Sacred Networks and Spiritual Resilience: Sustainable Management of Studenica Monastery’s Cultural Landscape

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We highly appreciate your recommendations that helped us improve our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly by following the reviewers’ suggestions. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for the general evaluation of the article. All revisions are given in the re-submitted manuscript and in the point-by-point responses below

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: This study examines the role of Studenica Monastery in shaping a distinctive cultural landscape. The research is well-structured and built on a solid methodological framework that integrates historical mapping, GIS viewshed analysis for spatial planning, and multidisciplinary data synthesis. The theoretical framework effectively outlines the international legal and institutional context, providing a strong foundation for conceptualising spiritual resilience as applied to cultural landscapes.

However, the readability of the study could be improved by synthetising certain sections and relocating some lengthy tables to the annex or supplementary materials.

Response 1: We would like to express our gratitude for your constructive suggestions, which will serve to clarify and enhance the clarity of the paper. We acknowledge the considerable length of the manuscript and the substantial space occupied by the tables. However, this suggestion cannot be accepted, as in this study it is not advisable to condense certain sections or to move tables containing key data on the concentration of sacred monuments, resilience indicators, and evaluation matrices to the annex or supplementary materials. The sections have been meticulously structured so that the comprehensive analysis (theoretical framework, methodology, results, discussion) builds the scientific argument step by step. The logical flow of the exposition would be disrupted by the condensation or omission of sections, which would also render the exposition more difficult to follow. This is especially the case with regard to the distinction between spirituality and sacredness, as well as the examination of intangible heritage aspects. Furthermore, the results enable the long-term implementation of the protection and preservation of natural, historical, and spiritual values.

The relocation of key tables to the annex would also result in a diminution of the direct verifiability of the research. The relocation of the tables would result in the disruption of the visual and analytical connection between the data and the narrative. This disruption could potentially lead to a loss of coherence and integrity in the work.

Comments 2: Given the length of the paper and its multiple sections/subsections, the introduction could benefit from a brief overview (one paragraph) to guide the reader through the study.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. Your proposal has been endorsed, and a concise synopsis has been incorporated at the culmination of the introduction to facilitate the reader. This paper proposes a model for the sustainable management of the cultural landscape of the Studenica Monastery, analysing spiritual resilience as a key component leading to the interconnection and interdependence of natural, cultural-historical, and spiritual values.

The introduction provides a comprehensive overview of the theoretical concept of “spiritual resilience,” elucidating its role and significance within the context of the UNESCO site of the Studenica Monastery. The section on materials and methods demonstrates the interdisciplinary approach, encompassing spatial, historical, ecological, and ethnographic analyses, GIS modelling, and field research. The results demonstrate that the network of sacred sites and living spiritual traditions have facilitated the preservation of identity and ecological balance despite complex, centuries-long historical challenges. The discussion highlights the importance of spatial planning and the implementation of the Special Purpose Spatial Plan and the Management Plan for the UNESCO site, the strengthening of the local community, and the development of sustainable tourism to address the identified issues of depopulation and infrastructural limitations, with guidelines for future research arising from the recognised scope of such a study. The research posits that the monastery, in its capacity as a spiritual institution and cultural centre, functions as a nexus for the resilient and sustainable management of cultural landscapes, proffering universal models of harmony among the humans, nature, spirituality, and tradition. The present study employs a research approach that underscores spirituality as a pivotal element in the comprehensive conservation of both cultural and natural heritage. This encompasses locations that may not be included in the World Heritage List or subject to its conservation policies. (p.2, lines 71-94).

Comments 3: Additionally, a clear definition of the research question would enhance clarity.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. The comment has been accepted and a clear definition of the research question has been included at the end of the introduction and in the Theoretical Framework section. This research explores spiritual resilience as a key factor in identifying the sacred network that constitutes the cultural landscape. The following research question is proposed:

The purpose of this study is to determine how and to what extent the concept of spiritual resilience, as embodied by the network of sacred sites, intangible practices, and sustainable use of natural resources, contributes to and ensures the conservation and sustainable management of the cultural landscape of the Studenica Monastery as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. (p. 6, lines 273-279)

Comments 4: Finally, further reflection on the limitations of the study and directions for future research would be valuable for readers.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree and your comment has been accepted and addressed in the concluding section. Therein, we highlight the limitations of the study and outline recommendations for future research that may contribute to a stronger role for the local community and the sustainability of the whole area, as follows:

While the present study provides a comprehensive overview of the resilience of the Studenica Monastery cultural landscape, certain methodological and thematic limitations can be identified. The research focuses primarily on the historical aspects of the medieval and the Ottoman periods in order to identify the sacred network of monuments and spiritual resilience. Contemporary challenges, such as depopulation, infrastructural pressures, and the effects of climate change, were not addressed directly. The employment of instruments such as Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs), in accordance with the UNESCO guidelines, is imperative to address those factors. However, those guidelines have not yet been incorporated into the existing projects.

Furthermore, despite the incorporation of the cultural landscape of the Studenica Monastery into spatial planning and management processes, there is a paucity of clearly defined mechanisms for their operationalisation and implementation. That is particularly evident in the lack of systematic monitoring of biodiversity and the conservation status of monuments, as well as in the limited involvement of the local communities in development decisions.

The application of the HIA methodology in assessing the impact of infrastructure projects (e.g. mini-hydropower plants) on the sacred character of the landscape, guided by UNESCO recommendations, coupled with improved implementation of risk management plans that integrate traditional knowledge and modern technologies, represents an important avenue for future research and refinement of the proposed model. The continuous monitoring of biodiversity (e.g. the refugia of Acer heldreichii) and the conservation status of sacred monuments through digital databases and GIS analysis could facilitate the establishment of controlled conditions for the long-term conservation of the cultural landscape.

The enhancement of economic activities (e.g. ecotourism, religious tourism, organic agriculture) that promote sustainable development, in conjunction with educational programmes aimed at preserving traditional crafts (e.g. stone carving, brandy production) and spiritual practices (e.g. liturgy, Slava celebrations), has the potential to further enhance the resilience of the area.

This study also facilitates a comparative analysis of the Studenica Monastery model with other UNESCO sites (e.g. Meteora, Mount Athos, Boka Kotorska, Bač and its surroundings) with a view to developing comparative studies and identifying universal principles based on spiritual resilience.

The cultural landscape of Studenica Monastery is an exemplary model of harmonious integration of natural, cultural and spiritual values. However, the long-term preservation of the site is contingent upon the successful overcoming of the current constraints that are in place. The implementation of the proposed model and the establishment of guidelines for future research have the potential to ensure the long-term sustainability of the site in question, as well as of other areas. The hypothesis is proposed that this will assist in facilitating their adaptation to contemporary challenges. (pp. 36-37, lines 1784-1832)

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The quality of the English language is quite good. But there is need to improve the consistency in the use of style. Both British and American English are currently in the paper.

Response 1: This paper was proofread by the English proofreading service “Prevodioci Libra”, which provided a certificate of proofreading that is attached along with the other required documents.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We highly appreciate your recommendations that helped us improve our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly by following the reviewers’ suggestions. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for the general evaluation of the article. All revisions are given in the re-submitted manuscript and in the point-by-point responses below

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: This is a very well written paper. I just have a few suggestions for improvement.

What is the purpose of this paper? The authors allude to it on page 9, but a clear "The purpose of this paper is to..." statement should be at the end of the introduction.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. The purpose of this paper is to introduce and explore, both theoretically and practically, the concept of spiritual resilience as a key aspect of cultural heritage conservation, using the example of the sacred network that has developed and endured thanks to the Studenica Monastery. The research shows that spiritual resilience – as a dynamic process linking material heritage (architecture, art), immaterial practices (monastic life, liturgy, traditional customs), and a sustainable use of natural resources – enables long-term adaptation, identity preservation, and stability of the cultural landscape despite historical challenges. By analysing the network of sacred sites around Studenica, the study highlights that spiritual resilience is not only an internal strength of the community but also a mechanism that enables sustainable spatial management, biodiversity conservation, and the transmission of cultural values, thus establishing a model applicable to other UNESCO sites worldwide. (p. 10, lines 684-696).

Comments 2: What is the gap in the literature that this study seeks to fill. There was a good literature review. However, it was unclear to me what gaps were present in the literature that necessitated this study.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. This study is the first in the academic literature to introduce and explore the concept of spiritual resilience in the context of heritage conservation, filling an important gap in the previous research. While the notion of resilience has often been discussed in relation to socio-ecological systems or urban landscapes, it has not been considered in light of sacred networks and spiritual practices as a mechanism for heritage conservation. The paper argues that an integrated perspective on the cultural landscape – combining natural, cultural, and spiritual values – is essential for the development of spatial planning, policies of protection and conservation. In practice, dissonance arises from the division of institutions by sector (nature conservation, heritage, planning), which makes it difficult to valorise and apply a unified approach. This study highlights the need for integrated action and promotes processes for the evaluation and management of the cultural landscape, emphasising that the essential inseparability of natural, spiritual, and cultural heritage requires cooperation between all sectors for a sustainable heritage conservation policy. Such an approach paves the way for transdisciplinary cooperation, which is essential for safeguarding indigenous values in the context of global change.

Comments 3: Did the study fill the gap? Unclear from the Discussion and Conclusion sections. How did this study advance knowledge in this topic area?

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. Yes, this study has filled a gap in the literature, as highlighted in the previous answer: for the first time, the concept of spiritual resilience has been applied to the analysis and management of a cultural landscape, specifically through the example of the sacred network surrounding the Studenica Monastery. In doing so, the paper advances knowledge in the field by demonstrating that the integration of spiritual, material, and intangible values is an essential foundation for the sustainable planning, protection, and enhancement of cultural heritage – an approach that has not been the subject of scholarly analysis. The study also points to the need for a unified, interdisciplinary approach rather than the sectoral division of institutions, thus providing concrete guidelines for future heritage management policies.

Comments 4: Areas of future research?

Response 4: Future research should focus on the development of systems for continuous monitoring of the condition of cultural landscapes and sacred networks, the application of Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) to assess the impact of infrastructure projects, strengthening the role and involvement of the local community in the management and valorisation of heritage, comparative analyses with other UNESCO sites to identify universal principles of resilience, as well as improving the operational effectiveness of existing plans and exploring intangible heritage and its role in community sustainability. Those areas will enable a further development of integrated and sustainable heritage management, with a particular emphasis on spiritual resilience as a model applicable to other sacred landscapes. (p. 37, lines 1807-1832)

Comments 5: This paper is a case study, but it was not clear how it moves our knowledge forward.

Response 5: This study advances our knowledge by introducing and operationally applying the concept of spiritual resilience as a key mechanism for sustainable management of cultural landscapes, using the Studenica Monastery as a model. The work demonstrates how the network of sacred sites, intangible practices, and centuries of authentic land use have collectively created a dynamic and resilient system that enables the long-term preservation of identity and ecological balance. By integrating historical mapping, GIS analysis, and multidisciplinary data synthesis, the study provides a new framework for assessing cultural landscapes as coupled socio-ecological systems. It fills a gap in the existing literature, as spiritual resilience has not been considered as a factor in heritage conservation and sustainable development. The proposed model is applicable to other UNESCO World Heritage Sites. (p. 38, lines 1859-1869)

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1: We greatly appreciate the Reviewer’s positive comment.