Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

A Methodology for the Assessment of Climate Change Adaptation Options for Cultural Heritage Sites

Climate 2020, 8(8), 88; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8080088

by Bethune Carmichael^1,*, Greg Wilson², Ivan Namarnyilk², Sean Nadji³, Jacqueline Cahill³, Sally Brockwell¹, Bob Webb⁴, Deanne Bird⁵ and Cathy Daly⁶

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2:

Enrica Petrucci

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Climate 2020, 8(8), 88; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8080088

Submission received: 12 June 2020 / Revised: 22 July 2020 / Accepted: 23 July 2020 / Published: 24 July 2020

(This article belongs to the Section Policy, Governance, and Social Equity)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article novelty lies in, testing and use of novel approach in adaptation of cultural heritage sits to climate change . However, structural weakness in the organisation interfere with the flow. The discussion and conclusion need to be improved. In particular the segmentation of the methodology section need to be addressed.

Section	Observation
Abstract/ title and references	Abstract need to be redone Check the incomplete references Reorganize the title	See highlighted text
Introduction	Mixed up with methods. Need to be improved further	See highlighted text
Methods	Though adequately explained, there is mix up in several sections hence repetitions,. Reorganize he write up	See highlighted text
Results	Need to synthesize the findings	See highlighted text
Discussion and Conclusion	Limitations not well expounded Line 424 need to revised as it is not possible for the organisational and planning ability of the respondent to have been established during the research activity The conclusion statement( Line 538 is abrupt. Hence the anchor statement need to capture the study objective first	See highlighted text

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

The abstract has been now been amended
Incomplete references have been amended
The title has been recast
The Introduction has been reorganised
The Methods section has been reorganised
The Results section has been reorganised
The conclusion has been reorganised

Again, thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Lines 70 to 81 need to be better illustrated the analysis methodology and after the case studies in a more exhaustive way

Lines 538 to 551 the conclusions are not clearly written and should be improved by explaining how the methodology can be exported to other contexts

The bibliography should be updated with the most updated texts after 2017

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

Lines 70 to 81 have been amended.
Lines 538 to 551 and the conclusion have been amended
The bibliography has been updated with texts published after 2017.

Again thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

A methodology for the assessment of options for the adaptation of cultural heritage to climate change

>> play a significant role in community identity, cohesion and sense of place, and this is particularly the case for Indigenous peoples (Keen, 2004).

It should be noted that these places often provide a connection and/or a foundational block for maintenance of cultural practices and continuity of cultural behaviors.

AUTHOR: THANKS – point now made in text

>> have perceptions of sea level rise and more extreme storm surge increasing erosion of coastal middens and floodplain-fringing middens and rock art; more intense cyclones are perceived to be impacting coastal middens; and more extreme and frequent precipitation events are perceived to be eroding inland riverine rock art and contributing to the erosion of floodplain-fringing middens and rock art (Carmichael, 2015).

“Perceived” twice, suggest using an alternative for one of these

AUTHOR: THANKS – change made

This would be a nice section to add what their “perception” is, is the utilization of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) that is honed

AUTHOR: THANKS – the text lists their perceptions.

>>Indigenous rangers undertake natural and cultural resource management, including fire, feral animal and weed management, cultural site maintenance and tourist liaison.

It would be nice to read how they do this – do they employ Traditional Knowledge information form the local Indigenous? Are they relying on their own set of skills? Is there a TEK management system in place with help of Indigenous?

AUTHOR: THANKS – the text now states: Their management practice draws extensively on traditional environmental knowledge, with a large proportion of Indigenous rangers being Traditional Owners of domains within the Park.

>> Djelk is directed by an Indigenous executive committee.

This is important because.... ? (they help guide the policies that manage, or they assist with cultural decision making or etc – help the readers understand why having Indigenous-oversight is vital to maintenance of cultural sites)

AUTHOR: THANKS – the text now states: As a subsidiary of Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation, Djelk is directed by an Indigenous executive committee, which ensures all decisions respect Indigenous cultural protocols.

>> but is difficult to perceive by those managing natural resources over the short to medium term

Excellent explanation to someone who wouldn’t know, though contrasting that with information about how TEK is a long-term practice via Indigenous groups