Sustainable Promotion of Traditional Rural Buildings as Built Heritage Attractions: A Heritage Interpretation Methodology Applied in South Italy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
The article has been revised in accordance with the reviewer's recommendations. The subject matter of the article is exploratory and descriptive rather than theoretical, and the methods chosen are therefore sufficient.
Author Response
The authors thank a lot the reviewer for the comments.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The paper has the merit to present a case study that differs from previous publications by area and but it is aligned with a rich literature on the topic, and focussing on Sicily.
Some remarks:
Lines 8. and 95. Change cultural rural heritage in rural cultural heritage
41-42. Too vague when referring to theories and referencing (4-6). How are they relevant to the topic?
There are others, focusing on rural environments to consider: e.g. Harrington, L. M. B. (2016). Sustainability theory and conceptual considerations: a review of key ideas for sustainability, and the rural context. Papers in Applied Geography, 2(4), 365-382.
43, 713-714. Year missing for the Brundtland Commission Report. Change the reference with the following (use the citing and referencing style for the MDPI journal):
World Council of Environment and Development, 1987, Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Report). 1987.
53. one resource is missing and there are others that could be considered as more relevant sources: e.g.
Hawkes, J. The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture’s Essential Role in Public Planning; Common Ground P/L: Melbourne, Australia, 2001.
64. The reference refers to Picuno’s publication (2020). Add also: Vernacular farm buildings in landscape planning: a typological analysis in a southern Italian region, Pietro Picuno, School of Agricultural, Forestry, Food & Environmental Science, University of Basilicata, Potenza, Italy. Or “The valorization of vernacular farm buildings for an innovative rural tourism”.
156. explain DOCG acronym
203. “currently developed around the sea area” do you mean that currently it is mainly along the coast? If it is a comparison, unclear.
211. Figure 1 has been used in another publication. Please reference it.
717. reference 9 is missing
Necessity to improve the literature review, using the most important sources for the topic.
The methodology is explained in phases and it supports their analysis. I would expect to use similar studies which adopted a similar method to support their evidence. E.g. Bellia and Pilato, 2015, Competitiveness of Wine Business within Green Economy: Sicilian Case
Consider revision of form and grammar (e.g. prefer active voice rather than passive one; check punctuation; avoid repetitions in the same phrase or paragraph, spaces between words and punctuation).
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer #2 Comments
The paper has the merit to present a case study that differs from previous publications by area and but it is aligned with a rich literature on the topic, and focussing on Sicily.
Some remarks:
Lines 8. and 95. Change cultural rural heritage in rural cultural heritage
The authors thank a lot the reviewer for the comments and useful suggestions. All the adopted changes were yellow highlighted within the manuscript.
In the revised version the authors modified the words order as suggested.
41-42. Too vague when referring to theories and referencing (4-6). How are they relevant to the topic?
There are others, focusing on rural environments to consider: e.g. Harrington, L. M. B. (2016). Sustainability theory and conceptual considerations: a review of key ideas for sustainability, and the rural context. Papers in Applied Geography, 2(4), 365-382.
Thank you for your useful comment. Theories and referencing to sustainability theories have been implemented, and some concepts were clarified.
43, 713-714. Year missing for the Brundtland Commission Report. Change the reference with the following (use the citing and referencing style for the MDPI journal):
World Council of Environment and Development, 1987, Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Report). 1987.
Thank you for your comment. The year has been added and the reference was changed.
- one resource is missing and there are others that could be considered as more relevant sources: e.g.
Hawkes, J. The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture’s Essential Role in Public Planning; Common Ground P/L: Melbourne, Australia, 2001.
Thank you for your useful suggestion. Changes have been made.
- The reference refers to Picuno’s publication (2020). Add also: Vernacular farm buildings in landscape planning: a typological analysis in a southern Italian region, Pietro Picuno, School of Agricultural, Forestry, Food & Environmental Science, University of Basilicata, Potenza, Italy. Or “The valorization of vernacular farm buildings for an innovative rural tourism”.
Thank you for the comment. The reference 15 refers to “Cillis, G.; Statuto, D.; Picuno, P. Vernacular farm buildings and rural landscape: A geospatial approach for their integrated management.” Moreover, the suggested reference has been added.
- explain DOCG acronym
Thank you for pointing it out. DOCG and other acronyms have been explained.
- “currently developed around the sea area” do you mean that currently it is mainly along the coast? If it is a comparison, unclear.
Thank you for the comment. The concept has been better clarified. Please see lines 212-216.
- Figure 1 has been used in another publication. Please reference it.
Thank for the comment. Figure 1 has been replaced with an original one.
- reference 9 is missing
The missing reference has been added.
Necessity to improve the literature review, using the most important sources for the topic.
The methodology is explained in phases and it supports their analysis. I would expect to use similar studies which adopted a similar method to support their evidence. E.g. Bellia and Pilato, 2015, Competitiveness of Wine Business within Green Economy: Sicilian Case
Consider revision of form and grammar (e.g. prefer active voice rather than passive one; check punctuation; avoid repetitions in the same phrase or paragraph, spaces between words and punctuation).
Thank you for the useful suggestions. In the revised manuscript the literature review has been improved.
In the study, the adopted methodology was compared to researches carried out by adopting similar method (please see line 306 - 311). Bellia et al. assessed the critical factors of success of Sicilian winegrowing and wine-producing firms’ market-oriented by an economic point of view. In detail, this reference has been added within the introduction section.
Furthermore, the English language (i.e., form and grammar) was checked and revised.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
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
This is a very fine description of the research and preparatory work basing the architectural reconstruction and tourism utilization of a rural building complex.
What this paper is not: a scientific research paper on issues of sustainability. For this reason I have to recommend the decline of this manuscript in sustainability, suggesting the authors - probably architects just like this reviewer himself - to submit this work to a journal focusing on architectural conservation and restoration.
The main elements missing from this paper in order to be published in this journal:
- connection to a scientific discourse on sustainability anchoring the topic in the introduction and discussion to relevant literature, stating where the new findings contribute to which discourse of sustainability
- therefore in my point of view a connection to the theories of sustainability are missing. Nowadays it is fashionable to label every process sustainable, but the scientific discourse on sustainability is still the one to be followed in this journal. Heritage conservation, ethical restoration, traditional techniques do not equal sustainability. The social and economical pillars of the sustainability of this project (case study) are not presented. In fact the tourism conversion of one of these agricultural complexes can be a sustainable model to preserve it, but as the authors state there are many more of these even in this area, therefore it is questionable how tourism and vine routes would sustain a whole region full of such abandoned buildings without other activities. If the authors want to anchore their work to sustainability - which I don't recommend in this case study - than a lot deeper theoretical background would be needed with a more straightforward methodology in this direction.
- the steps for evaluation and conversion are valuable work. More metrics would be needed. However, in this for this is not enough as a methodology for a research paper. More strict methodology should be elaborated. The materials presented are the detailed architectural materials of the building complex. This is fine for a paper on architecture, but not for a paper on scientific findings connecting to other disciplines.
- English language is very much "italianish" in word order especially.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is very interesting, but needs the following clarifications:
- Could you enhance your approach to the pillars of sustainable development by incorporating culture? This is already a much discussed topic in the scientific field and it would be timely to take it into account?
- could you explain how this methodology really contributes to the sustainable development of these areas?
- All development possibilities are touristic? where are the community benefits?
- The state of the art is very summarised. Could you incorporate other international case studies that have served as a reference?
The article has a very touristic approach and is very focused on the architectural object. It would be very appropriate to incorporate a phase in the methodology where the impact on citizens and the landscape could be verified.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper aims to propose a methodology to promote a cultural rural heritage by including it within a tourist itinerary. The main problem of this paper is that it is very focused on a specific area and it does not bring a sound scientific contribution to the tourism literature. How does it fill a gap in the existing literature and what is the relevance for the scientific community? Moreover, no hypotheses were stated in this paper.
The scientific background need to be improved. The authors should perform a literature review and analyze how, when and where such methods were studied and implemented in previous papers. The reference list is very short and should be completed with many other studies in the same field.
Moreover, the authors need to present in the final section whether and how their results confirm previous studies on the same matter.
There are also, some other issues which need to be addressed.
On line 44, the 3 pillars of sustainable development should be mentioned.
On line 151 the authors should describe more accurately how exactly the proposed may promote the dispersal of tourists and, in turn, the dispersal of economic benefits to marginal areas. Moreover, will this method promote or influence directly the dispersal of tourists and, in turn, the dispersal of economic benefits to marginal areas and how?
On lines 210, 456 there is an error regarding references.
Based on the above-mentioned observations, I do not think that the paper may be published in the Sustainability journal in this form.
Reviewer 4 Report
1. there is no clearly articulated purpose or even hypothesis
2. What authors call "methods" in the text these are research tasks to be performed (methods should include mathematical, statistical, cartographic, descriptive forms)
3. The authors should use at least one method of object evaluation in comparison with other objects of this type related to accessibility, value of the object, tourist development, tourist traffic, so as to confirm that Fegotto TRB is a unique object worth including in the existing tourist routes
4. If authors want to incorporate the Fegotto TRB into the existing cultural trails ( page 10 line 395 and 396), why is there no at least a brief description of the existing trails (facilities, number of visiting tourists, tourist products) How could the analyzed TRB complement the existing product? How will it compete with other facilities of this type to attract tourists? Authors wrote something about neighbourhood area and attractions in discusion but I think this part of the text should be included into the description of the examined area (2.1 The selected heritage site: the Fegotto Complex)
5. In the main part this is an eminently descriptive article presenting the authors' ideas on the use of the object for tourism purposes. No reference to existing infrastructure around, no reference to indicators of existing tourist traffic, too many detailed descriptions of architectural elements that an ordinary tourist will not pay attention.
6. Maybe SWOT analysis would help to present the possible possible use of analysed TRB for tourist purposes.
7. There is lack of sources in every figure and photo ( did authors took photos from internet?)
8. Map doesn't show where analysed TRB is located, what is the location of tourist routes
9. In several lines (164, 182, 190, 210, 267, 295, ect.) there is text in gaps (Error! Reference source not found.)
