Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read your manuscript. It provides information about green governance and the synergy of cultural heritage. The abstract meets modern scientific criteria, but I think the introduction needs to be improved, because it is still incomplete. A deeper description of the problem is missing. For this purpose, the following sources can be used: Dvorak, J., Burkšienė, V., & Sadauskaitė, L. (2019). Issues in the implementation of cultural heritage projects in Lithuania: the case of the Klaipeda region. Cultural Management: Science and Education, 3(1), 23-37. You also need an objective, research questions, a short paragraph about the methods and what will be discussed further. This will make the work more solid. The literature review has been done, but a section on cultural heritage is missing, because the authors focused their main focus on green governance. In the section on methods, it is not very clear why the authors chose 31 administrative provinces and why those. I want to know what provinces they are, why they are important for the study. Maybe a contextual section should be made. It is not clear who the author of the tables is. In Figure 3, it is not very clear what the authors want to present. A broader explanation of the context is needed, because the journal's audience is international. The authors completed the manuscript with a discussion section, but I would also like conclusions, in the discussion I would also like references to the works of foreign authors, how the Chinese case fits into global trends, it would be appropriate to have policy implications in the conclusions. The list of references must be arranged according to the journal's requirements.

Author Response

comments 1: A deeper description of the problem is missing in the abstract section, and also need an objective, research questions, a short paragraph about the methods and what will be discussed further.

response 1: The abstract and introduction sections have appropriately expanded the description of the research background and problems (thanks to the suggested reference literature, which has been cited in the introduction section，see line 51); the research objectives and questions have been clearly defined, and the research methods and subsequent discussion contents have been briefly described (See the abstract and lines 100-115).

comments 2:The literature review has been done, but a section on cultural heritage is missing. 

response 2: The theoretical framework section has added "Theoretical Research on Cultural Heritage Studies" (see 2.1.1); the original sections from 2.1.1 to 2.1.4 have been integrated to form the "Cultural Ecology and Deep Ecology" section (see 2.1.2) and the "Integration into Sustainable Development Goals" section (see 2.1.3).

comments 3: In the section on methods, it is not very clear why the authors chose 31 administrative provinces and why those.

response 3: The Materials and Methods section has been augmented with an explanation of "the reasons for choosing 31 provinces in China as the research samples" and a description of "the adverse effects of selecting such samples and the solutions" (see 3.1.1, lines 345-370).

comments 4: It is not clear who the author of the tables is.

response 4: The Materials and Methods section has been augmented with explanations regarding the basis for the selection of dimensions and the sources of indicator data in the evaluation tables for "intangible cultural heritage transmission level, green governance level, and digital-intelligent integration level" (see 3.1.1, lines 376-463).

comments 5: In Figure 3, it is not very clear what the authors want to present. A broader explanation of the context is needed, because the journal's audience is international.

response 5: The explanations and analyses of Figures 2 and 3 have been expanded in the results section (Figure 3 mainly provides a further analysis of Figure 2, see 4.1, lines 551-574).

comments 6: The authors completed the manuscript with a discussion section, but I would also like conclusions, in the discussion I would also like references to the works of foreign authors, how the Chinese case fits into global trends, it would be appropriate to have policy implications in the conclusions.

response 6: The discussion section briefly outlines the gaps in existing research and sets the focus of this study; it compares the results of this research with those of previous studies; acknowledges the limitations and looks to the future, offering suggestions for improvement; and concludes by restating the research findings and their significance.

comments 7: The list of references must be arranged according to the journal's requirements.

response 7: The reference list has removed the original references such as [4], [15], and [18]; some new references have been added based on the revised content of the article, and the reference sequence numbers have been reorganized and formatted in APA style.

Thank you for your comments. More detailed issues have been adjusted. Due to the significant extent of the revisions, the overall adjustments and modifications can be found in the cover letter.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The topic of the article is of interest.
The structure of the article needs improvement:
1. The central concepts should be defined more clearly and explicitly. What is meant by green governance in the article? What is meant by intangible cultural heritage? (The term seems to be used in the article with a narrow meaning, related to ecological knowledge; what is the justification for the choice of this meaning?)
2. The interpretation of the results is too little developed, in relation to the methodology chapter. This part should be expanded, in order to justify the effort made to collect the data.
3. In relation to the previous suggestion, the Discussion chapter is more of a Conclusions chapter. Before it, the research results should be discussed in comparison with the results of other research and/or with other theoretical approaches to the topic.
4. It is not clear how the dimensions related to the assessment of intangible cultural heritage, green governance and digital intelligence were established (tables 1-3), this should be clarified.
5. Comments and recommendations regarding the drafting of the article:
-line 46: specify what the expression “a “deep-water zone” stage” refers to in the context
-line 250: the wording “Digital-Intelligent transformation” should be accompanied by additional clarifications. What transformation is it about?
-line 278: in Table 1 all indicators are quantitative, it should be better clarified what “qualitative assessment” refers to
-line 280: the wording “heritage ICH activities” should be revised
-lines 325, 330 and 337: the meanings of all terms in the equations are not specified, these clarifications should be added
-lines 419-439: what is the source of the explanations presented about the characteristics of the different regions? are the explanations the results of the interpretation of data available to the authors? or are they their opinions? Clarifications are needed here.
-subchapter 4.2.1. Traditional Markov chain dynamic features should be supplemented with explanations regarding the relevance of the analysis to the topic of the article. Please also check the English translation of the terms.

I wish you success

Author Response

comments 1: The central concepts should be defined more clearly and explicitly. What is meant by green governance in the article? What is meant by intangible cultural heritage? (The term seems to be used in the article with a narrow meaning, related to ecological knowledge; what is the justification for the choice of this meaning?)

response 1:The introduction section has added explanations of the concepts and differences between "intangible cultural heritage" and "intangible cultural heritage transmission", as well as an elaboration on the concept and scope of "green governance" (see lines 59-99).

comments 2: The interpretation of the results is too little developed, in relation to the methodology chapter. This part should be expanded, in order to justify the effort made to collect the data.

response 2: In the results section, the explanations and analyses of Figures 2 and 3 have been expanded (and the format of Figure 2 has been appropriately adjusted, see 4.1, lines 551-574); the explanations of "Markov analysis" have been corrected and supplemented, and the meanings of characters I-IV have been added (see 4.2, lines 621-661); the character writing of the variable "Is" in Tables 6 and 7 has been corrected; the meaning explanation of "L2.HGC" has been corrected (see 4.3.3, line 684); the explanations of terms and character meanings in the endogeneity test have been improved (see 4.3.4, lines 699-716); the results of the heterogeneity test of cultural region division have been re-analyzed and the result explanations have been strengthened (see 4.3.5, lines 734-755).

comments 3: In relation to the previous suggestion, the Discussion chapter is more of a Conclusions chapter. Before it, the research results should be discussed in comparison with the results of other research and/or with other theoretical approaches to the topic.

response 3: The discussion section briefly outlines the gaps in existing research and sets the focus of this study; it compares the results of this research with those of previous studies; acknowledges the limitations and looks to the future, offering suggestions for improvement; and concludes by restating the research findings and their significance.

comments 4: It is not clear how the dimensions related to the assessment of intangible cultural heritage, green governance and digital intelligence were established (tables 1-3), this should be clarified.

response 4: In the Materials and Methods section, explanations regarding the selection basis for the evaluation dimensions of "intangible cultural heritage transmission level, green governance level, and digital-intelligent integration level" and the sources of indicator data have been added (see 3.1.1, lines 371-463).

comments 5: Comments and recommendations regarding the drafting of the article:

-line 46: specify what the expression “a “deep-water zone” stage” refers to in the context

-line 250: the wording “Digital-Intelligent transformation” should be accompanied by additional clarifications. What transformation is it about?

-line 278: in Table 1 all indicators are quantitative, it should be better clarified what “qualitative assessment” refers to

-line 280: the wording “heritage ICH activities” should be revised

-lines 325, 330 and 337: the meanings of all terms in the equations are not specified, these clarifications should be added

-lines 419-439: what is the source of the explanations presented about the characteristics of the different regions? are the explanations the results of the interpretation of data available to the authors? or are they their opinions? Clarifications are needed here.

-subchapter 4.2.1. Traditional Markov chain dynamic features should be supplemented with explanations regarding the relevance of the analysis to the topic of the article.

response 5:

-The text that was not suitable for the context of this article has been deleted, and the content of the surrounding context has been adjusted (see line 79).

-The section on the enabling mechanism of digitalization and intelligence has added a specific definition of "digital and intelligent transformation" (see 2.3, line 297).

-The unreasonable explanation of Table 1 in the text has been adjusted (changed to "qualitative assessment").

-The words have been corrected.

-The explanation of using the RAGA-PP model was appropriately supplemented, and the textual descriptions and annotation formats of formulas (1), (4), (5), and (6) were appropriately modified (see 3.2.1, line 467-500); the explanation of using the coupling coordination degree model was appropriately supplemented (see 3.2.2, line 502-514); formulas (7), (8), and (9) were merged, and the explanations of the formula characters were appropriately adjusted (see 3.3, line 544).

-The heterogeneity test results of cultural regional division were re-analyzed and the result interpretation was strengthened (see 4.3.5, line 728-755).

-The explanation of "Markov Analysis" has been revised and supplemented, and the meanings of the I-IV characters have been added (see 4.2.1, lines 621-661).

comments 6:Please also check the English translation of the terms.

response 6:The errors and consistency issues in the writing of terms in the text content and the index table have been corrected.

Thank you for your comments. More detailed issues have been adjusted. Due to the significant extent of the revisions, the overall adjustments and modifications can be found in the attached cover letter.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The importance of cultural heritage for the development of modern, sustainable communities is widely accepted. The necessity of policies aimed at improving the transmission of cultural heritage between generations is also acknowledged. Thus, the present study explores a promising yet under-researched topic within heritage studies. However, the manuscript studies the intangible cultural heritage at a very coarse scale, and the data sources, which may contain significant biases, are used without any further discussion. Thus, I recommend the rejection of the paper; however, I provide comments that will help revise the manuscript in case of further resubmission or a different decision by the editors.

Main comments

Lines 262-264 - You analyse the data at the provincial level. Are you sure that this level is appropriate for the study of intangible cultural heritage? Most such studies refer rather to local scales. Given the population of the provinces of China, your aim is similar to the comparisons of the cultural heritage of countries such as Russia, Canada, or significant parts of Europe and South America. Each of such large-scale units is inhabited by many nations that may have different cultures and traditions. In China, you have the record of the oldest still living civilisation in the world. Is it truly possible to study its traditions and their transmission at the provincial level?

Lines 265-280 - Here you list the data employed to assess the transmission of intangible cultural heritage. However, some of the listed criteria appear to quantify the presence of support provided by the government (i.e., the presence of official websites, approved inheritors, government priorities in provincial documents), rather than the vitality of practices, professions, and arts that could be used to determine the state of cultural heritage. What you are studying here is probably the degree of recognition and support for intangible heritage. The intensity of involvement of local authorities can be correlated across domains, which is why the appreciation of local cultural heritage follows a similar pattern to that recorded for the development of green and sustainable practices. Given that your study is undertaken at the level of administrative units (provinces), the overall outcome of your study shows rather the differences among individual administrative units than between cultural heritage and green governance.

Lines 265-280 (again) - The use of data related to cultural heritage provided by the government is very risky. The local authorities do not gather data for scientific purposes. If you had decided to collect the appropriate data on your own, you would probably have taken care of appropriate sampling and tried to ensure that different arts, traditions, and professions are equally represented in your database. However, for local authorities, the development of the most comprehensive database is the most important aim, which, of course, results in some spatial and thematic biases. You are using data sources here without any comments on the possible drawbacks of such a decision! The quality of data sources should be carefully discussed, or you could include in your study some case studies in which you demonstrate that the information included in the databases does not differ significantly from your own studies in the field (or the studies summarised in earlier papers).

Table 1 - You refer here to institutionally recognised and approved cultural heritage. However, the number that you obtain does not necessarily refer to the state and transmission of intangible cultural heritage! At local scales, there can be selected practices that are well recognised by the authorities due to grant applications from members of local communities, etc. This demonstrates how the cultural heritage is appreciated by local authorities, but it does not relate directly to the transmission level that you are evaluating here. Judging from this, I would rather assert that your study demonstrates that the recognition of cultural heritage within administrative units is positively correlated with the development of green governance. However, it is difficult to make any definitive statements regarding the transmission of intangible heritage.

Table 1 (again) - All the indicators are calculated for all records of intangible cultural heritage. This is a wealth of traditions, arts, and practices. It is very likely that certain selected types of heritage are responsible for elevated numbers in specific provinces. Do you think that it is really reasonable to study all intangible cultural heritage without any subdivisions? On the other hand, it is highly likely that many discrete local patterns of elevated awareness and higher transmission levels are hidden in the vast amount of data amalgamated at the provincial level.

Lines 345-353 - Numerous studies demonstrate that the coupling coordination degree model is frequently misused. On the other hand, there are also many pieces of research that document successful stories. You do not refer to any of them here, nor are you summarising the arguments that demonstrate that the use of the method in the case of the two systems you study remains appropriate.

Lines 409-418 - Here and in figure 4, you illustrate the relationship between heritage transmission and the development of green governance. However, given that your data comes from institutional databases, it is possible that the correlations you observe are a result of the development of selected cultural assets that are beneficial for the growth of ecotourism or other branches of niche tourism, which receive significant funding from the government for the benefit of tourists. Such heritage receives better representation in the database while simultaneously contributing to green governance. At the same time, many other cultural heritage assets may obtain far lower transmission levels and slowly disappear. Are you sure that the patterns noted show the real increase in transmission levels across most ICH in selected provinces?

Minor issues

Lines 60-62 - This sentence apparently does not have any verb.

Lines 123-132 - You include many important statements here without any references to earlier studies. Moreover, references to the case studies that you mention should also be provided.

Lines 187-188: The same title appears two times in succession.

Lines 262-264 - You refer here to the number of provinces. I would recommend adding some explanation here for an international reader. You have the data from 31 province-level units. This probably means that you have data for 22 provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities; however, but this would give more than 31 individual units (at least for a reader who is not familiar with the administrative divisions of China). From which administrative units does the data that you use come?

Lines 283-300 - Here, you refer to the measures of the green governance system listed in table 2. However, it is difficult for the reader to find connexions between parameters listed in the text and those in the table. Please ensure that you use strict and consistent terminology.

Tables 2 and 3 - You utilise indicators that are not defined in the text, such as the Green finance development index and the Digital Finance Development Index. Please explain in detail how there indices are obtained.

Lines 302-310 - You list various criteria used to evaluate the digital-intelligence transformation. You also list the institutions from which each dataset has been obtained. However, you do not link the datasets with the institutions. The reader does not know which parameters are calculated based on the data gathered at the provincial level and which are compiled at the national level. The quality of the data may differ among the institutions.

Lines 383-388 - Many missing spaces are present here.

Author Response

comments 1: Lines 262-264 - You analyse the data at the provincial level. Are you sure that this level is appropriate for the study of intangible cultural heritage? Most such studies refer rather to local scales. Given the population of the provinces of China, your aim is similar to the comparisons of the cultural heritage of countries such as Russia, Canada, or significant parts of Europe and South America. Each of such large-scale units is inhabited by many nations that may have different cultures and traditions. In China, you have the record of the oldest still living civilisation in the world. Is it truly possible to study its traditions and their transmission at the provincial level?

response 1: Indeed, China's provincial administrative regions often match European countries in terms of area and population, and their internal cultures are diverse. However, this precisely makes this research valuable for unique cross-regional comparative policy studies. We do not aim to describe cultural details within a single province, but rather view each province as a 'cultural-ecosystem response unit' that operates under a common national policy framework but has different endowments. The main goal is to examine how macro policy variables and different regional conditions jointly affect the synergetic output of intangible cultural heritage transmission and green governance. Provincial units can serve as appropriate samples for understanding the differentiated effects of policy interventions within a large-scale civilization. (In the Materials and Methods section: 3.1.1, the reasons for choosing 31 provinces in China as the research samples and the disadvantages of selecting such samples along with the solutions have been added.)

comments 2: Lines 265-280 - Here you list the data employed to assess the transmission of intangible cultural heritage. However, some of the listed criteria appear to quantify the presence of support provided by the government (i.e., the presence of official websites, approved inheritors, government priorities in provincial documents), rather than the vitality of practices, professions, and arts that could be used to determine the state of cultural heritage. What you are studying here is probably the degree of recognition and support for intangible heritage. The intensity of involvement of local authorities can be correlated across domains, which is why the appreciation of local cultural heritage follows a similar pattern to that recorded for the development of green and sustainable practices. Given that your study is undertaken at the level of administrative units (provinces), the overall outcome of your study shows rather the differences among individual administrative units than between cultural heritage and green governance.

response 2: This research does not explore "intangible cultural heritage itself", but measures and analyzes the institutionalized transmission process of it under the framework of modern national governance. This perspective choice, along with the empirical research objective of taking provincial administrative regions as the analytical unit and aiming to reveal the macro policy coordination laws, constitutes a logically coherent whole. This research emphasizes the "transmission" of intangible cultural heritage, which inherently has strong policy influence and social selectivity. It is precisely because of the consistent policy driving factors between it and green governance that this research considers whether there is a synergy between them and then conducts empirical tests. Moreover, given that the test is based on macro trends, the use of provincial units is a suitable choice. (The introduction part has added explanations of the concepts and differences between "intangible cultural heritage" and "the transmission of intangible cultural heritage", and the materials and methods part has also added supplementary explanations.)

comments 3: Lines 265-280 (again) - The use of data related to cultural heritage provided by the government is very risky. The local authorities do not gather data for scientific purposes. If you had decided to collect the appropriate data on your own, you would probably have taken care of appropriate sampling and tried to ensure that different arts, traditions, and professions are equally represented in your database. However, for local authorities, the development of the most comprehensive database is the most important aim, which, of course, results in some spatial and thematic biases. You are using data sources here without any comments on the possible drawbacks of such a decision! The quality of data sources should be carefully discussed, or you could include in your study some case studies in which you demonstrate that the information included in the databases does not differ significantly from your own studies in the field (or the studies summarised in earlier papers).

response 3: This study uses government macro-statistics such as the number of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) projects and the number of inheritors to measure the "level of ICH transmission". Although this may involve measurement errors and aggregation biases, as the only quantifiable basis for long-term and systematic comparisons at the provincial level, they provide a necessary foundation for testing the macro-synergy laws driven by policies. To address the potential data deficiencies, this study adopts rigorous countermeasures from the perspective of econometrics: using instrumental variable methods to alleviate endogeneity, employing a double fixed-effect model of provinces and years to control for unobservable factors, and conducting robustness tests through cross-validation of multi-source data and heterogeneity group analysis. These methods ensure the reliability of the conclusions in revealing the inter-provincial synergy laws and spatial effects between "ICH transmission and green governance", and we clearly position this study as a macro-trend test, whose conclusions can provide references for subsequent in-depth micro-case studies. (The "Materials and Methods" section has added explanations for the selection basis and data sources of the evaluation dimensions of "ICH transmission level, green governance level, and digital-intelligent integration level", as well as explanations for the possible problems and solutions when using macro-scale provincial data.)

comments 4: Table 1 - You refer here to institutionally recognised and approved cultural heritage. However, the number that you obtain does not necessarily refer to the state and transmission of intangible cultural heritage! At local scales, there can be selected practices that are well recognised by the authorities due to grant applications from members of local communities, etc. This demonstrates how the cultural heritage is appreciated by local authorities, but it does not relate directly to the transmission level that you are evaluating here. Judging from this, I would rather assert that your study demonstrates that the recognition of cultural heritage within administrative units is positively correlated with the development of green governance. However, it is difficult to make any definitive statements regarding the transmission of intangible heritage.

response 4: You correctly pointed out that the government-recognized data we used more directly measures the degree of "institutionalized recognition". This is precisely the theoretical starting point of this study's policy process analysis at the macro-provincial scale. Our core argument is that in China's top-down governance system, the government's "institutionalized recognition" of a certain intangible cultural heritage (including listing and financial support) is the key prerequisite and the strongest driving force for its systematic documentation, resource acquisition, and entry into public transmission channels. Therefore, at the provincial level, the intensity and breadth of "institutionalized recognition" are effective proxy variables and important factors for observing the overall trend of "institutionalized transmission". The goal of this study is not to depict the intangible cultural heritage itself within specific communities, but to test a macro-policy issue: whether there is a pattern of coordinated development in the construction intensity of the two policy areas of "intangible cultural heritage transmission" and "green governance" among provinces. Our empirical model confirmed the existence of such coordination and revealed its spatial differentiation characteristics. This finding itself has certain value: it indicates that in high-level policy agendas and resource allocation, cultural and ecological goals may be advanced in a coordinated manner. This provides an important macro background and policy interpretation framework for subsequent research at a more micro level on how specific intangible cultural heritage projects are transmitted in actual communities (which cannot be directly revealed by the data of this study).

comments 5: Table 1 (again) - All the indicators are calculated for all records of intangible cultural heritage. This is a wealth of traditions, arts, and practices. It is very likely that certain selected types of heritage are responsible for elevated numbers in specific provinces. Do you think that it is really reasonable to study all intangible cultural heritage without any subdivisions? On the other hand, it is highly likely that many discrete local patterns of elevated awareness and higher transmission levels are hidden in the vast amount of data amalgamated at the provincial level.

response 5: We fully agree that aggregating all types of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) projects in the province without distinction (from traditional skills to festival rituals) may obscure the differentiated contributions of different types of heritage to the "synergistic" effect. This is precisely the inherent trade-off that macro quantitative research faces when pursuing universality and comparability. The main purpose of this study is not to compare the inheritance mechanisms of different types of ICH, but to test a macro policy hypothesis: whether there is a synergistic relationship between a province's "holistic institutionalized support" for ICH and its green governance effectiveness. Therefore, we treat the collection of ICH projects in each province as an overall representation of the intensity of policy support. We acknowledge that this aggregation may give certain heritage types that are more sensitive to tourism or ecological value (such as traditional handicrafts) a higher weight in the correlation analysis. To address this, we have conducted heterogeneity analysis by grouping provinces based on their dominant cultural ecological types (such as "Yellow River - Yangtze River Basin" dominated by agricultural culture and "Grassland - Oasis" dominated by nomadic culture). Although still not micro and detailed enough, future research can indeed build on this basis to conduct typological segmentation of ICH to reveal more refined mechanisms.

comments 6: Lines 345-353 - Numerous studies demonstrate that the coupling coordination degree model is frequently misused. On the other hand, there are also many pieces of research that document successful stories. You do not refer to any of them here, nor are you summarising the arguments that demonstrate that the use of the method in the case of the two systems you study remains appropriate.

response 6: We agree that the application of the coupling coordination degree model in complex multi-systems should be handled with caution. However, this study only involves two systems: intangible cultural heritage inheritance and green governance. This is precisely a mature and commonly used application scenario for this model. There is already a solid literature foundation for this method in analyzing the co-evolution of dual systems. For instance, recent studies have specifically used this model to quantify the degree of synergy between the "intangible cultural heritage resources" and "tourism industry" systems; another study applied a modified version of the model to assess the coordinated development characteristics of the "ecological civilization" and "public health of residents" systems in China. These studies provide examples for dual-system analysis. Compared to the "composite systems" involving three or more systems, the calculation logic of the dual-system model is clearer and can more intuitively reveal whether the two systems promote each other, develop in coordination, or inhibit each other. This is precisely the core basis for our study's adoption of this model. (4.2.1 has already provided additional explanations: This study focuses on the synergy of dual systems, thereby avoiding complex interferences such as weight distribution in multi-system models, see lines 516-527)

comments 7: Lines 409-418 - Here and in figure 4, you illustrate the relationship between heritage transmission and the development of green governance. However, given that your data comes from institutional databases, it is possible that the correlations you observe are a result of the development of selected cultural assets that are beneficial for the growth of ecotourism or other branches of niche tourism, which receive significant funding from the government for the benefit of tourists. Such heritage receives better representation in the database while simultaneously contributing to green governance. At the same time, many other cultural heritage assets may obtain far lower transmission levels and slowly disappear. Are you sure that the patterns noted show the real increase in transmission levels across most ICH in selected provinces?

response 7: We do not claim that our research findings indicate a universal improvement in the "inheritance level" of all intangible cultural heritage (ICH) projects. Our objective is to calculate the level of synergy between "ICH inheritance" and "green governance" at the provincial level and to examine the comprehensive socio-ecological and economic benefits generated by this synergy. The scenario you hypothesized - where the government supports specific ICH and green facilities simultaneously for the development of eco-tourism - is precisely a concrete implementation mechanism and a perfect example of this "systemic synergy". Far from being a negation of our research, it is a strong support for its inherent logic. Additionally, our data measures objective statistical indicators at the provincial level, rather than the specific inheritance activity levels of each ICH project within communities, which are social survey data indicators. Of course, such indicators also need to be calculated through models, but the data is derived from observations, interviews, and other social survey methods. (Section 3.1.1 has added responses to the insufficiency of such empirical research, lines 358-370; and the research limitations in the concluding discussion also explain that macro data cannot capture the extinction of inheritance within communities, emphasizing the need for future research to combine field investigations, lines 838-850.) The significance of this study lies in its first revelation of the existence and spatial pattern of this synergy at a macro scale, providing an empirical starting point for subsequent exploration of its specific mechanisms.

Thank you for your comments. 

More detailed issues have been adjusted. Due to the significant extent of the revisions, the overall adjustments and modifications can be found in the attached cover letter.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have collected some comments and typos and some questions in general:
ICH has to be defined, where it is used first: in the abstract. 
line 53 missing space >.In other
103 unnecessary brackets for ecosystems
325 you explain what 'j' stands for, but its not used. In general index numbers are italic usually in texts, everywhere in the paper, and also lower case indexes (xi) should be used like x_i in the text, where mentioned. 
line 344 and 354 double numbering of paragraphs
347 'said bad things' could be rewritten to something more concrete
equations 7 to 9 do not seem to differ from each other, the constants are not explained and their magnitude is not mentioned. Which variables drive the model and how much?
line 383 typo ', tdenotes'
386 Controlsitrepresents
393 I don't see much difference in the changes on Fig2
Legends are missing from Fig2
Legends missing from Table 5, what are the I-IV stand stand for? I did not understand it from the previous paragraph where they are first mentioned.  (448-460)
Table 7 what are these data , where are they coming from? 
In Table 6 and 7 'Ib' stands for what? Industrial structure?'Is' was used previously.
498 What does  L2 lagged and L2.HGC cover? Maybe it is obvious, I am not an expert
515-523 same, I do not know what do these 'codes' show, but maybe it is obvious for others. 
589 dvelopment

Questions:
Traditional production can be pretty much ecologically unfriendly, like leather treatment, overuse of forests for firewood, etc. how do you treat this? 
You write that RAGA-PP finds weights for indicators automatically, what does this cover?
The profile of tables should be changed, it is hard to follow the lines.
Also the number of digits should be reconsidered, specially where uncertainty or SS is given, it determines. (it is usually too much, I suspect).
You could explicitly mention the results for 4 hypothesis in the summary, as you have answered them.

Author Response

comments 1:  ICH has to be defined, where it is used first: in the abstract; line 53 missing space >.In other; 103 unnecessary brackets for ecosystems; 325 you explain what 'j' stands for, but its not used. In general index numbers are italic usually in texts, everywhere in the paper, and also lower case indexes (xi) should be used like xi in the text, where mentioned; line 344 and 354 double numbering of paragraphs; 347 'said bad things' could be rewritten to something more concrete; equations 7 to 9 do not seem to differ from each other, the constants are not explained and their magnitude is not mentioned. Which variables drive the model and how much?; line 383 typo ', tdenotes'; 386 Controlsitrepresents; 393 I don't see much difference in the changes on Fig2; Legends are missing from Fig2; Legends missing from Table 5, what are the I-IV stand stand for? I did not understand it from the previous paragraph where they are first mentioned.  (448-460); Table 7 what are these data , where are they coming from? ; In Table 6 and 7 'Ib' stands for what? Industrial structure?'Is' was used previously; 498 What does  L2 lagged and L2.HGC cover? Maybe it is obvious, I am not an expert; 515-523 same, I do not know what do these 'codes' show, but maybe it is obvious for others. ; 589 dvelopment

response 1:  (1) The abstract section has added the annotation of ICH (first appearance); (2) Lines 467-495 - appropriately supplemented the explanation of using the RAGA-PP model and appropriately modified the textual description and annotation format of the formulas; (3) Lines 501-515 - appropriately supplemented the explanation of using the coupling coordination degree model; (4) Lines 545-579 - appropriately adjusted the explanation of the formula characters; (5) Lines 552-575 - expanded the explanation and analysis of Figures 2 and 3 (and appropriately adjusted the format of Figure 2); (6) Lines 622-662 - corrected and supplemented the explanation of "Markov analysis" and added the explanation of the meaning of characters I-IV; (7) Line 680 - the data in Table 7 are the test results based on the empirical regression model (whether the independent variable has a significant impact on the dependent variable); (8) Corrected the character writing of the variable "Is" in Tables 6 and 7; (9) Line 685 - corrected the meaning explanation of "L2.HGC"; (10) Lines 694-717 - improved the explanation of terms and character meanings.

comments 2: Traditional production can be pretty much ecologically unfriendly, like leather treatment, overuse of forests for firewood, etc. how do you treat this?

response 2: The theoretical framework section has been augmented with a discussion on the potential ecological drawbacks of traditional production methods and an explanation of how to address this issue. (See 2.2.2, lines 223-241)

comments 3: You write that RAGA-PP finds weights for indicators automatically, what does this cover?The profile of tables should be changed, it is hard to follow the lines.

response 3: In the Materials and Methods section, explanations regarding the use of the RAGA-PP model were appropriately supplemented, and the textual descriptions and annotation formats of formulas (1), (4), (5), and (6) were appropriately modified (see 3.2.1, lines 467-500).

comments 4: Also the number of digits should be reconsidered, specially where uncertainty or SS is given, it determines. (it is usually too much, I suspect).

response 4: Thank you for your correction. All the data in the tables have been adjusted to retain three decimal places.

comments 5:  You could explicitly mention the results for 4 hypothesis in the summary, as you have answered them.

response 5: The conclusion of the discussion section restates the research findings and value (the empirical results have verified the four hypotheses as clearly stated in lines 677 and 778 of the results section. The discussion section once again explicitly presents the answers to the four hypotheses, as seen in lines 819 and 837).

Thank you for your comments.

More detailed issues have been adjusted. Due to the significant extent of the revisions, the overall adjustments and modifications can be found in the attached cover letter.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the update. You must deal with some technical issues as now there is something wrong with page 3. 

I think that the discussion must be separated to discussion and conclusions, as the section is very long.

To look at the list of references, there are some strange figures like 5.6 in 7 there are two sources

Author Response

Comments1: You must deal with some technical issues as now there is something wrong with page 3.

Response 1: Thank you for your pointing out. I have rechecked the technical issues regarding the content layout and format.

Comments 2: I think that the discussion must be separated to discussion and conclusions, as the section is very long.

Response 2: Based on the suggestions of the reviewers and in accordance with the format requirements of the journal, the original conclusion section has been split into two parts: “5. Discussion” and “6. Conclusions”.

Comments 3: To look at the list of references, there are some strange figures like 5.6 in 7 there are two sources

Response 3: I have adjusted the relevant issues.

Thank you again for your suggestions regarding the issues in our manuscript.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

(I return to the request from the previous review):
The central concepts should be defined more clearly and explicitly. What is meant by green governance in the article? What is meant by intangible cultural heritage? (The term seems to be used in the article with a narrow meaning, related to ecological knowledge; what is the justification for the choice of this meaning?)
Please clarify what is meant by intangible cultural heritage and what is meant by green governance. It is not clear even in this modified version of the article. Moreover, there are discontinuities in the new text, please check.

Indicate the source of the data in Figure 4 (even in the figure legend).

Lines 1024-1034: here you must also indicate several bibliographical sources, which justify the formulations like "most research".

Line 1038-1039: You cannot attribute the same citation to three different sources. Rephrase, indicate the source of the quote precisely and add the cited page in the bibliography.

Line 1041: indicate the bibliographic source for the concepts “path dependence” and “club convergence”.

I suggest dividing the Discussion chapter into two. The first part should remain with the title Discussion and contain references to the relationship between your own results and other research. The last one should be called Conclusions and contain what the article brings new, why it is important and what are the limits of the research.

Lines 453-454 and 455-456: The references for specific details to sections below do not really make sense. I suggest removing these sentences from here.

Also in this version, in Table 1 the indicators are quantitative. You do not make a qualitative assessment there. Please remove the references to the qualitative assessment regarding Table 1.

Regards,

 

Author Response

Comments 1: The central concepts should be defined more clearly and explicitly. What is meant by green governance in the article? What is meant by intangible cultural heritage? (The term seems to be used in the article with a narrow meaning, related to ecological knowledge; what is the justification for the choice of this meaning?)

Please clarify what is meant by intangible cultural heritage and what is meant by green governance. It is not clear even in this modified version of the article. Moreover, there are discontinuities in the new text, please check.

Response 1: Lines 62-76: The definitions of “intangible cultural heritage” and “intangible cultural heritage inheritance” have been re-adjusted and reorganized;

Lines 83-95: The definition of “green governance” have been re-adjusted and reorganized;

Lines 96-109: The content of the preliminary analysis on the connection between “intangible cultural heritage inheritance” and “green governance” was reorganized.

Comments 2: Indicate the source of the data in Figure 4 (even in the figure legend).

Response 2: The source of the data has been indicated in the legend of Figure 4. A brief explanation of the data source is also provided in the main text (lines 585-587）.

Comments 3: Lines 1024-1034: here you must also indicate several bibliographical sources, which justify the formulations like "most research".

Response 3: Lines 834-846: References [75]-[79] have been added to support the content presented here.

Comments 4: Line 1038-1039: You cannot attribute the same citation to three different sources. Rephrase, indicate the source of the quote precisely and add the cited page in the bibliography.

Response 4: Lines 787-792: Split and rephrase the quotations.

Comments 5: Line 1041: indicate the bibliographic source for the concepts “path dependence” and “club convergence”.

Response 5: lines 641,644: For the first appearance of the concepts “path dependence” and “club convergence”, the literature sources [57] and [58] have been added.

Comments 6: I suggest dividing the Discussion chapter into two. The first part should remain with the title Discussion and contain references to the relationship between your own results and other research. The last one should be called Conclusions and contain what the article brings new, why it is important and what are the limits of the research.

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. Based on your advice and in accordance with the format requirements of the journal, the original conclusion section has been split into “5. Discussion” and “6. Conclusions” sections.

Comments 7: Lines 453-454 and 455-456: The references for specific details to sections below do not really make sense. I suggest removing these sentences from here.

Response 7: lines 375-377：Unnecessary sentences have been deleted.

Comments 8: Also in this version, in Table 1 the indicators are quantitative. You do not make a qualitative assessment there. Please remove the references to the qualitative assessment regarding Table 1.

Response 8: lines 383-405：The qualitative assessment-related statements concerning Table 1 in this content have been rechecked and removed.

Thank you again for your suggestions regarding the issues in our manuscript.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been significantly improved. The authors have supplemented their study with additional explanations that demonstrate that the institutional data sources are utilised to quantify the outcomes of national policies, rather than to study the intangible cultural heritage itself. This renders the use of large-scale political units as base units reliable. The use of government sources without cross-checking, that is, for example, independent databases compiled by the authors, remains somewhat risky; however, the authors have supplemented the description of methods with a list of possible disadvantages of the selected methodology.

The discussion is now more detailed, and the results are used to draw more meaningful conclusions. Given the main aim of the study, which has been clarified and is centred on the efficacy of the policy frameworks rather than the description of intangible heritage, the manuscript can be accepted for publication in its present form.

Author Response

Comments1: The manuscript has been significantly improved. The authors have supplemented their study with additional explanations that demonstrate that the institutional data sources are utilised to quantify the outcomes of national policies, rather than to study the intangible cultural heritage itself. This renders the use of large-scale political units as base units reliable. The use of government sources without cross-checking, that is, for example, independent databases compiled by the authors, remains somewhat risky; however, the authors have supplemented the description of methods with a list of possible disadvantages of the selected methodology.

The discussion is now more detailed, and the results are used to draw more meaningful conclusions. Given the main aim of the study, which has been clarified and is centred on the efficacy of the policy frameworks rather than the description of intangible heritage, the manuscript can be accepted for publication in its present form.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your previous suggestions and your recognition of the revised results.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the way you reworked the article.
I wish you success!