Risk Assessment and Vulnerability Analysis of a Coastal Concrete Heritage Structure
Mario Santana Quintero
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
heritage-2456642-peer-review-v1
Review of: Risk assessment methodology based on cultural significance: concrete heritage in coastal environment towards climate change adaptation.
This is an interesting paper, but one that has a number pf serious shortcomings, mainly over simplification, that will need to be addressed before it can be published Overall, the connection with climate change is, in parts, quite tenuous. There is clear lack of professional cultural heritage expertise by the authors and this shows in several instances. The paper needs to be rethought and much more clear in its messaging. As it stands, it tries to raise many issues, but does them in a superficial and somewhat simplistic fashion.
INTRODUCTION: The author needs to make it clear that this focusses on climate change and enhanced decay derived therefrom, not on ‘normal’ concrete decay due to its location saline atmospheric environment.
Line 145-146 The most important sources of chlorides for constructions nearby seawater are de-145 icing salts and the contact with marine air and splash-water [23].
De-icing salts are rarely used in near marine environments and also only effective in a very narrow temperature range. If you wish to claim this, you will need to provide a reference for this.
Line 146 ff Also chloride concentration in the air will depend on the nature of the shoreline and the resulting surf, which then may vary seasonally or diurnally, with chloride deposition also dependent on ambient temperature as well as rainfall regimes that may wash off some of the chlorides.
Line 172 Why do you single out vandalism? The most likely anthropogenic impact will be faulty / inadequate construction techniques with corrosion of the metal reinforcements as well as sulphur content of the cement matrix
Looking at Table 1, I am not sure how the theft of copper elements, clogged toilets and lack of maintenance, which are standard management issues has anything to do with climate adaptation.
Line 198 ff which of the two structures are you referring to” The swimming pool or the change rooms? Be more explicit here. The pool will be exposed to saline eater all the time, so this would be nonsensical.
Line 199 “rotting of subsurface components and rising damp” That depends on the density of the concrete, any admixtures to the concrete matrix (e.g. whether marine or marine resilient concrete was used) as well as the inclusion of any membranes.
Line 198-199 The change rooms are 5 am above sea-level. I presume that this refers to the ground level? Be specific. If you are discussing the possible wetting of foundations, you will need to specific the size of the foundations, either expressing them in depth below the surrounding ground or in terms of absolute elevation above MSL. Any projected seas-level change, even of 1 m, will say well below the foundations, even if we assume a 1m deep foundation. If you think otherwise, you will need to determine the capillary potential of the sand at and below the building.
CO2 concentrations in the air by themselves have ZERO effect on concrete. For that to have effect you need to take into account ambient humidity and the potential for CO2 enriched moisture to deposit on the surfaces. As it stands the statement is far too generic.
Line 218. Yes, storm surges may and will occur. How far the reach will need to be simulated
What worries me through the sections so far is that you do not clearly delineate between the impact on the pool and the impacts on the change rooms. Be specific at every point that you make.
Table 2: Economic is NOT a cultural value.
Yor use of aesthetic value is also not quite correct, indicating that the authors do not come from a cultural heritage background. If you write about heritage, you need to understand the basic underpinnings of the construction of cultural heritage values and their nature . Please refer to the following sources on heritage values and their mutability and re-examine /define your table:
· de la Torre, M. Values and heritage conservation. Heritage & Society 2013, 6, 155-166, doi:10.1179/2159032X13Z.00000000011
· Spennemann, D.H.R. The Shifting Baseline Syndrome and Generational Amnesia in Heritage Studies. Heritage 2022, 5, 2007–2027, doi:10.3390/heritage5030105
· Australia ICOMOS. The Burra Charter. The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance 2013; Australia ICOMOS Inc. International Council of Monuments and Sites: Burwood, Vic, 2013
http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/BURRA_CHARTER.pdf
· Heras, V.C.; Cordero, M.S.M.; Wijffels, A.; Tenze, A.; Paredes, D.E.J. Heritage values: towards a holistic and participatory management approach. J. Cult. Heritage Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 9, 199–211.
Line 277ff Before discussing the risk levels, the authors also need to consider that some of the mitigation options may create irreversible change to the fabric. This evaluation is standard conservation management practice. That also needs to be built in a more nuanced level of analysis.
Table 4 is basic management, yet they it is presented, it is very generalistic. And the connection to climate change is tenuous.
Line 307 ff. There is huge amount of literature on disaster management and heritage sites, from a theoretical and from a planning perspective. This section is extremely weak and needs to take heed of the literature. Some basic texts are:
· Nelson, C.L. Protecting the past from natural disasters; National Trust for Historic Preservation: Washington, D.C, 1991.
· See various articles in: Disaster management programs for historic sites; Association for Preservation Technology, Western Chapter: San Francisco, 1998
https://ia600308.us.archive.org/20/items/disastermanageme00spen/disastermanageme00spen.pdf
Line 313 ff. Much of this does not apply to your case study. So some of this really reads out of place here
Table 5 Some of this does not make much sense, for example the first row. How will climate change affect the authenticity? Decay may affect the integrity, but the authenticity.
Real State Development What has that go to do with climate change
MINOR ISSUES
Line 102 ‘anthropic’ use ‘anthropogenic’
Line 172 ‘anthropic’ use ‘anthropogenic’
The papers needs an edit by native English speaker to correct various infelicities in expression and spelling.
The papers needs an edit by native English speaker to correct various infelicities in expression and spelling.
Author Response
Please see the uploaded documents with responses.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is excellent, but few comments:
Fig 2 is very small and difficult to read, can you simplify it?
Figs 3 and 4 are too small and difficult to see what is happening
Fig 5. What is depicted here, is it a 3d model that has an animation to show the flooding?
Fig 7 needs work: the points are not legible that describe the erosions
Table 2 I would argue that vandalism and misuse affect all values
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The research is interesting and fits into a study context that needs to be developed in the coming years. I recommend publication in Heritage after reviewing the following points: 1) English revision and correction of typographical errors.
2) Introduction: as this is an interesting topic and potentially open to readers with different backgrounds, the introduction needs to be expanded. The authors should discuss in more depth the research conducted in recent years in risk assessment and management, as well as the impact of climate change on cultural heritage. Consequently, it is necessary to expand the references.
3) Paragraph. 3.1.1: Here there are a lot of data and information. It would be better to give a schematic resume (as table or graph), helping the reader to navigate the information.
4) The correct way to write "carbon dioxide" is CO2 . Please add all the pedix where needed.
5) The authors discuss about the alteration of the concrete ascribing it to CO2 but there is no chemical-physical or mechanical explanation for this statement. This part needs to be improved, together with the introduction where this issue can be introduced.
English revision needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
heritage-2456642-peer-review-v2
Review round 2
The revised manuscript has been submitted as a clean document, without track changes, making it harder for the reviewer to assess the changes. This caused unnecessary extra effort for the reviewer. Common professional practice is to provide a version with tracked changes
Point 5: “Line 172 Why do you single out vandalism? The most likely anthropogenic impact will be faulty / inadequate construction techniques with corrosion of the metal reinforcements as well as sulphur content of the cement matrix
Response 5: The authors understand the reviewer’s point of view. Since the scope of the proposed methodology is to predict future threats given the current conditions of the heritage construction, the hazards that were considered are those that can occur in the future. The hazards highlighted by the reviewer have occurred during the construction. Furthermore, there is no evidence that such issues have occurred. A such, the hazards highlighted by the reviewer were not considered.
This is a short-sighted interpretation of the status quo. Just because this is not as yet evident does not mean that such a threat is negligible or non-existent. A shift in the foundations, unless they are placed in bedrock throughout (which is not stated in the paper), may set up stressed that may cause a micro fissure, which is enough for capillary action and concomitant ingress of chloridic water, which will allow for corrosion of the reinforcing metal. Thus is a cause of decay of concrete bridges on the US west coast. Failure to include in their scenarios this suggests that the authors do not have a firm hold on decay processes and possible scenarios that are of more structural concern than vandalism. Vandalism may cause damage, but that, unlike the structural decay, can be managed, and also applies to all structures.
If the authors wish to continue to refer to vandalism, then I would expect a formal and sufficiently detailed (not just cursorily referenced) lit review section that adequately covers vandalism and its prevalence in Portugal, vandalism and its impact on mid-century heritage sites and vandalism as it impact concrete architecture.
Point 9: “Line 198-199 The change rooms are 5 am above sea-level. I presume that this refers to the ground level? Be specific. If you are discussing the possible wetting of foundations, you will need to specific the size of the foundations, either expressing them in depth below the surrounding ground or in terms of absolute elevation above MSL. Any projected seas-level change, even of 1 m, will say well below the foundations, even if we assume a 1m deep foundation. If you think otherwise, you will need to determine the capillary potential of the sand at and below the building.”
Response 9: The authors agree with the reviewer’s comment. Following the reply to the previous point, this part of the text was clarified and a specific reference to the threat of wave overtopping was made.
So this refers to the swimming pool? Of the building? Overtopping of the whole change rooms. This is badly written and constructed.
Point 6: “Looking at Table 1, I am not sure how the theft of copper elements, clogged toilets and lack of maintenance, which are standard management issues has anything to do with climate adaptation.”
Response 6: The authors agree with the reviewer’s comment. Since the overall context of the manuscript is no longer focussed on climate adaptation but is now connected to a more general multi-hazard approach, the issue raised by the reviewer no longer applies.
Now I see that the focus of the paper has shifted to a more generic status. (which would been easier to spot of the authors had provided a version with tracked changes.
So, starting from scratch, then, there needs to be a VERY firm grounding in hazard assessment of and for cultural heritage sites,
1) There is not clear hazard assessment framework used, of which there are many.
2) There needs to be a deep literature review on hazard assessments of and for cultural heritage
3) Then move on the hazards that affect concrete structures in general, t
4) then review these hazard assessment in concrete in marine and coastal setting
5) then discuss the specific location.
As it stands, the paper has lost its previous focus, which could have been sharpened, and descended into a paper that makes no real contribution to the literature. It needs to be totally reframed and rewritten— from the ground up.
some infelicities remain
Author Response
The authors aknowledge the revisions to the paper. Th revised manuscript addresses many issues that were requested by the reviewers. However, some of the issues addressed are not feasible because the information is not available, or they require major revisions which are impossible in 5 days while they go beyond the articled purpose. We believe this is a relevant contribution in a still poorly studied field of knowledge – risk assessment for modern concrete heritage in coastal environments. We hope this paper could be accepted, contributing to the scientific development and knowledge in this field. Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
