The Sustainability of Intangible Heritage in the COVID-19 Era—Resilience, Reinvention, and Challenges in Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work reported here is part of the observation of the disruptions created by the covid pandemic on the manifestations of intangible cultural heritage in Spain. The general table of cultural elements inscribed by unesco, followed by the three examples studied in greater depth, highlight two things:
- the capacity of communities to react to the pandemic and to invent "substitute practices", via digital tools or other much more restricted vectors. But what will happen in the long term, where everything indicates that the capacity for reinvention will be extremely solicited? 
- In a very raw way, the pandemic confronts the political and administrative authorities on the drifts of "unesco tourism" that has developed on the sites. The loss of cultural and human meaning is there and it is on this point that the territories must rework their development.
The sustainability of practices and the sustainability of territories are linked and in this unstable equilibrium where scientists play the role of mediation, the major question of governance arises. 

Author Response

Thank you for your favorable comments on our article. We believe that everything you have pointed out is still reflected in the document and in the amendments we have made.

In accordance with the indications of reviewer 3, we have modified the structure of the introduction, dividing it into presentation, theoretical discussion, hypotheses, and objectives. We have also developed the theoretical discussion further and divided it into three main points: the concept of ICH and its social and political uses; the use of virtual heritage; and debates on ICH sustainability.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

congratulate the authors for this interesting comparative work on Spanish intangible heritage. Just a few suggestions that will improve the final text. 1. In relation to the post lockdown measures (lines 350 and following), it is suggested to present measures in some other autonomy and not only in Catalonia.
It is suggested to review the text, to include in italics expressions such as fallas, cantaores, aficionado, castellers or patumaires.
In line 38 delete the first impact. It is repeated. Also in line 525 it should be fallas and not falls.

Author Response

Thank you for your favorable comments on our text. In line with your suggestions, we have made the following changes:

• Point 1. With regard to post-lockdown measures, we did explore measures in other autonomous regions, but we have not included detailed studies in the text because those in Catalonia serve as an example. The rest are more general and include regulations on cultural activities and street performances (such as the regulations in Andalusia or Valencia). However, in accordance with your indications, we have a) pointed out the reason for the selection of the regulations in Catalonia, b) analyzed and mentioned other regulations, such as those in Valencia, where one of the case studies is located; c) included some general recommendations for the whole of Spain put out by the Ministry of Culture and Sports, which were previously only briefly commented on at the end of the text and which we have now highlighted in the study, in accordance with your suggestions.  
• Point 2. We have italicized all the names that cannot be translated (cantaores, castellers, patumaires). We agree with you that this is better. We have maintained the criterion of including the name in the original language when translation is not possible. In some cases, the English translation is in parentheses. For the establishment of linguistic criteria, when available, we have followed the translation used in the dossiers submitted to UNESCO for inclusion in the Representative List.
• Point 3 and 4. We have corrected the repeated words and mistakes pointed out. Thank you very much for pointing them out.

In accordance with the indications of reviewer 3, we have modified the structure of the introduction, dividing it into presentation, theoretical discussion, hypotheses, and objectives. We have also developed the theoretical discussion further and divided it into three main points: the concept of ICH and its social and political uses; the use of virtual heritage; and debates on ICH sustainability.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting report that reveals the challenges raised during the pandemic for festival performances in Spain and how organisers and communities have responded to them. Although the results of the study are well-presented, the document reads more like a report than an academic/ scholarly piece of work. Perhaps the authors could consider engaging with some theoretical issues in discussions around digital intangible heritage in the form of a literature review and how this research can support heritage actions in the times of the pandemic. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and for your feedback, which we have taken into account to improve the article.

In accordance with your recommendations, we have revised the text in the following aspects:

• Point 1-a) We have made two substantial changes to the introduction. On the one hand, we have divided it into four sections: introduction, theoretical discussion, hypothesis, and objectives. This is more in keeping with a conventional academic structure, which, as you suggest, was was not so noticeable in the original manuscript.
• Point 1-b) On the other hand, we have provided a more thorough theoretical discussion. We first discuss the immediate theoretical aspects (with an update and discussion of recent work on the effects of the pandemic on ICH). Then we go on to raise more long-standing theoretical issues related to ICH: 1) The concept of ICH and the theoretical debates around the concept, pointing out certain theoretical positions that have resurfaced in the current analysis of the effects of the pandemic on ICH; 2) a theoretical review of the different uses of the virtual environment in ICH, especially, as suggested in your report, in terms of its opportunities for social participation and its role in the current situation; 3) a theoretical review of the concept of sustainability as applied to ICH and especially to the concept of cultural sustainability, which we believe will be useful both in addressing theoretical debates and in helping to redefine heritage activities both during and after the pandemic. Although these theoretical debates were present in the previous manuscript, the structure now makes them clearer and, above all, we have gone into more detail, in keeping with the recommendations of the review.
• Point 2. As mentioned above, we have gone into more detail in the theoretical discussion. We focus not only on digital heritage, as suggested by the reviewer (and which we understood to be an example), but on other issues, because although the article focuses on the use of virtual spaces during the pandemic as a mechanism to replace the face-to-face, it is not the only alternative proposed in the article. Nevertheless, the theoretical debate around digital alternatives has been emphasized, and in the discussion part, its possible uses and other alternatives have been developed further.
• Point 3. Finally, and following recommendations, we have pointed out how this research may be valuable in supporting ICH during the pandemic and particularly afterwards. This is already included in the theoretical debate, as we have said, but it is especially important in the final discussion. We point out the need to apply sustainability policies in future actions and indicate that this is not only a theoretical debate, but is expected to be useful for the organizing associations.

In line with the comments of reviewer 2, all mentions of names that cannot be translated (cantaores, castellers, patumaires) have been italicized. We have maintained the linguistic criterion of including the name in the original language when translation is not possible, although in some cases, the English translation is in parentheses. For the establishment of linguistic criteria, when available, we have followed the translation used in dossiers submitted to UNESCO for the inclusion of elements in the Representative List. Also, in agreement with reviewer 2, some further examples of health regulations have been included and some typographical errors have been corrected.  

We would like to express our thanks for your comments, which we have tried to implement in our reformulation of the text. We believe that we have taken them all into account and that this has resulted in an improvement in the quality of the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx