Geographic Distribution Characteristics and Influencing Factors for Industrial Heritage Sites in Italy Based on GIS
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript (sustainability-2773567) analysed 120 sites on the European Route of Industrial Heritage in Italy using GIS to examine the spatial relationships between these sites. It has an uneven distribution, with northern Italy having more sites, influenced by its proximity to neighboring countries, earlier industrialization, and historical events. The research also highlights a link between industrial heritage and economic development, emphasizing the role of transportation networks and the impact of legal and cultural support on preservation. This work offers insights into the factors shaping Italy's industrial heritage distribution.
The title is different in the manuscript and the submission system.
This is a new resubmission of the manuscript. The authors have improved some paragraphs, but the manuscript remains unsuitable in its current form for publication. The introduction sections are still confusing. The Material and Methods section still lacks the necessary elements for the research to be replicated or conducted by other researchers. There is an inappropriate section where tables and figures are inserted named "3. Spatial Structure Analysis" and another "4. Analysis of the Factors Influencing Italian Industrial Heritage." The "5. Results and Discussion" section definitely does not fit into results or discussion. This is not a manuscript that fits into a Review, commentary, or research. The way it is organized continues to have flaws. The figures have not been properly prepared, being confusing to understand, and again with the captions, without any explanation of what they are about. The conclusions have improved but are still in bullet point format, which is not suitable, and should concisely reflect the work. References need to be added to the work. In terms of fluidity and logic, they need to be reviewed, as the text is confusing, especially with lengthy paragraphs that span two pages. The language needs to be reviewed.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageExtensive editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer! Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise and for your very professional comments! We have revised the manuscript according to your comments, and due to the excessive amount of content, we decided to upload it into the system as a PDF file! Finally, we wish you good luck in your work and have a nice day!
———————————————————————————————————
Response to the Comments of the Reviewers
Dear reviewers,
We appreciate your valuable feedback and constructive comments, which are very helpful in guiding our rework on the manuscript “Geographic Distribution Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Industrial Heritage Sites in Italy based on GIS.” In response to your suggestions, we have studied the comments carefully and made significant improvements in this manuscript that we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in this manuscript and the response to your comments are as follows:
Response: Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your suggestion. As we have made a resubmission, upon careful consideration, we have revised the title in accordance with the one provided in the manuscript. Please refer to the revised title in the manuscript.
[1] Page 1 lines 2-3.
“Geographic Distribution Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Industrial Heritage Sites in Italy based on GIS “
Response: In response to the reviewer's recommendations, we have thoroughly examined portions of the manuscript that might pose challenges for readers. To enhance the clarity of the introduction section, we have specifically concentrated on paragraphs prone to confusion and provided more detailed explanations, as outlined below:
[2] Page 1 lines 28-34.
Before：
Industrial heritage, as de-fined in the 2011 "Dublin Principles" by the International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage
After the modification：
The "Joint Principles for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage Sites, Structures, Areas, and Landscapes," also known as the "Dublin Principle," were published in 2011 during the 17th International Committee for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). These principles formally define industrial heritage as comprising diverse elements, including sites, structures, complexes, regions, and landscapes.”
[3] Page 1 lines 39 - Page 2 lines 43. （In the process, some countries prone to confusion were singled out, including the United Kingdom and Belgium, underscoring that they have already established independent disciplines.）
Before：
Currently, as the idea of industrial heritage spreads, several countries are already recognizing major industrial remnants as industrial heritage
After the modification：
Countries such as the United Kingdom and Belgium have identified industrial remainders as industrial legacy, and this has evolved into a new field of knowledge with the goal of fully and systematically conserving and repurposing industrial heritage, making them into valuable rejuvenated resources
[4] Page 2 lines 45. （Clear focus on "process" as " practical process "）
Before：
This process has revitalized former brownfields and rust belts, transforming them into significant assets
After the modification：
This practical process has revitalized former brownfields and rust belts, transforming them into significant assets
[5] Page 2 lines 51-53.（Pointing other countries more clearly to the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands）
Before：
Industrial revolution occurred later compared to other countries
After the modification：
Diverging from the timelines of countries such as Britain, Belgium, and the Netherlands, Italy experienced the Industrial Revolution in a later stage
[6] Page 2 lines 62-64.（clearer explanation is given）
Before：
These studies predominantly concentrate on certain heritage instances or limited geographical areas
After the modification：
These studies predominantly focus on practical cases related to heritage conservation and utilization or limited heritage landscapes or rural
[7] Page 2 lines 78-80. （The purpose of the study was more clearly defined）
Before：
it will offer broad-scale assistance for future conservation and administration of Italian industrial history
After the modification：
it will support the sustainable development of these cultural assets by providing a more thorough and coherent understanding to facilitate effective heritage management and conservation
Response: In order to make it clearer and more convenient for other researchers to locate materials, I have provided more specific information. Details are as follows:
[8] Page 2 lines 93-93.
Before：
GDP per capita
After the modification：
In terms of gross domestic product（GDP）
[9] Page 3 lines 101-103.
Before：
the compilation of 120 industrial heritage sites was acquired from the European Route of Industrial Historic (ERIH) directory (https://www.erih.net/)
After the modification：
the compilation of 120 industrial heritage sites was obtained from the Inventory of Italian Industrial Heritage Sites (https://www.erih.net/) in the European Routes of Industrial His-tory (ERIH)
[10] Page 3 lines 104-108.
Before：
which was obtained from Google Maps (https://www.google.com/maps)
and
The map division data for Italy was obtained from the Italian Ministry of Environment and Protection of Land and Sea (Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare) (https://www.governo.it/it/ministeri)
After the modification：
which was obtained from Google Maps (https://www.google.com/maps). Subsequently, point searches were conducted on the exported map, extracting longitude and latitude values to generate the dataset
and
The cartographic data for the division of Italy's map is sourced from the Ministry of the Environment, Land and Sea Protection of Italy (Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare), which provides free map information data (https://www.governo.it/it/ministeri).
Response: We chose to exclusively utilize data from the year 2019 to ensure consistency and comparability in our study. This decision is motivated by the potential inconsistencies or challenges in obtaining data from other years due to COVID-19 restrictions. We have confidence in the reliability and accuracy of the 2019 data and believe it represents the most informative choice given the current circumstances. In future endeavors, we will contemplate incorporating data from additional years, especially as the constraints imposed by COVID-19 on data collection gradually diminish, aiming to further enrich our research. Therefore, this decision is made to provide a clearer explanation of our rationale.
[11] Page 3 lines 118-119.
Before：
we opted to focus exclusively on data from the year 2019.
After the modification：
we intentionally selected a more reliable benchmark data from the year 2019 to support the credibility and dependability of our study
Response: In the Results and Discussion section, we have incorporated official documents released by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) in 2021 to corroborate our research findings, thereby enhancing their persuasiveness. Additionally, we referenced literature published in the journal Sustainability to further support our conclusions. The inclusion of these references from the literature adds a compelling dimension to our findings.
[12] Page 20 lines 783-786.
Before：
In addition to the precise identification of Italian industrial heritage, it is necessary to increase public awareness and advocacy for industrial heritage, involving governments, civil society, and business sectors
After the modification：
In addition to the precise identification of Italian industrial heritage, it is necessary to increase public awareness and advocacy for industrial heritage, involving governments, civil society, and business sectors. In addition to the precise identification of Italian industrial heritage, it is necessary to increase public awareness and advocacy for industrial heritage, involving governments, civil society, and business sectors. This aligns with the core objectives outlined by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) during their 2021 conference, which highlights the significance of 'Mobilizing and engaging the public through policies and partnerships to promote heritage for sustainable development' (SDG 1-17)
Response: Once again, we appreciate the expert's feedback. Regarding the captions of the figures, we have made changes and additions, incorporating explanatory descriptions.
[13] Page 6 lines 222-224 and 236& Page 7 lines 246 &
Before：
Fig. 1 Schematic distribution of the number of industrial heritage sites in Italy.
Table 1. Geographical concentration index.
Fig. 2 Breakdown of the industrial heritage sites sector in Italy with kernel density analysis.
After the modification：
Fig. 1 Schematic distribution of the number of industrial heritage sites in Italy (yellow dots represent the locations of industrial heritage sites, and the blue color indicates the density proportional to frequency)."
Table 1. Geographical concentration index for Five Regions in Italy
Fig. 2 Breakdown of the industrial heritage sites sector in Italy with kernel density analysis. Different colors denote various industrial types.
Response: In revising the conclusion section, we opted for a more concise and clearer paragraph structure, discarding the use of bullet points for presentation.
[14] Page 20 lines 798 - Page 21 lines 817
Before：
To engage in meaningful discussions about historical preservation, it is essential to have a thorough comprehension of the importance of industrial heritage and to consider various issues such as sociological, economic, and environmental concerns.
RQ1: Distinct regional clustering and inequality in industrial heritage were observed in this study, with the Northwest possessing the most abundant heritage resources, fol-lowed by the Northeast, Central, Southern, and Northern Islands regions. The overall industrial heritage quantity in the North significantly surpasses that of the South and the islands.
RQ2: The research emphasized Italy's diverse industrial production history, influenced by multiple factors like geography, economics, history, policies, and transportation. Generally, cities near the northern regions, which are economically advanced, early influenced by the Industrial Revolution, and have convenient transportation, harbor more industrial heritage.
RQ3: Based on the identification and analysis of Italian industrial heritage, this study advocates for tailored strategies that strengthen public engagement, and legal protection measures, and promote tourism and cultural education, ensuring a more sustainable development for heritage
After the modification：
Facilitating informed discourse on historical preservation necessitates a profound comprehension of the significance of industrial heritage, incorporating sociological, eco-nomic, and environmental considerations.
Addressing Research Question 1 (RQ1) reveals discernible patterns of regional clustering and inequality in industrial heritage. The Northwest region emerges as the principal repository of abundant heritage resources, succeeded by the Northeast, Central, Southern, and Northern Islands regions. Significantly, the North manifests a notably higher quantity of industrial heritage in comparison to the South and the islands, indicating a regional incongruity in the distribution of these historical assets. Research Question 2 (RQ2) underscores the intricate nature of Italy's industrial production history, shaped by diverse factors encompassing geography, economics, history, policies, and transportation. Cities proximate to the economically advanced northern regions, historically influenced by the Industrial Revolution and endowed with efficient transportation networks, exhibit a heightened concentration of industrial heritage. In continuation of the identification and analysis of Italian industrial heritage, Research Question 3 (RQ3) advocates for bespoke strategies aimed at augmenting public engagement, implementing legal protective measures, and fostering tourism and cultural education. Such initiatives assume critical importance in ensuring a sustainable developmental trajectory for industrial heritage, aligning with broader objectives of heritage preservation, and cultivating cultural awareness.
Response: In the end, based on your suggestions we have added 28 new references, encompassing Italian laws and regulations, as well as documents from various fields such as transportation, geology, and economics, along with policy-related materials. These additions aim to reinforce the factor analysis of the formation of Italy's industrial heritage. Examples include
Arbia, Giuseppe, Laura De Dominicis and Henri LF De Groot. 2006. 《Spatial Distribution of Economic Activities in Local Labour Market Areas: The Case of Italy》. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/118395.
Belfanti, Carlo Marco. 1996. 《The proto-industrial heritage: forms of rural proto-industry in northern Italy in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries》. European proto-industrialization, 155–70.
Cepolina, Sara, and Hilda Ghiara. 2013. 《New trends in port strategies. Emerging role for ICT infrastructures》. Research in Transportation Business & Management 8: 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.07.001.
Epstein, Stephan R. 2000. The rise and fall of Italian city-states. 21. Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/663/.
Gerstenblith, Patty. 2016. 《The Destruction of Cultural Heritage: A Crime Against Property or a Crime Against People?》 John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law 15 (336). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2787347.
Labadi, Sophia, Francesca Giliberto, Ilaria Rosetti, Linda Shetabi and Ege Yildirim. 2021. 《Heritage and the sustainable development goals: Policy guidance for heritage and development actors》. International Journal of Heritage Studies. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/89231/1/ICOMOS_SDGs_Policy_Guidance_2021.pdf.
Missiaia, Anna. 2019. 《Market versus Endowment: Explaining Early Industrial Location in Italy (1871–1911)》. Cliometrica 13 (1): 127–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11698-018-0172-6.
Mongelli, Giovanni, Maria Boni, Roberto Buccione and Rosa Sinisi. 2014. 《Geochemistry of the Apulian karst bauxites (southern Italy): Chemical fractionation and parental affinities》. Ore Geology Reviews 63 (December): 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2014.04.012.
Nocca, Francesca. 2017. 《The role of cultural heritage in sustainable development: Multidimensional indicators as decision-making tool》. Sustainability 9 (10): 1882. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101882.
Palomba, M., G. Padalino and Marco Marchi. 2006. 《Industrial Mineral Occurrences Associated with Cenozoic Volcanic Rocks of Sardinia (Italy): Geological, Mineralogical, Geochemical Features and Genetic Implications》. Ore Geology Reviews 29 (2): 118–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2005.11.008.
Pandeli, Enrico, Giovanni Bertini, PIERO Castellucci, Marco Morelliå’ŒSimonetta Monechi. 2005. 《The sub-Ligurian and Ligurian units of the Mt. Amiata geothermal Region (South-eastern Tuscany): New stratigraphic and tectonic data and insight into their relationships with the Tuscan Nappe》. Bollettino della Società Geologica Italiana, 55–71.
Rabellotti, Roberta, Anna Carabelli and Giovanna Hirsch. 2009. 《Italian Industrial Districts on the Move: Where Are They Going?》 European Planning Studies 17 (1): 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310802513914.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes to the revised version. All changes were marked in the highlighted text. We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript and have addressed the concerns you raised. We hope that our improved manuscript now meets the standards of the journal and that those changes lead to the acceptance of the manuscript and look forward to hearing from you. Your constructive feedback has been invaluable to us, and we are confident that these enhancements have added to the scientific merit of our work.
Once again, we express our gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Please let us know if there are any additional changes or suggestions you would like us to consider.
Have a nice day!
Best regards.
Lei Sun
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have significantly enhanced the content of the paper titled "GIS-Based Analysis of The Distribution Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Industrial Heritage Sites in Italy." Consequently, I suggest that the Sustainability Editor considers publishing the paper after reviewing the authors' responses to the comments provided by other reviewers.
Author Response
Dear reviewers
Thank you for giving support to our research! Thank you for your very professional comments that have improved our article greatly! We wish you all the best in your endeavours!
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere is not a sole citation in Italian.
The authors have not included the importance of the rivers to understand the spatial distribution of the heritages
In the attached documents you will find some writing mistakes highlighted in yellow
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer! Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise and for your very professional comments! We have revised the manuscript according to your comments, and due to the excessive amount of content, we decided to upload it into the system as a PDF file! Finally, we wish you good luck in your work and have a nice day!
———————————————————————————————————
Response to the Comments of the Reviewers
Dear reviewers,
We appreciate your valuable feedback and constructive comments, which are very helpful in guiding our rework on the manuscript “Geographic Distribution Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Industrial Heritage Sites in Italy based on GIS.” In response to your suggestions, we have studied the comments carefully and made significant improvements in this manuscript that we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in this manuscript and the response to your comments are as follows:
Comment 1: The authors have not included the importance of the rivers to understand the spatial distribution of the heritages.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments! I fully agree with the insights provided by the reviewing expert. The discussion on the relationship between industrial heritage and waterways constitutes the core focus of my ongoing doctoral research. This section, serving as the foundational study for Italian industrial heritage, aids not only myself but also fellow researchers in gaining a clearer understanding of heritage. It establishes a basis for further research expansion, particularly concerning aspects involving water bodies such as rivers. Due to the complexity of the overall research framework, I have positioned this discussion within Section 4.5, dedicated to transportation factors. Here, I provide a brief overview of waterways as a mode of transportation integral to constructing industrial buildings and facilitating industrial production. This is done to underscore the significance of the connection between industrial structures and waterways. However, to maintain consistency with the structure of other sections, I refrained from delving into detailed descriptions. In the concluding outlook section of the paper, I have also included future research directions, encompassing topics that align with my current explorations.
[1] Page 17 lines 673-683 and Page 21 lines 846-848
“In the initial phases of the Industrial Revolution, rivers played a vital and central role, offering indispensable assistance for the swift advancement of specific industries located beside them. During this time, the pressing requirement to transport large amounts of raw materials and finished goods in industrial production was effectively addressed by utilizing inland canal systems. This ensured the smooth movement of goods and commodities in a manner that was both efficient and cost-effective a result, many manufacturers were attracted to the canal banks, creating a unique spatial layout of industrial architectural heritage along the waterways during this period.”
In addition, we have partially emphasized this point in our conclusions.
Moreover, this study aims to perform a thorough and focused inquiry by examining the correlation between waterways and industrial legacy, while also expanding upon a comprehensive identification of industrial heritage in Italy.
Comment 2: In the attached documents you will find some writing mistakes highlighted in yellow
Response: Thank you very much for carefully and responsibly highlighting the errors for me. I appreciate your help and suggestions. I have carefully reviewed the areas you marked and have made improvements to all of them.
[2] Page 2 lines 51-53
Before：
Industrial revolution occurred later compared to other countries
After the modification：
Diverging from the timelines of countries such as Britain, Belgium, and the Netherlands, Italy experienced the Industrial Revolution in a later stage”
[3] Page 2 lines 62
Before：
this studies
After the modification：
these studies
[4] Page 2 lines 78-80
Before：
it will offer broad-scale assistance for future conservation and administration of Italian industrial history
After the modification：
This strategy aimed to support the sustainable development of these cultural assets by providing a more thorough and coherent understanding to support effective heritage management and conservation
[5] Page 3 lines 120
Before：
2019 We
After the modification：
- We
[6] Page 4 lines 242
Before：
Lombardy
After the modification：
Lombardia
Comment 3: There is not a sole citation in Italian.
Response: Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your suggestion. based on your suggestions we have added 28 new references, encompassing Italian laws and regulations, as well as documents from various fields such as transportation, geology, and economics, along with policy-related materials. These additions aim to reinforce the factor analysis of the formation of Italy's industrial heritage. Examples include
Labour Market Areas: The Case of Italy》. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/118395.
Belfanti, Carlo Marco. 1996. 《The proto-industrial heritage: forms of rural proto-industry in northern Italy in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries》. European proto-industrialization, 155–70.
Cepolina, Sara, and Hilda Ghiara. 2013. 《New trends in port strategies. Emerging role for ICT infrastructures》. Research in Transportation Business & Management 8: 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.07.001.
Epstein, Stephan R. 2000. The rise and fall of Italian city-states. 21. Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/663/.
Gerstenblith, Patty. 2016. 《The Destruction of Cultural Heritage: A Crime Against Property or a Crime Against People?》 John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law 15 (336). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2787347.
Labadi, Sophia, Francesca Giliberto, Ilaria Rosetti, Linda Shetabi and Ege Yildirim. 2021. 《Heritage and the sustainable development goals: Policy guidance for heritage and development actors》. International Journal of Heritage Studies. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/89231/1/ICOMOS_SDGs_Policy_Guidance_2021.pdf.
Missiaia, Anna. 2019. 《Market versus Endowment: Explaining Early Industrial Location in Italy (1871–1911)》. Cliometrica 13 (1): 127–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11698-018-0172-6.
Mongelli, Giovanni, Maria Boni, Roberto Buccione and Rosa Sinisi. 2014. 《Geochemistry of the Apulian karst bauxites (southern Italy): Chemical fractionation and parental affinities》. Ore Geology Reviews 63 (December): 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2014.04.012.
Nocca, Francesca. 2017. 《The role of cultural heritage in sustainable development: Multidimensional indicators as decision-making tool》. Sustainability 9 (10): 1882. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101882.
Palomba, M., G. Padalino and Marco Marchi. 2006. 《Industrial Mineral Occurrences Associated with Cenozoic Volcanic Rocks of Sardinia (Italy): Geological, Mineralogical, Geochemical Features and Genetic Implications》. Ore Geology Reviews 29 (2): 118–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2005.11.008.
Pandeli, Enrico, Giovanni Bertini, PIERO Castellucci, Marco Morelliå’ŒSimonetta Monechi. 2005. 《The sub-Ligurian and Ligurian units of the Mt. Amiata geothermal Region (South-eastern Tuscany): New stratigraphic and tectonic data and insight into their relationships with the Tuscan Nappe》. Bollettino della Società Geologica Italiana, 55–71.
Rabellotti, Roberta, Anna Carabelli and Giovanna Hirsch. 2009. 《Italian Industrial Districts on the Move: Where Are They Going?》 European Planning Studies 17 (1): 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310802513914.
……
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes to the revised version. All changes were marked in the highlighted text. We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript and have addressed the concerns you raised. We hope that our improved manuscript now meets the standards of the journal and that those changes lead to the acceptance of the manuscript and look forward to hearing from you. Your constructive feedback has been invaluable to us, and we are confident that these enhancements have added to the scientific merit of our work.
Once again, we express our gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Please let us know if there are any additional changes or suggestions you would like us to consider.
Have a nice day!
Best regards.
Lei Sun
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease consider the corrections given in the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer! Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise and for your very professional comments! We have revised the manuscript according to your comments, and due to the excessive amount of content, we decided to upload it into the system as a PDF file! Finally, we wish you good luck in your work and have a nice day!
———————————————————————————————————
Response to the Comments of the Reviewers
Dear reviewers,
We appreciate your valuable feedback and constructive comments, which are very helpful in guiding our rework on the manuscript “Geographic Distribution Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Industrial Heritage Sites in Italy based on GIS.” In response to your suggestions, we have studied the comments carefully and made significant improvements in this manuscript that we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in this manuscript and the response to your comments are as follows:
Comment: Please consider the corrections given in the attachment.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We highly appreciate your perspective and have made modifications based on your advice. Firstly, we refined the keywords and expanded the literature by adding 28 new references. These include documents covering Italian laws and regulations, as well as materials from the fields of transportation, geology, economics, and policy, to support the analysis of factors influencing the formation of Italian industrial heritage. Subsequently, we provided an explanation for GDP, as per your suggestion, modifying it to "In terms of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita," and emphasized the reliability and accuracy of the data. Finally, in the "Results and Discussion" section, we introduced official documents released by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) in 2021 to validate our research findings, further enhancing the persuasiveness of the study. Additionally, we referenced literature published in the journal "Sustainability" to comprehensively support our conclusions. These added references contribute a more compelling foundation to our research results. The specific details are as follows:
[1] Page 1 lines 22-25
Before the Keywords：
Heritage Conservation; Industrial Heritage; Influencing Factors; Italy; Spatial Distribution Characteristics
After the modification：
Industrial Heritageï¼›Geographic Information Systemï¼›Influencing Factorï¼›Spatial Distributionï¼›Sustainable Heritage Management
[2] Page 1 lines 93-93.
Before：
GDP per capita
After the modification：
In terms of gross domestic product（GDP）
Reply: Thank you for the reviewing expert's questions regarding the data section. We chose to exclusively use data from 2019 to ensure the consistency and comparability of our study. The constraints imposed by COVID-19 may result in inconsistent or challenging data collection for other years. We have confidence in the reliability and accuracy of the 2019 data and believe it is the most valuable choice under the current circumstances. Therefore, we opted for the 2019 data.
[3] Page 3 lines 118-119.
Before：
we opted to focus exclusively on data from the year 2019.
After the modification：
we intentionally selected a more reliable benchmark data from the year 2019 to support the credibility and dependability of our study
[4] Page 20 lines 783-786. （Results and Discussion）
Before：
In addition to the precise identification of Italian industrial heritage, it is necessary to increase public awareness and advocacy for industrial heritage, involving governments, civil society, and business sectors
After the modification：
In addition to the precise identification of Italian industrial heritage, it is necessary to increase public awareness and advocacy for industrial heritage, involving governments, civil society, and business sectors. In addition to the precise identification of Italian industrial heritage, it is necessary to increase public awareness and advocacy for industrial heritage, involving governments, civil society, and business sectors. This aligns with the core objectives outlined by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) during their 2021 conference, which highlights the significance of 'Mobilizing and engaging the public through policies and partnerships to promote heritage for sustainable development' (SDG 1-17)
And we added reference [76]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript (sustainability-2773567) has seen improvements; however, they were not sufficient for consideration for publication. The introduction section still needs to define the main terms used. The section called "2. Research Materials and Methods" is confusing, lacking descriptions and proper references to the proposed and used method. For "3. Spatial Structure Analysis" section, it seems out of place in the work. While it is neither material and methods nor a results and discussion section, even though it contains all these elements (including references), it is misplaced. The results and discussion section, which is unique, does not have standardized references, lacks references to the table or figure the authors are mentioning (even though they have described percentage values). The conclusions section remains inadequate. This section is as extensive as the results and discussion section itself and is definitely not suitable for a scientific manuscript. The authors do have interesting data, but the way it has been demonstrated in the figures and tables (which are both confusing), is not appropriate and needs to be revised. The captions have been improved, but the authors still do not describe them accurately. For example, the sample number?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageExtensive editing of English language required
Author Response
Response to the Comments of the Reviewers
Dear reviewers,
We appreciate your valuable feedback and constructive comments, which are very helpful in guiding our rework on the manuscript “Geographic Distribution Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Industrial Heritage Sites in Italy based on GIS.” In response to your suggestions, we have studied the comments carefully and made significant improvements to this manuscript that we hope will meet with approval. The main corrections in this manuscript and the response to your comments are as follows:
[1] Reviewer “The introduction section still needs to define the main terms used.”
Page 1 lines 26; Page 3 lines 130.
Response: Thank you very much for the valuable feedback provided by the reviewer. We greatly appreciate your insights. In response to your suggestion, we have made significant revisions to the introduction section of the manuscript. Specifically, we have provided clearer definitions for the main terms and incorporated citations from authoritative documents and articles to support our explanations. Please refer to the revised introduction section for further details on the modifications made.
[2] Reviewer “The section called "2. Research Materials and Methods" is confusing, lacking descriptions and proper references to the proposed and used method.”
Page 3 lines 129; Page 4 lines 161; Page 4 line 162; Page 6 lines 230
Response: Thank you very much for the valuable feedback provided by the reviewer. Firstly, we have added detailed descriptions of the specific operational methods employed in our study (P3 lines 139–P4 lines), supplemented with explanatory figures and tables (e.g., Figure 1), to facilitate readers' understanding and reference. Secondly, we have included additional references to substantiate the validity and feasibility of our methods, including references to the roles and operational procedures of each model presented (references 33–44).
[3] Reviewer "For the "3. Spatial Structure Analysis" section, it seems out of place in the work. While it is neither material and methods nor a results and discussion section, even though it contains all these elements (including references), it is misplaced.”
Page 6 lines 232; Page 7 lines 293
Response: We greatly agree with the reviewer's perspective, and as such, we have made significant adjustments to this section based on the feedback provided. We have removed tables and irrelevant text that did not align with the overall structure of the paper, and we have reorganized the content to ensure clarity and conciseness. Please refer to Section 3 of the revised manuscript for specific details on the modifications made.
[4] Reviewer “The results and discussion section, which is unique, does not have standardized references and lacks references to the table or figure the authors are mentioning (even though they have described percentage values).”
Page 18 lines 720; Page 20 lines 828
Response: We have revised the section previously labeled "Results and Discussion" to simply "Discussion" in accordance with the structure of the paper. Additionally, we have reorganized the content and incorporated a significant number of authoritative research references. Furthermore, we have reviewed and provided references to the figures in the manuscript to support our discussion points. Please refer to Section 5 of the revised manuscript for detailed information regarding these changes.
[5] Reviewer “The conclusions section remains inadequate. This section is as extensive as the results and discussion section itself and is definitely not suitable for a scientific manuscript.”
Page 20 lines 831; Page 21 lines 862
Response: Once again, we extend our gratitude for the guidance provided by the expert reviewer. In response to the feedback, we have rewritten the conclusion section of the manuscript. We have employed a more scientific approach to convey the key findings of the paper succinctly and directly, avoiding excessive elaboration. This approach aims to ensure that readers can readily and clearly understand the conclusions drawn from the study.
[6] Reviewer “The authors do have interesting data, but the way it has been demonstrated in the figures and tables (which are both confusing) is not appropriate and needs to be revised.”
Page 11 lines 440, Page 13 lines 513, Page 14 lines 568, Page 16 lines 643, &Page 18 lines 716
Response: We have reprocessed the figures and tables in the manuscript to accurately and clearly represent the content conveyed in the paper. The revised figures and tables, labeled Figures 3–7, aim to address the reviewer's concerns and ensure better clarity and precision in presenting the data.
[7] Reviewer “The captions have been improved, but the authors still do not describe them accurately. For example, the sample number?”
Page 4 lines: 160-161; Page 8 lines: 296-299; Page 11 lines: 440-442; Page 13 lines: 514-517; Page 14 lines: 569-571; Page 16 lines: 644-646; &Page 18 lines: 717-719
Response: We appreciate the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewer. In response, we have meticulously revised the captions of all figures in the manuscript to provide clear and accurate descriptions of their content. For example, Figure 2 now includes the following explanation: "shows a map of the kernel density analysis of Italian industrial heritage and the distribution of each specific industrial type. The different gray blocks represent the nuclear density classes. Orange dots represent manufacturing, purple dots mining and quarrying, yellow dots transportation, blue dots educational activities, pink dots energy supply, and green dots construction." We believe these enhancements will improve the clarity and accuracy of the figures for readers.
[8] Response: In addition, we have significantly revised and re-coloured the English of the paper to improve its readability.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes to the revised version. All changes were marked in the highlighted text. We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript and have addressed the concerns you raised. We hope that our improved manuscript now meets the standards of the journal and that those changes lead to its acceptance. We look forward to hearing from you. Your constructive feedback has been invaluable to us, and we are confident that these enhancements have added to the scientific merit of our work.
Once again, we express our gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Please let us know if there are any additional changes or suggestions you would like us to consider.
Have a nice day!
Best regards.
Lei Sun
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate english in required.
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
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript (sustainability-2686764) examines the distribution and factors affecting industrial heritage sites in Italy by analysing 120 sites from the European Route of Industrial Heritage using GIS technology. The results show that northern Italy has a higher concentration of these sites compared to the south because of its proximity to other countries, historical events, and early industrialisation processes. The relationship between industrial production and economic development is also highlighted, with areas of higher economic levels showing more industrial activity. The preservation of these sites was influenced by legal measures, cultural funding, and transportation networks. This study offers insights into Italy's industrial heritage distribution, aiding further studies in this area.
The authors must strictly follow the instructions available on the website. The formation and configuration must be reformed. The first sentence of the abstract must present the introduction and not what has been done. Abstract should be rewritten.
Keywords in alphabetic order
Introduction: The introduction provides comprehensive insight into the concept of industrial heritage, emphasising its emergence and recognition across various countries. However, the introduction could benefit from more direct statements on the gaps in existing research that this study aims to address and the potential implications of the findings for policy-making and heritage management.
How does the lack of a comprehensive macrolevel analysis impact the preservation and valorisation of industrial heritage in Italy, and what specific insights is this study aimed at addressing this gap?
Industrial Heritage and Economic Growth: How is industrial heritage in Italy correlated with the country's regional economic growth, and what role does the preservation of these sites play in addressing the persistent North‒South economic divide?
Comparison with Early Industrialised Countries: Considering that countries such as the UK and Germany have been at the forefront of industrial heritage preservation, what unique challenges and opportunities do Italy face given its later industrialisation, and how can this study’s findings inform future preservation and management strategies in a global context?
Changes in Materials and Methods in Topic 2: The Research Methods section is consistent. It provides detailed descriptions of the methods used to analyse the spatial distribution and concentration of industrial heritage sites in Italy. Each method is explained using the formulas included, and their purposes are clearly defined.
Data Relevance and Timeliness: Given that some of the data, such as per capita GDP data, are from 2018, and others, such as elevation and population data, are from 2023, how might the difference in years impact the accuracy and relevance of the study's findings?
Application of the Research Methods: How do the nearest neighbor analysis, imbalance index, kernel density estimation, and geographical concentration index collectively contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the distribution and concentration of industrial heritage sites in Italy, and the specific insights offered by each method?
In the Results section, figures and tables should be indicated for the correct direction and support of the data. All captions in the tables and figures have to be rewritten. When rewriting, indicate all the elements that are present in a way that presents the idea to the reader without needing to return to the text. In addition, letters (a), (b), and (c) should be described.
The authors' results have been described in detail. They should be summarised and directed. Do not use adjectives, as scientific language should be objective, direct, or impersonal.
However, this discussion is inadequate. However, there are no relevant bibliographic references. Moreover, it does not focus on the work presented in the previous sections. Were these objectives achieved? What were the advances in relation to other studies in this same line of research?
The conclusions are also inadequate. They should be summarised to represent what was achieved, as well as the advances and future perspectives. What are the limitations of this study? How does your work contribute to society?
References should be checked for formatting, accuracy, and updates to more recent sources.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageCheck grammar and spelling, especially in lengthy paragraphs.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author's work (GIS-Based Analysis of The Distribution Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Industrial Heritage Sites in Italy) generally represents a good contribution to the field of study. Nevertheless, specific corrections and clarifications must be addressed before the manuscript can be deemed suitable for publication. Certain sections would benefit from additional information to support the author's claims and strengthen the research findings. There are areas where further clarification is needed to enhance the reader's understanding. Below are my comments and questions.
I'm looking forward to receiving your clarifications and explanations, which I suggest you incorporate into the relevant sections of your manuscript.
In the abstract, the following points need to be discussed and included.
1. Clearly state the research objectives and scope of the study.
2. What GIS technology and tools were used in the analysis, and were they appropriate for this research?
3. Were the spatial relationships between heritage sites and their locations effectively analyzed?
4. How did the study account for factors such as population, elevation, appearance year, production types, accessibility, and economic indicators in the analysis?
5. What is your overall impression of the study, and do you believe it provides valuable insights into the distribution and influencing factors of Italy's industrial heritage?
In 2.2 Research Methods the following points need to be discussed and included
1. Explain how Nearest Neighbor Analysis align with the research objectives and the exploration of industrial heritage site distribution in Italy?
2. Highlight the advantages of Nearest Neighbor Analysis over alternative methods for analyzing spatial distribution?
3. What is the specific purpose of introducing the Imbalance Index in addition to the Nearest Neighbor Index for measuring the spatial distribution of industrial heritage sites in Italy?
4. What is the primary purpose of using Kernel Density Estimation in the study, and how does it contribute to the analysis of industrial heritage site distribution?
In 3. Analysis of Spatial Structure Characteristics the following points need to be discussed and included
1. When concluding that the distribution is "aggregated," what specific patterns or characteristics were observed in the spatial distribution?
2. How does the Lorenz curve analysis help assess the distribution of industrial heritage sites across regions, and what do the results from this analysis reveal about the distribution pattern?
3. What reasons contribute to the uneven distribution of industrial heritage sites in Italy, even if briefly, as a precursor to the forthcoming section on influencing factors?
4. What specific elements or remnants are included in the definition of industrial heritage, as stated in "The Nizhny Tagil Charter"? How comprehensive is this definition?
5. Which industry sectors are most represented among the industrial heritage sites in Italy, and how many sites are associated with each sector?
6. How are the industries classified based on "The Nizhny Tagil Charter" and the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC)? Can you provide more details on the classification criteria?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Several English corrections need to be considered by the authors to improve the quality of the paper.
In the abstract, you can rewrite your sentences as mentioned below to enhance the clarity.
1. Replace "Northern Italy exhibits a higher industrial heritage concentration than the southern regions and islands" with "Northern Italy has a higher concentration of industrial heritage than the southern regions and islands."
2. Instead of "The preservation and distribution of industrial heritage sites benefit from legal constraints and cultural funding," consider "Legal constraints and cultural funding play a vital role in preserving and distributing industrial heritage sites."
3. Change "population, elevation, appearance year, production types, accessibility, and economic indicators" to "population, elevation, year of appearance, production types, accessibility, and economic indicators."
4. Instead of "This distribution pattern is attributed to the proximity of the northern regions to neighboring countries," use "This distribution pattern is attributed to the proximity of the northern regions to neighboring countries."
5. Instead of "this scientific research," use "this scientific study" or "this research."
In the introduction, you can rewrite your sentences as mentioned below to enhance the clarity.
Instead of "industrial heritage represents a unique form of heritage resulting from the abandonment of certain objects during the process of industrialization," you can say, "Industrial heritage is a distinct form of heritage that results from the preservation of objects abandoned during industrialization."
Instead of "According to the International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage's 'Dublin Principles', industrial heritage encompasses...," consider "According to the 'Dublin Principles' by the International Committee for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage, industrial heritage includes..."
Instead of "Many countries recognize significant industrial remains as heritage sites," you can say, "Many countries acknowledge the importance of preserving significant industrial remnants as heritage sites."
Instead of "Although Italy had a later start to its industrial revolution compared to Western European countries, its unique historical environment and abundant heritage resources warrant in-depth exploration," consider "Despite Italy's later start in its industrial revolution compared to Western European countries, its unique historical environment and abundant heritage resources warrant in-depth exploration."
Instead of "the distribution and variations of industrial heritage across different regions of Italy," you can say "the distribution and variations of industrial heritage across Italy's regions."
Introduce a transitional phrase like "To address these issues," before discussing how the analysis of industrial heritage distribution can facilitate understanding local factors.
