Spatial Patterns Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Cultural Resources in the Yellow River National Cultural Park, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Along the text there are several small issues:
Repeated one paragraph (24 lines) on the first and second pages.
The initials must be detailed when presenting the concept for the first time (e.g. Intangible Cultural Heritage, ICH), keeping that denomination instead of the substitution of heritage for resources.
There are typographical errors: e.g. Frist, instead of First; absence of space after full stop; some words interrupted with a hyphen, both in the text and in tables 1 and 2; misuse of capital letters in the tables; and messy columns, not easy to read. They must follow some order, either alphabetical or regarding the values obtained (e.g. higher-lower).
Regarding the method:
The software used is not explicit. In the introduction and in the declaration of conflicts of interest, ArcGIS 10 is referred to in general, but the algorithms used are not specified, which in some cases are not from ArcGIS but from Geodetector or QGIS;.
Nor is their choice justified by comparing advantages and drawbacks of alternative methods, e.g., cluster analysis or hotspots.
Regarding the cartography, which need to be greatly improved, its complete re-elaboration is recommended taking into account the following aspects, amongst others:
Reference administrative map is of little use without including the names of the provinces, which are exhaustively used in the text but without any correlation on the map.
The legends must be completed, and the scale and north arrow must be placed next to them to reduce the space occupied by the image.
A map projection should be used that reduces the anamorphosis produced by the geographic CRS
(e.g. WGS 72BE / South China Sea Lambert. EPSG:3415)
The points symbology chosen in figure 4 to represent tangible and intangible cultural assets is confusing, there are a need for two different icons.
In the text and at the bottom of the images, the corresponding figure must be referred to in detail, for example fig. 3(a), fig. 3(b) or fig. 3(c).
Last, the conclusions must be reflected in cartography, for example, the existence of the so-called golden triangle and the areas with lower density: and the recommendations, of a general nature, must be especifically related to the result of the conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The questions addressed by the study are interesting and important, and several new methods are used by authors.
The presentation of methods and analyses is exhaustive.
The conclusions can be put into practice.
However, a careful reading of the paper is recommended, e.g. the first paragraph is duplicated and there are several typos (e.g.: the first word in last paragraph on page 16: "frist").
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Geographical determinism of cultural resources is usually associated with descriptive, outdated methods of regional geography, but this work is different. The authors explored a large area through a series of modern GIS and statistical methods and offered an original approach. Even so, some things need to be fixed:
(See the attached file)
- Although the aim of the paper is clear, the authors must explain already in the first chapter why the mapping and quantification of cultural resources is important for science and the academic world? It is clear that the research is important for the project of the National Cultural Park, but I do not see even later, from the results and conclusions of the work, that something unexpected was discovered. In the introductory chapter, the authors did not even present a hypothesis about what results they hoped for.
- In some places in the work there are illogicalities related to the scientific terminology used (eg the Yellow River Path, the range of radiation) - see the attached version.
- The map is small and illegible
- The methodology is not sufficiently explained, but only the methods used are listed - see the attached version.
- One of the methodologies proved that man has a greater role in the distribution of cultural resources than natural factors - which, in my opinion, is unnecessary. Selected variables as natural factors are not explained. Why were they chosen? see the attached version.
- Check the last part about Gratitude and Conflict of interest - I think it's a mistake.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The word "Frist" is still remaining
In order to easen the maps reading, there are no need for the provinces names to be in every map. Those in figure 1 are enough.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors of the paper responded to the remarks and suggestions that I noted in their paper, but they also corrected themselves in several places and realized what were their weak points in the research and presentation of the results.
I think that the maps are much better than they were, more transparent and readable, but that their resolution could be even better, but that decision is more up to the editors.
I have no more suggestions and recommend the work for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
