What Is the Relationship between Collective Memory and the Commoning Process in Historical Building Renovation Projects? The Case of the Mas di Sabe, Northern Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

What’s the relationship between collective memory and the commoning process in historical buildings renovation’ projects? The case of the Mas di Sabe, northern Italy.

Title

Please check spelling of ‘commoning’?

General comments

Well organised and structured paper. It presents the sections clearly.

However, there are few minor issues, I recommend to be considered.

1.     Add dates to the images, so the reader is clear about the process.

2.     Use ‘stakeholders’ rather than ‘actors’, where referring to people who are engaged in heritage management.

3.     It would be great if the ethical issues around the interviews were highlighted in the methodology. For example, has an ethical clearance been granted? By whom? Or at least how the authors have respected the anonymity of the interviewees.

It is clear that this has been respected, but some elaboration on this in the methodology section would add to the strength of this paper.

4.     Please review some typos..

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment for responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have conducted a detailed study on a heritage building using Mas di Sabe in Northern Italy as a case study. Specifically, they investigated the relationship between collective memory and the commoning process in historical building renovation projects. The themes for the study are interesting, and the study is well organized.  That said, I would like to make comments for improving the study.

The conclusions could be improved. The authors are encouraged to explicitly state the practical and theoretical implications of the study. How generalizable are the findings to other heritage buildings? This should be elaborated in the study. 

Concerning the methodology, the sampling techniques should be stated and justified. If the authors deployed purposive sampling and snowballing, they should state them and provide justifications for the chosen sampling techniques.

Lines 18-19 of the abstract should be revised for clarity. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment for responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This research takes Val di Zoldo, Italy, as the case study area and reveals how the collective memories of the building influence and are influenced by the commoning process of the historical building renovation projects (Mas di Sabe) based on semi-structured interviews. It is an interesting topic but still has room to improve.

1. There are plenty of research studies regarding historical building renovation and collective memories. The authors only provide a short literature review in the Introduction section. This is far away from enough. Please carefully review the existing literature and extend the corresponding content. If necessary, you can have one more section.
2. In lines 148-224, the authors use a lot of words to introduce the case study. However, why the authors select this case, or can this case represents the historical building renovation projects in Italy, is not clearly illustrated. 
3. The authors select “actors from local institutions, cultural associations, companies, and private citizens” (lines 227-228) for interviews. However, the list of thirteen interviewees, including their brief personal information, is missing.
4. The authors adopt “thirteen semi-structured interviews” to collect data. I doubt whether thirteen interviews are enough for a purely qualitative study.
5. A qualified “Discussion” should clearly provide new insights into the literature. So at least, the authors should reflect on the existing research studies in this field. 
6. The authors need to emphasize what are the scientific contributions of this research. These are not clearly provided.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment for responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I am satisfied with the authors' replies. I think it is now OK for publication.