Economic Feasibility Assessment of Industrial Heritage Reuse Under Multi-Attribute Decision-Based Urban Renewal Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• What is the main question addressed by the research?

The paper proposes a methodology to balance the assessment of industrial heritage reuse, regarding economic performance, community space and cultural value based on the MCDM tools. The research field is a medium-sized city in China.

• Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case.

As reported by the authors, the barriers and limitation of the study are considered. The literature review gaps are addressed by the research.

Nevertheless, the sustainable approach or ‘sustainable operation”, is mentioned only on the discussion. It’s important to achieve the energy performance and the user’s comfort (thermal, acoustic, visual etc improvements) by the retrofit or reuse. Another aspect must be considered on assessment is the gentrification process that the historical built park could be impacted on the social, economic and cultural values.

The adaptive reuse of heritage buildings to new and contemporary functions must regard the new requirements in all aspects.

• What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

The methodology proposed by the paper adds a special interest for world-wide readers. The industrial heritage reuse, as the whole building stock, is an updated and necessary field of the Energy Transition.

• What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology?

We suggest some improvements considering the building performance, user’s comfort and gentrification, for example.

The limitation by the cohort of 15 experts, is a fragility, but the authors presents a justification based on literature review.

• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case.

The conclusion is adequate, considering the limitations and barriers of the research.

• Are the references appropriate?

Yes, well-based references.

An overall comment for the writing style, the paragraphs are so long; for a better reading we suggest splitting the text. Please pay attention on the punctuation.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer1:

Q1-1. Nevertheless, the sustainable approach or ‘sustainable operation”, is mentioned only on the discussion. It’s important to achieve the energy performance and the user’s comfort (thermal, acoustic, visual etc improvements) by the retrofit or reuse. Another aspect must be considered on assessment is the gentrification process that the historical built park could be impacted on the social, economic and cultural values.

 

The adaptive reuse of heritage buildings to new and contemporary functions must regard the new requirements in all aspects.

 

Response1-1:

We thank the reviewers for their insightful comments. In the introduction, we have added a discussion on the tension between economic viability and cultural sustainability, pointing out that existing research often simplifies cultural value into economic gains or branding tools, while ignoring its structural role in social equity and long-term sustainability. We have also supplemented this with a critical analysis of the phenomenon of gentrification, pointing out that if industrial heritage renewal is guided solely by capital returns, it can easily lead to the exclusion of public space, community alienation, and the weakening of social values. These revisions strengthen the concept of "sustainable operations" at the intersection of society, economy, and culture. (please see lines 44-114).

New indicators, such as "resident participation" and "citizen attitude," have been added to the indicator system (Table 1, Section 2.3, "Community Spatial Dimensions") to quantify community participation in the renewal process and perceptions of potential social displacement (gentrification risk). These indicators reflect the concrete and quantitative application of social dimensions in sustainability assessments. (please see lines 744-745).

 

References:

Foster, G. (2020). Circular economy strategies for adaptive reuse of cultural heritage buildings to reduce environmental impacts. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 152, 104507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104507

Bryson, J. R., Mulhall, R. A., Song, M., & Kenny, R. (2017). Urban assets and the financialisation fix: Land tenure, renewal and path dependency in the city of birmingham. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsx013

Liu, X. (2024). The effects of commercialisation on urban heritage in tianjin: A study of citizens’ livelihood in the five avenues (wudadao) historical district. Built Heritage, 8(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238-024-00146-z

Ma, Y., Roosli, R., Cao, Z., Zhang, X., Gai, Y., & Ma, Z. (2025). From isolation to integration: A methodological review of adaptive reuse in industrial heritage buildings. Energy and Buildings, 348, 116474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2025.116474

De Gregorio, S., De Vita, M., De Berardinis, P., Palmero, L., & Risdonne, A. (2020). Designing the sustainable adaptive reuse of industrial heritage to enhance the local context. Sustainability, 12(21), 9059. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219059

Vafaie, F., Remøy, H., & Gruis, V. (2023). Adaptive reuse of heritage buildings; a systematic literature review of success factors. Habitat International, 142, 102926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2023.102926

Chen C.-S., Chiu Y.-H., & Tsai L. (2018). Evaluating the adaptive reuse of historic buildings through multicriteria decision-making. Habitat International, 81, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2018.09.003

Maddaloni, F. D., & Sabini, L. (2022). Very important, yet very neglected: Where do local communities stand when examining social sustainability in major construction projects? International Journal of Project Management, 40(7), 778–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.08.007

Mehan, A. (2025). Adaptive reuse as a catalyst for post-2030 urban sustainability: Rethinking industrial heritage beyond the SDGs. Discover Sustainability, 6(1), 598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-01462-9

Nocca, F., Bosone, M., & Orabona, M. (2024). Multicriteria evaluation framework for industrial heritage adaptive reuse: The role of the ‘intrinsic value.’ Land, 13(8), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081266

Luke, N., & Kaika, M. (2019). Ripping the heart out of ancoats: Collective action to defend infrastructures of social reproduction against gentrification. Antipode, 51(2), 579–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12468

Ramos-Vidal, I., & de la Ossa, E. D. (2024). A systematic review to determine the role of public space and urban design on sense of community. International Social Science Journal, 74(252), 633–655. https://doi.org/10.1111/issj.12472

Francis, J., Giles-Corti, B., Wood, L., & Knuiman, M. (2012). Creating sense of community: The role of public space. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4), 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.07.002

Santarlacci, A. de S., Angelo, H., Souza, Á. N. de, Lima, M. de F. de B., Joaquim, M. S., Miguel, E. P., & Carneiro, J. de O. (2024). Benefit sharing governance framework: Pathways for financial benefit sharing in traditional communities. Sustainability, 16(7), 2650. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072650

Su, Y., Xu, H., & Zhang, X. (2024). How can public spaces contribute to increased incomes for urban residents—A social capital perspective. Land, 13(7), 945. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13070945

El Faouri, B. F., & Sibley, M. (2022). Heritage-led urban regeneration in the context of WH listing: Lessons and opportunities for the newly inscribed city of As-salt in Jordan. Sustainability, 14(8), 4557. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084557

Jo Black, K., & Richards, M. (2020). Eco-gentrification and who benefits from urban green amenities: NYC’s high line. Landscape and Urban Planning, 204, 103900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103900

Gill, G. (2025). Heritage and entrepreneurial urbanism: Unequal economies, social exclusion, and conservative cultures. Urban Research & Practice. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17535069.2024.2382245

Xia, J., Wang, S., & Cheng, A. (2025). Industrial heritage and urban renewal: A quantitative study and optimization strategies for chengdu east suburb memory. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1537211

 

Q1-2. An overall comment for the writing style, the paragraphs are so long; for a better reading we suggest splitting the text. Please pay attention on the punctuation.

 

Response1-2:

We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful suggestions. We have made comprehensive adjustments to paragraph length and punctuation in the revised manuscript, particularly in the Introduction and Methodology sections. We have restructured and logically reorganized the original long paragraphs to provide a clearer structure and a smoother reading flow. We have also re-proofread the punctuation and sentence structure throughout the manuscript to ensure semantic accuracy and academically sound expression, thereby improving overall readability and presentation quality.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript offers a valuable and original contribution to the field of industrial heritage adaptive reuse by proposing a structured decision-making framework with solid methodological grounding. Nonetheless, the current version requires major revisions, particularly in enhancing readability, improving the visual presentation of results, and deepening the critical engagement with the literature. Addressing these points will significantly strengthen the paper’s academic contribution and practical relevance. Detailed suggestions for improvement are provided in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Due to the word or character limit of the submission system, it is not possible to include the full point-by-point response within the text box. Therefore, we have uploaded the complete “Response to Reviewers” document as a separate file for your review.
All reviewer comments have been carefully addressed in detail in that document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for their careful review of the manuscript, which took my comments into consideration. The new version of the manuscript is significantly improved, and I believe it now meets the requirements for publication.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments.