Review Reports

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Please see Response 1.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Please see Response 2.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

-

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Please see Response 3.

Is the article adequately referenced?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Reference nos 13, 14 and 74 were added.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Please see Response 3.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The current literature review focuses on Germany and Poland but lacks comparisons with similar post-mining revitalization projects in other European countries (e.g., France’s former coal-mining regions in Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Belgium’s industrial landscape regeneration). Additionally, it underrepresents cutting-edge studies (2024–2025) on public perception management in post-mining areas, such as recent research on “industrial landscape musealization” or digital tools (e.g., VR/AR) influencing public attitudes toward heavy industry. Supplementing these citations will better contextualize the study’s novelty and highlight gaps unique to the German-Polish context.

Response 1: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. In this paper, the results from the research conducted in the North Rhine-Westphalia region in Germany and the Lesser Poland region in Poland are analysed. Separately, I conducted research (not presented in this article) in the Rheinische Revier, and the results were almost identical. In Poland, I participated in the development of projects in the Silesian and Kuyavian regions. Although the works have not yet been implemented, they have received similar coverage to that presented in this article. I have not conducted systematic research in other countries, however, my experience from interviews with stakeholders in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom suggests that research conducted in countries of the Global North may yield similar results.

Cases from Germany were chosen for this study because it was in this country, specifically in the North Rhine-Westphalia region, where landmarks began to be designed and constructed, as one of the key instruments of the initial stage of the transformation process (and the Tetrahedron was the first of these). However, projects such as Wilhelminaberg in Landgraaf (the Netherlands, Zuid Limburg), the Kleine mijnterril Beringen (Belgium, Limburg), and the Terrilles in Loos-en-Gohelle (France, Nord-Pas-de-Calais/Hauts-de-France) could be analysed using the same tool, as proposed in this article. It is also worth emphasising that tool combining architectural and urban studies (spatial, visual, and compositional connections) with social research can be applied to the analysis of other projects that draw attention to the presence of industry in the neighbourhood – based on buildings, parks, etc. The clarifying explanation was added to the section: Study Limitations and Future Research (lines 983-94).

Regarding the comment on industrial landscape musealisation, I have addressed the issue in the Introduction section (lines 70-7), adding the necessary references (nos 13, 14). Regarding the comment on VR/AR, I have added an addendum to the section Study Limitations and Future Research (lines 973-5) along with reference no. 74.

Comments 2: The quantitative survey for German cases (50 total responses, 25 per site) has a small sample size, limiting statistical robustness. For Polish cases, data relies heavily on Google reviews and social media comments—sources prone to selection bias (e.g., overrepresenting positive tourist opinions). The study should expand the survey sample (e.g., 100+ responses per site) and include diverse groups: local residents (especially those living near active mines), industrial employees, and environmental organization members. This will ensure a more comprehensive understanding of public perception beyond just visitors.

Response 2:

Thank you for this comment. The author is aware that the number of surveys collected is not high. Therefore, as I previously mentioned, an interval was adopted and a survey was given to every third person. Hence, the results represent groups of approximately 100 people at each location (lines 262-264). Such a small research sample was deemed sufficient for such a study by the Social Research Section of Jagiellonian University (which consulted the design of questionnaires). However, future research should include a larger number of cases and a broader group of respondents (as was proposed in line 960).

The aim of this article was to examine how visitors of an industrial site evaluate the industrial neighbourhood they see. Some of the surveyed users in Germany were local residents (see, for example, Figure 13), while others were industrial employees. Some of Poland’s cases feedbacks are labelled as written by local guides, which might have meant they were local residents but what is more important in this context, not only admirers but also reviewers of the local investments. However, this research was not focused on dividing visitors into stakeholder groups, which is advisable to be conducted in the future.

Researching individuals divided into groups, for example, representing only residents or only the expert community, offers valuable suggestions. Their theoretical and practical knowledge can be crucial to further findings, and research questions should appropriately consider their knowledge. Due to this comment, a proposition for further research was added (lines 960–5). Comparing results after dividing users by roles in the transformation process (tourists/residents/industry employees/environmental experts) seems to be a promising direction for analysis.

Comments 3: The core concept of “discreet cooperation between local authorities, designers, and industry” lacks detailed operational mechanisms. The article mentions informal negotiations but provides no evidence (e.g., meeting minutes, internal communications, or interview quotes) of how these stakeholders coordinated decisions. For instance, how did German mining companies collaborate with designers to finalize the Tetrahedron’s location? The authors should supplement process-specific data to verify the existence of such alliances and their impact on project outcomes.

Response 3:

The main reason I called the alliance “discreet” is that the influence of stakeholders, and particularly industry, is unobtrusive and may remain mysterious to some users. Architectural and urban analyses indicate obvious connections, but neither designers, managers, nor industrialists publicly discuss this topic. Architectural and urban analyses clearly demonstrate that the visibility of industry is a deliberate design measure, to which public investors consented and industrial enterprises did not object. There are no references to this aspect in case studies or publications, which comprehensively (as one might think) characterise these projects (refs. Nos. 27, 28, 30, 39, 40).

Prof. Wolfgang Christ, the author of the Tetrahedron project, when asked directly by the author of the article (in e-mail correspondence, ref. no. 39) what influence the mining company had on the project, stated that it had “none” and expressed at the same time that it “was an excellent project partner, one who handed over the mountain, the landscape, the nature” (lines 370-2). Christ emphasised that the Bestraβe spoil heap on which the Tetrahedron was located was clearly visible from Essen (the regional capital) and the A42 motorway, connecting the main centers of the region ( information was added in lines 329-32). It is known that the project was implemented with public funds (Please see Table 1) and that the spoil heap became redundant for the mining company in 1980, when storage on it was completed (I added the clarification in lines 328-9). These arguments supported its selection for revitalisation. The role of the investor in the process was played by Ruhrkohle AG (a company established as a result of the association of mining companies) – what means Rurhkohle was (at least) aware of solutions designed (lines 384-386). From the outset, it was planned that after construction, the area would be taken over by an association financed by municipal funds and contributions from large companies (ref. no. 27 and please see Table 1). In 1994, in accordance with the aforementioned plans, the area was taken over by RVR (an organisation dedicated to the development and preservation of green spaces in the region), relieving the company of any further concern for it (see added information in lines 386-90).

Residents of the areas adjacent to today’s Tiger and Turtle – Magic Mountain had been struggling with the nuisance of an industrial neighbourhood for years. Although they did not explicitly demand the transformation of the contaminated land into a park, they expected the area to be reclaimed (see added information in lines 484-8). The problem was finally resolved by building a hazardous waste depository in this location between 2006 and 2008 (due to the bankruptcy of the MHD Sudamin steelworks, which had filled the former clay and gravel mine with slag, line 478-9). The landmark was built in 2011 with public funds (Please see Table 1). The construction was supported by companies associated with the neighbouring heavy industry: Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann steelworks (HKM), Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes, Grillo-Werke Voigt & Schweitzer and GSI – supplying materials and assembling the structure (ref. no 30). Information in lines 503-6, 540, 543-544).

In both German locations, the areas on which the landmarks were built were industrial wastelands, redundant for production. Heavy industry companies operating nearby and public authorities jointly supported projects through which the designers highlighted the facilities and areas of active industry. The involvement of stakeholders in the construction of public spaces and landmarks suggests that they jointly recognised that the project could help solve the problems they faced (e.g., image management, the need to neutralise pollution, the disposal of redundant assets and waste). The active industry was made visible, and problematic land was transferred from industrial to public ownership.

The Polish cases are projects in which I was directly involved in the design (line 271). The research-by-design method allowed me to gather information that is not confidential but is not publicly available. Although the detailed protocols from the meetings are business secrets, the conclusions drawn from them deserve to be made public (information added in lines 280-2). In both cases, local governments were aware of the locations in which they were undertaking investments. It should be sed that in the Polish projects, the sites were located on former gravel pit areas, where exploitation did not entail environmental pollution. The depleted areas were industrial wastelands, which investors were not interested in. Before the public spaces were implemented, these areas constituted barriers to urban development, were unseen by the public and not sufficiently connected with the urban structure. As in Germany, public authorities decided to finance projects in which the designers drew visitors’ attention to the active industry (ref. no. 43), and the industrial entities did not oppose their construction. The article includes urban analyses demonstrating this alliance (please see figures 20 and 23). Convincing local decision-makers (through designers) to adopt solutions that would make industry visible was relatively simple – visualisations played a key role – giving an idea of ​​what the area might look like after revitalisation (please see, for example, Figure 21, lines 707-711) – convincing that incurring costs to conceal industrial activity does not have to be taken.

Finally, it is worth emphasising that a vital conclusion drawn from the study of Polish projects is that the contradictory assessments of mining activities can be considered universal. The lessons learned from the German experience can be applied to Polish conditions. In this context, the Polish case studies are complementary to the German ones and demonstrate that the visual and compositional connections between revitalised areas and active industrial areas constitute one possible means of managing user opinions, and that discreet alliances (or
cooperation between designers, public authorities and industrial enterprises to encourage users to take an interest in what industrial areas look like today) aimed at influencing user opinions (through spatial solutions) can be formed in various cultural contexts (information added in lines 1018-1020).

Comments 4: The study focuses on spatial design and public perception but ignores environmental remediation progress— a critical factor in post-mining sustainability. For each case, key metrics (e.g., soil contamination reduction rates, groundwater quality improvement, biodiversity recovery) are absent. Since environmental quality directly shapes public trust in industrial coexistence, the authors should add an environmental assessment section and analyze how remediation levels correlate with public acceptance of active industry.

Response 4:

The problem of the impact of active industry on adjacent sites was indicated in the Introduction section (lines 140-144). However, this problem is omitted in this paper; it is a fundamental assumption that the site had been restored to a safe condition and the environment before being made available to visitors. Regardless, the article highlights the dual nature of the analysed projects, which can mask the state of the environment through aesthetic solutions.

The Conclusions section of the paper highlights the threat of designing and constructing projects (similar to those analysed in the paper) with the goal of manipulating visitor opinions. Research in this direction should be continued, bearing in mind that even areas that meet the legal standards for pollution levels can have some impact on the environment and users. My goal was to highlight that creating public spaces in post-industrial areas, even if their condition is deemed not to pose a threat to users’ health and the environment (in accordance to applicable regulations), can lead to the transformation of areas into public spaces of a lower standard than traditional ones (remembering that even the absence of exceeding standards does not equal the absence of nuisance). In Polish cases, heavy industry activities can be associated with dust and noise (because of neighbouring gravel mines). In the German cases, the impact of industrial activity may be more burdensome due to the proximity of a steelworks and coking plant. In the paper, I point out that respondents tend to overlook this issue, considering landscapes as being attractive and post-industrial places as those worth visiting (Figure 14), and viewing operating facilities not as burdensome but as parts of an inspiring landscape and heritage, before they become such (Figure 17). My goal was to highlight that architectural and urban planning projects that emphasise the visibility of active industry can influence users’ opinions, leading them to perceive active industrial facilities as being attractive and inspiring or even sustainable, which does not necessarily mean they operate sustainably. Such projects may not be evidence of a sustainable approach to transformation, but rather of cooperation between industry and authorities to label projects as sustainable (bearing in mind that if the industry is tolerated by communities, it can operate longer, even without implementing solutions demonstrating concern for sustainable development; lines 1012-1017).

The aim of this research was also to emphasise that land should be developed and exploited with, but not only with, consideration for the environmental condition and technical aspects, but also with aesthetic values. The lack of systemic solutions that encourage redevelopment (not just remediation) to go hand in hand with exploitation. Redevelopment is a significant spatial problem that is likely to grow. The research results presented in this article indicate a promising trend in influencing public perception of heavy industry, providing verifications that the perception of industrial areas can be managed through architectural and urban design. Given the generally unfavourable image of heavy industry nowadays, and mining in particular, various solutions should be taken to improve the functioning and public assessments of industrial areas. Undoubtedly, these should primarily be aimed at improving environmental conditions. The spatial formulas revealed by the research presented in this paper are also worth being adapted more widely. Additionally, I would like to point out the importance of monitoring of the environmental conditions of projects similar to those proposed in this article, as well as recultivation projects not aimed at public accessibility. Without control, there is a risk that they can lead to unintended negative consequences, such as shifting responsibility for problem areas (from heavy industry companies) onto entities not fully aware of their conditions (e.g., polluted, contaminated, difficult to maintain or with extended remediation costs). However, it is worth noting that making partially remediated areas (safe only in the part made available to the public) available for users may attract attention, leading to actions aimed at improving the environment on a larger scale, also by investors previously uninterested in these areas. One of the main conclusions from this study is that we still know little about the actions that can and should be taken to ensure that the sustainable development we strive for encompasses the broader interests of communities and specialists from various engineering disciplines and fields of knowledge (lines 1020-6).

As a supplement I would like to add that in light of the analysed Polish cases, it becomes quite evident that partial land reclamation and the creation of distinctive sites attract new stakeholders who undertake activities to further their own business plans. These activities can lead to more advanced environmental improvements than those that local governments and mining companies, driven by economic considerations, can or are willing to achieve. Keeping in mind that areas open to the public need to be totally safe, it is worth considering that architectural and urban projects may be an intermediate stage (and not, as is commonly considered, the final stage) of area revitalisation. They can likely be a catalyst for environmental improvement across larger areas. However, this aspect of projects requires further research.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: -

Response 1:    -

5. Additional clarifications -