Predictors of Adopting a Sustainability Policy in Museums
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe structure of this paper is clear. The topic is timely for researchers and professionals in museums. I can not evaluate the methodological part, because I am a qualitative researcher. I can suggest to improve the theoretical part, with references to other previous studies and reports, for example by Nemo and ICOM on sustainability, and previous research by museum studies scholars, published in museum studies journals and conference proceedings. For example, in your paper "recycling" just a key word in the conclusions but this is a crucial practice for museums, starting from re-using the materials (es. panels, etc) in temporary exhibitions, ecc.
Author Response
|
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find below the detailed responses and corresponding revisions highlighted in the resubmitted file. |
|
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
|
Comments 1: The structure of this paper is clear. The topic is timely for researchers and professionals in museums. I can not evaluate the methodological part, because I am a qualitative researcher. Response 1: Thank you for your positive feedback and appreciation. |
|
Comments 2: I can suggest to improve the theoretical part, with references to other previous studies and reports, for example by Nemo and ICOM on sustainability, and previous research by museum studies scholars, published in museum studies journals and conference proceedings. |
|
Response 2: Thank you for suggestion. We have enhanced the theoretical part of the paper and the discussion section by incorporating ten new references, listed as follows: 1. ICOM (International Council of Museums). Final Report from the Standing Committee for Museum Definition presented at the Extraordinary General Assembly of ICOM on 24 August 2022. Available online: https://icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/EN_EGA2022_MuseumDefinition_WDoc_Final-2.pdf (accessed on 13 April 2024). 2. Pinheiro, M.J.; Almeida, R.D. Participação social e território: diálogos possíveis para a gestão sustentável do patrimônio cultural. História, Ciências, Saúde - Manguinhos 2023, 30, 1–23, doi:10.1590/S0104-59702023000100070. 3. NEMO (The Network of European Museum Organisations). Museums in the Climate Crisis: Survey Results and Recommendations for the Sustainable Transition of Europe; NEMO: Berlin, Germany, 2022. Available online: https://www.ne-mo.org/fileadmin/Dateien/public/Publications/NEMO_Report_Museums_in_the_climate_crisis_11.2022.pdf (accessed on 12 April 2024). 4. Carvalho, A.; Camacho, C.F. Addressing Sustainability in Portuguese Museums and Heritage: The Role of Cultural Policies. Herit. 2023, 6, 7742–7754, doi:10.3390/heritage6120407. 5. Garthe, C.J. The Sustainable Museum: How Museums Contribute to the Great Transformation; Routledge: London, 2022; ISBN 978-1-00-319520-7. 6. Pop, I.L.; Borza, A.; Buiga, A.; Ighian, D.; Toader, R. Achieving Cultural Sustainability in Museums: A Step Toward Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2019, 11, 970, doi:10.3390/su11040970. 7. NEMO (The Network of European Museum Organisations). Climate Protection in Museums; NEMO: Berlin, Germany, 2023. Available online: https://www.ne-mo.org/fileadmin/Dateien/public/Publications/NEMO_Working-Group_SAC_Climate_protection_in_museums_12.23.pdf (accessed on 12 April 2024). 8. UN (United Nations). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2015. 9. Weller, N.; Ostman, R. Sustainability and Museums: A Workbook for Improving Operations, Engaging Communities, and Creating Partnerships; Arizona State University and National Informal STEM Education Network: Tucson, USA, 2021. Available online: https://www.nisenet.org/sites/default/files/catalog/uploads/sustainability_guide_05_10r1.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2024). 10. The Museum of Contemporary Art Australia. Sustainability Policy 2020. Available online: https://www.mca.com.au/files/documents/MCA_Sustainability_Policy_July_2020.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2024). The new content has been incorporated into the revised version of the paper and can be found at the lines 54-77, 95-100, and 556-588. Comments 3: For example, in your paper "recycling" just a key word in the conclusions but this is a crucial practice for museums, starting from re-using the materials (es. panels, etc) in temporary exhibitions, ecc. Response 3: Thank you for your observation. To emphasize the importance of recycling, we have included the following statement (lines 216-218): “By reducing the use of resources (energy, water, materials, etc.), reusing resources whenever possible, and recycling materials that can no longer be used in their current form, museums can decrease their carbon emissions”. |
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle: It should be revised to better reflect the article content
Abstract: The abstract would need to be revised to include a sentence about the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose your study. Information should also be added about the chosen methodology and justification. Also, where? And when (year)? What models? Moreover, in what way were the results relevant?
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?
The state of the art regarding museums and sustainability is insufficiently contextualized and expanded. Over recent decades, museums have been tackling sustainability issues in several dimensions (economic, environment, social, cultural) and there is abundant literature about it. Also, the work conducted by the International Council of Museums (ICOM) regarding sustainability mainstreaming in museums in recent years is also relevant and is not critically developed in this paper. Other relevant topics are missing, namely the relation to the United Nation’s 2030 Agenda. Also, the paper does not sufficiently acknowledge theoretical background on evaluation of museums, which has led in the last decades to extensive discussions on performance or quality indicators for museums.
The paper overlooks museums development in approaching sustainability in a more holistic way. It is worth mentioning the input of Ibermuseos, which created a line of action in 2014 dedicated to sustainability and covered all four of the cultural, social, economic, and environmental dimensions, and has created the Sustainability Self-Assessment Guide.
In literature, to measure sustainability there is numerous indicators sets, including to measure the SDG’s, that this paper ignores.
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?
The research question is not clearly formulated, which is problematic to the paper development and contribution.
There are many hypotheses identified in the paper, but which in fact have been already demonstrated by previous research. Globally, many of the arguments have been tested in practice in the museum’s world and in literature. One could ask, what is the originality of the paper? In fact, there is no new problematization or novelty.
Regarding the approach (quantitative models) to measure the progress of museums in becoming sustainable, it is problematic to assume that a quantitative model can solely evaluate sustainability in a holistic way (economic, environment, social, cultural).
The methodology is insufficiently justified, namely the quantitative model and methods. The sample (Romanian museums) lacks contextualization, including why it was chosen.
Regarding the survey application, it is not clear when it was applied.
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?
The findings are difficult to grasp and problematic in many cases. It is not possible to infer global results from this case study. It is not clear in what way these results offer contributions. Also, to better understand the sample and the results it would be necessary to analyze other variables, including the role of public policies towards sustainability in Romanian museums.
Bibliography
The text would need to expand bibliography in museum literature about sustainability considering their multidimensionality, and sustainability indicators.
Here are a few examples:
NEMO (The Network of European Museum Organisations). Museums in the Climate Crisis: Survey Results and Recommendations for the Sustainable Transition of Europe; NEMO: Berlin, Germany, 2022.
Garthe, C.J. The Sustainable Museum: How Museums Contribute to the Great Transformation; Routledge: London, UK, 2023
Carvalho, Ana, and Clara Frayão Camacho. 2023. «Addressing Sustainability in Portuguese Museums and Heritage: The Role of Cultural Policies». Heritage, Special Issue Museums for Heritage Preservation and Communication—2nd Edition), 6 (12): 7742–54. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6120407.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English writing would require revision from native speaker.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback, which has greatly contributed to enhancing the quality of our manuscript. Attached, you will find our detailed responses alongside the corresponding revisions highlighted in red within the resubmitted file.
Best regards,
Izabela Pop
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This article provides a very sound, statistically corroborated yet nuanced analyses of a topical issue, sustainability policies in museums, their efficiency or effectiveness and its determinants. Museums, it is convincingly exposed, are an important sector in this regard, for they're a central part of the cultural and touristic economy, as well as for their strategical position in popularising such issues and policies. The literature review is vast and very well documented with nearly 90 references, although more recent ones are not so numerous (only 1-2 references per year since 2020 - the references seem somewhat to 'stop' in 2018); the authors should check if there aren't more relevant references to cite for recent years. The analysis is based on a large sample of 86 Romanian museums and collections (note that in the abstract, it shouldn't be said "86 national SURVEYS" but rather something with QUESTIONNAIRES) and on very detailed, solid statistical analyses. The conclusion describes in an interesting way the complex entanglement of sustainability in museums with economic, social and value issues. Some rare minor other points that should be improved by the authors are:
-on lines 236-238 it is roughly said that 'keeping objects in a warehouse instead of exhibiting them only consumes resources and does not add value so society', which of course is a little short-sighted (conservation is also important for museums AND society);
-on lines 282-284 the authors say that 'a museum that does not place importance on visitors' preferences cannot be loved by visitors', which is also somewhat too simple - we all have sometimes loved museums that do not at all show their interest in the audience precisely for this reason, and all have been irritated by exhibitions which too overtly insist on their interest to the public...
-in section 3.1 it is said that different museums with the same management and organisation have been counted only once (336-337), which is not self-explanatory as the reader can imagine that if these were different kinds of museums (f.e. historical and of art), they should have been counted separately all the same - this point should therefore be better justified; also, the affirmation according to which 'the responses were found to be representative for the total statistical population' (355-356) should be somewhat detailed (ideally even with a table), as this is a crucial point: are the proportions of the different types and f.e. sizes of museums in the initial population and in the sample similar enough?
Author Response
|
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your helpful remarks, which have enabled us to improve the manuscript. Please find below our detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in red in the resubmitted file.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comments 1: This article provides a very sound, statistically corroborated yet nuanced analyses of a topical issue, sustainability policies in museums, their efficiency or effectiveness and its determinants. Museums, it is convincingly exposed, are an important sector in this regard, for they're a central part of the cultural and touristic economy, as well as for their strategical position in popularising such issues and policies.
Response 1: Thank you. We greatly appreciate your positive feedback. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comments 2: The literature review is vast and very well documented with nearly 90 references, although more recent ones are not so numerous (only 1-2 references per year since 2020 - the references seem somewhat to 'stop' in 2018); the authors should check if there aren't more relevant references to cite for recent years.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added ten new references to the paper, as follows: 1. ICOM (International Council of Museums). Final Report from the Standing Committee for Museum Definition presented at the Extraordinary General Assembly of ICOM on 24 August 2022. Available online: https://icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/EN_EGA2022_MuseumDefinition_WDoc_Final-2.pdf (accessed on 13 April 2024). 2. Pinheiro, M.J.; Almeida, R.D. Participação social e território: diálogos possíveis para a gestão sustentável do patrimônio cultural. História, Ciências, Saúde - Manguinhos 2023, 30, 1–23, doi:10.1590/S0104-59702023000100070. 3. NEMO (The Network of European Museum Organisations). Museums in the Climate Crisis: Survey Results and Recommendations for the Sustainable Transition of Europe; NEMO: Berlin, Germany, 2022. Available online: https://www.ne-mo.org/fileadmin/Dateien/public/Publications/NEMO_Report_Museums_in_the_climate_crisis_11.2022.pdf (accessed on 12 April 2024). 4. Carvalho, A.; Camacho, C.F. Addressing Sustainability in Portuguese Museums and Heritage: The Role of Cultural Policies. Herit. 2023, 6, 7742–7754, doi:10.3390/heritage6120407. 5. Garthe, C.J. The Sustainable Museum: How Museums Contribute to the Great Transformation; Routledge: London, 2022; ISBN 978-1-00-319520-7. 6. Pop, I.L.; Borza, A.; Buiga, A.; Ighian, D.; Toader, R. Achieving Cultural Sustainability in Museums: A Step Toward Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2019, 11, 970, doi:10.3390/su11040970. 7. NEMO (The Network of European Museum Organisations). Climate Protection in Museums; NEMO: Berlin, Germany, 2023. Available online: https://www.ne-mo.org/fileadmin/Dateien/public/Publications/NEMO_Working-Group_SAC_Climate_protection_in_museums_12.23.pdf (accessed on 12 April 2024). 8. UN (United Nations). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2015. 9. Weller, N.; Ostman, R. Sustainability and Museums: A Workbook for Improving Operations, Engaging Communities, and Creating Partnerships; Arizona State University and National Informal STEM Education Network: Tucson, USA, 2021. Available online: https://www.nisenet.org/sites/default/files/catalog/uploads/sustainability_guide_05_10r1.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2024). 10. The Museum of Contemporary Art Australia. Sustainability Policy 2020. Available online: https://www.mca.com.au/files/documents/MCA_Sustainability_Policy_July_2020.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2024). Comments 3: The analysis is based on a large sample of 86 Romanian museums and collections (note that in the abstract, it shouldn't be said "86 national SURVEYS" but rather something with QUESTIONNAIRES) and on very detailed, solid statistical analyses. The conclusion describes in an interesting way the complex entanglement of sustainability in museums with economic, social and value issues. Response 3: Thanks for your valuable comment. We have replaced the term “surveys” with “questionnaires” in the abstract. Comments 4: On lines 236-238 it is roughly said that 'keeping objects in a warehouse instead of exhibiting them only consumes resources and does not add value so society', which of course is a little short-sighted (conservation is also important for museums AND society)
Response 4: We agree that conservation is crucial and one of the core functions of museums. Without properly preserving heritage, exhibitions cannot be organized, and future generations will be unable to admire the artifacts. Therefore, we have revised the statement as follows: “The problem is that keeping objects in a warehouse instead of exhibiting them is an activity that consumes resources and generates cost increases, without providing immediate benefits to the public.” (lines 267-268).
Comments 5: On lines 282-284 the authors say that 'a museum that does not place importance on visitors' preferences cannot be loved by visitors', which is also somewhat too simple - we all have sometimes loved museums that do not at all show their interest in the audience precisely for this reason, and all have been irritated by exhibitions which too overtly insist on their interest to the public.
Response 5: Thank you for this observation. We have revised the sentence as follows: “Therefore, a museum that does not prioritize visitors' preferences cannot fully realize its potential in generating benefits for society.” The updated text is presented at the lines 312-313.
Comments 6: In section 3.1 it is said that different museums with the same management and organisation have been counted only once (336-337), which is not self-explanatory as the reader can imagine that if these were different kinds of museums (f.e. historical and of art), they should have been counted separately all the same - this point should therefore be better justified.
Response 6: Thank you for your advice. We have added additional explanations to this section at the lines 376-385: “Museums with the same management board and organizational structure were counted only once, and each museum was limited to providing a single response. This measure was necessary because in Romania, there are cases where multiple museums are collectively managed as a museum complex by a single general manager. For example, the Moldova National Museum Complex includes eleven museums, such as the Palace of Culture, the Art Museum, the History Museum, the 'Mihail Kogălniceanu' Memorial Museum, and others. However, these eleven museums operate under a single budget and Administrative Council, and they do not have the autonomy to develop different procedures, rules, objectives, and strategies independently. All decisions for these museums are made by the general manager in collaboration with the Administrative and Scientific Councils.”
Comments 7: The affirmation according to which 'the responses were found to be representative for the total statistical population' (355-356) should be somewhat detailed (ideally even with a table), as this is a crucial point: are the proportions of the different types and f.e. sizes of museums in the initial population and in the sample similar enough?
Response 7: Thank you for highlighting this need for improvement. We have provided additional explanations regarding the representativeness of the sample, as follows: According to the National Institute of Statistics (NIS), the Romanian network of museums and public collections comprised 390 units in 2015, after excluding branches, satellite museums, monuments, botanical gardens, zoos, natural reservations, dendro-logical parks, and aquariums [88]. The representativeness of responses based on this value and the type of museum or collection is presented in Table 1. Table 1. Representativeness of survey responses by museum type
However, out of the total 390 units, we excluded public collections because their activities and aims are generally less complex compared to those of museums, and they often do not function as independent organizations. Therefore, our sample consisted of 186 Romanian museums. The representativeness of responses based on this sample and the relevance of museums is presented in Table 2. Table 2. Representativeness of survey responses by the relevance of museums
These changes can be found in the revised manuscript at the lines 390-403.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thank you once again for your time and attention in reviewing the paper.
Sincerely,
Izabela Luiza Pop
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents an empirical analysis of possible factors that may influence museums’ success in adopting a sustainability policy by analyzing 86 national surveys that tracked museums’ self-reported sustainability. The topic is very actual and suitable for the journal profile.
In the Introduction the necessity and opportunity of the study are well argued. However, the ideological dimension of sustainability is lacking. In this sense, beyond the factors identified in the Literature review and hypotheses section, I think there is a need for a critical view on the concept of sustainability so that the proposed solutions will not engage museums in a process similar to social engineering. A way in which this can be avoided is also considering previous results obtained based on qualitative methodologies. In the Materials and Method section the authors did not explain how they controlled for spurious correlations. To better discriminate between factors, I think hierarchical regression would have been a better option. In the Discussion section it should be stated more clearly that the paper takes a top-down approach, and the results only reflect the perspective of museums’ managers. Considering the popularity of environmental policies, it is not clear how the study made sure managers’ responses were not prestige reactions. To reduce these limitations, the results could be compared to other studies in which also the public was asked to answer questions about museums’ sustainability practices (and particularly qualitative studies). The lack of influence of economic performance should be farther discussed. In the Conclusion section the limitations enounced above should be added and discussed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for dedicating your time and effort to provide valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your insightful comments and remarks. The revised manuscript highlights in red the revisions we made according to your suggestions.
Attached, you will find a detailed point-by-point response addressing your comments and concerns.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
