Participatory Design for Small-Scale PV Integration in Heritage Districts: The Case of Öjeby Church Town, Piteå, Sweden

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer would like to thank the authors for their very good research in transforming historical places to pronsumers in Sweden through using PVs, the following points will improve the quality of the paper:

1- Flowchart is highly needed in methodology.

2- why PV in windows is the only installation scenario studied, why not roof PVs and gardens PVs are not mentioned or hybrid of all of those? also, are there any other renewable energy can be installed in those heritage buildings like hydrogen or solar water heaters or even small-scale wind turbines?

3- Nothing mentioned about the grid codes for integrating PVs to Sweden power system, it's very important to mention about it if you want the study to be applied further in Sweden and Europe.

4- Also nothing mentioned about the smart meters.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First, the authors present the Swedish context related to monument protection. They present the principle of a participatory approach to the protection of cultural assets. I believe this topic could be expanded upon, because, incidentally, in light of the presented assumptions, the history of Herostratus and the Artemision in Ephesus is inclusive and participatory in nature.

The topic of this work is interesting and timely. Preserving cultural and historical values is the responsibility of every nation. At the same time, the challenges arising from contemporary energy needs and international obligations pose difficult challenges for those managing historic assets. This work is a case study in which local communities are involved in planning photovoltaic installations in a historic town.

Section two presents the potential for integrating photovoltaics into cultural heritage districts. Section three focuses on the case study.

There is no clearly defined research problem or research objective. The research question was formulated clearly. The research method needs to be clarified. The authors provide a detailed description of the workshops conducted, but the research methodology presented in the article is not identical to the methodology of the workshops conducted. The process of conceptualization and operationalization of the research needs to be clarified.

The workshops described here can serve as both a source of project information and a tool for shaping public opinion. This aspect should be expanded and supplemented.

Lines 134–139: The research problem, questions, hypotheses, etc., are not beliefs or intuitions. Reference should be made to relevant literature.

The authors assume that historical areas are inhabited by "the people who know and value them most." This assumption requires justification, particularly in the context of internal motivations, social norms, and economic factors.

Section 4.1 announces specific data that are not found in this study. Section 5.4 leaves the reader feeling very unsatisfied. This constitutes a shortcoming of the study.

The "Results" section is too vague. It describes the results of actions without providing any further details.

The "Discussion" section serves as a summary. Reference should be made to the international literature on the topic under study.

The conclusions, although quite general, are logical. However, they lack a clear response to the research question.

The authors rightly noted the limitations of this study.

I think that after filling in the indicated gaps, the article can be published.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Present contribution constitutes a relevant research dealing with renewable transition within site-specific contexts. Qualitative research concerning PV integration into historical buildings' acceptance, represents indeed original and interesting deepening of an underinvestigated subject. Nevetheless, overall description of research methodology and results need to be improved.

In details:

• Introduction section could be structured into two subsections: the former one dealing with research description, and the second one concerning a more properly deepened academic literature background framing addressed issues;
• In section 2.2 cultural approaches to conservation would require longer deepening, thus recalling to respective academic and scientific debate. I would focus the section more on energy efficiency and renewable energy interventions on historical buildings within Northern (or Scandinavian) context;
• I would suggest to conclude Section 2 with a dedicated image showing the intertwining of the three topics;
• At the beginning of Section 4, I think that an initial paragraph describing the methodology as a whole would be necessary. I suggest also to add an image of the workflow to point out more clearly chosen approach;
• Section 5 needs to be re-structured: results require to be systematized through tabels, figures or bullet points. Outcomes descending from the subsequent research steps need to be more evidently extracted;
• Figure 4 aim is not clear, please make it closer to text description, the relation is not so self-evident;
• I would suggest to deepen section 6.4 in terms of research limitations also considering the chosen community, territorial context, as well as build heritage. Methodological considerations would be helpful, too.
• In the conclusions section, I would also insert some of the research highlights (maybe trhough a dedicated bullet points list), and add further comments on research transferability.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf