Cultural Heritage Sites as a Facilitator for Place Making in the Context of Smart City: The Case of Geelong

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on the analysis of the role of cultural heritage within the smart cities context. Besides the novelty of the approach, based on the interviews of professionals with experience in the field, in my opinion the paper has some gaps and problems:

1. The research questions are not clearly formulated. It must be clarified.
2. The sample of 11 interviews is not well justified, according to the Geolong city  dimension. 
3. Authors should provide after the literature review more data about Geolong cultural heritage that is serving as case study of this paper. What is the number of remaining inhabitants of indigenous people? How many layers of colonial cultural do we have? What's the balance between these data and the number of the selected interviews

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The written must be  improved in some details. 

Author Response

Comment 1: The research questions are not clearly formulated. It must be clarified.

response 1: We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. In response, we have revised the concluding paragraph of the Introduction to more clearly and explicitly state the research questions guiding the study. The updated version now presents the research questions in a numbered list to enhance readability and clarity. These questions directly align with the conceptual aims of the paper and structure the investigation into how cultural heritage can be integrated into smart city planning through place making. We trust that this reformulation provides a clearer entry point into the study’s objectives and methodology. (row 111- 128)

Question 2 : The sample of 11 interviews is not well justified, according to the Geolong city  dimension. 

response 2: We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback on the interview sample size. The study follows a qualitative research design with a purposive sampling strategy aimed at depth rather than breadth. As such, the goal was not to achieve statistical representativeness, but to gather rich, expert-driven insights into the intersection of cultural heritage, place making, and smart city development within Geelong. To address this concern, we have expanded the explanation in the Participants and Sampling Strategy section (2.3.1) to clarify the rationale behind the sample size. (row 328-336)

Question 3: Authors should provide after the literature review more data about Geolong cultural heritage that is serving as case study of this paper. What is the number of remaining inhabitants of indigenous people? How many layers of colonial cultural do we have? What's the balance between these data and the number of the selected interviews

response 3: Thank you for the helpful suggestion. A paragraph has been added at the end of the literature review, providing information on the Wadawurrung population, Geelong’s layered colonial history, and clarifying that the 11 expert interviews were selected for their cross-sectoral relevance rather than demographic representation. (row 242-257)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The contributors address a relevant and timely area of sustainable urban development through the lens of  participatory governance. This manuscript explores the role of cultural heritage sites as facilitators of place-making within the evolving paradigm of smart city development. The case study selected by the authors is interesting : Geelong, a city with layered colonial and Indigenous histories from Australia.

Nevertheless, several issues should be addressed before publication.

 

Keywords:

The authors used three keywords that are used  also in the title (Cultural heritage, Smart cities, Place making). Usually, keywords  should be  different and should highlight other importat issues  addressed in the paper. At least one of  these keywords  should  be replaced (e.g. with  participatory governance).

Introduction

The introduction is well written being highlighted on the most important issues to the principal topic, but more citations should  be included by the authors.

The authors used only one citation for several ideas that are addressed in various studies or  other ideas are not followed by citations:

e.g. Rows: 39-42: "However, the smart city paradigm extends far beyond the mere application of digital technologies. Its true potential lies in its capacity to merge technological innovation with social inclusivity and cultural depth. The  development of smart cities must therefore be guided by an integrated vision that balances technological advancements with social equity and environmental stewardship." Or:

Rows: 47-50:  "Cultural heritage sites serve not only as repositories of collective memory and identity  but also as active agents in promoting cultural continuity, community engagement, and urban revitalization. These spaces possess the potential to enrich urban experience, stimulate cultural tourism, and generate economic value, all while contributing to more sustainable and participatory models of urban development."

Rows: 56-59: "While the theoretical roots of place making are well established in urban studies [here you should insert at least 2 citations], its application within smart cities particularly through the lens of  cultural heritage remains insufficiently explored. This underlines the need to examine how heritage spaces can be reimagined as facilitators of meaningful urban experiences in technologically mediated environments."

Rows: 63-65 "Existing studies often fall short in articulating how heritage sites contribute to creating vibrant, inclusive, and adaptive urban environments" [here you should insert at least 2 citations].

Methodology

Within the methodology, the authors can include a short description of the case study, including also 2 or 3 photos  of relevant heritage buildings.

Discussion

Although rich in interpretations, the discussion contains few connections to previous empirical studies. Comparing the results with previous literature would strengthen the contribution and contextual understanding. Therefore, authors can include several studies already selected in the reference list for comparison:

e.g. Rows:603-606: Through in-depth thematic analysis of expert  interviews, it becomes evident that cultural heritage sites are not merely remnants of the past, but evolving spaces that carry social meaning and urban value, particularly when activated through participatory and digitally enhanced place making strategies.

Rows 643-645: This finding resonates with critiques in the literature [to include citations from the literature that authors refers to], which warn that the techno-centricity of smart cities can obscure local  cultures, traditions, and needs.

The authors can corellate this result with other studies: rows 661-662 In discussing policy integration, interviewees stressed the importance of flexible regulatory frameworks that support heritage-sensitive development.

Rows 674-676:  The challenges discussed by experts such as lack of funding, internal resistance to innovation, and limited technical capacity also point to the institutional and cultural barriers that must be addressed for meaningful progress. The challenges discussed by experts such as lack of funding, internal resistance to innovation, and limited technical capacity also point to the institutional and cultural barriers that must be addressed for meaningful progress are mentioned. - In this fragment the authors enumerate several barriers and challenges. These barriers and challenges (e.g. lack of funding, etc) are mentioned in other  heritage studies. You should include few citations.

At the end of the discussions, authors should include a synthetic description to the theoretical contribution and practical significance of the study.

Conclusions

In sum, the qualitative data in this document shows that Geelong’s cultural heritage  682 serves as an ever-evolving infrastructure of identity, belonging, and meaning associated  683 with place as opposed to a remnant of history. The authors should replace the word document with other more relevant: study, paper. The manuscript is not a simple document, it is  a research.

Limitations of the study and future research directions are missing. These should be addressed by the authors.

Minor comments:

• To mention the source for each figure;
• To pay attention to the style of writing the bibliography – you shoul read again the instruction of authors – sometimes the authors include  month of  publication of  papers quoted-this detail should not  be included in reference list.

Author Response

Comment 1: The authors used three keywords that are used  also in the title (Cultural heritage, Smart cities, Place making). Usually, keywords  should be  different and should highlight other importat issues  addressed in the paper. At least one of  these keywords  should  be replaced (e.g. with  participatory governance).

Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback. In response, we have revised the keyword list to better reflect the thematic breadth of the study and avoid redundancy with the title. The updated keywords Participatory Governance, Adaptive Reuse, Community Engagement, Urban Identity, and Digital Innovation—capture critical dimensions of the research and enhance the discoverability of the paper across relevant interdisciplinary domains.


Comment 2: The authors used only one citation for several ideas that are addressed in various studies or  other ideas are not followed by citations. 

Response2: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In response, we have carefully revised the Introduction to include additional references that support the key claims made (row 39-66)

comment 3: Methodology Within the methodology, the authors can include a short description of the case study, including also 2 or 3 photos  of relevant heritage buildings.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. In response, we have added a concise case study description of Geelong at the end of the Research Design subsection (Section 2.1), outlining its cultural heritage significance and relevance to the research objectives. Additionally, we have included three illustrative images of key heritage buildings to provide visual context and enhance reader understanding of the urban landscape discussed in the study. (row 275-293)

Comment 4 : Discussion Although rich in interpretations, the discussion contains few connections to previous empirical studies. Comparing the results with previous literature would strengthen the contribution and contextual understanding. Therefore, authors can include several studies already selected in the reference list for comparison:

e.g. Rows:603-606: Through in-depth thematic analysis of expert  interviews, it becomes evident that cultural heritage sites are not merely remnants of the past, but evolving spaces that carry social meaning and urban value, particularly when activated through participatory and digitally enhanced place making strategies.

Rows 643-645: This finding resonates with critiques in the literature [to include citations from the literature that authors refers to], which warn that the techno-centricity of smart cities can obscure local  cultures, traditions, and needs.

The authors can corellate this result with other studies: rows 661-662 In discussing policy integration, interviewees stressed the importance of flexible regulatory frameworks that support heritage-sensitive development.

Rows 674-676:  The challenges discussed by experts such as lack of funding, internal resistance to innovation, and limited technical capacity also point to the institutional and cultural barriers that must be addressed for meaningful progress. The challenges discussed by experts such as lack of funding, internal resistance to innovation, and limited technical capacity also point to the institutional and cultural barriers that must be addressed for meaningful progress are mentioned. - In this fragment the authors enumerate several barriers and challenges. These barriers and challenges (e.g. lack of funding, etc) are mentioned in other  heritage studies. You should include few citations.

At the end of the discussions, authors should include a synthetic description to the theoretical contribution and practical significance of the study.

Response 4: In response, we have revised the discussion section to incorporate several relevant references from the existing literature, as suggested. Specifically:

Rows 603–606: We have added citations to recent studies that support the interpretation of cultural heritage sites as evolving spaces carrying social meaning and urban value, particularly when integrated with participatory and digitally enhanced placemaking strategies.

Rows 643–645: We have included references to prior critiques warning against the techno-centricity of smart cities, which risk overlooking local cultures, traditions, and needs.

Rows 661–662: We have connected our findings on policy integration and the importance of flexible regulatory frameworks with other studies advocating for heritage-sensitive development.

Rows 674–676: We have added citations from heritage literature documenting similar barriers such as lack of funding, internal resistance to innovation, and limited technical capacity.

 

Comment 5: Conclusions In sum, the qualitative data in this document shows that Geelong’s cultural heritage  682 serves as an ever-evolving infrastructure of identity, belonging, and meaning associated  683 with place as opposed to a remnant of history. The authors should replace the word document with other more relevant: study, paper. The manuscript is not a simple document, it is  a research. Limitations of the study and future research directions are missing. These should be addressed by the authors.

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful and constructive suggestion. The word document has now been replaced with study to more accurately reflect the academic and research-based nature of the manuscript.
Additionally, we have expanded the conclusion section to include both the limitations of the current study and future research directions. (row 753-765)

Comment 6: Minor comments:

• To mention the source for each figure;
• To pay attention to the style of writing the bibliography – you should read again the instruction of authors – sometimes the authors include  month of  publication of  papers quoted-this detail should not  be included in reference list.

Response 6: We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to detail. In response: We have now included the appropriate sources or clarifying statements for each figure, as applicable, to ensure transparency and proper attribution. The reference list has been carefully reviewed and revised to align with the journal’s required formatting style. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript offers a well-conceptualized contribution to the evolving intersection between cultural heritage, placemaking, and smart city development. It successfully bridges theoretical perspectives with applied urban challenges, using Geelong as a grounded case study.

The qualitative methodology is robust and well-articulated, with a clear explanation of participant selection, thematic analysis, and data validation strategies.

The five emergent themes are relevant, coherently developed, and clearly contextualized within contemporary literature. For future works, authors might consider deeper engagement with Indigenous epistemologies and co-authored methodologies.

The article is theoretically rich and methodologically sound, and it articulates a persuasive argument for reimagining heritage as a dynamic, participatory component of smart urban transformation. The proposed conceptual and assessment frameworks have strong potential for practical implementation and academic influence.

I encourage the authors to consider extending their findings to other regional or global case studies in future work, which would enhance the generalizability and impact of their contribution.

Overall, this is an excellent paper that merits publication with no major revisions.

Author Response

Comment 1: I encourage the authors to consider extending their findings to other regional or global case studies in future work, which would enhance the generalizability and impact of their contribution.

Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful suggestion. In response, we have revised the conclusion to explicitly acknowledge the potential for extending this research to other regional or international urban contexts. We note that such comparative studies would offer valuable insights for testing and refining the proposed frameworks across diverse socio-cultural and governance settings. This addition also aligns with our broader objective of contributing to a transferable and adaptable model for integrating cultural heritage into smart city development. (row 753 , start by " While this study...." )

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf