A Holistic Approach to Historical Living Spaces: Ponds and Reservoirs in Sanuki, a Region with Low Annual Rainfall in the Seto Inland Sea, Japan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the article is original, methodologically sound, and contributes meaningfully to environmental history and socio-hydrological studies.

The paper, “A Holistic Approach to Historical Living Spaces: Ponds and Reservoirs in Sanuki”, examines 1,400 years of pond and reservoir (PR) development in Kagawa Prefecture, Japan—a low-rainfall region in the Seto Inland Sea. Using digitized historical data, soft clustering, and Non-Negative Matrix Factorization, the author traces relationships between droughts, floods, labor mobilization, and PR construction. The study challenges linear Anthropocene narratives, proposes three phases of PR history, and highlights local governance, religious networks, and migration in PR development. It argues that PRs were not simply responses to drought but part of complex socio-hydrological systems shaped by Buddhist institutions, community cooperation, and state power.

1. Context and background
The article situates its topic well within Japanese environmental history, referencing foundational works (Totman, Nakatsuka, Fujihara) and introducing the Living Spaces concept. The historical and environmental context is clearly described, and the discussion bridges environmental history, socio-hydrology, and local governance. However, some background sections could be condensed (e.g., the overview of environmental history publications in Japan) to improve succinctness.

2. Research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods
Key questions are articulated (e.g., motivations for PR construction, continuity vs. change, labor mobilization). The methodological description—digitizing Sanuki no Tameike-shi data, using NNMF, logistic curves, and GIS—is clear. While explicit hypotheses are implied, they are not always stated formally; adding a short, explicit hypothesis statement would clarify the research design.

3. Coherence, balance, and persuasiveness of arguments
The arguments are generally coherent and compelling: the three-phase model and critique of simple drought explanations are persuasive. The discussion balances quantitative analysis with historical interpretation. Still, some transitions are abrupt, and the final hypotheses in the concluding remarks could be better integrated into the earlier discussion.

4. Presentation of results (empirical content)
Results are clearly presented with rank-size distributions, logistic curves, and phase analyses. Figures and tables are well referenced. A brief interpretation of each figure in the text (beyond stating differences) would strengthen clarity for readers unfamiliar with NNMF or Sanuki’s geography.

5. Referencing
The paper cites a wide range of primary sources (Shūmon-chō, Sanuki no Tameike-shi) and secondary literature (Totman, Wrigley, Saito, etc.). References are appropriate and adequate. Ensure consistency in formatting (e.g., check page numbers and punctuation in some entries).

6. Conclusions and support from findings
The conclusions—that PRs’ history is shaped by complex social, religious, and political dynamics—are supported by the evidence presented. The call for rethinking Anthropocene periodization is thought-provoking, though a brief comparison with similar water-management studies outside Japan would strengthen the argument’s broader relevance.

In summary:

• Condense some background material for succinctness.

• Explicitly state research hypotheses early in the paper.

• Smooth transitions between results, discussion, and the four concluding hypotheses.

• Provide slightly more interpretation alongside figures for non-specialist readers.

• Check reference formatting for consistency.

Author Response

Overall, the article is original, methodologically sound, and contributes meaningfully to environmental history and socio-hydrological studies.

The paper, “A Holistic Approach to Historical Living Spaces: Ponds and Reservoirs in Sanuki”, examines 1,400 years of pond and reservoir (PR) development in Kagawa Prefecture, Japan—a low-rainfall region in the Seto Inland Sea. Using digitized historical data, soft clustering, and Non-Negative Matrix Factorization, the author traces relationships between droughts, floods, labor mobilization, and PR construction. The study challenges linear Anthropocene narratives, proposes three phases of PR history, and highlights local governance, religious networks, and migration in PR development. It argues that PRs were not simply responses to drought but part of complex socio-hydrological systems shaped by Buddhist institutions, community cooperation, and state power.

Response 0: Thank you for pointing this out. I have incorporated your points into the rewritten introduction and conclusion sections.

1. Context and background
The article situates its topic well within Japanese environmental history, referencing foundational works (Totman, Nakatsuka, Fujihara) and introducing the Living Spaces concept. The historical and environmental context is clearly described, and the discussion bridges environmental history, socio-hydrology, and local governance. However, some background sections could be condensed (e.g., the overview of environmental history publications in Japan) to improve succinctness.

Response 1: I have completely rewritten the introduction. I hope you understand the intent.

2. Research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods
Key questions are articulated (e.g., motivations for PR construction, continuity vs. change, labor mobilization). The methodological description—digitizing Sanuki no Tameike-shi data, using NNMF, logistic curves, and GIS—is clear. While explicit hypotheses are implied, they are not always stated formally; adding a short, explicit hypothesis statement would clarify the research design.

Response 2: I have made individual entries wherever possible.

3. Coherence, balance, and persuasiveness of arguments
The arguments are generally coherent and compelling: the three-phase model and critique of simple drought explanations are persuasive. The discussion balances quantitative analysis with historical interpretation. Still, some transitions are abrupt, and the final hypotheses in the concluding remarks could be better integrated into the earlier discussion.

Response 3: I rewrote the introduction to provide a clear overview of the overall flow, simplified the conclusion to align with the analysis results, and clarified the remaining challenges.

4. Presentation of results (empirical content)
Results are clearly presented with rank-size distributions, logistic curves, and phase analyses. Figures and tables are well referenced. A brief interpretation of each figure in the text (beyond stating differences) would strengthen clarity for readers unfamiliar with NNMF or Sanuki’s geography.

Response 4: Similar to 2, I have added individual explanations for figures and tables.

5. Referencing
The paper cites a wide range of primary sources (Shūmon-chō, Sanuki no Tameike-shi) and secondary literature (Totman, Wrigley, Saito, etc.). References are appropriate and adequate. Ensure consistency in formatting (e.g., check page numbers and punctuation in some entries).

Response 5: I made corrections to the inconsistent parts.

6. Conclusions and support from findings
The conclusions—that PRs’ history is shaped by complex social, religious, and political dynamics—are supported by the evidence presented. The call for rethinking Anthropocene periodization is thought-provoking, though a brief comparison with similar water-management studies outside Japan would strengthen the argument’s broader relevance.

Response 6: I agree with your point. While I am examining cases like those in South Bohemia specifically regarding irrigation reservoirs, the comparative research is not yet sufficiently mature. I have noted the remaining challenges in the conclusion section to provide some direction for future comparative studies.

In summary:

Condense some background material for succinctness.

Explicitly state research hypotheses early in the paper.

Smooth transitions between results, discussion, and the four concluding hypotheses.

Provide slightly more interpretation alongside figures for non-specialist readers.

Check reference formatting for consistency.

Response X: You can find the reply to your specific question above. Is that acceptable?

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is interesting but the presentation needs to be made clearer. It would be especially helpful to revise the manuscript to make it more accessible to traditional historians, especially those not trained in environmental sciences.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It reads like an AI translation. The English is not natural and there are mechanical mistakes in places.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is interesting but the presentation needs to be made clearer. It would be especially helpful to revise the manuscript to make it more accessible to traditional historians, especially those not trained in environmental sciences.

Response 1: I agree with your point. I have added annotations to the explanations of individual charts and tables to the extent possible.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It reads like an AI translation. The English is not natural and there are mechanical mistakes in places.

Response 2: I've used machine translation as an aid, but I've rewritten everything myself. There were parts that hadn't been thoroughly reviewed, so I've made corrections to the best of my ability.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is a very interesting piece on the socio-political and cultural-technical history of  ponds and reservoirs in Sanuki within Kagawa Prefecture, Japan, which generally is very good, original and a real extension of past research around this subject. I felt that this paper really articulates itself well, and draws together some really good pieces of evidence to underpin its argument, and utilises them well using some good graphical representations and graphs/figures. So generally I suggest this paper can be published almost as it currently is - The only issues I would say which might require revision are the framing of the progress and development of 'PR's in this region of Japan as part of a 'national project of building' throughout the entire period of history engaged with here - I am not sure in the Tokugawa period or earlier development can always be called "national" in Japan, as the nation of Japan was not really a nation in the Westphalian sense, so this is for something of a category error or a mixture of categories - it well have been an elite or bakkafu project, but I am not sure this is an appropriate framing. My second point is that this is a really well referenced paper - and it does reference alot of the relevant literature around its topic, and brings in some important wider literature like Conrad Totman - but there is a wider literature around the cultural-social and working practices of the Seto Inland Sea which doesn't seem to be present in this, and could be really important - I also wondered if the paper might connect to more of the literature around Japanese Buddhist notions of environmental development, to help give more context, since this is supposed to be a holistic piece. Overall though, this is very interesting.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper is a very interesting piece on the socio-political and cultural-technical history of  ponds and reservoirs in Sanuki within Kagawa Prefecture, Japan, which generally is very good, original and a real extension of past research around this subject. I felt that this paper really articulates itself well, and draws together some really good pieces of evidence to underpin its argument, and utilises them well using some good graphical representations and graphs/figures. So generally I suggest this paper can be published almost as it currently is - The only issues I would say which might require revision are the framing of the progress and development of 'PR's in this region of Japan as part of a 'national project of building' throughout the entire period of history engaged with here - I am not sure in the Tokugawa period or earlier development can always be called "national" in Japan, as the nation of Japan was not really a nation in the Westphalian sense, so this is for something of a category error or a mixture of categories - it well have been an elite or bakkafu project, but I am not sure this is an appropriate framing. My second point is that this is a really well referenced paper - and it does reference alot of the relevant literature around its topic, and brings in some important wider literature like Conrad Totman - but there is a wider literature around the cultural-social and working practices of the Seto Inland Sea which doesn't seem to be present in this, and could be really important - I also wondered if the paper might connect to more of the literature around Japanese Buddhist notions of environmental development, to help give more context, since this is supposed to be a holistic piece. Overall though, this is very interesting.

Response: Your thoughtful comments were very much appreciated and gave me much to consider. I have substantially rewritten the introduction and conclusion sections, striving to make the points raised here clearer. However, there remain issues that I have not yet fully examined, such as the role of Japanese Buddhist practitioners in implementing environmental decision-making and questions of national sovereignty. I have made a point of clearly identifying these as areas for future consideration.