A Critical Assessment of the Current State and Governance of the UNESCO Cultural Heritage Site in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia

Comment: Response to reviewers 1° Reviewer The idea of your paper is good. But there are several things missing that would improve ist and make it a better contribution to heritage science. 1st: You mainly write on physical and little on functional aspects of heritage. Please elaborate and contextualize better: What us your definition/understanding of heritage? Built Heritage? Heritage as a system and process that belongs to local communities? Intangible Heritage? If you starting point is not clear it is also not clear why you write on these specific parts of heritage management and what does it mean in the real world. Do you follow UNESCO Definition of CH?Accepted. The authors agree with the reviewer. This point was clarified at the beginning of the introduction section with a new paragraph highlighted in the manuscript and reported here below:“According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Cultural heritage encompasses a wide array of tangible and intangible elements of human civilization, such as artifacts, monuments, architectural ensembles, and museum collections. These elements possess a multitude of values, including symbolic, historical, artistic, aesthetic, ethnological, anthropological, scientific, and social significance. Tangible Cultural Heritage (TCH) comprises movable, immovable, and underwater artifacts, sites, and monuments, while Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) is embedded within the cultural and natural heritage, encompassing practices, expressions, knowledge, and traditions, [1]–[3]. The present paper will focus primarily on THC. The significance of TCH extends beyond its inherent value, as it possesses the capacity to foster sustainable development, enhance social cohesion, and drive economic growth, [4].” 2nd: Governance Issues and responsibilities become not fully clear. It would help to elaborate more: Who is in charge? How is the Governance? What exactly can be improves in this Governance? Do you suggest for example new key actors like site managers? Yes? No? Why not?Accepted. The Results section was reorganized as suggested according to the reviewer’s suggestions. Regarding the governance framework in Cartagena, the involved stakeholders, their respective roles, and responsibilities are highlighted. An exclusive segment addresses overarching challenges, while suggestions for potential management reorganization based on successful models employed in other nations are proffered. 3rd. The role of local communities becomes not fully clear. You mention several times that they should be involved more. How? And in what part of the heritage management/governance process exactly? Anything to transfer from Spain and Italy here?Accepted. In the introduction section a paragraph was added to clarify this aspect: “Community active participation fosters a sense of ownership, promotes sustainable practices, preserves cultural traditions, enhances social cohesion, and facilitates knowledge transmission. Additionally, their intimate connection with the heritage site ensures its continued relevance and resilience within the community fabric.” 4th. You refer to DRM several times. Please include Definitions of key terms that you use for the reader to understand how you understand them: DRM, Heritage; Heritage Management, etc.Accepted. All the abbreviations and acronyms were reviewed and defined in the text. 5th. It seems that the examples that you describe are also strongly connected to urban resilience. Why don't you introduce Resilience as an unreal strategy/concept helpful in site management here? By reading your draft it seems this would be a promising part.Accepted. The concept of resilience was introduced and discussed in section 3.2.1.:“In the context of Cartagena's Tangible Cultural Heritage, the concept of resilience becomes vital due to the city's governance issues and the potential threat of UNESCO classifying it as heritage in danger. Urban resilience, pertaining to tangible cultural heritage, pertains to the city's capacity to adapt, endure, and recover from shocks and stresses while safeguarding its cultural heritage assets, [92], [93]. It necessitates the implementation of strategies and measures that preserve, protect, and sustainably manage the cultural heritage despite challenges like natural disasters, climate change, urbanization, and social disruptions. By integrating tangible cultural heritage into urban planning and development processes, urban resilience ensures the preservation of Cartagena's cultural identity, social fabric, and historical significance during crises. Additionally, leveraging cultural heritage assets as resources for community building, economic development, and sustainable tourism plays a vital role. Engaging local communities and stakeholders in the planning, decision-making, and implementation of resilience strategies empowers them to actively contribute to the enhancement of tangible cultural heritage resilience. This comprehensive approach enables Cartagena to withstand disruptions while simultaneously safeguarding and celebrating its cultural heritage, contributing to the city's overall well-being and vibrancy.” 6th: You mixed method approach deserves to be explained better: Why have you chosen this road? What exactly were the phases of your research? And how on a logical level do you deal with different epistemologies? Accepted. The methodology section was rewritten according to the reviewer’s suggestions. The mixed approach, qualitative and quantitative was necessary on one end to fulfill the main objective of the manuscript which is to give a critical assessment of the current state and governance of the UNESCO cultural heritage site in Cartagena, on the other hand, not to extend too much the document. The authors are aware that each problem mentioned in the text, from governance to the other 12 points, needs one full manuscript each, with extensive experimental data taken in-field. Nevertheless, the authors are still working on the matter and further research will be done in the next years. The objective was to unhide and make public to the international scientific community problems well known by local academic community and citizenship. Problems that could very soon cost Cartagena the insertion in the List of heritage in Danger according to UNESCO with incalculable economic repercussions. This manuscript could be defined as a desperate call to the local and international community. 2° Reviewer The authors are congratulated for the document 'A critical assessment of the current state and management of the UNESCO cultural heritage site in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia', focused from a very modest point of view both in its structure and in the fulfilment of the objectives, methodology, references, and the practical management approach on the safeguarding of the built heritage; however, the only pertinent observations that I will be able to comment on are: Abstract:In general, it should be completely restructured, highlighting more clearly the objective of the research, the method, and the advantages over the results and conclusions. The Abstract has 471 words, and it is recommended to make a single paragraph of about 200 words maximum. In the Abstract, you must delete the sections (1) Background: (2) Methods: (3) Results: etc. The wording must indicate that we are encountering each of these issues without being indicated.Lines 15 – 20 What is the scientific methodology? the SWOT is a nonscientific organizational method, and describes a mixed methodology, what is the scientific incorporation to make your research relevant?Line 23 – Significant contribution of the hyperspectral images, but you do not describe the parameters, processes, methodology, and other information.Line 28 – The results must be related to the method used.There is non-relevant information in your research; improve the wording and the structure of the paragraphs because you generate too big paragraphs that dilate the objective idea of the reading. Accepted. The authors agree with the reviewer. The abstract section was rewritten according to the reviewer suggestions.  Lines 47 – 57 / 58 – 64 / 65 – 70 / 71 – 74 / 75 – 83 / 84 – 95 / Revise if the paragraph is relevant for your research since the model of the heritage monument management is not relevant inside of a scientific product.Accepted. The introduction section was completely reorganized as the reviewer suggested, including comments of the first reviewer.  In this section describe more clearly why UNESCO catalogs several sites in danger clarifying the state of conservation and the vulnerability of Cartagena de Indias to which it is exposed, by natural and anthropic factors.Accepted. A specific paragraph in “1. Introduction” section was dedicated to describing more clearly why UNESCO catalogs several sites in danger. Furthermore, in “1.1. Case of Study” section has been added a paragraph regarding the state of conservation and the vulnerability of Cartagena de Indias TCH according to the UNESCO reports available to date.  Lines 143 – 145 Review and better describe the chronology of the fortification and clarify that it is a historicist description and not the historical construction of the monumental property because there are very few studies that do not cite them on the historical constructive phases of the fortification.This part was removed.  1.2. Research aimThe objective of the research is clear about the practices and model of heritage management, but it is not relevant for a scientific approach.Accepted. The Research aim section was completely reorganized as the reviewer suggested. What we want to highlight is that often the literature that orbits around UNESCO historical sites focuses on precise problems and solutions. It is not often found in the literature a general vision of the whole state of conservation of the heritage considering environmental and anthropogenic factors. This generalized overview is useful and should be done by the academy and relevant authorities for all UNESCO historic sites. A purely scientific approach is rightly sought in literature. Nevertheless, it is often neglected that even if the scientifically rigorous solutions proposed were adequate, poor governance of the assets would prevent their correct implementation and follow-up with ordinary and extraordinary maintenance plans. This is reflected especially in developing counties, in fact most of the sites in “Danger” are there.  Materials and MethodsLines 160 – 167 Check if the paragraph is relevant to your research, qualitative and quantitative methods are narrated but there is no clear description about them.Accepted. The authors reformulated the Materials and Methods section according to the reviewer’s suggestion.  Lines 168 – 181 I think that the most relevant of the information presented in the document is in line 174 about the use of asbestos cement materials in the roof, considering its high carcinogenic power and its radical extraction in several regions and countries. The study of this material, the process of extraction and replacement in the built heritage is more relevant than the model of management and administration related paragraphs ago in the Introduction.Thanks to the reviewer for the comment. The authors agree, the asbestos-cement problem is relevant in the city and in general in developing countries that do not have forbidden yet the use and commercialization of asbestos. This particular problem is faced in a specific study the authors are developing, regarding the whole urban area of Cartagena and asbestos-related acute respiratory diseases.  Cultural heritage management in Cartagena de IndiasThere is interesting information such as historical background and administrative process that is not relevant within the investigation, improve the writing and structure of the paragraphs because it generates very large paragraphs that dilate the objective idea of reading.Accepted. The authors agree with the reviewer. Background and administrative process that is not relevant within the investigation were eliminated. Paragraphs were shortened and sentences were kept of 30-40 word to maintain clarity.  Lines 408 – 428 This contribution to the materials, joint mortars and state of limestone masonry could also be a very relevant element of research.Accepted. The authors agree with the reviewer. As mentioned, almost each of the 12 problems highlighted deserves a dedicated study and perhaps a dedicated paper. Here we want to highlight evident problems, which are rarely studied and which all together give a general picture of degradation of the fortification of Cartagena. This is the result of the TCH a mismanagement in Cartagena. ResultsInclude this section in your research, after having the change in structure of the document and research that identifies the scientific contribution, not a model of management or administration of the monumental heritage of Cartagena de Indias. DiscussionInclude this section in your research, if the research does not generate a research contribution for its methodology and results, this section will be simple, modest, and of little scientific value. Accepted. “Result and discussion” section was added, and in general the organization of the manuscript was restructured.  ConclusionIt does not generate a contribution.Accepted. The authors reformulated the conclusion section. The authors highlighted in the text and in the conclusion section the main points that generate a contribution of new knowledge regarding the case of Cartagena and how a similar approach could be extended to other UNESCO sites around the word, mostly in developing countries. The lack of good governance often leads to deteriorated TCH not only regarding materials but including the urban and architectural environment around as well. In fact, 95 % of the UNESCO sites in “Danger” are in developing countries. A transversal and all-encompassing analysis is rarely done on TCH, consequently, often a parallel reality is created which is only reflected in the literature and does not reflect the real state of the assets. ReferencesReviewing the references used, although there is a considerable number of sources from the last five years, the use of sources of very little justification in the scientific work greatly dismisses the objective of the research and benefits of the monumental heritage built in Latin America. Accepted. The reference list was updated according to the reviewer’s suggestions. An emphasis has been made on the Latin America heritage at risk according to UNESCO.