A System Dynamics Framework for Enhancing Stakeholder Engagement in the Implementation of the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) Approach in Türkiye

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for a great article. Couple suggestions:

-In the future, maybe avoid using always the same type of sentences to start a new paragraph (pp 11 to 16 : 'X plays a vital/crucial role in...')

-Existing scholarship has written about stakeholders engagement: how your results differ from theirs? It would be good to add a small discussion about it. See for example the work of

J.M. Bryson What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques Public Management Review, 6 (1) (2004), pp. 21-53, 10.1080/14719030410001675722   C. Aas, A. Ladkin, J. Fletcher Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (1) (2005), pp. 28-48, 10.1016/j.annals.2004.04.005

Yang Liu, Xin Jin, Karine Dupre,
Engaging stakeholders in contested urban heritage planning and management,
Cities, Volume 122,2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103521.

-p23: ';The integrative framework developed in this article not only captures existing stake holder interactions but also outlines how they should ideally interact to achieve systemic  balance.' I am concerned about this statement because it seems that the system will be put forward against the context and the needs of the communities. I think it needs to be revised:the system is a tool that could be perfectly unbalanced and developed this way to achieve the greater good.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Revision 1: 11 to 16: 'X plays a vital/crucial role in...')

In the future, maybe avoid using always the same type of sentences to start a new paragraph (pp

Response 1: The requested revision has been addressed and can be found in the revised article in the result

and discussion section in 512-513,540-541….705-706.

Revision 2: Existing scholarship has written about stakeholders’ engagement: how your results differ from

theirs? It would be good to add a small discussion about it. See for example the work of

• J.M. Bryson What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques

Public Management Review, 6 (1) (2004), pp. 21-53, 10.1080/14719030410001675722

• C. Aas, A. Ladkin, J. Fletcher Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management Annals of Tourism

Research, 32 (1) (2005), pp. 28-48, 10.1016/j.annals.2004.04.005

• Yang Liu, Xin Jin, Karine Dupre, Engaging stakeholders in contested urban heritage planning and

management, Cities, Volume 122,2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103521.

Response 2: The requested revision has been addressed and can be found in the revised article in 213-231 and

838-846.

Revision 3: p23: ';The integrative framework developed in this article not only captures existing stake holder

interactions but also outlines how they should ideally interact to achieve systemic balance.' I am concerned

about this statement because it seems that the system will be put forward against the context and the needs of

the communities. I think it needs to be revised: the system is a tool that could be perfectly unbalanced and

developed this way to achieve the greater good.

Response 3: The requested revision has been addressed and can be found in the revised article in 832-876 and

924-933.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction is apparently clear in its aims; however, it promises more than the paper actually delivers. It claims to identify the objectives of the stakeholders, yet these are merely taken from previous research and therefore do not constitute original findings (i.e., they are not based on primary data). Similarly, the interactions among stakeholders’ objectives are not truly analyzed but are instead presented in an overly simplified manner that fails to reflect the real-life complexities of such relationships.

The literature review only explains HUL applications at a global scale and in Turkey but lacks a discussion of how academic research has analyzed stakeholders’ interactions. Moreover, the descriptions of the different cases addressing the application of HUL worldwide remain superficial and lack a more intentional approach aligned with the paper’s focus on stakeholder engagement.

The first two paragraphs of the Methodology section should be placed in the Introduction and the Literature Review, respectively, as they do not explain the methodology but rather continue to discuss the weaknesses of HUL applications. Likewise, the text from lines 220 to 244 should be moved to the Literature Review, as it discusses previous research employing the systems-thinking approach.

Regarding the Methodology, the authors explain that the effects of the stakeholders’ objectives (variables) on one another were derived from the literature. This approach is, in my opinion, another important weakness of the research, as there is no practical verification of these interactions. Moreover, these relationships are presented in an overly simplified manner, without considering that the actual effects can vary significantly depending on the specific content of each variable. For instance, the authors suggest that “policy-making and regulatory authority drive investment and incentives,” yet the opposite may occur if such policies are poorly designed. Similarly, they claim that “investment and incentives promote inclusion,” although there is no direct relationship—investment and incentives may, in fact, lead to gentrification processes that produce outcomes contrary to social inclusion.

Also regarding the Methodology, two aspects require further explanation:

• The theoretical foundation of the proposed thematic clusters.

• The role of Vensim PLE in the study. Even though an explanation is provided, it remains extremely vague.

Finally, regarding the stakeholders’ objectives, the title of the “political” category is somewhat misleading. Given its definition, I would suggest using “managerial” objectives instead.

In the Results and Discussion section, several parts also require clearer explanation:

• Between lines 445 and 448, how exactly do the authors advance from the Causal Loop Diagram to the presentation of the objectives (variables) for each stakeholder?

• What is the contribution of the notion of Balancing Loops to the analysis?

Additionally, in Fig. 1, there should be a legend explaining the meaning of the different colors (even if this explanation appears in the text).

As a result of these weaknesses, in my opinion the article fails to demonstrate the applicability and relevance of the SD tool in stakeholder analysis.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Revision 1: The introduction is apparently clear in its aims; however, it promises more than the paper actually

delivers. It claims to identify the objectives of the stakeholders, yet these are merely taken from previous

research and therefore do not constitute original findings (i.e., they are not based on primary data). Similarly,

the interactions among stakeholders’ objectives are not truly analyzed but are instead presented in an overly

simplified manner that fails to reflect the real-life complexities of such relationships.

Response 1: The requested revision has been addressed and can be found in the revised article in 63-75.

Revision 2: The literature review only explains HUL applications at a global scale and in Turkey but lacks a

discussion of how academic research has analyzed stakeholders’ interactions. Moreover, the descriptions of

the different cases addressing the application of HUL worldwide remain superficial and lack a more intentional

approach aligned with the paper’s focus on stakeholder engagement.

Response 2: The requested revision has been addressed and can be found in the revised article in 130-131 and

202-231.

Revision 3: The first two paragraphs of the Methodology section should be placed in the Introduction and the

Literature Review, respectively, as they do not explain the methodology but rather continue to discuss the

weaknesses of HUL applications. Likewise, the text from lines 220 to 244 should be moved to the Literature

Review, as it discusses previous research employing the systems-thinking approach.

Response 3: The requested revision has been addressed and can be found in the revised article in 53-57 and

232-265.

Revision 4: Regarding the Methodology, the authors explain that the effects of the stakeholders’ objectives

(variables) on one another were derived from the literature. This approach is, in my opinion, another important

weakness of the research, as there is no practical verification of these interactions. Moreover, these

relationships are presented in an overly simplified manner, without considering that the actual effects can vary

significantly depending on the specific content of each variable. For instance, the authors suggest that “policy-

making and regulatory authority drive investment and incentives,” yet the opposite may occur if such policies

are poorly designed. Similarly, they claim that “investment and incentives promote inclusion,” although there

is no direct relationship—investment and incentives may, in fact, lead to gentrification processes that produce

outcomes contrary to social inclusion.

Response 4: The requested revision has been addressed and can be found in the revised article in 269-333 and

454-498.

Revision 5: Also, regarding the Methodology, two aspects require further explanation:

• The theoretical foundation of the proposed thematic clusters.• The role of Vensim PLE in the study. Even though an explanation is provided, it remains extremely

vague.

• Finally, regarding the stakeholders’ objectives, the title of the “political” category is somewhat

misleading. Given its definition, I would suggest using “managerial” objectives instead.

Response 5: The requested revision has been addressed and can be found in the revised article in 269-333.

Revision 6: In the Results and Discussion section, several parts also require clearer explanation:

• Between lines 445 and 448, how exactly do the authors advance from the Causal Loop Diagram to the

presentation of the objectives (variables) for each stakeholder?

• What is the contribution of the notion of Balancing Loops to the analysis?

• Additionally, in Fig. 1, there should be a legend explaining the meaning of the different colors (even

if this explanation appears in the text).

As a result of these weaknesses, in my opinion the article fails to demonstrate the applicability and relevance

of the SD tool in stakeholder analysis.

Response 6: The requested revision has been addressed and can be found in the revised article in 334-886.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the paper addresses a relevant topic — the implementation of HUL in Turkey using System Dynamics (SD) — its effectiveness is limited by significant methodological and structural weaknesses. Before it can be published as a scientific article, the article needs a thorough revision.

The SD model was developed solely as a "conceptual and structural framework". This means it can only be used as a simple interpretive tool for visualising interconnections and does not create a dynamic analytical/predictive model that simulates the system. This aspect requires greater clarification.

Secondly, stakeholders themselves were not included as variables in the CLD due to the difficulty of quantifying them. This choice weakens the model's ability to analyse the dynamic complexity and interactions between actors, which were the focus of the study. 

Mapping stakeholders and their objectives based on literature rather than primary data specific to the Turkish context makes the analysis less empirical.

Although the article correctly identifies institutional fragmentation as a key problem in Türkiye, the applied methodology does not provide a solution to effectively address this problem.

The result section be divided into subparagraphs for clarity and readability. 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

While the paper addresses a relevant topic — the implementation of HUL in Turkey using System Dynamics

(SD) — its effectiveness is limited by significant methodological and structural weaknesses. Before it can be

published as a scientific article, the article needs a thorough revision.

Revision 1: The SD model was developed solely as a "conceptual and structural framework". This means it

can only be used as a simple interpretive tool for visualizing interconnections and does not create a dynamic

analytical/predictive model that simulates the system. This aspect requires greater clarification.

Response 1: The requested revision has been addressed and can be found in the revised article in 63-75, 269-

333, and 832-886.

Revision 2: Secondly, stakeholders themselves were not included as variables in the CLD due to the difficulty

of quantifying them. This choice weakens the model's ability to analyze the dynamic complexity and

interactions between actors, which were the focus of the study.

Response 2: The requested revision has been addressed and can be found in the revised article in 269-333 and

832-886.

Revision 3: Mapping stakeholders and their objectives based on literature rather than primary data specific to

the Turkish context makes the analysis less empirical.

Response 3: The requested revision has been addressed and can be found in the revised article in 63-75 and

269-333.

Revision 4: Although the article correctly identifies institutional fragmentation as a key problem in Türkiye,

the applied methodology does not provide a solution to effectively address this problem.

Response 4: The requested revision has been addressed and can be found in the revised article in 832-886 and

924-933.

Revision 5: The result section be divided into subparagraphs for clarity and readability.

Response 5: The requested revision has been addressed and can be found in the revised article in 334-887.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have updated the text, incorporating some of the suggestions provided. The paper may be published.