How Are Historical Villages Changed? A Systematic Literature Review on European and Chinese Cultural Heritage Preservation Practices in Rural Areas
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The purpose of the article: “How are historical villages changed? A systematic literature review on European and Chinese cultural heritage preservation practices in rural areas” was to outline the core features of the preservation and management of historical villages in the European and Chinese contexts.
The article addresses current research topics. It is properly structured and contains all the elements that a good research article should contain.
Personally, I am not a fan of studies that only analyze results obtained by other authors and are only related to the analysis of other articles. However, the analysis conducted by the authors adds some new elements to the knowledge in the field of cultural heritage. The authors compared two very different systems in terms of politics, culture, administration, etc. Their analysis was not just simply bibliometric, which must be pointed out as a positive element of the article.
However, I have a number of comments on the article:
1. The authors write in the introduction (lines 19-21) : "Similarities and differences in rural cultural heritage preservation and management between Europe and China were compared and discussed...". However the article contains mainly an analysis of the situation in Europe and an analysis of the situation in China. This is particularly evident in the Results chapter. There are some elements of comparison in the Discussion chapter, although in principle they also contain mainly conclusions concerning Europe and indications for China. What I miss is a kind of summary table, where the analyzed topics (e.g. from Table 1) would be compared to each other for Europe and China. Under such a table one could actually make a comparative analysis, pointing out similarities and differences. In the current version of the article, the authors have left such an analysis to the reader. This is the main element that, in my opinion, needs to be supplemented in the article.
2. Please organize and complete the content in chapter 2.2 Focus themes. The authors describe in it most of the analyzed topics, while it does not follow the layout shown in Table 1 (by the way, is it really a table?). I suggest in Section 2.2 to keep the layout of the topics according to Table 1, describing what is meant under each element. Additionally, a minor related note: in line 220 it should be Table 1 not 2.
3. Chapters 2 and 3 need some reorganization. Lines 176-216 should be moved to Chapter 3 under the current Table 1. These are the results of the analyses. On the other hand, lines 259-274 from Chapter 3.1.1 should be moved to Chapter 2 - these are not the results of the studies.
4. I have serious reservations about Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2 adds nothing to the article. The area of parts of Europe and China could possibly be included as small maps in subsequent figures (which I write about further). Additionally, the marked areas do not even fully cover the study area! E.g. in the supplementary material Scapa Flow in the UK is indicated as a case study for Europe. In Map 2 this area is not marked... Figure 3, on the other hand, contains a lot of content that is unnecessary for the study. What was added on the map is not indicated in the legend. The idea itself is good (indicating provinces with largest numbers of case studies) while I would much prefer if the Authors indicated all provinces with analyzed cases, giving their number in the province. Please also make this map using some GIS software. Currently, when you zoom in, you can see that this map was colored in some simple graphics program and in a very primitive and inaccurate way. Similarly, please add to the article a map of Europe with marked countries and number of case studies analyzed in their area. Please make both maps (for Europe and China) in a similar way. It should not be a problem. The map legends should explain the content of the maps (colors, numbers, etc.).
After including the above comments in the article, I will recommend the paper for publication.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
11. The preservation and management process should be further studied and implemented but on a well dispersed case by case based on a historical-sensitive approach revitalize rural areas, not only chosen by chance. Please explain.
22. preservation practices concerning both physical spaces and the cultural identities of local communities have resulted in a value-oriented and people-centered approach. On What criteria applied to choose these case studies in China? Why not scattered around China eg at Kaifeng in Henan and other central N-NW of Beijing? Explain
33. I do not see the position of the authors which procedure they support bottom to top or reversed? How the popular/social projection of plans in their area contradicts knowledge missing data and NGOs or stake holders from the market (mis) use the development for their benefit.
44. The application of new technologies in village heritage developmental plans should be discussed in the light of recent suggestions: Liritzis, I & Korka, E (2019) Archaeometry’s Role in Cultural Heritage Sustainability and Development. SUSTAINABILITY, 11, 1972. DOI:10.3390/su11071972.
55. In the different types of stakeholders in the planning and design process one should take into account scientific works which coin the certain area taking into account an holistic approach to show up the treasures so much of the environment as much as the architectural remains as well as local long term traditions of the heritage village:
Hüseyin Zahit Selvi, Aslı Bozdağ , İrfan Bozdağ and Güngör Karauğuz (2020) SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE EFLATUNPINAR AND FASILLAR HITTITE MONUMENTS USING GIS. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry Vol. 20, No 3, pp. 243-256 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3960192
David Espinosa-Espinosa, et al (2020) urban planning and ritual action in colonia ulpia traiana (xanten, germany): understanding a non-solar orientation pattern. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol. 18, No 4, pp. 25-32. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1472255
Serap Ural ( 2021) ceramic production from neolithic doğanhisar pottery culture: intangible heritage of technology transfer from past to present, SCIENTIFIC CULTURE, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 77-91 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5062884
Jean Pierre Massué ( 2016) toward “civil protection and military authorities cultural heritage advisors, SCIENTIFIC CULTURE, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 25-29 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.60333
Criteria for restoration and management should be enriched:
For example:
Naif A. Haddad , Leen A. Fakhoury and Yasir M. Sakr (2021) A critical anthology of international charters, conventions & principles on documentation of cultural heritage for conservation, monitoring & management, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry Vol. 21, No 1, 291-310 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4575718
Hüseyin Metin (2020) rural settlement organization in the central pisidia in light of karadiğin hill (southwest turkey, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry Vol. 20, No 2, pp. 83-96 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3746940
Pantazis, G (2014) the symmetricplacing and the dating of parthenon and hephaisteion in athens (greece), Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol. 14, No 2, pp. 273-279
For Preservation
Rozelin Aydın , et al (2022) profiling the bacterial diversity in historic limestone from anazarbos archaeological site by advanced molecular and spectroscopic techniques, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry Vol. 22, No 1, pp. 111-126 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6360661
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The reviewed article is an overview comparative study. I appreciate the topic undertaken and the analysis conducted. Comparative research is always a valuable approach, provided that the boundaries of the compared areas are clearly defined and the same criteria are applied to compare the selected areas. Conclusions from the research may prove to be very valuable as an inspiration for further research and its application.
I evaluate the reviewed article positively in general. However, I believe that some changes are necessary. First of all, the purpose of the work must be clearly formulated. I also propose to formulate specific research questions. In the introduction it is necessary to refer to the broader research context. Why is the topic of rural heritage conservation important? What problems are related to it? Who has applied comparative analysis of China and Europe to the topic of cultural heritage. For example, please note the publication: Zhang, J.; Cenci, J.; Becue, V.; Koutra, S.; Liao, C. Stewardship of Industrial Heritage Protection in Typical Western European and Chinese Regions: Values and Dilemmas. Land 2022, 11, 772. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11060772
Besides, in my opinion, there should be brief descriptions of regional conditions (especially cultural, socio-economic, legal) of China and Europe. Please also write clearly which European countries are included in the case study. From Fig.2. it seems that almost all of them are included. The United Kingdom, among others, is not marked on it. However, Table A in the appendix shows that the following countries were selected: Italy, Portugal, Spain, Germany, France, Romania, Cyprus, Slovenia, Latvia and the UK. In the body of the paper the authors do not list them, but in the case of China there is a detailed list of the provinces included. This needs to be supplemented.
On page 7 the figure is signed as Table 1, I think it should be Figure 3. Please also verify the reference to the figure in line 220. Also, please explain the abbreviations ADV, DEM./REL., NGOS used in the figure. Similar abbreviations are used in the tables in the appendices.
In line 270 Authors refer to UNESCO Operational Guidelines (2021). I did not find this document in the references.
The comparison between China and Europe, in my opinion, should be presented according to the same points. Meanwhile, they are different, although the topics are common. If the Authors think that this is not possible, please comment/justify the analysis for China as it was done for Europe (section 3.1.).
A synthetic table presenting the main conclusions of the comparative analysis would be useful in the discussion. References to publications addressing rural heritage conservation in other regions of the world are also advisable.
After changes, the article can be published.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The article proposes and develops a bibliographical research on the preservation and enhancement of rural heritage both in Europe and in China. The analysis and conclusions that they contribute to the academic literature are of interest and therefore the work of these authors should be published. However, some issues have been noted that would help improve the final result:
- The map in Figure 2 does not provide much information, in addition to not corresponding to the figures in Figure 1. A map could be made with the detailed points of the case studies or a map of Europe similar to the one in Figure 3 .
In the same way, in the text and figures there are 24 study articles in Europe and only 23 appear in table A.
- The assignments of the bibliographical references should be re-examined, since some of them do not seem to coincide (36, 37, 39, etc.).
Congratulations for your work
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed all my comments and made corrections to the article. I recommend the article for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Apart of EU-China the world status on this issue must be given. The scopus database used for data includes significant works concerning rules applied and case studies of diversified nature.
The international principles adopted UNESCO etc should be quoted eg.
Naif A. Haddad , Leen A. Fakhoury and Yasir M. Sakr (2021) A critical anthology of international charters, conventions & principles on documentation of cultural heritage for conservation, monitoring & management, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry Vol. 21, No 1, 291-310 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4575718
moreover the very significant intangible heritage example in rural areas is worth mentioning in view of the cultural heritage preservation and management.
Serap Ural ( 2021) ceramic production from neolithic doğanhisar pottery culture: intangible heritage of technology transfer from past to present, SCIENTIFIC CULTURE, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 77-91 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5062884
Last the deterioration and use of conservation actions is a must when rural areas exploit heritage sites/monuments and/or rehabilitation actions taken for preserving cultural heritage inrural areas:
Moreno, M., Ortiz, P. and Ortiz, R. (2019) VULNERABILITY STUDY OF EARTH WALLS IN URBAN FORTIFICATIONS USING CAUSE-EFFECT MATRIXES AND GIS: THE CASE OF SEVILLE, CARMONA AND ESTEPA DEFENSIVE FENCES. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry Vol. 19, No 3, 119-138 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3583063
Psalti et al., 2022, Interdisciplinary project for the Catholikon rehabilitation of the Varnakova Monastery, SCIENTIFIC CULTURE, Vol. 8, No. 2, (2022), pp. 109-134 . DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5772569
Longobardi G and Formisano A 2022, SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF A 17TH CENTURY NEAPOLITAN FARM, SCIENTIFIC CULTURE, Vol. 8, No. 2, 47-57.
