Cultural Landscape and Heritage as an Opportunity for Territorial Resilience—The Case of the Border Between Castile and Leon and Cantabria
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article deals with the serious problem of rural depopulation in parts of Spain and its causes. It outlines the possibilities of increasing the quality of life of local residents and the attractiveness of the environment through the use of cultural and historical values ​​of the landscape. Interesting facts from Spanish history, territorial division and legislative aspects of monument care are presented here. My comments:
Unfortunately, the introductory description of the area being addressed does not seem clear enough to me for a non-European reader. Fig. 1 shows the addressed area, but it is not set in the context of a map of Europe. It does not describe how large the addressed area is, how many inhabitants it has in total.
I do not understand Figures 5 a, b., which are in contrast. Does this mean that the most populated areas are most at risk of depopulation? What do the white spaces mean?
Fig.2, table 3 Accessibility – does this mean accessibility from municipalities to archaeological monuments? Or where?
484 Is the transport infrastructure somehow related to accessibility, (Fig.7, table 4)?
493-495 What is meant by the French route to Santiago? Santiago is not marked here
Discussion and conclusion:
So, what specifically can alleviate the depopulation of the area under consideration? The creation of information centres about cultural and historical heritage connected with interesting natural places?
Why was a SWOT analysis of the area under consideration not carried out?
Author Response
Comment 1: Unfortunately, the introductory description of the area being addressed does not seem clear enough to me for a non-European reader. Fig. 1 shows the addressed area, but it is not set in the context of a map of Europe. It does not describe how large the addressed area is, how many inhabitants it has in total.
Response 1: The European map indicating the study area has been carried out completing the information on Figure 1. Moreover, a table (table 1) with the main data of the two Regions has been made in order to give a better description of them.
Comment 2: I do not understand Figures 5 a, b., which are in contrast. Does this mean that the most populated areas are most at risk of depopulation? What do the white spaces mean?
Response 2: The authors recognise that these figures (5 a.b.) can be confusing, as most populated areas are the ones that are in the darker red in figure 5a. and figure 5b represented only those areas at risk of depopulation (less than 25 inh./km2), that had been taken out (in white) as the study centers in those municipalities at risk. . Therefore, the Figure 5 b has been replaced by the economic review suggested by the editor. That leaves the map 5 a explaining the population density and figure 5b the average household income, to show other related vulnerability factors.
Comments 3: Fig.2, table 3 Accessibility – does this mean accessibility from municipalities to archaeological monuments? Or where?
Response 3: The accessibility is represented by isochrones, that connect points relating to the same time or equal times from the origin node, in this case, the most populated cities. The accessibility to the archaeological sites is understood as if they are reached by the isochrones.
Comments 4: 484 Is the transport infrastructure somehow related to accessibility, (Fig.7, table 4)?
Response 4: The isochrones are calculated taking into account the existent road network.
Comments 5: 493-495 What is meant by the French route to Santiago? Santiago is not marked here
Response 5: The Cathedral of Santiago is in Galicia, another Autonomous Community, but the traditional route from France to Santiago is through the study area. As this could have been confusing in the first figure the main historical routes that coss the study area have been included.
Comments 6: Discussion and conclusion: So, what specifically can alleviate the depopulation of the area under consideration? The creation of information centres about cultural and historical heritage connected with interesting natural places?
Response 6: The authors know that the repopulation of these areas is something that is difficult. Therefore, this proposal seeks to try and fix the population through the reinforcement of the local identity, achieved by the cultural assets, in this case archaeological sites. Moreover, these sites in this areas are in danger of abandonment and disappearance in the areas of population loss. Therefore, the paper opens the possibility to promote a cultural offer involving several municipalities that could suggest a stronger economy, that would also mean a more sustainable touristic model for the whole territory, far from the main over-touristed nodes.
Comments 7: Discussion and conclusion: Why was a SWOT analysis of the area under consideration not carried out?
Response 7: The SWOT analysis has been carried out throughout the text, explaining the internal strengths and weaknesses, as well as its external opportunities and threats. Nevertheless, to reinforce this approach, it is now mentioned in the methodology.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI found this paper interesting and engaging and it is clearly a first stage in a longer process of developing an approach to cultural heritage management in Spain, and especially in the study area of Northern Spain.
It is evident that some kind of co-ordinated approach to heritage management -- and a shared legislative base between provinces -- would allow connections to be made at the landscape level between related archaeological sites. It is less clear why the definition of heritage used here is limited to archaeology alone -- especially since the authors indicate the widening scope of what is classed as heritage including into the more recent historical periods and particularly traditional practices as intangible heritage. It is also not clear why 'archaeology' is limited to prehistoric and Roman periods only, since the concerns of archaeologists extend from the deepest past to the very recent. At the least, a stronger justification for this limitation needs to be provided.
I appreciate that extending the coverage of the paper to these other aspects of culture may complicate the process of analysis, but the process of landscape characterisation -- which sits as the culmination of the work -- considers landscapes as current phenomena which are inevitably both capable of and subject to change and not merely the repository of places from pasts. To that extent, as an exercise in landscape characterisation, this work has weaknesses. The final proposal -- to construct physical connections (by e.g. routeways) between sites of similar period -- also denies the characterisation process by treating these places as individual and separate entities in the landscape. Some clarification and justification (as well as reference to relevant literature on landscape characterisation e.g Turner and Fairclough 2007) would be useful here.
I am also left in some doubt as to the ultimate point concerning rural depopulation with which the paper starts. Is it the idea to attempt a repopulation of these areas which would inevitably impact on the archaeology -- since archaeology generally tends to be preserved better in areas with less development and lower populations? On the other hand the Conclusion offers the possibility of some kind of visitor-friendly and possibly touristic development for sites linked together as proposed which would presumably imply a stronger economy for the area and therefore make it more attractive to live in. This would be worthy of clearer statement, I think.
Considering the overall structure and nature of the argument, the authors may also like to look at the approach to relating cultural heritage to rural depopulation in other territories -- e.g. China -- to consider its relevance as an alternative approach and for some international comparison. It may add to the international relevance of the paper for a global audience.
Having said this, the aim of the paper -- to construct an approach to a more unified approach to the cultural heritage and especially archaeology of the region -- is worthwhile and based on careful and detailed work well worthy of publication.
Author Response
Comments 1: It is evident that some kind of coordinated approach to heritage management -- and a shared legislative base between provinces -- would allow connections to be made at the landscape level between related archaeological sites. It is less clear why the definition of heritage used here is limited to archaeology alone -- especially since the authors indicate the widening scope of what is classed as heritage including into the more recent historical periods and particularly traditional practices as intangible heritage. It is also not clear why 'archaeology' is limited to prehistoric and Roman periods only, since the concerns of archaeologists extend from the deepest past to the very recent. At the least, a stronger justification for this limitation needs to be provided.
Response 1: The authors recognise that the election of the archaeological sites specifically had not been clearly explained. Therefore, as suggested by the revisor, a stronger justification has been included in both the introduction and the methodology sections.
Comments 2: I appreciate that extending the coverage of the paper to these other aspects of culture may complicate the process of analysis, but the process of landscape characterisation -- which sits as the culmination of the work -- considers landscapes as current phenomena which are inevitably both capable of and subject to change and not merely the repository of places from pasts. To that extent, as an exercise in landscape characterisation, this work has weaknesses. The final proposal -- to construct physical connections (by e.g. routeways) between sites of similar period -- also denies the characterisation process by treating these places as individual and separate entities in the landscape. Some clarification and justification (as well as reference to relevant literature on landscape characterisation e.g Turner and Fairclough 2007) would be useful here.
Response 2: Certainly, the paper ends with an approach to the landscape characterisation of the work area which might have been prevoiusly weakly exposed, but this point has been reinfored by the inclusion of important literature references: Turner and Fairclough 2007, Council of Europe 2000 and Turner 2007.
Comments 3: I am also left in some doubt as to the ultimate point concerning rural depopulation with which the paper starts. Is it the idea to attempt a repopulation of these areas which would inevitably impact on the archaeology -- since archaeology generally tends to be preserved better in areas with less development and lower populations? On the other hand the Conclusion offers the possibility of some kind of visitor-friendly and possibly touristic development for sites linked together as proposed which would presumably imply a stronger economy for the area and therefore make it more attractive to live in. This would be worthy of clearer statement, I think.
Response 3: The authors know that the repopulation of these areas is something that is difficult. Therefore, this proposal seeks to try and fix the population through the reinforcement of the local identity, achieved by the cultural assets, in this case archaeological sites. Moreover, these sites in this areas are in danger of abandonment and disappearance in the areas of population loss. Therefore, the paper opens the possibility to promote a cultural offer involving several municipalities that could suggest a stronger economy, that would also mean a more sustainable touristic model for the whole territory, far from the main over-touristed nodes.
Comments 4: Considering the overall structure and nature of the argument, the authors may also like to look at the approach to relating cultural heritage to rural depopulation in other territories -- e.g. China -- to consider its relevance as an alternative approach and for some international comparison. It may add to the international relevance of the paper for a global audience.
Response 4: Unfortunately, the research area of the authors is limited to the European context as the European Union provides an institutional umbrella that establishes how these strategies must be carried out.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter editing the article based on my comments, I recommend it for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMany thanks for addressing my earlier concerns. I am now happy to see the paper published.
However, I found your response to my final comment about looking elsewhere for comparative models (e.g. China) inadequate. Of course you are working within a European framework but that does not prevent you from examining initiatives elsewhere that might provide insights you cannot obtain by merely looking at your own context: that is the value of comparison. Also what you offer is not a report to local or national authority but to an international academic audience who would expect some effort to look beyond your own narrow concerns. But perhaps you will take this recommendation to heart as you develop the work.
All best in developing this work further.
