Historical Insights into Sustainable Development: Analyzing the Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Ancient Trade and Settlements

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your very interesting manuscript.  My specific comments are below:

The abstract for this work is very clear, and gives a succinct and comprehensive overview of the study.

The introduction is very well written, and introduces the background to the research well for a non-specialist audience, as well as containing sufficient references to set the study within its specialist context.

Line 55 – ‘signaling a deep dive’ is a strange phrase that doesn’t seem to work here.  Could you please re-phrase this?

Study area – this section is not referenced.  I suggest adding some supporting references which will firstly increase the rigor of the section, but secondly provide a guide for readers who may want to develop their knowledge of this region.

Can you please look at the resolution of Figure 1? It is difficult to read the text in the legend key.

Data Source and Methodology

I would suggest calling this section, more simply, methods.  Then, the first section could be sub-titled ‘data-source’.  This would just make the overall purpose of the section more clear to the reader.

I would then reverse the orders of sections 3.1 & 3.2, so that the overall methodology is presented first.

In section 3.2, I recommend adding n some sources to that support your methodological approach.  Have any other studies used similar, or related methods, for example? Explaining the approach you have taken to mixed methods research (e.g. sequence, predominance) would also be helpful for your readers.

Section 4 should be titled ‘findings’, with each section of the findings then sub-titled’, again to make the purpose of this section more clear for your readers.

Within section 4, your findings are presented clearly and the maps that you have included help you to explain your findings. 

In section 5, discussions of your findings should come before the conclusions of your paper.

In section 5.2, it would be useful if you could specifically identify some other settings that your approach could be used to analyse.  Highlighting the potential merits of your approach for understanding the development of regions/routes outside of China would help your work to reach a wider audience and to have greater impact.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study provides a detailed exposition of the development of the Ancient Tea Horse Road in Dali and its surrounding settlements. However, the research questions and objectives in the article are not clear, and there is insufficient correlation between the discussion and the conclusions. It is necessary to elevate the research objectives and conclusions from the Ancient Tea Horse Road and historical settlements in Dali to a more universal perspective to demonstrate the academic contribution of the article in the relevant research field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read the article “Historical Insights into Sustainable Development: Analyzing the Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Ancient Trade and Settlements” with great interest. The topic addressed is very interesting. However, upon reviewing the current version of the manuscript, please take note of the following:

1.      The references throughout the text do not follow the journal's norms. They should be numbered and not the names of the authors.

2.      Introduction: at the end of this section objectives/purpose should be clearly stated as well as the research questions or starting questions.

3.      Literature Review: there is a lack of a dedicated Literature Review section. The article does not present a proper theoretical foundation to frame the study. The thematic should be more thoroughly explored.

4.      Study area: all the information presented in this section has no author?

5.      Line 308 the final dot is missing.

6.      The figures should be better centered.

7.      Discussion: this section is fragile and should be improved.

8.      References: should be improved and reviewed according to the rules.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for their work in revising the article, which has meant a substantial improvement.

They have responded to the points raised, so I think it can go ahead for publication.