Situating Place and Wellbeing Within Heritage Interactions for Older Adults
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The paper's aim to explore the connection between one of today’s key challenges—an aging society—and its impact on wellbeing and interaction with heritage is highly relevant to the purpose of this journal. This paper will certainly provide valuable "food for thought" for both decision-makers in the heritage sector and those responsible for programs aimed at enhancing the well-being of seniors.
The abstract clearly outlines the study’s findings and methodology. The Introduction section presents a concise literature review with relevant references related to the article's topic.
The Materials and Methods section is well-explained, with all steps of the methodology clearly outlined.
The excerpt from the interview in lines 333-336 is not entirely clear, making it difficult to understand its connection to both the preceding and following paragraphs. Even after re-reading the text between lines 328 and 343, its meaning remains unclear.
The passage in lines 438-440 (“It emphasizes how a failure to align heritage sites with the lived experiences and values of local communities can result in a lack of engagement from those groups.”) is particularly compelling. This insight naturally builds anticipation for practical recommendations addressing this misalignment, especially in relation to the discussion on page 10. It would greatly enhance the paper if these recommendations were more explicitly stated, providing clearer guidance for decision-makers in the heritage sector.
The term "co-production" is used on page 10, and "co-designing heritage-based programs to address community needs" is mentioned in the Conclusion section. Expanding on this concept could enhance the discussion, potentially by incorporating relevant references from academic literature in the heritage field. Additionally, the well-established body of literature on co-creation in marketing and tourism could provide valuable insights. Defining co-production/co-creation and slightly extending the discussion on this important topic is recommended.
Even without providing references from academic sources, the mention of learning officers from Historic Environment Scotland and the creation of community ambassadors is an interesting practical insight. Including references to learn more about this experience would be highly valuable.
Overall, the article is rich in insights and excellently written. While the suggestions provided may seem extensive, they are intended to further enhance an already high-quality piece of work.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and thorough review. We note with thanks the positive and encouraging comments made regarding the article’s scope and aims.
In terms of specific comments made, the reviewer stated: “The excerpt from the interview in lines 333-336 is not entirely clear, making it difficult to understand its connection to both the preceding and following paragraphs”
The sentence preceding the quotation has been expanded to state: “The interviewees discussed their experiences of running online sessions, particularly during lockdown, and creating interactive programs centered around reminiscence and the senses such as touch, taste and smell:”
The reviewer asked for the recommendations on widening access to working class older adults to be made more explicit. In the conclusion, specific reference is made to “working class older adults” has been added. Further, section headings have been added to the discussion, making the widening participation discussion more distinct.
The reviewer asked for a definition and expansion of co-creation and co-production in the discussion. A paragraph has been added to cover this along with an additional three references.
The reviewer asked for references to be included to discuss the role of community ambassadors with the organisation Historic Environment Scotland. Unfortunately these appears not to be a specific reference to the scheme available, that was mentioned in the interviews.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a very well thought out and well written article. Its research topic is highly novel, as shown by its structure and methodology. The problem analysed is a relevant issue within the concerns of universal accessibility and social inclusion, studies that have been in constant evolution for years.
The approach to the three problems associated with the barriers encountered by the elderly in their access to heritage is very appropriate, considering that in the chaos of physical barriers, the group of elderly people is not homogeneous and presents varied and sometimes complementary cognitive and physical impairments.
It is very important and appropriate in this article to include the opinions of experts who provide first-hand testimony on these issues and problems.
It should be noted as a reflection that the importance or common thread of many of the activities or proposals included for this group is usefulness, since in the case of craft or artistic workshops, exhibitions or generational workshops, their contributions from experience increase the feeling of usefulness to society in these people, recovering the status they had when they were active. Therefore, being able to offer them the possibility of recovering their confidence and self-esteem through self-awareness of their social value is very relevant not only at a community level but also at a personal level.
International studies and projects on social inclusion and universal accessibility in different vulnerable groups, such as MUSACCES CM in Spain, have been able to determine that co-design approaches and activities and workshops focused on sensoriality and experiences in art, heritage and museums are also a success.
Congratulations for this great scientific contribution and for taking a systematic, coherent and contrasted approach to a complex issue.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and thorough review. We note with thanks the positive and encouraging comments made regarding the article’s scope and aims.
The reviewer noted the work in Spain on co-creation that has taken place. A paragraph has been added in the discussion discussing co-creation and has included an additional three references, one of which mentions the work in Spain.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research topic is valuable and well-explored, and the research provides practical suggestions for enhancing the supportive values, equity, and accessibility of heritage sites for the growing population of the elderly.
My suggestions are mainly on:
1. The introduction needs to specifically delineate the significance of heritage sites to older people, rather than stay on the general narration of their various values (for example, as appears in lines 68-84).
The introduction to heritage sites' significance to the elderly, which is mainly presented in lines 58-67, need to be better summarized (for example, a heritage site may be a cultural/ natural/ or mixed one, and different kinds of heritage sites have multiple values for physical and mental health of the elderly).
Lines 85-102 and lines 103-109 then respectively introduce the significance of museums and historic urban centers to the elderly, yet these two sections need to be organized more logically with lines 58-67 , as the quite random use of (cultural or/and natural) heritage sites, historic environment, historic urban centers, and museums causes ambiguity in the definition of terms and understanding the study object.
2. Concerning the structure organization of the Result section: it might be better to put the 3.2 section forward as 3.1, closer and complementary to the brief yet insufficient introduction of heritage sites' benefits for the elderly (as appears in lines 58-67).
3. The Discussion part is not well delineated, and subtitles of this section could be added to highlight the focuses and contribution of this research.
Besides,
1. In lines 238-244, it seems that the general questions formulated during interviews are not specifically concerned with the connections of heritage sites and the elderly's well-being, but are more concerned with either of the two themes respectively. It could be better to emphasize their connections in the question formulation.
2. Throughout 3.1.1, would it be better to replace "physiological barriers" with "physical barriers" to emphasize the barriers from the physical environment for the elderly rather than from their health condition?
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and thorough review. We note with thanks the positive and encouraging comments made regarding the article’s scope and aims.
In terms of specific comments made, the reviewer asked for more specific information on heritage sites in the introduction. The sentence: “Heritage sites can be cultural, natural, or mixed; older adults may interact with, and value, individual sites depending on their specific characteristics” has been added.
The reviewer discussed the section on museums in the introduction. Given the addition of the delineation of types of heritage sites earlier in the introduction, we trust that the section on museums fits more clearly in the overall introduction.
The reviewer suggested moving section 3.2 forward to 3.1. Upon re-reading the article we feel the structure that exists better reflects the emphasis of the discussions. Barriers to engagement was a key outcome and we feel this should remain as the first results section.
The reviewer suggested adding sub-headings to the discussion. This has been done.
The reviewer suggested re-wording “physiological barriers” to “physical barriers” in section 3.1.1. We respectfully disagree, as “physical barriers” could be taken to mean the layout of a heritage site as well as the mobility issues caused by old age.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attached Word document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and thorough review. We note with thanks the positive and encouraging comments made regarding the article’s scope and aims. The reviewer comments were very extensive and covered many aspects of the article; where specific suggestions have been made to alter the article, these are addressed below.
The reviewer asked for a definition of ‘elderly’ – the United Nations definition of elderly has been included in the introduction.
The line on age-friendly communities (line 55) summarises the research articles listed there.
The reviewer requested some discussion of the challenges presented by the sampling methodology. The line “However one issue raised by this technique is that the participants are not randomly selected from the whole community of heritage experts available, and as such are not representative of that community.” Has been included.
The reviewer requested a discussion on creative access and the inclusion of three references (Echavarria et al., 2022, Salas, 2021; Cerisola, 2019) – this has been done.
The reviewer asked for confirmation of the details of the Nottingham ‘Take a Seat’ initiative. Details can be found here: https://ageing-better.org.uk/stories/age-friendly-nottingham-take-seat and https://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/care/health-and-wellbeing/take-a-seat. These sites have not been included in the paper however as this initiative was given by a respondent as an illustrative example; to include a significant discussion on this one example would distract from the overall thrust of the paper and include a case study that the researchers were not involved with.
The reviewer asked for the concludion of section 3.1.1 to be strengthened to reflect the challenges older adults face when using new technologies; this has been added.
The reviewer suggested a qualitative analysis of section 3.1.2 with health-related literature. A definition and expansion of co-creation and co-production has been included in the discussion. A paragraph has been added to cover this along with an additional three references. However adding in a discussion on how these results compare to literature on the health sector would take the paper on a tangent away from the main arguments presented here.
The reviewer asked “There are also good speculations about increasing working class participation, is there any statistical analysis that can support this?”. As a qualitative piece of work, what is presented here is the outcome of interviews with a range of experts in this field; no statistical work was carried out as part of this study. Though unrelated to this study on older adults, the reviewer might find the paper by Grimshaw and Mates (2022) on working class children’s sense of place of interest, and this touches on heritage also (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00420980211019597)
The reviewer stated “The overall conclusion (L.743) to ‘bring people in’ somewhat ignores some of the other points raised – such as going out to people’s homes through virtual digital inclusion and out to care homes. Worth nuancing this conclusion.” This conclusion has been augmented to include the points made by the reviewer.
The reviewer said “L. 10547 – 62 – this point about the widespread failure of the integration – and, in turn, sustainability and sharing – of pilot studies is a really difficult challenge. This has been found in terms of Creative Health interventions at large. This is where the relationship between grassroots and larger institutions such as Historic England in this research is worth a probe –even if only to highlight this need.” – This relationship has been added to the paragraph.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt seems that the manuscript is not revised. It would be difficult to read the long and unmarked manuscript again in order to compare where the manuscript is revised and where not. I respect the authors’ opinions to keep it as it originally was, and the research is publishable.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article is now ready for publication.
