Analysis of Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Driving Mechanisms of Cultural Heritage Distribution Along the Jiangnan Canal, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

“Analysis of Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Driving Mechanisms of Cultural Heritage Distribution along the Jiangnan Canal, China”

Thank you for the opportunity to read and comment on this manuscript. I am very favorably inclined to recommend publication in Sustainability, provided that the authors undertake the revisions requested. 

What I love about this research is that it bridges two very distinct research communities that rarely listen to each other: on one hand, quantitative geographers, who are all too often subscribing to a neo-positivistic philosophy of science that assumes an objective reality independent of our perceptions of it, as well as an objective truth out there, waiting to be un-covered/dis-covered. On the other hand, we have cultural geographers, who usually subscribe to an anti-positivistic philosophy of science, that questions objectivity and the possibility of separating the researcher from what is being researched. Instead, these cultural geographers adopt social constructionism as their overarching paradigm, and phenomenology as their overarching methodological framework. This means that they much prefer to use qualitative methods in their research, such as in-depth interviews, ethnography, oral histories, and so on. The great merit of this manuscript is that it opens a space for dialogue between these two research communities, by applying quantitative methodologies to cultural geography, specifically to the analysis of the distribution of cultural heritage in the area of the Jiangnan Canal. The authors combine several techniques creatively and with the requisite rigor, so I have no requests for corrections with regard to methodology. 

Where I think the paper is weak is in its discussion of cultural geography and how the paper contributes to it. There are a couple of glaring omissions in the cited literature, which need to be addressed before I can recommend publication. Let me explain what I mean by unpacking the last sentence of the abstract: “The methodology offers replicable frameworks for analyzing heritage corridors in complex historical landscapes, contributing to both applied conservation practices and theoretical advancements in cultural geography”. How can one discuss the complexity of historical-cultural landscapes without even mentioning in passing Simandan’s foundational theoretical advancements on this topic through his development of the idea of practicing a “wise stance” that is open to the inherent surprisingness of complex historical-cultural landscapes (the two key works that should be cited are 1. Simandan, D. (2011). The wise stance in human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 36(2), 188-192.; and 2. Simandan, D. (2020). Being surprised and surprising ourselves: A geography of personal and social change. Progress in Human Geography, 44(1), 99-118.)?

Just as important is a more convincing demonstration that the authors understand what is going on in contemporary cultural geography. In my estimation, the most effective way to achieve this is by referencing a couple of the most recent progress reports on cultural geography regularly published in the prestigious Progress in Human Geography. Specifically, I would suggest referencing Anderson, B. (2020). Cultural geography III: The concept of ‘culture’. Progress in Human Geography, 44(3), 608-617., as well as Anderson, B. (2017). Cultural geography 1: Intensities and forms of power. Progress in Human Geography, 41(4), 501-511.

Once the authors address these problematic gaps in their literature review, discussion/conclusion, and reference list, I will be able to recommend the paper for publication. Overall, I would say that the amount of extra work that I am asking for falls under the “minor revision” category and can be completed very quickly.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a comprehensive GIS-based analysis of the spatiotemporal distribution patterns of tangible and intangible cultural heritage (TCH/ICH) along the Jiangnan Canal, offering valuable insights for heritage conservation. While the methodology is robust and the findings are empirically grounded, several areas require improvement to enhance theoretical depth, methodological clarity, and practical relevance. Specific recommendations are as follows:

1. Background and Introduction. The background section could be more concise. While the historical significance of the Jiangnan Canal is well - described, the core research motivation and questions could be highlighted earlier to immediately engage readers. The introduction should more clearly state how this study fills gaps in existing research, such as how it extends previous single - city studies to a broader river - basin perspective.
2. Literature Review. The literature review comprehensively summarizes previous studies but lacks in - depth analysis of the relationships between them. For example, when discussing the theoretical foundations of cultural heritage distribution, it could more explicitly point out the shortcomings of prior research and how this paper addresses them. The integration of multiple theoretical frameworks (e.g, Geodetector model) is mentioned but not thoroughly explained in terms of how it provides a new perspective on cultural heritage distribution.
3. Data and Methods. The data sources are rich and well - described, but the paper could benefit from a more detailed explanation of how the cultural heritage data were categorized and classified. In the methods section, the selection of specific GIS techniques should be better justified. For instance, a more detailed comparison with other spatial analysis methods would strengthen the rationale for using the chosen techniques.
4. Results and Discussion. The results are well - presented, but the discussion could be more in - depth. For example, the reasons behind the differences in distribution patterns between tangible and intangible cultural heritage could be explored further. The paper mentions that human activity factors are the main drivers of heritage distribution but could expand on how these factors interact with natural environmental factors.
5. Some of the cited references are outdated. The authors should incorporate more recent studies to ensure the research is up - to - date.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The axioms of the research are correct and the development of the application of models and tools is robust. However, I believe that there are still some aspects to be detailed and clarified. Furthermore, it is advisable to include a cartography that presents richer and more readable information levels. The discussion and conclusions are interesting, but they must be more related to specific dates and time periods. The bibliography is coherent and suitable. Major review because the advice is not contained. The specific recommendations are reported directly in the text in the accompanying notes. I point out that the study is nevertheless promising

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Thanks to the Authors who have accepted the recommendations and integrated and clarified some unclear or missing points. For me it is now publishable