Quantifying the Potential Co-Benefit of Air Quality Improvement on Cultural Heritage in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

GENERAL COMMENTS

 

The topic is scientifically interesting and important to the society in China and worldwide. 

However, there are issues that must be solved before the paper can be accepted for publication. The novelty of the methodology used to estimate the recession depth and the methods used to evaluate it should be better clarified and highlighted.

 

The paper presents an extensive literature review, though I think it should be better organised and explained because it seems to mix literature with research results, as specified below. There are also important details missing in the survey data used, e.g., key properties of the limestones used, which is of high relevance for the estimation of the recession depth.

 

The English language requires a general revision to avoid errors such as those specified below. 

 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

 

Language: There are general problem in the text beginning with the Abstract: “…promoting heritage conservation though social sustainability…” – “though” is used instead of “through.” There are also issues with the use of verbs and articles, e.g., Line 174: “The functions expresses…”, instead of “The functions express…”, “…the Portland limestone…” – “the” should be deleted.

I suggest substituting the word “heritages” with “heritage structures” throughout the text.

Please, do not capitalize “Nitric acid.”

 

Lines 149, 159, 215, 222, 223: Please, include website links in references (please, include the retrieving date).

 

Line 196: Please, specify the spatial resolution as in Line 225.

 

3. Results

3.1. This section seems to belong to the background as it reports several studies done in the past – did the authors treat the data presented in the figures? Please, include the source of the data in the figures’ caption. Idem for section 3.2.

 

3.2. Are all the heritage case studies made of limestone with similar properties? Please, specify ranges of major properties, e.g., porosity, mechanical strength.

 

3.3. Please substitute “The contribute…” with “Contribution.”

 

Line 345: Missing reference

 

Table 1: “Surface recession of limestone” is missing units.

 

Section 4. Discussion

I think that there are several contents in this section that belong to methodology and results.

The English language requires a general revision to avoid errors such as those specified below. 

Language: There are general problem in the text beginning with the Abstract: “…promoting heritage conservation though social sustainability…” – “though” is used instead of “through.” There are also issues with the use of verbs and articles, e.g., Line 174: “The functions expresses…”, instead of “The functions express…”, “…the Portland limestone…” – “the” should be deleted.

I suggest substituting the word “heritages” with “heritage structures” throughout the text.

Please, do not capitalize “Nitric acid.”

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

I very much enjoyed reading this work. Finally some positive data about heritage protection. I believe your work would benefit from the comments below. Please take these into consideration. I look forward to reading the published version.

s12-how do you know?

s14- explain in a couple of words what is PM10

s15 - heritage not heritages

s22- not just the past decade-delete

s24-25 not clear

s27- what do you mean heritage values? rephrase

s300-citation is written wrong Margarita, D.A. Heritage Values and the Public. Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage 2017, 4. the name is Margarita, the rest is the surname

the same applies to refernce 2 https://doi.org/10.1080/20518196.2016.1228213

s27-perhaps the authors need to mention that they refer toChina, becsause air pollution on stone hsas been researched for decades in europe. -please refer to this book https://www.getty.edu/publications/virtuallibrary/9781606060469.html and references therein. also here https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/teaching/intl_course_stone.html

s34 has adopted not identified

s408 several references do not provide full bibliograhic details, please correct.

s38-are removed- better to say are deposited.

s63-what is PM? say it first in full

s74-international, but where based?

s88-change the 'few researches' odd

s97- make here into a new paragraph and say THIS study

s113- Did you collect data from 5058 sites for a year!!!? this is amazing, you must say this to the abstract-please explaain as simply as possible

s170 - how di you calculate all this data? need to say something...what about errors? were these calculated? why is the above formula convincing? plz say more, what was the software used? how did you calculate the rate of material loss? I should be able to reproduce your work.....

s180 heritage-does not take s at the end

s206- cut paragraph here

s348 - specify ....in China

s375- how did you find the 136.2 M RMB cost?

I very much enjoyed reading this work. Finally some positive data about heritage protection. I believe your work would benefit from the comments below. Please take these into consideration. I look forward to reading the published version.

s12-how do you know?

s14- explain in a couple of words what is PM10

s15 - heritage not heritages

s22- not just the past decade-delete

s24-25 not clear

s27- what do you mean heritage values? rephrase

s300-citation is written wrong Margarita, D.A. Heritage Values and the Public. Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage 2017, 4. the name is Margarita, the rest is the surname

the same applies to refernce 2 https://doi.org/10.1080/20518196.2016.1228213

s27-perhaps the authors need to mention that they refer toChina, becsause air pollution on stone hsas been researched for decades in europe. -please refer to this book https://www.getty.edu/publications/virtuallibrary/9781606060469.html and references therein. also here https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/teaching/intl_course_stone.html

s34 has adopted not identified

s408 several references do not provide full bibliograhic details, please correct.

s38-are removed- better to say are deposited.

s63-what is PM? say it first in full

s74-international, but where based?

s88-change the 'few researches' odd

s97- make here into a new paragraph and say THIS study

s113- Did you collect data from 5058 sites for a year!!!? this is amazing, you must say this to the abstract-please explaain as simply as possible

s170 - how di you calculate all this data? need to say something...what about errors? were these calculated? why is the above formula convincing? plz say more, what was the software used? how did you calculate the rate of material loss? I should be able to reproduce your work.....

s180 heritage-does not take s at the end

s206- cut paragraph here

s348 - specify ....in China

s375- how did you find the 136.2 M RMB cost?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

I read the paper titled "Quantifying the Potential Co-benefit of Air Quality Improvement on Cultural Heritage in China"

 

I found the research impressive thanks to the huge amount of data collected which provides a good overview of the impact of air quality on the stone heritage in China.

The paper is well written and the goal is focused and well realized.

 

The manuscript is potentially highly interesting for the readers of Sustainability and I suggest accepting it in its present form. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors have revised the paper according to all reviewers' comments and I think it is now acceptable for publication.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Quantifying the Co-benefit of Air Quality Improvement in China: From the Perspective of Cultural Heritage Conservation

This manuscript is well written and the research offers proof of the advantages of enhancing air quality in the preservation of heritage. Additionally, it suggests a set of policies for heritage conservation.

The introduction introduced the topic and gaps literature.

The methodology is well structured.

The results are well presented identifying the limitations.

Clear conclusions.

I recommend that this manuscript published in its current form.

 

 

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for the positive comments. which have encouraged us to improve the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

sustainability-2322283-peer-review-v1

Review of Quantifying the Co-benefit of Air Quality Improvement in China: From the Perspective of Cultural Heritage Conservation

 

The study purports to examine the nexus between Air Quality Improvement and reduced decay of heritage sites. The paper if fundamentally flawed, from framing to unclear methodology, to lack of data and confused discussion. The paper would benefit if the authors were to have a colleagues with actual heritage management experience , both practice and theory, in their team. As it stand I cannot be published and needs to be rewritten from the ground up a totally new manuscript

 

Line 22-23    add a reference such as Values and heritage conservation. Heritage & Society, 6(2), 155-166

Also note that that claim of preservation for future generations is flawed: see: Beyond "Preserving the Past for the Future": Contemporary Relevance and Historic Preservation. CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship, 8(1&2), 7–22

Line 23-24    I doubt this “importance of air quality for the preservation of heritage values”  Air quality impact on the preservation of heritage assets, which in turn may have heritage value, this needs to be rewritten

Line 25-26    “climatic parameters on cultural heritage” again, this only related to structures and outdoor monuments and some landscapes. Cultural heritage is much broader, ranging from intangible heritage to museum objects, and archaeological sites The framing here needs to be rewritten

Line 26-27    This is confusing and not correct in the way it is referenced/conceptualised: “as well as the derived impacts such as economic, aesthetic, and social dimensions [4–7]”

Line 75         rephrase (English) . This assertion needs a reference. 

 

Introduction in general:          atmospheric pollution not only impacts carbonate materials. Some discussion on corrosion is also required here

 

Line 102       This assertion needs a reference

 

Line 102, so the study looked at all 5058 sites? That sounds implausible

The methodology does not spell out how the surface recession was measured  for each of the 5058 sites (instrumentation, etc). Where are the individual data?

 

Line 232       what are UNESCO World Heritage Leadership (WHL) sites ? I have never heard of World Heritage Leadership sites

Kine 239       You refer to Macao, yet in line 103 you exclude Macao

 

 

Table 1           Where are the cited studies  for the data? Where are the measurements?

 

Line 290 ff      what has that got to do with air pollution and surface recession?

Line 302 “Only by continuously improving society’s ability to cope with risks can the resilience of heritage be truly enhanced”           why is this here? This makes no sense. The whole sections need to be much better conceptualised and argued

 

Line 304ff    None of this follows from the preceding discussion

 

 

GENERAL ISSUES

 

The paper is more suited to MDPI Heritage (a Q1 journal) than MDPI Sustainability. I am confused why the editorial team of MDPI Sustainability did not redirect the paper.

 

The Introduction section needs to be broken into several paragraphs

 

Figure 1           The map shows claimed  boundaries in the South China sea that the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea under the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague has deemed illegal and unfounded. There is no need for the puposes of this paper to include such map elements, esp as not sites are mapper there.

 

The paper needs to be thoroughly edited by a PROFESSIONAL SCIENTIFIC and native English speaking editor, It has numerous infelicities in Grammar and Expression

Author Response

We truly appreciate your comments, which have prompted improvements in the manuscript. For the point-to-point response, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper, the authors quantify the impact of air pollutants on the surface degradation of limestone and assess the benefits of air quality improvement to heritage conservation in China over the past 15 years. They highlight the risk reduction of heritage and the benefits of heritage conservation derived from air quality improvement.

Overall, the manuscript is of good quality. It is well-structured and clear. References are adequate, the methodology is well described, and the conclusions are properly backed by the results presented in the paper. In my opinion, the manuscript can be published in Sustainability after the authors attend to the following minor comments and suggestions:

·       In line 75, specify the units of the number mentioned.

·       In line 107, update the number of World Heritage Sites in China based on the current UNESCO WHL: https://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/cn

·       Add a legend to figure to clearly identify the UNESCO sites.

·       In line 112, provide a reference to the MULTI-ASSESS Project.

·       The URL provided in line 148 seems to be broken, please double-check it and amend it accordingly.

·       Fix the caption of Figure 3, it is identical to the one of Figure 4.

·       In line 291, provide a reference to SDG 11.4.

·       Increase the resolution of all figures to improve their quality.

·       Check the text and improve grammar typos and errors. 

Author Response

We appreciate the encouraging comment. For the point-to-point response, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of sustainability-2322283-peer-review-v2

Second review of  Quantifying the Co-benefit of Air Quality Improvement in China: From the Perspective of Cultural Heritage Conservation

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version. Some of your explanations now allow me to fully understand the data set used and the methodology you have employed. Basically, you are looking at air pollution data in China and are using the fact that because pollution decreases you extrapolate that the environmental decay of cultural heritage sites decreased as well. This is a high-level broad brush analysis which states the obvious. But even the obvious is based on assumptions for which you provide no evidence at all.

 

Based on the data you have collected, you CANNOT provide any detailed evidence  on recession rates as you claim, as your level of analysis is fundamentally flawed by the absence of ANY actual measurements and observations. Futhermore, you  do not have any data on (and thus cannot factor in) local variations in wind patterns, diurnal thermal patterns (and thus condensation) both on an urban scale and on a building/heritage asset specific scale. Moreover the types of sites considered vary widely both in their constituent materials and management / maintenance actions. None of this is actually assessed nor is it assessable at this abstract level of analysis.

 

As it stands, the observations made in this paper are meaningless.  As it stands, the paper cannot be published. I do not see any opportunity for the authors to revise the paper to make it publishable.