Water System Approach and Natural–Cultural Capital in World Heritage Under Climate Stress: The Royal Alcázar in Seville and the Alhambra in Granada, Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article focuses on the cultural valuation of World Heritage sites through the lens of social and environmental sustainability, viewing them as a living interface between natural systems and human communities and, accordingly, as assets for ecological activation and socio-cultural resilience. This view is an essential contribution, shifting from a static heritage perspective to a broader one, placing heritage in an active role (contributing to better climate adaptation and overall, a more sustainable and resilient future) and going beyond classical OUV assessment of WH properties.

Overall, the article is well-structured, but in some aspects, it does not provide the needed clarity, particularly in the methodology section, and accordingly in the discussion. Although it is mostly based on Spanish literature (due to the case-studies), it also covers relevant international documents and literature, but there is a shortcoming in methodology-related literature and explanation of the different types of analysis, for instance, the discourse and narrative analysis (what are the references for discourse definition, and what kind of discourse analysis was conducted, etc.). Conclusions reflect the methodological problems. Conclusions are in the Discussion section, but the discussion should also address the methods used in the process, present conclusions and recommendations for future research, and address the limitations of the research. This is the part that should be improved. It would be better to separate the discussion and conclusions and elaborate on the limitations and other aspects mentioned.

Recommendations:

1. Methodology:

• Add an explanation of the criteria for case-studies in the 2. Materials and Methods introductory part – why these two locations, and in what way are they significant for the rest of the European WH properties?
• Also, add the explanation of the research design – how and why the methods and materials were chosen, and why in this combination? There is a lack of elaboration of the narrative analysis and coding process; only the results are presented (in the Results section, there are sections of the text that address some of the issues, so they need to be repositioned).

2. Results:

• Add a clarification of the way the results are presented at the beginning of the stated chapter (3. Results)
• Sort out the parts of the text that belong to the methodology (as stated above) and improve them to make a strong and coherent methodological framework.

3. Discussion:

• Separate discussion and conclusions. (optional)
• Elaborate and discuss the methods and different types of analysis, their results, and interconnections (research design as well).
• Elaborate on the limitations of the research.

4. Referencing:

• Add methodological references for the specific methods and materials, as well as the analysis (type of coding etc.).

Author Response

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The paper as a whole addresses an important and significant topic, and it is particularly notable for its effort to integrally connect the value and impact of natural and cultural heritage, especially in relation to the natural asset of water, which, in addition to its environmental significance, may also possess other cultural values.

The paper is particularly notable for its focus on the role of water in the case studies, both of which have been designated as World Heritage Sites due to their cultural significance. Its key contribution lies in broadening the perspective through which these cultural assets are understood, by also examining their natural and environmental values in the context of water degradation and water networks in Spain.

Overall, the general impression is that the paper lacks a certain rigor in expression to fully achieve academic soundness. While the authors’ objectives are clear, the sequence and structure of sentences would benefit from a smoother flow and more careful organization.

2. Regarding the title of the paper, I consider the word “thinking” to be too general and provisional for an academic paper and believe it should be replaced with a more appropriate term or removed entirely from the title. I also suggest shortening and reformulating the entire title. In addition, the case studies the Royal Alcázar in Seville and the Alhambra in Granada in Spain, should not be placed in parentheses but included as a continuation of the title, without parentheses.

3. Regarding the Abstract: the sentence “In this context, water emerges as a fundamental element for understanding their natural–cultural capital.” (lines 18-19) should be clarified and reformulated to convey how water functions both as a component of natural heritage and as a cultural asset, encompassing its sociological, historical, aesthetic, symbolic, technical, engineering, and other dimensions that contribute to its role within cultural heritage.

The given abstract needs to be revised to achieve academic precision and clarity. Sentences should be stylistically refined, for example, the formulation “This article examines two World Heritage Sites …” is unnecessary and can be simplified so that the sentence begins with “Article examines …” instead of “This article”. Furthermore, the enumerated structure “First, … Second, Third, Finally …” used to describe the study is unnecessary, it is sufficient to explain the methodology, the results obtained, and the main conclusions and contributions of the research in a clear, coherent, and concise manner.

4. Regarding the Keywords: Similar to the comments provided for the abstract, the same applies to the keywords. They should be refined, academically harmonized, and concise, ensuring that no keywords repeat the same idea. Additionally, the keywords should explicitly include the case studies addressed in the paper - the Royal Alcázar of Seville and the Alhambra of Granada, to clearly situate the research focus.

5. For the introductory section, subheadings are not necessary. The first subheading has a confusing title (1.1. The Territorial Water Matrix in Andalusia: Natural Capital and Eco-Cultural Infrastructure of the Landscape), which should be simplified if it is retained.

It would be more appropriate for the Introduction to begin with an explanation of the historical context and background. Therefore, the section currently under subheading 1.2. Environmental Ethics, Extreme Heat, and Climate Fragility in Al-Andalus should appear first in the introduction. This should then be followed by a more detailed discussion of the issues currently affecting the area due to global climate change and its consequences.

In the section (lines 72–80), the connection between water networks and their environmental degradation should be better explained, particularly regarding how this affects the concept of the environment from the perspective of cultural and intangible heritage. This includes highlighting the practices, customs, rituals, beliefs, or traditions of the Andalusian region associated with these water networks, that is, clarifying the significance of water for the cultural heritage of this region.

6. Regarding the methodology section: a very ambitious objective is set (lines 138–141), which is unlikely to be fully achieved within a single research paper. However, this objective can certainly be addressed by outlining stages and identifying the elements and relationships between the community (as the bearer of 5Cs) and the social and cultural aspects that are closely linked to the natural components in both case studies - the Alhambra and the Alcázar.

If the authors wish to adopt my recommendations, I suggest that Section 2, dedicated to Materials and Methods, should not contain any subheadings, except for “Territorial Landscape Conditions of the Alcázar” and “Territorial Landscape Conditions of the Alhambra”. The text in lines 138–168 does not require a subheading, and the text currently included under the subheading 2.2.2. Relevance of their Blue Infrastructure (Natural–Cultural Capital) should be reorganized and integrated into the sections “Territorial Landscape Conditions of the Alcázar” and “Territorial Landscape Conditions of the Alhambra.”

Furthermore, the parts of the section “Associated Landscape Vulnerabilities and Benefits“ (lines 280-336), with some revisions and text optimization, could be moved to Section 3. Results, which is devoted to the presentation of the study’s results.

The methodology section needs to be optimized with regard to recent reference studies that address the heritage values of World Heritage Sites beyond their Outstanding Universal Value. This should include consideration of how communities act as key stakeholders, with their values and needs prioritized in achieving social sustainability.

7. Explain how water networks are connected to intangible heritage in the case studies of the Alcázar and the Alhambra, further elaboration of this issue is missing in the Results chapter (in the Figure 8. and 9. described throughpractice, representation, worship).

A more elaborate explanation of the narrative approach to World Heritage properties is needed to present water not only as a tangible resource (natural and landscape heritage asset), but also as a heritage asset, enabling its recognition as part of intangible cultural heritage. It is crucial to highlight the interrelations between water as a natural, landscape, and cultural (particularly intangible) heritage asset, showing how its ecological, aesthetic, social, ritual, and symbolic values are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. In this context, the Discussion and Conclusion sections should be supported with more well-documented arguments and further developed in order to emphasize the significance of these case studies, which focus on sociological, ecological, sustainable, and intangible aspects.

8. The symbolic, religious, and other intangible significance and roles attributed to water in the case studies of the Royal Alcázar of Seville and the Alhambra of Granada require a more in-depth and multi-layered analysis for the discussion. This should be supported by accompanying materials, such as tabular representations documenting these values or authentic photographs.

9. If possible, it would be highly useful for the authors to enhance the paper with additional authentic photographic materials.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English could be improved.

Author Response

Comments 1:

The paper as a whole addresses an important and significant topic, and it is particularly notable for its effort to integrally connect the value and impact of natural and cultural heritage, especially in relation to the natural asset of water, which, in addition to its environmental significance, may also possess other cultural values.

The paper is particularly notable for its focus on the role of water in the case studies, both of which have been designated as World Heritage Sites due to their cultural significance. Its key contribution lies in broadening the perspective through which these cultural assets are understood, by also examining their natural and environmental values in the context of water degradation and water networks in Spain.

Overall, the general impression is that the paper lacks a certain rigor in expression to fully achieve academic soundness. While the authors’ objectives are clear, the sequence and structure of sentences would benefit from a smoother flow and more careful organization.

Response 1: Thank you for your considerations about our work and specially, for pointing these final comments out.

Following this comment and the next ones, we have addressed several structural changes to reorganise, reconsider and include new parts in the article. As a result the new structure has 6 headings and different subheadings, that we hope make the research more understandable, complete and compact:

1. Introduction. The Territorial Water System in Andalusia: History, Relevance and Threats
2. Materials and Methods
3. Description of the Case Studies

3.1. Territorial Landscape Conditions of the Alcázar of Seville

3.2. Territorial Landscape Conditions of the Alhambra of Granada

1. Results

4.1. Water Systems Valuation in the Current Protection and Management Documents

4.2. Water Systems New Narrative Approach

4.3. Water Systems Vulnerabilities and Benefits

1. Discussion. Rethinking Natural Capital as a Heritage Framework: from Conservation to Ecological Activation
2. Conclusions

Besides all these structural changes, we have added a final paragraph inside the heading 1. Introduction that explains the structure of the article. We hope this improves the soundness and organisation. This can be found in the revised manuscript – page 4, lines 161-170. We hope the sequence and structure clarifies the article’s structure, with a smoother flow and better organization.

Moreover, the English has been reviewed by a native an expert in the field, trying to gain some more rigor in expression and a better academic soundness.

Comments 2:

Regarding the title of the paper, I consider the word “thinking” to be too general and provisional for an academic paper and believe it should be replaced with a more appropriate term or removed entirely from the title. I also suggest shortening and reformulating the entire title. In addition, the case studies the Royal Alcázar in Seville and the Alhambra in Granada in Spain, should not be placed in parentheses but included as a continuation of the title, without parentheses.

Response 2: We agree. We have, accordingly, modified the title, removing the word “thinking”, shortening it and including the cases as a continuation of the title. Being the new title: “Water System Approach and Natural–Cultural Capital in World Heritage under Climate Stress: The Royal Alcázar in Seville and the Alhambra in Granada, Spain”.

Comments 3:

Regarding the Abstract: the sentence “In this context, water emerges as a fundamental element for understanding their natural–cultural capital.” (lines 18-19) should be clarified and reformulated to convey how water functions both as a component of natural heritage and as a cultural asset, encompassing its sociological, historical, aesthetic, symbolic, technical, engineering, and other dimensions that contribute to its role within cultural heritage.

The given abstract needs to be revised to achieve academic precision and clarity. Sentences should be stylistically refined, for example, the formulation “This article examines two World Heritage Sites …” is unnecessary and can be simplified so that the sentence begins with “Article examines …” instead of “This article”. Furthermore, the enumerated structure “First, … Second, Third, Finally …” used to describe the study is unnecessary, it is sufficient to explain the methodology, the results obtained, and the main conclusions and contributions of the research in a clear, coherent, and concise manner.

Response 3: We agree with your comments. Therefore, we have stylistically improved the second part of the abstract, simplifying its wording by using clearer and more concise expressions and removing unnecessary connectors. We have also referred to the dual environmental and cultural function that converges in the element of water. However, due to word limitations, it has not been possible to include the entire reformulation you proposed. These improvements can be found in the revised manuscript – page 1, lines 15-31.

Comments 4:

Regarding the Keywords: Similar to the comments provided for the abstract, the same applies to the keywords. They should be refined, academically harmonized, and concise, ensuring that no keywords repeat the same idea. Additionally, the keywords should explicitly include the case studies addressed in the paper - the Royal Alcázar of Seville and the Alhambra of Granada, to clearly situate the research focus.

Response 4: Thank you for your comments. After considering them, we have decided to remove those that we felt were unclear, include the case studies, and replace Water System Thinking with Water System Approach. These changes can be found in the revised manuscript – page 1.

Comments 5:

For the introductory section, subheadings are not necessary. The first subheading has a confusing title (1.1. The Territorial Water Matrix in Andalusia: Natural Capital and Eco-Cultural Infrastructure of the Landscape), which should be simplified if it is retained.

It would be more appropriate for the Introduction to begin with an explanation of the historical context and background. Therefore, the section currently under subheading 1.2. Environmental Ethics, Extreme Heat, and Climate Fragility in Al-Andalus should appear first in the introduction. This should then be followed by a more detailed discussion of the issues currently affecting the area due to global climate change and its consequences.

In the section (lines 72–80), the connection between water networks and their environmental degradation should be better explained, particularly regarding how this affects the concept of the environment from the perspective of cultural and intangible heritage. This includes highlighting the practices, customs, rituals, beliefs, or traditions of the Andalusian region associated with these water networks, that is, clarifying the significance of water for the cultural heritage of this region.

Response 5: Thank you for your comments, which have helped to clarify the introductory section. Finally, with the new structure of the article explained under the first comments, the subheadings in the introduction have been removed. As suggested, we began by establishing the historical sequence of the region, linked to the heritage under study. Next, we outlined the climate and ecosystem fragility framework, including climate change and its consequences. With regard to the cultural and intangible heritage associated with water in the region, emphasis has been placed on specifying which tangible and intangible heritage assets are linked to water networks. This can be found in the last paragraphs of section 1. Introduction, – pages 1-4. Subsequently, the relationship between environmental degradation and the loss of the ecosystem value of this legacy has been explained.

Comments 6:

Regarding the methodology section: a very ambitious objective is set (lines 138–141), which is unlikely to be fully achieved within a single research paper. However, this objective can certainly be addressed by outlining stages and identifying the elements and relationships between the community (as the bearer of 5Cs) and the social and cultural aspects that are closely linked to the natural components in both case studies - the Alhambra and the Alcázar.

If the authors wish to adopt my recommendations, I suggest that Section 2, dedicated to Materials and Methods, should not contain any subheadings, except for “Territorial Landscape Conditions of the Alcázar” and “Territorial Landscape Conditions of the Alhambra”. The text in lines 138–168 does not require a subheading, and the text currently included under the subheading 2.2.2. Relevance of their Blue Infrastructure (Natural–Cultural Capital) should be reorganized and integrated into the sections “Territorial Landscape Conditions of the Alcázar” and “Territorial Landscape Conditions of the Alhambra.”

Furthermore, the parts of the section “Associated Landscape Vulnerabilities and Benefits“ (lines 280-336), with some revisions and text optimization, could be moved to Section 3. Results, which is devoted to the presentation of the study’s results.

The methodology section needs to be optimized with regard to recent reference studies that address the heritage values of World Heritage Sites beyond their Outstanding Universal Value. This should include consideration of how communities act as key stakeholders, with their values and needs prioritized in achieving social sustainability.

Response 6:

As explained above, the initial section 2. Materials and Methods has been divided into two new sections: 2. Materials and Methods and 3. Description of the Case Studies. In section 2, we explain in greater detail the objectives of the article, the research project in which it is included, and the methodology and structure used. The analysis and coding process carried out is explained in greater detail. Likewise, parts previously included in the results that actually referred to the methodology have been relocated. These improvements can be found in the revised manuscript – pages 4-14.

At the beginning of the new section 3, the criteria used for the selection of case studies are incorporated, highlighting their significance within the broad panorama of world heritage. These improvements can be found in the revised manuscript – pages 5-6, lines 225-271. Within this section and following your suggestions, only two sub-sections entitled ‘Territorial Landscape Conditions Alcázar/Alhambra’ have been included, as can be seen in the index provided in the response to the first comment. The information contained in sub-section 2.2.2. Relevance of their Blue Infrastructure has been reorganised and included in the previous sections.

The section ‘Associated Landscape Vulnerabilities and Benefits’ has been removed. The part of its content referring to the threats that climate change poses to the territorial matrix of Andalusia has been moved to section 1. Introduction (pages 3-4, lines 113-153). On the other hand, the part of its content referring to the climate vulnerabilities and benefits supported by the case studies has been redirected and expanded, now forming part of the results, section 4.3. Water Systems Vulnerabilities and Benefits (pages 21-23).

Furthermore, the suggestion regarding the consideration of communities has been incorporated as a future line of research in section 6. Conclusions, pages 25-26.

Comments 7:

Explain how water networks are connected to intangible heritage in the case studies of the Alcázar and the Alhambra, further elaboration of this issue is missing in the Results chapter (in the Figure 8. and 9. described through practice, representation, worship).

A more elaborate explanation of the narrative approach to World Heritage properties is needed to present water not only as a tangible resource (natural and landscape heritage asset), but also as a heritage asset, enabling its recognition as part of intangible cultural heritage. It is crucial to highlight the interrelations between water as a natural, landscape, and cultural (particularly intangible) heritage asset, showing how its ecological, aesthetic, social, ritual, and symbolic values are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. In this context, the Discussion and Conclusion sections should be supported with more well-documented arguments and further developed in order to emphasize the significance of these case studies, which focus on sociological, ecological, sustainable, and intangible aspects.

Response 7: Thank you for your comment. We have, accordingly, delved deeper into the way water networks are connected to intangible heritage and values. This has been incorporated both in the two abovementioned figures and in the description of the results in section 4.2, pages 17-21.

Comments 8:

The symbolic, religious, and other intangible significance and roles attributed to water in the case studies of the Royal Alcázar of Seville and the Alhambra of Granada require a more in-depth and multi-layered analysis for the discussion. This should be supported by accompanying materials, such as tabular representations documenting these values or authentic photographs.

Response 8: Thank you for your comment. We have, accordingly, delved deeper into the ecosystem values of the site related to intangible heritage to emphasise this point.  This has been included both in the systematic figures and in the description of the results in section 4.2, pages 17-21.

Comments 9:

If possible, it would be highly useful for the authors to enhance the paper with additional authentic photographic materials.

Response 9: Agree. Accordingly, we have incorporated Figures 9 and 11 into Section 4.2. Each figure consists of three images that seek to illustrate the intangible, tangible and landscape-related values of both sites. These additions can be found in the revised manuscript – pages 18 and 20.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

The abstract clearly communicates the central objective of the study: to reassess water‑related natural–cultural capital in two World Heritage Sites (the Royal Alcázar of Seville and the Alhambra of Granada). The structure of the abstract is strong. The abstract also misses an opportunity to highlight how the study responds to international debates on biocultural heritage or to emphasize the theoretical contribution of “water‑system thinking.

Introduction

The introduction is rich, interdisciplinary, and theoretically grounded. It succeeds in situating Andalusia as a historically water‑centred landscape where natural and cultural systems have coevolved over centuries. The introduction can be improved by providing more explicit articulation of the research gap: What precisely is lacking in existing scholarship on natural–cultural capital or in UNESCO documentation? Theoretical terms such as “biocultural landscapes,” “natural capital,” and “hydraulic cosmology” are introduced but not defined in relation to one another. This may cause conceptual ambiguity later in the paper.

Materials and Methods

The section would benefit from greater methodological detail, particularly concerning GIS mapping procedures (data sources, scales, validation techniques). The reliance on existing institutional documents may risk reproducing institutional blind spots rather than challenging them.

Results

The authors demonstrate detailed document analysis. The coding trees (Figures 8 and 9) also provide more details about the analysis but require clearer explanation of coding categories and how they were operationalised

Discussion

The discussion raises good questions but provides few practical strategies for implementing ecological activation in heritage governance.

General Comment

The authors need to address the comments and include conclusion section.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response 5: Agree. We have, accordingly, developed the practical implications of the study, including a list of possible improvements aimed at the processes of protection, management, dissemination, and governance of these heritage assets, which could be extended to others beyond the two case studies. This has been updated in the text, at the end of the section 6. Conclusions. This development can be found in the revised manuscript – page 26.

Comments 6:

General Comment

The authors need to address the comments and include conclusion section.

Response 6: Thank you very much for your careful review and precise comments. All comments made by Reviewer 3 have been addressed and can be checked in the new version of the manuscript. The discussion section has been separated from the conclusions section. Both have been completely restructured, improved and explained in greater detail. These improvements can be found in the revised manuscript – pages 23-26.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been significantly improved in terms of argumentation and clarity, particularly with regard to the research methodology, which offers a clearer heritage-based approach to the analysis of the World Heritage Sites of the Royal Alcázar in Seville and the Alhambra in Granada, Spain, from the perspective of mixed heritage (cultural and natural, tangible and intangible).

The paper has been given a clearer structure, with the Discussion and Conclusion sections becoming more scientifically grounded and critically oriented toward research, thereby opening up possibilities for further investigation.