Resilience of Terraced Landscapes to Human and Natural Impacts: A GIS-Based Reconstruction of Land Use Evolution in a Mediterranean Mountain Valley

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present an interesting study of Mediterranean terraced landscapes to analyze the resilience of this human heritage rich in ecosystem services. Focusing on a valley located between France and Italy (Roya Valley), the authors reconstruct the terrace evolution landscape during the last centuries.

Using various cartographic and satellite sources, treated with GIS, the authors are able to determine the terraces and the land use since 1680. A very good project that evaluates the Mediterranean terraces that today are still alive and produce a lot of ecosystem services. At the same time, the information provided encourages for an effort in order to preserve and improve the existing ones.

The research is well done, the methodology fits perfectly with the objectives pursued and the results obtained are correct and encompass the proposed objectives.

From my point of view, the manuscript is ready for publication in Land Journal, but I'd like to make some minor recommendations regarding the figures and point out some small mistakes.

1. Sometimes you put a link for reference to some study (like lines 47, 68, 132, 162....). I'm not sure if you're trying to follow journal guidelines, but it would be better to put a number and the link in the references section. Please check this.

2. Regarding the figures, I think figure 1 (location map) could be improved. Just a small map of the border region of France and Italy with the Roya Valley drawn would put the reader in the right place. Then the map of the valley would be well contoured and perhaps it is not necessary to draw the temporary evolution of the region (France from 1860 and from 1947). For me, it is enough to know the current border and, if possible, the coastline (and a little bit of sea) to interpret the whole basin.

Figure 2 is well done but, another time, the coastline (and a little bit of sea) would be welcome; and the rests of the map in grey not in blue.

It's all, congratulations for the research carried out, I have enjoyed reading the manuscript that I'm sure will become a paper in Land very soon.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article investigates the resilience of terraced landscapes to human and natural impact.. The study reconstructs land-use evolution over the past 500 years in a Mediterranean valley using GIS. Given the ongoing climate change and increasing human pressure on the territory, this research is timely and of high relevance. The article's strength lies in the unique long-term (500 years) land-use dataset collected for the study area. However, the article has several shortcomings, both in terms of technicalities and content.

In the introduction, the aim of the study is not clearly stated.

Figures 1 and 2 have very poor resolution. Please improve the quality of the figures. Also, the font size of the captions should be increased – it is currently unreadable. In Figure 1, the choice of color for the river basin is unfortunate – all other units also have a grey outline, so the catchment does not stand out from the other polygons.

Section 2 "Material" should be renamed to "Materials and Methods". The material in the subsections of this section is very poorly structured. It is very difficult to extract the methodology of the study from the descriptions of the problems encountered in finding information.

Line 338. There is a reference to Figure 3. First, this reference is out of order. Second, Figure 3 shows different information.

Subsection 3.2. The choice of references is very strange: "(Table 3, Abandonment [6])". Does it mean that some items are taken from source 6? Or is the whole table taken from this source? What is the meaning of the italicized terms that are formatted as references to literature?

Line 482. Incorrect subsection numbering.

Tables 1-3 in the appendix lack units. They should be added. Table 4 is a collection of figures. They should be formatted as figures, not as a table.

The authors have done a tremendous amount of research, but they have presented it very poorly. The text is very difficult to read and poorly structured. This may be because the article lacks a clear aim and research questions, so it is unclear to the reader what the focus of the study is. The highlighted trajectories (such as Continuity, Renaissance, etc.) just appear in the middle of the text without any explanation or lead-in. Yet they are an important finding of the research. The conclusions do not provide any concrete conclusions of the study.

Therefore, it must be concluded that the material needs to be thoroughly revised. The article may be reconsidered for publication after significant revisions have been made. I would like to emphasize that the research conducted has important scientific value. Therefore, I strongly recommend improving the quality of the presentation of the material.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you very much for the opportunity to read this text. It is extremely interesting to me as a landscape architect. However, it offers so much information that the text is difficult to read at times. Nevertheless, I have a few comments that I would like to share with the authors. Please note any errors in the authors' affiliation and the number of authors. 

Detailed comments:

1. The introduction is well written. The authors showed the role of terraces and then presented problems related to their inventory. I believe that the aims and hypotheses should be more emphasized in this part of the work. Minor errors: line 74, 102 (brackets). 

2. Material and methods

(no "dot" needed before the chapter name)

The description of the research site is very extensive. Meanwhile, I do not find information about the area of the valley, but there is information twice about a storm that took place in 2020 [line 126, 185]. I kindly ask you to sort out the description. I don't think it's appropriate to write in a scientific article in the style of fiction "let's start by tracing its moving history” (line 127)

Next, the authors present work related to mapping terraces and mapping land use changes. The procedure for using these materials is described very thoroughly and does not raise any doubts

I believe that the description of data analysis should be shortened and related to the previous chapters. In chapter 2.2. information about the maps was presented, so it was enough to add the periods studied using them.

3. Results

I believe that the tables should also include information on changes in the way of use - how much a given phenomenon has increased/decreased. Then everything would be much more transparent

4. The discussion is very well conducted. The summary is also appropriate. A limitaton chapter would be useful. 

And the main problem I have is the scale of impact of this article. The analyzes carried out are of a local nature, and in fact it is difficult to apply the procedure to areas in other countries

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form