Mining Heritage and Mining Landscape Krušnohoří/Erzgebirge as a Part of the UNESCO Heritage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper discusses some critical questions related to the mining heritage on the example of an interesting regional case and definitely, is of interest to the specialists in the interdisciplinary realm, including cultural geography, tourism and heritage studies, and others. It is exciting, and I would like to see it published at some point shortly. 

 

Nevertheless, I think the author should consider some revisions. From my standpoint, the key concern here is the methods/methodology and data. I want to raise some critical points about justifying the study's method(s) and data because I failed to get the crucial scientific side of this work. There are also some other elements that the author must consider to make the paper more appropriate for the international reader. 

First of all, there is no section related to the methodology as it spreads around the text in various segments. As I can see, we can find the aspects related to the methods in sections 4 and 5 (from line 290 to line 387), with some exceptions for the "Results" section where the methodological elements are mixed/overlapped with some results of the study. A special section (Methods and Data, or Methodology, or something like that) should be added where the author must provide these points. 

Secondly, I could not get the study's research goals or objectives/questions. Everything looks very general/descriptive in the introductory segments. The author must precisely set the aim(s)/research questions/objectives in the text, probably, in the new methodology section or the introductory segment.

Thirdly, three assumptions that the author describes in the results (section 5) should be included in the methodological section and thoroughly explained. For instance, why did you choose them? What kind of issues do they cover? How can you connect them to the goals of your work?

Fourth, it seems an unacceptable situation with the research data collection and explanation. The author mentioned, "qualitative research" and "semi-structured interviews" on "three levels" (lines 290- 291) and the number of interviews (line 309). What about the length of the interviews? What kind of interviews did the author have (online, in-person, etc.)? Did the author tape and coded them? What kind of questions did the author have for each group of authors? Or maybe there were identical/similar questions? How did they connect to the research goals/objectives? I could not get it from the manuscript. All these points should be described in detail in the new data and methodology segment.

Next, for the international reader, it is tough to get the region's location though we can see a point about the Ore Mountains (lines 257 - 259). Also, in the text, we have Krušnohoří/Erzgebirge (many spots) or Jáchymov (e.g., line 279), which is only creating difficulties for the readers in spatial appreciation of the area. So, it is crucial to get an area map with a general locational description in one paragraph. 

Finally, I wouldn't say I like the conclusion. It is very general with a lot of information that can be omitted (e.g., the final paragraph with tons of unimportant questions - they can be simply transformed into the goals for the future research, which is logical). Thus, "Conclusion" should be rewritten into a more concise and incisive format. 

As a technical issue (not really destructive or fundamental, but which should be addressed) - some English polishing is required for the text. 

To conclude, I suggest that the author first focus on methods and data and include some other technical recommendations. I hope these points will improve the quality of this potentially very promising work. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for the review. Based on your comments, the article has been modified.
First, a new chapter on data and methods has been added, in which the research is described in more detail. Other partial information was also added (length of research, form, approach to questions, etc.).
The initial hypotheses that were annotated were also presented.

A region delimitation map has also been added.
The conclusion has been modified and shortened.

Reviewer 2 Report

Brief summary

Brief summary

 

The article focuses the terms of discussion on cultural heritage, specifically oriented to the mining heritage of the Ore Mountains where long traditional mining activities have had the place since prehistoric ages.

 

Starting from the abstract, the author proposes a division into two parts: a theoretical section on heritage and landscape as part of the cultural identity of peoples and communities; and an on-field application on mining heritage in the Jáchymov region (CZ).

General comments

The article needs an in-depth review because many weaknesses can be found:

1. introduction declares the relevance of multidisciplinar heritage and landscape studies as mandatory, but it mainly focuses on geography studies. In addition, the author declares many interesting and shareable concepts but hardly any reference supports declarations.

2. the references seem not quite sufficient, both in supporting the multidisciplinarity and in describing the landscape as a multifaceted concept. One for all: why does not the author refer to the European Landscape Convention? we know it is a reference point, not only in CoE policies, despite being a European-level and not an UN-level document.

3. Among others, referencing the European Landscape Convention would support the architectonic and urban aspects of heritage and landscape.

4. About the on-field survey, I guess a more specific description of the method, the question list, the method of delivery (face to face, online, or at home, etc.), and the statistical sample, if any, is needed.

5. Conclusions are not coherently derived from surveys and results. In particular, we can't understand in what way the statements from line no 522 to the end are supported. Are they only a coram-populo opinions or are they the results of the research path? Please, could the author clarify it?

 

Specific comments

As a consequence of my general comments, I guess the reader needs:

- figures, tables about the survey;

- a map to understand where is located the specific study area, 

- a map of the location and distribution of other UNESCO WH mining sites;

- a clearer description of the results. Paragraph no5 is actually difficult to be understood (maybe for the formatting aspects too).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for the review. Based on your comments, the article has been modified.
First, a new chapter on data and methods has been added, in which the research is described in more detail.
A region delimitation map has also been added.
A discussion chapter has also been added, in which the conclusions are further elaborated.
As for the European Landscape Convention, it would certainly be possible to include it in the article, but given that it is a topic that is generally global, after careful consideration, the convention was not included in the end. This is partly due to the fact that the article would be extended by other sources (some of the other reviewers, on the other hand, wrote that the theoretical part is too long).

Reviewer 3 Report

The article claims to deal with the perception and management of the mining heritage and landscapes from the perspective of individual stakeholders, entities and interest groups based on the case study of the Mining Cultural Landscape of the Krušnohoří / Erzgebirge. Mining heritage is an interesting topic. Some shortages of the article, however are presented below:

- the first 2 chapters of the article are unnecessary; they are accurate but have little to do with the main topic of the article (mining heritage). Especially the Introduction seems like a literary essay and is not prepared in line with needs of a scientific article - just a reminder: Introduction should offer readers an understanding of why you decided to do this research and with what specific goals; therefore, it offers essential information about why the study was conducted and puts forward the research questions (you put your assumptions in the Results section, they should be moved here!). The Introduction has a shape of a funnel: the broadest part (beginning) is the research topic; then it narrows according to contextual information; and ends with a specific rationale for your research study which implies a goal and purpose.

- Materials and methods - this section is missing; it is summarized in the lines 290-307 but should be presented separately, before the Results section. The Methods section should explain which methods have been applied as to be able to reply to the previously set research questions. Therefore, in this section you should explain the research design (e.g. case study, interview, longitudinal research, etc.), circumstances (location) and respondents (Where and when was the survey conducted? How were the respondents selected? What criteria? Sample size?), data collection (How did you collect data? What was measured and when? Existing measurement instrument or specifically designed for this research?), and data analysis (link with research questions! Explain why you used these methods - don't expect readers to know this method)

- Results - the introduction to this section is overlapping with the Methods section and should be transferred there. You only present summaries of your results responding to your assumptions; this section should offer a clear, concise and objective description of the findings of your study - you may see it as a "mirror" for the Methods section: for each method you used, you should present the corresponding findings.

- Discussion - this section is also missing. Part of it is presented in the Results section and part in the Conclusion. This section should present a summary of the main findings put into the context by comparing them with previous research and discussing their implications for the future; also possible shortcomings in research design are presented here. You should re-write this section by putting together some of the text from the Results section as well as Conclusion. Then Conclusion is unnecessary and you may end with the Discussion section.

General suggestion: you claim that the very goal of the research is to provide "a unique insight into the thinking and perception of individual actors in three time periods that are not distant from each other. It captures the opinions of respondents before the actual inscription of the Mining Cultural Landscape of the Krušnohoří/Erzgebirge on the UNESCO World Heritage List (2017–2018), just after its implementation (2019) and then one year later (2020) " - OK, but what did you want to achieve with these opinions and perceptions? It is just the fact that you gathered their opinions in the longitudinal perspective but what were you hoping to deduct from it? (some changes? related to which factors?) - this needs to be expressed by the research questions (or assumptions as you put it), because gathering opinions as they are is not a proper research, it is more of a report.

Therefore, I think this article has a potential but you should make an effort to re-write it and try to explain it more clearly. Please see it as a constructive criticism as only in this way you may add your own contribution to science.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for the review. Based on your comments, the article has been modified.
First, a new chapter on data and methods has been added, in which the research is described in more detail.
A region delimitation map has also been added.
A discussion chapter has also been added, in which the conclusions are further elaborated.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors substantially modified the article's structure and included several crucial components, including the key "Data and methods" section. The authors thoroughly explained all elements required for the data collection and methodology. The map is a good visual addition to the work. Consequently, the article obtains the format of the academic publication. Despite some possible minor details that might be improved (personally, I am still not impressed by the conclusion), the article can be accepted and published. I wish authors all the best in their endeavors. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for the review. The conclusion of the article was slightly modified. Thank you for your cooperation. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

I really appreciate your reactions to my short report.

I think that now the methodological framework is better described and conclusions are more consistent with the research activities.

I would underline that European Landscape Convention (ELC) can't be dropped out from the intro and "heritage research" paragraph. The citation rationale could be that the ELC describes some aspects, but today research needs to embrace more and more points of view on this question. In other terms, ELC is an evolution of the 1972 UNESCO statement that you cite on lines 129-131 that researchers need to develop and deepen. This is the reason for the present research. And so on.

 

Thank you so much for your work and reflection on the cultural landscape which is one of my favorite topics in research!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for the review, I agree with you and information about the European Landscape Convention has been added to the first part of the article. 

Thank you for your cooperation. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The author improved the paper. The Discussion is normally put in relation to the theory, which is here not the case. Language editing is required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for the review. The article text was submitted to language proofreading.

Thank you for your cooperation.