Climate Change and UNESCO World Heritage-Listed Cultural Properties: A Systematic Review, 2008–2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors of the Article „Climate change and UNESCO World Heritage-listed cultural properties: A systematic review, 2008–2021” analyzed 58 peer reviewed articles retrieved from Scopus and Google Scholar published during 2008–2021 which address the relationship between climate change and UNESCO World Heritage-listed cultural properties.

The article is in line with current research trends, addresses current scientific topics.

The article is properly structured. It contains all the elements that should be found in a good scientific article.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of bibliometric studies, I think they are just an introduction to the research that should be undertaken. However, the reviewed article goes well beyond a simple bibliometric study. In addition to the typical quantitative analysis, the authors also conducted a number of qualitative studies of the analyzed articles addressing such elements as: Methodological contribution, Research methods used in articles, Timescale, Locations, sites, and climate change hazards captured by articles, and Adaptation measures and barriers. A discussion of the results shows that thought the review indicates literature on cultural WHP and climate change has seen recent growth, there remain gaps, opportunities, and new directions for future studies.

My minor comments:

1 The authors use the acronyms STEM and HASS in the article. The first one is expanded in line 278, the meaning of the second one: HASS (Humanities, arts, and social sciences) is missing from the article. Providing the full meaning should appear in the first place in the article where these abbreviations are used.

2 Chapter 5 Discussion consists of two parts, with only the second part separated as a subchapter. I propose to separate two subsections in this chapter. Separating one subsection in a chapter doesn't make much sense.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly:

• We have checked and edited all acronyms in the articles where neeed.
• Discussion is divided into two parts: key observations and future directions.

Thank you very much

Kind regards  

Reviewer 2 Report

I recommend reading the paper carefully, checking the English and defining the missing meaning of some acronyms.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments. We have checked English and acronyms in the manuscript carefully.

Kind regards

Reviewer 3 Report

The concept of this article is fantastic. The amount of energy and time needed for doing this kind of research is also heavy; but there are some glaring missing gaps that need to be addressed.

The first gap is, that despite 58 articles that were reviewed for this paper, there are a lot more out there that have been missed. While I don't expect the author to get 100%, the Association for Preservation and Training International has also developed the Bibliography of Resources for Sustainable Preservation, the Climate Change and Cultural Heritage Conservation: A Literature Review, among other resources that can be consulted on publications related to climate change and heritage. All of this can be access for free at https://www.apti.org/sustainable-preservation

The second gap is in response to one of the findings in the conclusion, regarding the lack of representation of Global South scholars. The author does not appear to be aware of the inequalities that exist between academics in the Global North vs. the Global South. Those in the North are more numerous and have access to many more resources than the South. These findings appear in nearly almost all academic subjects, and not just climate change and heritage. Sources to review include:

https://had-int.org/blog/addressing-global-south-north-inequalities-in-research/

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-52701-3

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2021/12/10/collaborations-between-colleges-global-north-and-south-opinion

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0011392116680020

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12109-020-09771-9

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/03043754221095304

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2119373119

The inequalities of research between the Global North and Global is also impacting the way the impacts of climate change and world heritage are being studied. This is something that needs to be addressed more thoroughly in the paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments. We have revised the article based on your feedback

• We recognize, for example, the vast number of resources produced by organisations like the Association for Preservation and Training International which haven’t been captured due to the search engine and database used or the specified inclusion criteria (see e.g., APT International 2016)
• The inequalities of research between the Global North and Global South have been addressed more compressively in the article with more materials being added.

Thank you very much

Kind regards

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

This is much better! Congratulations on completing an excellent article.