturally significant and highly vulnerable, remain underrepresented in heritage governance discourse.]
Comment 4: [Turkish heritage discourse hasn’t focused enough on rural/coastal sites... knowledge gap.]
Response 4: [As acknowledged in Section 2.3 (second paragraph), although archaeological research in rural areas of Turkey exists, these insights are rarely integrated into participatory heritage policies or local governance strategies. Additionally, the fourth-to-last paragraph of Introduction section has been clarified to reflect this distinction more explicitly.]
Comment 5: [Survey findings are simplified; model is a summary of these.]
Response 5: [In line with your suggestion, the approach has been designed not as a new theoretical construct, but as an applied synthesis grounded in empirical findings. This positioning has been clarified in the Conclusion section, where the approach is framed as a flexible, context-sensitive tool to inform future local heritage strategies. In addition to descriptive results, cross-tabulation and chi-square tests were also applied to explore relationships between socio-demographic variables and participation tendencies. These methods contributed to the analytical robustness of the study’s findings, as elaborated in the final paragraphs of Sections 4.2 and 4.5.]
Comment 6: [Active involvement’ is a predictable survey response.]
Response 6: [ This observation is acknowledged. Although the response pattern may appear predictable, it reflects widely accepted priorities in the discourse of heritage governance. The finding remains relevant in the Turkish context, where participatory practices in heritage management are still emerging.]
Comment 7: [Holistic model is promised, but final result is linear survey interpretation.]
Response 7: [Thank you for highlighting this important point. To avoid overstatement, the final paragraph of both the Abstract and the Conclusions section has been revised. The governance approach is now framed not as a universal model, but as a context-specific and empirically grounded proposal. The final paragraph of the Abstract has been revised to emphasize that the framework is derived from field-based insights and is not intended to be generalized beyond the specific case of Magarsus.
The visual content of the study has also been revised (Section 6). Instead of the previously used generic “sustainable heritage approach” diagram, a newly developed governance approach tailored to the specific findings and contextual dynamics of the Magarsus case has been included. This revised diagram is presented in the Conclusions section to visually support the practical applicability of the proposed approach (Figure 11).]
Comment 8: [ The conceptual/methodological gaps initially stated are not addresser in the conclusion. ]
Response 8: [The spatial and participatory gaps in heritage management, which were addressed in the introductory sections, have been made more explicit in the Conclusions. The revised conclusion emphasizes that the effective management of archaeological landscapes requires moving beyond physical interventions toward socially and ecologically grounded participatory models. Additionally, the study now outlines enabling mechanisms—such as legal reforms, institutional collaboration, and inclusive planning—to address governance shortcomings specific to rural and coastal contexts. Moreover, the revised text highlights gender-sensitive strategies, based on the finding that female participants expressed a preference for more active roles in heritage-related decision-making processes. The proposed model is also aligned with Turkish heritage legislation, particularly Law No. 2863, reinforcing its contextual relevance and potential for operationalizing inclusive governance mechanisms.]
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents a study that explores the intersection of cultural heritage conservation, rural development, and community participation, using an archaeological heritage site in Turkey as a case study. The authors provide a contextual and empirical basis, drawing on structured surveys to assess public perceptions and attitudes toward heritage preservation and tourism development.
While the manuscript is worthy of its descriptive depth and engagement with relevant literature, it would benefit from a stronger analytical framework. Specifically, the connection between the empirical findings and broader theoretical and policy implications remains underdeveloped. The paper could be strengthened by integrating more robust analysis and by clearly positioning its contribution within the academic discourse on participatory heritage management.
I would recommend the following suggestions for improvement:
1. The paper outlines objectives and proposed contributions but lacks clearly defined research questions. Adding explicit research questions early in the paper would help the reader and provide a clearer analytical structure.
2. Although the use of surveys and descriptive statistics is outlined, the authors should provide a more detailed rationale for these methodological choices, especially considering the relatively large dataset.
3. The study would benefit from additional analysis, such as cross-tabulations of key variables or basic inferential statistics to identify significant correlations or patterns in the data.
4. Given the sample size (~500), the authors should reflect on potential sources of sampling or response bias, for example, the overrepresentation of male and middle-aged participants, and also consider how this might affect the findings.
5. The paper is offering a theoretical contribution, but this is not sufficiently developed. The authors should more clearly articulate how their findings extend or challenge existing theory and how their proposed three-pillar framework differs from or builds upon prior models.
6. The paper proposes a community-based and ecosystem-sensitive model. It misses details on how such a model could become operational within the Turkish context. Please provide specific policy or governance recommendations to strengthen your paper.
The English is generally clear, and the academic tone is appropriate. However, my recommendation to the authors is to perform a final round of proofreading to eliminate grammatical inconsistencies.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on the manuscript. Your detailed comments have been invaluable in refining both the theoretical and methodological aspects of the study. In response, the manuscript has been revised accordingly, and the specific changes made in relation to each of your seven key suggestions are outlined below.
All modifications have been carefully integrated into the revised version and are highlighted in blue for clarity and transparency.
Sincerely,
Comment 1: [The paper outlines objectives and proposed contributions but lacks clearly defined research questions. Adding explicit research questions early in the paper would help the reader and provide a clearer analytical structure]
Response 1: [To address this concern, the Introduction section (p. 5, final paragraph) explicitly presents two guiding research questions, which aim to strengthen the analytical framing of the study. These questions explore both the community’s awareness and participatory tendencies and the effects of rural/coastal heritage settings on governance processes: "What factors influence public awareness and perceptions of value regarding archaeological heritage, and how do these shape participation in heritage conservation and tourism planning?", "How do local communities perceive the impact of rural and coastal conditions on heritage values, governance participation, and sustainability potential?" By articulating these questions early in the manuscript, the study clarifies its scope and aligns its empirical findings with broader theoretical concerns regarding participatory heritage governance in rural and coastal contexts.]
Comment 2: [Although the use of surveys and descriptive statistics is outlined, the authors should provide a more detailed rationale for these methodological choices, especially considering the relatively large dataset.]
Response 2: [In line with the Reviewer's suggestion, the rationale for the methodological choices has been clarified and reinforced in the revised manuscript. Section 3.2. Research Design (p. 10) presents the multi-phase structure of the study (literature review, field observations, and survey implementation), while Section 3.5. Sampling and Data Analysis (p. 14) explains why a structured survey was selected—namely, its ability to capture diverse user perceptions in a rural and coastal heritage setting.]
Comment 3: [The study would benefit from additional analysis, such as cross-tabulations of key variables or basic inferential statistics to identify significant correlations or patterns in the data.]
Response 3: [The analytical depth of the study has been strengthened through additional statistical analysis based on the existing SPSS dataset. New insights derived from cross-tabulations and chi-square tests have been incorporated into the final paragraph of Section 4.2 (Cultural Heritage Awareness and Perception of Value) and the final two paragraphs of Section 4.5 (Rural and Coastal Context: Perceptions of Heritage and Tourism Tendencies). Moreover, these enhanced analyses are reflected in Section 3.5 (Sampling and Data Analysis, p. 14), and the visual diagram summarizing the methodological framework has been revised accordingly in Section 3.2 (Research Design). To improve clarity and alignment with the updated content, the Abstract (p. 1) has been revised. Additionally, the findings are comparatively discussed in the Discussion section with references to two newly added sources (p. 23). Finally, the implications of these refined analyses are explicitly addressed in the penultimate paragraph of the Conclusions section.]
Comment 4: [Given the sample size (~500), the authors should reflect on potential sources of sampling or response bias, for example, the overrepresentation of male and middle-aged participants, and also consider how this might affect the findings.]
Response 4: [The issue of potential sampling bias has been explicitly addressed in Section 3.5. Sampling and Data Analysis (p. 14). As noted, despite efforts to ensure demographic diversity, the final sample was skewed toward male and middle-aged participants—a common limitation in rural field research. This demographic imbalance may have introduced a degree of sampling bias, particularly in terms of gender and age representation. Nevertheless, the dataset provided a sufficiently varied set of perspectives to enable a comparative analysis in line with the study’s objectives.]
Comment 5: [The paper is offering a theoretical contribution, but this is not sufficiently developed. The authors should more clearly articulate how their findings extend or challenge existing theory and how their proposed three-pillar framework differs from or builds upon prior models.]
Response 5: [To clarify the intended theoretical contribution, the proposed three-pillar governance framework has been comparatively evaluated with relevant examples from the literature in the Discussion section (p. 24, third paragraph from the end). Furthermore, in the final paragraph of the Conclusions section, the broader theoretical relevance and potential applicability of the proposed approach to other regions with similar geographical and socio-cultural characteristics have been explicitly stated. These revisions aim to articulate the study’s theoretical contribution more clearly.
The visual content of the study has also been revised (Section 6). Instead of the previously used generic “sustainable heritage approach” diagram, a newly developed governance approach tailored to the specific findings and contextual dynamics of the Magarsus case has been included. This revised diagram is presented in the Conclusions section to visually support the practical applicability of the proposed approach (Figure 11). ]
Comment 6: [The paper proposes a community-based and ecosystem-sensitive model. It misses details on how such a model could become operational within the Turkish context. Please provide specific policy or governance recommendations to strengthen your paper.]
Response 6: [In response to your suggestion, the penultimate paragraph of the Conclusions section has been revised to provide concrete policy and governance recommendations that reflect the contextual realities of Turkey. These include regulatory updates to Law No. 2863 to enhance the proactive role of local authorities, along with context-specific mechanisms for capacity building, inter-institutional collaboration, and enhanced community participation in rural and coastal areas. These revisions aim to improve the operational applicability of the proposed approach within the Turkish legal and administrative framework.]
Comment 7: [Quality of the English Language]
Response 7: [The entire manuscript has undergone a comprehensive language review to enhance clarity, coherence, and academic rigor. Particular attention was paid to ensuring terminological consistency (e.g., replacing “model” with “approach” throughout), improving the fluency of expression, and aligning the text with editorial and disciplinary standards. Additionally, technical terms, heading structures, and statistical reporting conventions have been carefully reviewed for consistency and precision.]
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
