Assessing the Value of Railway Heritage for Sustainable Development: The Case Study of the Oraviţa–Anina Railway, Romania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The resubmitted manuscript shows important improvements. The dark/weak areas of the previous version have been properly reinforced.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for your insightful comments  and for your appreciation regarding the revised form of the manuscript. 

Best wishes,

Corresponding author

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

There is a noticeable improvement in the schematisation and quality of the work. However, in one section (line 181), it is difficult to agree with the use of the term greenway for a track travelled by a train. First by scientific definition of greenway, Little defined greenways as linear open spaces established along either a natural corridor such as a riverfront, stream valley, or ridgeline, or overland along a canal, a scenic road or a disused railway line. More references added below. In the scientific community, a greenway is broadly understood as a route where the railway is completely disused. Second, this is also intuitive because the passage of pedestrians, bicycles or horses is complicated if the structures that allow trains to run are present. So my advice is to remove this section because it could be subject to criticism, without decisively improving the rest of the paper, which is now much more understandable. A final tip is to reduce the discursive parts because the paper as a whole is too verbose and difficult to read. 

Little, C.E., 1990. Greenways for America. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London   Kiat W. Tan, A greenway network for singapore, Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 76, Issues 1–4,2006, Pages 45-66, ISSN 0169-2046, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.040.   Introduction and overview: the greenway movement, uses and potentials of greenways Landscape Urban Plan., 33 (1–3) (1995), pp. 1-13

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for your insightful comments on our paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect the suggestions provided by you:

Point 1: There is a noticeable improvement in the schematisation and quality of the work. However, in one section (line 181), it is difficult to agree with the use of the term greenway for a track travelled by a train. First by scientific definition of greenway, Little defined greenways as linear open spaces established along either a natural corridor such as a riverfront, stream valley, or ridgeline, or overland along a canal, a scenic road or a disused railway line. More references added below. In the scientific community, a greenway is broadly understood as a route where the railway is completely disused. Second, this is also intuitive because the passage of pedestrians, bicycles or horses is complicated if the structures that allow trains to run are present. So my advice is to remove this section because it could be subject to criticism, without decisively improving the rest of the paper, which is now much more understandable.

Response 1: We would like to thank you for this relevant comment. We have deleted the fragment recommended by you.

Point 2: A final tip is to reduce the discursive parts because the paper as a whole is too verbose and difficult to read. 

Response 2: We would like to thank for your constructive comment. We have reduced the discursive parts in order that manuscript can be easily read.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

TITLE, ABSTRACT AND KEYWORDS

-       The title and the abstract describe the content of the article adequately.

-       The keyword “social sustainability” is not descriptive of the contents of the article (the concept is mentioned in the discussion section, but not deeply developed). I suggest using “industrial heritage” or “heritage railways” (see comments below) instead. 

 

INTEREST AND ORIGINALITY

-       This is an interesting and original research that introduces a case study that, in spite of its national importance, it is little known internationally. The paper can enrich the debates on railway heritage and its touristic exploitations with contexts less considered in the international discussions.

-       Value assessment has traditionally been a core issue in heritage studies, including industrial heritage. Even when there are abundant theoretical approaches to the subject, methodological models are much scarcer. This article is especially original and valuable for its methodological contribution, an empirical method based on quantitative and qualitative analyses that can measure the value of heritage resources and the related social attachment. 

 

STRENGTH OF ARGUMENT

-       There is not a clear delimitation among operational railways and railway heritage (for example, in lines 81-84). The distinction can be blurred in some cases (since railway heritage can still be operational), but the authors are not clear enough in distinguishing when they are discussing railways in general or railway heritage in particular. In this sense, some of the attributes or values attached to the former (such as sustainable and efficient) might not apply (at least, not in every case) to the latter.

-       The article is missing an important technical term: “heritage railway” (although the concept appears in the paper as “tourist railway routes”, “heritage trains” and the related “scenic railways”). The authors offer a concise explanation of heritage railways (as tourist railway routes) in lines 134-151 (literature review), but I think this concept needs to be clarified in the introduction. Among other reasons, because it is confusing whether this article is about railway heritage (the material and immaterial patrimony of the railways), heritage railways (historical lines brought back to operation for touristic exploitation), or both. The article must make this distinction clearer. This distinction (railway heritage / heritage railway) is strong in Britain, for example, where heritage railways have been profusely discussed recently in terms of sustainability and environmental issues (most of them run on coal). Heritage railways has also been profusely studied in Brazil by Ewerton H. de Moraes.

-       The concept of railway tourism can be further discussed. There are two different dimensions that the article addresses in an unclear way (exception made of lines 159-161). On one side, the railways as a touristic medium (a vehicle to reach touristic destinations). On the other, the railway as a touristic object (a touristic attraction itself). For example, in lines 73-76: “The development of railway tourism is also opportune because it represents an ecological and sustainable form of transport. The railway is the most sustainable and efficient form of public transport due to its low emissions and the reliability of its service”. This is not always the case and needs to be further discussed and qualified. The problem is that there is some confusion between railways as a means or as an object in tourism, as well as between railway heritage and heritage railways. As referred before, heritage railways have become controversial in the UK for continue burning fossil fuels at a time in which the heritage sector is trying to align itself with United Nations’ Agenda for Sustainable Development. These questions affect directly the case study of this article, since its locomotives run on steam and diesel (fossil fuels).

-       The article includes a mention of the adaptation of historic locomotives to low-emission technologies (lines 87-90), but this needs more discussion, especially because authenticity is taken into account when measuring the value of railway heritage/heritage railways. Can be the experience of travelling in an old steam locomotive (the sounds, smells, heat, smoke) replaced by a clean and silent electric engine? The article mentions the experience of historical railways as multisensorial (line 889), which makes this discussion necessary. How authenticity and integrity, as core heritage values, can be affected by that?

-       The brief introduction to the history of railways (lines 33-40) is too general, basic and partial. I think it is dispensable, since it is not contributing any new knowledge, and it is not necessary for contextualising this research. It would make more sense to focus this general introduction on the Romanian case: a brief introduction to the railway history of Romania, which is certainly unknown to most international readers.

-       There are some parallel cases that the article could consider to provide some international context. For example, the touristic trains (CPTM Expresso Turístico) in the metropolitan area of Sao Paulo, Brazil. These trains run on some historic lines in the region, which are also used by regular metropolitan services. Ewerton Henrique de Moraes is an interesting author to explore the touristic trains of São Paulo.

-       The literature review is exhaustive including different approaches to railways and railway heritage, but there is no mention of railway archaeology, which has also made important contributions to railway heritage. The journal Industrial Archaeology Review has published research on the topic – even a case study from Romania that could be mentioned here [COROIU, Ruxandra; DAVID, Dragomir-Cosmin; COROIU, Octavian; CIUPAN, Cornel (2020): “Inventory and State-of-Conservation Survey Model for Railway Heritage: The Case of Turda–Abrud (Romania)”, Industrial Archaeology Review 42.2, p. 114-125. DOI: 10.1080/03090728.2020.1798105].

-       There are several strong statements in the article that need to be better demonstrated, for example: Line 80-81. “A railway is also a green corridor and prevent ecological fragmentation”; line 232-233: “The inclusion of railway heritage in the sphere of industrial patrimony recommends it as a particular tourist attraction”. Why? There is plenty of examples in which the activation of railway heritage is not touristic oriented – Swindon, England for example.

-       There are several mentions of the railways as a tool to explore and interpret the landscape (especially in lines 184-187). This could be enriched with recent work by Graves-Brown and Schofield [GRAVES-BROWN, Paul; SCHOFIELD, John (2020): “Encountering Landscape: Travel as Method”, Landscapes 20.1, p. 61-84. DOI: 10.1080/14662035.2020.1800272].

-       3.1. Study area. A brief history of the case study could be provided here. There are plenty of historical details in section 4.1, but I think the study area should be presented both in physical and temporal dimensions.

-       Lines 288-290. Economic value is here understood in the past context (how historical railways fostered economic development in the past). This perspective is not consistent with the rest of the values listed in this section, which are present-oriented. The authors should reflect on the economic value of railway heritage in the present. This is discussed when talking about adaptive reuse (lines 306-321), but some reflections on the topic would make sense here.

-       Lines 299-305. Authenticity has been discussed in the context of industrial heritage, especially when talking about machines and vehicles. These pieces of technology have always been subjected to continuous reparations and substitutions of components (even more if they are kept in use for touristic or cultural purposes), which makes it problematic to determine their authenticity. There is specific bibliography discussing this issue [Casanelles, E., ‘TICCIH’s Charter for Industrial Heritage’. In Douet, J. (ed.), Industrial Heritage Re-Tooled. The TICCIH Guide to Industrial Heritage Conservation. Lancaster: Routledge, 2012, p. 228-233. Casanelles, E.; Douet, J., ‘Conserving industrial artefacts’. In Douet, J. (ed.), Industrial Heritage Re-Tooled. The TICCIH Guide to Industrial Heritage Conservation. Lancaster: Routledge, 2012, p. 195-200. Cotte, M., ‘World Heritage, concepts and criteria. In Douet, J. (ed.), Industrial Heritage Re-Tooled. The TICCIH Guide to Industrial Heritage Conservation. Lancaster: Routledge, 2012, p. 167-173]

-       Lines 324-329. In regards to the value of reusing architectonic heritage for achieving economic and environmental sustainability, the research of M. Watson should be considered [Watson, M., ‘Adaptive re-use and embodied energy’. In Douet, J. (ed.), Industrial Heritage Re-Tooled. The TICCIH Guide to Industrial Heritage Conservation. Lancaster: Routledge, 2012, p. 136-141].

-       The methodology section mentions a good deal of work with geographical and landscape approaches and GIS technologies, but maps play a minor role in the article. It would be of interest to include more “visual data” grounded on this part of the methodology. This would be more valuable than some of the photographs included as figures, since some of them look like mere illustrations. What is more, the quality of some photos might be not good enough for publication (figures 4 or 11, for example). Talking about photographs, figure 3a is of interest, but it fails to show the features that justify the technical value of this locomotive. A photo showing the axis would be better, or a section or technical drawing (if available). 

-       Section 4.1. doesn’t seem to discuss the potential of the railway. Rather than that, it summarises its history.

-       Line 632. It would be good to add a last paragraph to reinforce the technological value of the case study. The authors provide plenty of technological and engineering details (perhaps too many?), but it is difficult for the reader to infer what is the value behind all of that.

-       The analysis of the social and political value of the case study is weak. At least, the political significance of the case study is not properly demonstrated (perhaps not relevant for the purpose of the article?). Besides, the social value is including elements that seem more related to architectonic value.

-       In spite of its title, section 4.7. does not offer any critical analysis, but a description of the tourists’ experiences. 

 

CLARITY OF ORGANISATION 

-       As criticised above, the introduction is not clear enough and some concepts need to be better delimitated (railway sector, railway heritage, heritage railway, railway tourism). The introduction could be better organised and follow a more evident thread. Some ideas sound repetitive, while the discourse seems to come and go. 

-       The introduction also includes several explanations about methodology that I do not think belong here (lines 101-108). They sound repetitive with the methodology section, especially the last sentence (lines 121-125 are especially repetitive)

-       There is not a sharp separation of contents and style between the introduction and the literature background. It is not clear what is the logic followed to include some ideas in one or the other section. 

 

OTHERS 

-       Lines 54 and 130. “cultural goods”. Maybe cultural assets? 

-       Line 140. How wide is a “normal gauge” in Romania? It is more accurate to talk about a broad gauge. Do the authors mean “international gauge” (1,435 mm)? It seems so, since this gauge is mentioned later in the article, but it needs to be specify here. 

-       Lines 198 and 966. What is a “difficult” railway? Difficult to build? Engineering challenging? 

-       Line 278. “UNESCO Heritage”. UNESCO World Heritage List?

-       404: it is not explained what ATU stands for

-       Line 634. What are “movement offices”? Is it the term precise? If so, it may need an explanation.

-       Line 677. The section about economic value lacks a title.

-       Lines 750-752. “The steam 750 locomotive is used only for special events (e.g., the line anniversary). Currently, the steam 751 locomotive is completely nonfunctional, but it can be repaired”. This two sentences are contradictory.

-       Lines 777-779. “visit cultural objectives”, cultural attractions?

-       Line 781. The adjective cultural needs a substantive in this sentence.

-       Line 815. There is an unnecessary comma in the text between parenthesis.

-       Line 857. “courses available”, timetables? 

-       What is the source for figure 1?

-       Figure 5. Why is this map showing churches and theatres? What do they have to do with engineering works and the technical value of the line (that is the context of the figure)? It can be guessed later (section 4.5) that the theatres can play a role in attracting and retaining tourists, and thus in producing new sources of income. But this cannot be guessed when seeing this figure for the first time.

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest to add some remarks to on environmental sustainability of Oravita–Anina Railway.

An improvement of the article can be made in quantification of qualitative research.

In the line 726 there is Central Europe mentioned.  Do you consider studied area as a part of central Europe?

Reviewer 3 Report

The main problems with this work are:

1) There is a lack of prioritisation and parametrization of methodologies. 

2) There is a lack of quantitative results

In the abstract the methodologies indicated for asset valuation are divided into quantitative and qualitative. Perhaps the use of the word patrimonial in the abstract is misleading.

[from page 6]  Quantitative methods are divided into attributes and criteria. Indicators and criteria were defined in the introduction. For the sake of clarity, it would be desirable to use a diagram summarising the methodologies and to use the same word for a concept throughout the paper. In the description of the attributes, great importance is given to potential, less to others such as authenticity, stakeholders, etcc....

It would be appropriate to define the quantitative evaluations in numerical terms, (ex A method to assess the potential value of railway corridors as recreation trails: A case study of three Nova Scotia rail-trails )  by assigning a weight to each attribute, thus mediating its  TR Baker - 2001 - bac-lac.gc.ca in the final evaluation.

With such a meticulous description of the chosen evaluation methodology, I would have expected concrete results, also in terms of comparison with similar cases ( as stated in limitation of the research 5.3. Instead, [from page 10] a meticulous description of the GIS representation methodology begins, but the only map (figure 5) only describes the engineering works along the route. It is not clear how  are included in an evaluation methodology.

Captions should be more specific and extensive.

Figure 1+5 unclear because of low resolution 

Table 1 - Heritage Value (a) Interpretation, row 4: C11 - Type of minority culture in China seems incongruous without further explanation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Overview: The article tackles with the value assessment of a historical railway line in Romania, which is considered a national heritage. The research combines quantitative and qualitative tools for the assessment. The use of a multiple set of tools represents an innovative contribution, if compared to similar studies. Findings show that this approach is particularly effective in contexts with high complexity such as this railway heritage, where multiple factors and actors come into play. Overall, the article is well structured and the results are presented and discussed in a clear way. Also, the topic is of relevance for the journal and the special issue.

Yet, as explained in the following detailed comments, I came away with several questions –the resolution of which, I believe, would help improving the article– and therefore I recommend that a major revision is warranted. Minor reviews and additional comments follow next. Authors should address these comments in their response.

 

 

General recommendation and major comments

The structure of the article, as well as the methodological approach and the results are well organized. Literature review is broad and well examined, as well as correctly utilized to address the study. English writing is mostly correct, minor reviews are required. Yet, some parts should be addressed more clearly or more in-depth, and particularly:

 

·      Introduction: 

o   Research questions and goals should be addressed more clearly, as well as the path to reach them. 

o   Some concepts need a bit more unfolding, e.g. the concept of greenways and of linear cultural sites (which is also one of your keywords) are interesting aspects connected to the research but they are not explained;

o   Community’s involvement could be also useful in future steps of the research to co-envisage local development paths starting from the railway tourism. This might be at least mentioned in your introduction when you describe community’s contribution.

 

·      Methodology:

o   Specify which of the six attributes are based on quantitative tools and which on qualitative tools. 

o   Specify more clearly than it is now in L. 345-46 where and how you used the four categories and the 20 indicators proposed by Jiang, Shao, Baas (2019). It is not clear how they were integrated with the six key attributes derived from Xie (2006), also considering that in the “Results” you refer only about the six attributes.

o   A methodological diagram might be helpful to clarify the above-mentioned points.

o   Par. 3.2.2.: the title of the paragraph is superfluous or misleading. In my view, L. 364-72 belong whether to par. 3.2.1. or to par. 3.3.3.

 

·      Results:

o   A more detailed description of the current users of the railway, possibly with some supporting quantitative data, would be useful to understand the capacity and the potential of development of the line (L. 692).

o   Another important aspect, which is only briefly mentioned, is that there are no funds from national programs (L. 707) and that national institutions didn’t contribute to the touristic development of the line. This aspect resulted also from the interviews (L.803, L.858, L. 975-977). The information should be supported by a more exhaustive explanation on why this is happening. If this is too wide to be tackled in this article or there are currently not enough information about this aspect, it should be mentioned as an important factor to be focused on in the next steps of the research. It seems a quite critical and decisive aspect, for which the whole enhancement and relaunch operation might be invalidated.

o   Paragraph 4.2: please refer also to the community as another important stakeholder, as it is already mentioned in the discussion paragraph (L. 918, L. 969-971). Also, local entrepreneurs (L. 745) might have no influence in the current condition, but they should be considered as key actors for the future development of the railway heritage.

o   Paragraph 4.4: adaptive reuse is described as an already fulfilled action. It would be interesting to understand if there are discussions or plans at local level for additional transformative potentials of the line and of the surrounding territory. This might be a criterion to be considered in the evaluation or at least an aspect to be investigated in the future. Is the adaptive reuse of the railway potentially connectable to other ongoing programs or regional plans? How could the railway become an additional asset for these plans in order to obtain a multiplier effect? You mention partially this aspect in L. 801-802.

 

·      Discussion: 

o   The results of the quantitative tools are not thoroughly discussed. As, like stated, this study is based on the combination of quantitative and qualitative tools, then both the related results should be discussed, in order to explain - even briefly - their contribution to the research final findings.

o   The solution of tourism for local development “is not an economic panacea” (L. 992-93). Please clarify / mention what could be other solutions to enhance these contexts. For example, strengthening the role of the railway for the local community. This entail not only “monetization” of the landscape or “commercialization” of heritage, but it refers to the positive effects of tourism on local economy (small entrepreneurial activities, artisanal shops, cultural and creative industries etc.), social benefits for the community (new job opportunities), more structural transformations (new sustainable infrastructures, e.g. bike and hiking pathways to be developed around the railway touristic route) and perhaps even possible re-settlement processes starting from the enhancement of the railway as a new asset for a currently weak and fragile region. 

o   Par. 5.2.: highlight more clearly what are the innovative aspects of your research. 

o   Par. 5.3: 

§  When evaluating the “community’s willingness to pay for the preservation of the railway heritage” consider the pros and cons of this method, which applies a monetary value to a tangible and intangible resource (the railway and the connected cultural landscape) with a high level of complexity. Some literature considers it a quite controversial approach.

§  As a future research step, community’s participation in the enhancement process could be helpful to envisage possible scenarios of transformation and / or adaptive reuse of the railway and its annexes.

§  Another important element which should be investigated in future research is why the institutions didn’t invest on the railway and didn’t apply for funding at European level. This seems quite a big drawback that was highlighted in the interviews. It should be expanded if not in this article in the next steps, especially in consideration of the importance of the historical railway which was recognized an industrial national monument.

 

·      Conclusions: 

o   Conclusions are generally quite succinct. Especially the last two sentences are a bit confused and hasty. This paragraph needs to be more clearly connected with the research questions and goals of the introduction. It should summarize achieved result in the light of those stated goals.

 

·      Figures: 

o   A map to show the historical segments of the railway would be useful (line 488).

o   Some pictures on additional components of the architectural system might be useful (e.g., the vernacular architecture of the staff’s houses).

o   More detailed or close pictures of the architectural facades of the Oraviţa station would help to understand the description (line 654 and following).

 

 

 

2.2 Minor comments

 

·      L. 220-222: delete repetition

·      L. 422: shouldn’t this part on the interviews have a separate sub-paragraph?

·      L. 639-640: specify the year of construction.

·      L. 654-655: are the decorative motifs called “stuccos”?

·      L. 781: a series of cultural…what?

·      L. 894-96: Does it mean that an official website doesn’t exist? This is an important information for the assessment that should be more clearly mentioned.

·      L. 1098-1100: This sentence is a bit confused, especially because the subject is the railway tourism, but also because there is a repetition in the last sentence…Please articulate it better.