Urban Heritage Facility Management: A Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of this research is relevant and the application of a framework that integrates the Historic Urban Landscape approach to sustainable urban development and the concept of urban facility management with a focus on Public-Private-People partnerships is original. The method is sound and well-articulated and the presentation of results is concise. Having said that, three major issues need to be addressed in this manuscript.

First, the theoretical framework is lacking and the authors make some claims without having any scientific evidence. I propose that the authors build a graphical representation showing cross-cutting themes and concepts between Urban FM and the HUL approach and clarifying the integration of the two bodies of literature, how they complement each other and where they intersect. To elaborate on the issue of claims, in lines 88-90, it is mentioned that “Since non-technical elements are more disruptive in the built environment, projects that fulfilled technical criteria but did not meet livability requirements were more prevalent”. Based on what the authors are making this claim? Moreover, lines 115-116 read “Most 115 studies stated that FM was mainly related to supporting core activities within a single-owned building(s)” What are these studies? The authors should refer at least to two or three studies to make such a claim! Same in lines 123-124. Furthermore, the authors need to elaborate on some terms that are important to the understanding of the interaction between Urban FM and HUL approach such as “co-financed”, “co-owned”, and “co-created”. Finally, in section 2.4, it is mentioned that “The preliminary scoping review process indicated a lack of an operable value-based approach within urban heritage facility management.” It is not clear how the authors came up with this statement. The same goes for the following sentence about the contextualization of urban heritage management. I will not recommend references. I prefer to leave it to the authors to decide on the references from the literature to support their framework.

Second, The authors should clearly state that there are already two different systematic reviews on the HUL approach one that critically assesses the implementation of the HUL approach by looking at how the different authors addressed the 6 steps (which has a lot of similarities with what the authors of this paper are presenting!). The second systematic review looks at to what extent the approach is being implemented and the way forward. The first is published in the journal of cultural heritage management and sustainable development and the second is published in the International Journal of Heritage Studies. The authors should clearly state what they are doing differently and the added value of their review. This will feed the conclusion later on and will strengthen the discussion on the contribution of this paper. For instance, authors can compare commonalities and differences in the findings to highlight the theoretical contribution of this paper.

Third, the descriptive analysis is pointless. It does not relate to the research questions and it does not add anything to our knowledge! It is totally out of the scope of the paper. Instead, the descriptive analysis should be built in a constructive way and should identify frequencies, trends, categories, and key constructs related to the research framework, and of course, the authors need to be critical about their findings. For instance, instead of just listing top authors in the field and top journals without reflecting on the results, authors can look at the subject areas of publications to see what are the most dominant fields of studies and the less frequent ones to eventually identify a gap in the literature. Moreover, in section 4.1.4, the authors need to interpret and reflect on their results. In other words, when they say that “The top fifteen most frequent words were heritage, building, management, urban, development, sustainable, culture, conservation, historical, value, information, facility, city, model, and study. The word “heritage” 287 was mentioned 4557 times, while “study” was 1296 times.” I keep asking “So what?” what can we conclude from this outcome?

Specific Comments:

The sentence in line 28 is not accurate. In any case, what is meant by "from mere museums” to "more cultural heritage oriented"? Do the authors mean that the scope of cultural heritage broadened from a focus on monuments and historic centers to address the city as a whole and incorporate values attributed by the different stakeholders to the urban landscape to eventually approach the city as a living heritage?

In lines 30 and 31, the authors need to explain what is a “comprehensive qualitative view of urban heritage” and also need to be explicit and give the reader a brief explanation on the concept of "landscape" since the rest of the paper is based on this concept. This brief definition could be introduced in line 31 after “view of urban heritage that incorporates the landscape” or at the end of line 60 (paragraph 3).

The sentence in lines 35, 36, and 37 needs a reference!

In the discussion, line 479, when the authors say that the implementation of FM in urban heritage areas “must follow the international, national, and regional heritage codes and laws”, they need to be careful with the term “must follow” given the long debate on controversy over heritage and the conflicting approaches to heritage definition, representation, conservation as well as development and tensions at the interfaces between local, national, and international levels.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the sharp and thoughtful review. We have tried to respond to the points and comments as clear and straightforward as possible. Please see the attachment below. 

Kind regards, 

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Researchers,

Please find my review notes below:

1. Page 1 Line 27: Provide the full description of abbreviations in their first use in the paper: UNESCO.
2. Page 2 Lines 49,51,53,90: Please double check the citation format if you need to add the year or not in the text.
3. Page 2 Line 52: Please define Sustainable Facilities Management (SFM).
4. Page 2, Lines 67, 68: Capitalize “how”.
5. Is “urban heritage facility management (UHFM)” a term you identify as part of your results or is it currently used in the domain? It would be better to mention it in the introduction.
6. RQ1: Use the abbreviation with urban facility management in RQ1.
7. RQ2: Use the abbreviation with urban heritage facility management in RQ2.
8. RQ2 is not clear. Is the intent of the question as follows? “What are the dimensions of urban heritage facility management in the body of literature?”
9. “Since non-technical elements are more disruptive in the built environment, projects that fulfilled technical criteria but did not meet livability requirements were more prevalent.” This sentence is unclear. What are some examples of non-technical elements and/or technical criteria?
10. Page 2 Line 93: Provide the full description of abbreviations in their first use in the paper: PPPP.
11. Is there any focus related to diversity, equity, and inclusion in the Urban FM concept?
12. Are there any specific tools for HUL approach? If so, please provide examples of them in section 2.2. How is it currently implemented?
13. Page 3 Line 115: Please provide citations for “most studies” in the following sentence: Most studies stated that FM was mainly related to supporting core activities within a single-owned building(s).
14. Page 3 Line 117: The following sentence is not clear. “In fact, FM could be understood from a broader perspective.” Please be more specific. Also, explain the definition of FM in this study.
15. Page 3 Lines 122 – 124. Please provide citations for these definitions: “In terms of cultural heritage management, FM is known to be a discipline focusing on property. FM can be described to have originated from the convergence of three key fields of practice, including land management, property maintenance, and office administration.”
16. Page 3 Line 142: Are the previous subsections (2.1, 2.2, 2.3) refer to “the preliminary scoping review process”? If so, please make a transition between these sections and section 2.4. There is a lack of flow.
17. Page 4 Line 153. Comment #2.
18. Page 4 Line 167: What is the difference between “scoping literature review” and a regular literature review? Based on the procedures that you’ve identified in the paper, it seems similar to a regular literature review. Please explain the “specific protocol” of scoping literature review.
19. Figure 1: RQ3 Capitalize “how”.
20. Page 5 Line 218: Why these four tools?
21. Page 6 Line 232: An increase of 200% means the final amount is three times the original amount. In your example, the final amount should be 24. Please change your explanation accordingly.
22. Please make sure you have the same bordering style for all your figures example: Figure 4 does not have the top border.
23. Page 7 Line 261: Provide the abbreviation for Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development and the Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planners since you use their abbreviations in Figure 4.
24. Is “Sustainability” refer to “Sustainability, MDPI” ? If so, please correct accordingly.
25. What does IOP stand for?
26. Please include the other journals and conference proceedings category in Figure 4.
27. Please consider including the word frequency figure in section 4.1.4. The word frequency results needs to have more details.
28. Section 4.2 title: “Overview of the results” might be better.
29. Page 8 Line 298: Provide the full description of abbreviations in their first use in the paper: PPP
30. I suggest presenting a summary table with the number of studies on each HUL step and tool at the end of your Results section. Individual tables are helpful for each step; however, it is hard to grasp the full picture. Also, you can provide the total number of studies for each tool in the individual tables: Step 1. Civic Engagement (6), Knowledge and Planning (10)…
31. Page 15 Lines 561-564. “This scoping review introduced UHFM, which could potentially enrich the fields of Urban FM and urban heritage management by filling the gaps on complying with higher-level regulations and identifying the supporting factors in achieving the “core business” of urban heritage conservation: maintaining authenticity and preserving historical values.” Very long and hard to read sentence.
32. Please mention the same scope in the introduction section: “The purpose of this paper was to achieve a comprehensive understanding of operable criteria within the cross-section discipline (urban heritage management and Urban FM) with the aim to provide key elements of UHFM.”
33. Is it possible to use Urban FM approach for resiliency and/or disaster recovery? Please expand your future research with more global and enhanced suggestions.

This is a good topic that will potentially lead to several future studies. Please provide more details on your terminology. An overall summary table with a paragraph for your results and more global suggestions on future research are strongly recommended.

I hope my review helps to improve the quality of the study. Thank you.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for the comprehensive, sharp, and heartwarming review. We have tried to respond to the comments and reviews as clear and straightforward as possible. Please see the attachment below. 

Kind regards, 

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please be careful with missing references. In line 161 the authors use a quote without adding a reference. Please add the reference and the specific page number for the quotation.