A Review of the Progress in Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) Monitoring

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research presents an interesting analysis and comparison of the discussed monitoring system (GIAHS) in three countries: South Korea, Japan and Portugal compared to China. First thing: So there was a lack of a clear and lucid question / or research questions. You should formulate them at the end of the "Introduction" chapter. Second thing: some tables (e.g. tables 3, 5, 6) do not have reference links, while others do. It should be clearly marked (own research), next to the tables, where there were such studies made by the authors of this publication, or add omitted references, on the basis of which comparisons and analyzes were made. Third point: Figure 2 - number the steps as discussed in the text (lines 236-241). Fourth thing: there was no summary or conclusions. Fifth thing: the list of publications in the reference list and in the text of the manuscript should be supplemented with at least 10 items from the last 5-10 years. Following the above-mentioned suggestions, the manuscript may be published.

Author Response

Responses to reviewer 1

1. There was a lack of a clear and lucid question or research questions. You should formulate them at the end of the "Introduction" chapter.

Responses: Thank you for the comment. We have stated the research question in the introduction section. Please see lines 110-112.

“It aims to find the common problems shared by the current GIAHS monitoring research and practice, and also the solutions to them.”

2. Some tables (e.g. tables 3, 5, 6) do not have reference links, while others do. It should be clearly marked (own research), next to the tables, where there were such studies made by the authors of this publication, or add omitted references, on the basis of which comparisons and analyzes were made.

Responses: Thank you for the comment. In the revised version, we have adjusted the structure of the manuscript. Table 3 has been changed to Table 5, and Table 5 has been changed to Table 4. We have added the reference to Table 4, which is a presentation in an international conference. Please see line 338. Table 5 and 6 are the results of our review and comparison.

“Source: Reference [34] ”

34. Park Y. Monitoring and Evaluation ofKIAHS in South Korea. The 3^rd Conference of East Asia Research Association for Agricultural Heritage Systems. Geumsan , South Korea. 2016, 6.

3. Figure 2 - number the steps as discussed in the text (lines 236-241).

Responses: Thank you for the comment. We have numbered the steps in Figure 2. Please see line 266-267.

Figure 2. The monitoring and evaluation process for GIAHS action plans proposed by UNU-IAS and RDA (adapted from reference [14]).

4. There was no summary or conclusions.

Responses: Thank you very much. Following this comment, we have added a short conclusion. Please see lines 609-624.

“5. Conclusion

Monitoring is a basic step towards effective GIAHS conservation, and also an important way of achieving scientific GIAHS management. However, compared with the World Heritage, GIAHS is a relatively new program and mainly relies on various countries to carry out monitoring activities on their own. The theoretical research and practical exploration that have been performed by different research institutions and countries share similarities but also have differences in the concept understanding, indicator system design and implementation mechanism of GIAHS monitoring. However, all of these attempts and explorations are of great significance to the establishment of a unified, scientific and efficient GIAHS monitoring system at the global level. At the same time, these institutions and countries have also encountered difficulties in the process of research and application, many of which are common in other countries and must be solved before establishing a GIAHS monitoring system globally. It cannot be overemphasized that FAO should establish a unified, scientific and efficient GIAHS monitoring system at the global level with the support of various countries and institutions as quickly as possible.”

5. The list of publications in the reference list and in the text of the manuscript should be supplemented with at least 10 items from the last 5-10 years.

Responses: Thank you for the comment. Since GIAHS monitoring is a quite new research field, we cannot find 10 more references closely related to it. Therefore, we added some contents to describe the characteristics and values of GIAHS in the introduction section as well as 12 references to support these contents. Please see lines 76-87.

“GIAHS are complex in that they are multidimensional and composed of ecological subsystems and social subsystems that are inter-dependent in various ways and affect each other to some degree [12,13]. They are also described as living systems that are dynamic and adaptive, exhibiting the strategic values of multi-functionality and sustainability [14]. These strategic values of GIAHS are specifically expressed as multiple values of economy and livelihood, ecology and environment, as well as society and culture [10], which is of great significance for ensuring food safety [15,16], protecting biodiversity [17,18], coping with climate change [19,20], protecting cultural diversity [21,22] and other major problems faced by mankind. Therefore, GIAHS have been recognized as having potentials to contribute greatly to the FAO Strategic Objectives (SO), to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Articles [9,23].” 

Reviewer 2 Report

Kindly see my comments attached 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to reviewer 2

1. Please include a short description of the paper srtucture.

Responses: Thank you for the comment. We have described the structure of the manuscript in the introduction section. Please see lines 112-119.

“In section 2, this paper reviews the theorectical progress in GIAHS monitoring, by focusing on the theoretical research conducted by CAS and UNU. In section 3, it reviews the practical progress in GIAHS monitoring, by introducing the practical explorations in China, South Korea, Japan and Portugal. In section 4, it compares different studies and different practices regarding to GIAHS monioring, elaborates their shared problems and puts forward solutions to them. In the last section, this paper makes a short conclusion and emphasizes on the importance of a unified, scientific and efficient monitoring system for GIAHS. “

2. I was expecting after reading the paper to find a discussion and concluding remarks. It would be very important to have these parts at the end of the paper

Responses: Thank you very much. Following this comment, we have adjusted the structure of the manuscript. In the revised version, you will see a discussion section which includes the previous sections of 2.4, 3.5 and 4. In this section, we have systematically compared different studies and different practices, elaborated their shared problems and put forward solutions to them. We have also added a short conclusion at the end of the manuscript. Please see lines 609-624.

“5. Conclusion

Monitoring is a basic step towards effective GIAHS conservation, and also an important way of achieving scientific GIAHS management. However, compared with the World Heritage, GIAHS is a relatively new program and mainly relies on various countries to carry out monitoring activities on their own. The theoretical research and practical exploration that have been performed by different research institutions and countries share similarities but also have differences in the concept understanding, indicator system design and implementation mechanism of GIAHS monitoring. However, all of these attempts and explorations are of great significance to the establishment of a unified, scientific and efficient GIAHS monitoring system at the global level. At the same time, these institutions and countries have also encountered difficulties in the process of research and application, many of which are common in other countries and must be solved before establishing a GIAHS monitoring system globally. It cannot be overemphasized that FAO should establish a unified, scientific and efficient GIAHS monitoring system at the global level with the support of various countries and institutions as quickly as possible.”

Reviewer 3 Report

In this manuscript (sustainability-1817114) entitled "A review of the progress in globally important agricultural heritage systems (GIAHS) monitoring" submitted to Sustainability, wenjun Jiao and colleagues have sorted out the theoretical research and practical exploration of GIAHS monitoring conducted by different countries such as China, South Korea, Japan and Portugal, compared and analyzed the differences between theoretical design of GIAHS themselves monitoring and GIAHS action plan monitoring, as well as the differences in practical exploration of GIAHS monitoring. Authors highlighted the common problems in the research and application of GIAHS monitoring and proposed a unified, scientific and efficient GIAHS monitoring system. Overall, I consider this review topic interesting and complete, especially the compilation of the GIAHS monitoring related literature which will be an important source for the researchers working in this topic, however some concerns needs addressing to improve the quality of this manuscript.

1, I found the writing poor in some sections and, thus, the manuscript may benefit from the use of a professional editor.

2, Please consider to cite the original papers instead of citing other reviews when possible, especially in Tables 1-6. The authors should direct or recommend the readers to consult original reference in case they wish to go into detail.

3. The writing of the manuscript should be improved as there are grammatical errors along the manuscript. Here are just some examples in Abstract:

Line 9: launched an initiative “for” the

Line 22: between “the” theoretical design

Lines 26, 27: “lack” of

4. Please double-check the reference list. For instance, DOI number and website appeared in different reference.

Author Response

Responses to reviewer 3

1. I found the writing poor in some sections and, thus, the manuscript may benefit from the use of a professional editor.

Responses: Thank you for the comment. We have checked the language and improved it carefully.

2. Please consider to cite the original papers instead of citing other reviews when possible, especially in Tables 1-6. The authors should direct or recommend the readers to consult original reference in case they wish to go into detail.

Responses: Thank you. Table 1, 2 and 3 have reference sources. Table 5 and 6 are the results of our review and comparison. Following this comment, we have added the reference to Table 4, which is a presentation in an international conference. Please see line 338. In addition, we have added some references to section 3.3 and 3.4, which are also presentations in an international conference. Please see line 393 and line 411.

34.Park Y. Monitoring and Evaluation of KIAHS in South Korea. The 3^rd Conference of East Asia Research Association for Agricultural Heritage Systems. Geumsan , South Korea. 2016, 6.

36.Yagi N. GIAHS Monitoring and Evaluations in Japan. Webinar of the Monitoring and Evaluation of GIAHS: Country and GIAHS Site Experiences. Tokyo, Japan. 2022, 3.

38.Luzio S. Monitoring and Evaluation in GIAHS Barroso, Portugal. Webinar of the Monitoring and Evaluation of GIAHS: Country and GIAHS Site Experiences. Tokyo, Japan. 2022, 3.

3. The writing of the manuscript should be improved as there are grammatical errors along the manuscript. Here are just some examples in Abstract:

Line 9: launched an initiative “for” the

Line 22: between “the” theoretical design

Lines 26, 27: “lack” of

Responses: Thank you very much. We have checked the language and improved it carefully.

4. Please double-check the reference list. For instance, DOI number and website appeared in different reference.

Responses: Thank you very much. We have checked the references carefully.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have addressed my concerns in the revised manuscript in a satisfactory way.