University Students’ Perception of the Dehesa and the Associated Traditional Trades

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article deals with the interesting and important topic of the protection of the traditional cultural landscape in the area of Spanish Extremadura from the point of view of the young generation, who today can hardly imagine what processes and for what reasons this landscape was created, why it looks like this and what is on it valuable.

In the introduction, the selected cultural landscape, called "dehesa," is characterized, and the context of its creation is presented. Furthermore, the research hypotheses of the article and their placement in the theory are presented. The text is based on several quotations and is well supported by arguments.

The methodology of the article is correctly designed and uses standard methods of social research. Qualitative and quantitative methods were combined during the study, the results of which are clearly presented in the following chapter. This is followed by a relatively extensive discussion of the results and a clear summary of the leading research results in the Conclusion.

In terms of content, I consider the article to be well written, I recommend certain modifications in terms of formality:

Spanish is used in Figure 4. Although the results are commented in the text, it would be better to use the English translation even in the presented word clouds.

In Figure 5, Spanish is again used; the labels are too small and, therefore, difficult to read. I recommend translating it into English and adjusting the size of the text.

In-text citations use superscripts, although this is against MDPI publishing standard formatting.

On line 636, there is a typographical error before the quotations, as well as on line 644, where the text is crossed out.

After correcting the formal errors mentioned above, I consider the article worthy of publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, first of all, thank you for your positive assessment of our work. It is very important for us to continue in this direction. We have tried to include all your suggestions in the new version of the article.

In this case, Figures 4 and 5 have been modified and refined, and the language has also been changed. In addition, the typographical errors you mentioned have been corrected.

We hope that the new version will be finally accepted. Once again, we thank you very much for your work on this paper

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I enjoyed reading your research as it presents a concrete situation of the knowledge and appreciation of university students with respect to the dehesa and the ancestral practice of grazing.

1. The introduction is well structured, it specify the relevance of the problem to be researched, the current state of research, the main research objective and the other specific objectives.

2. Materials and methods

In my opinion, a subsection should be introduced that contains the hypotheses that the authors test and that they mentioned in the results chapter (e.g. at line 430 the authors mentioned “…in most cases the null hypothesis is accepted, i.e., the independence of the variables is admitted”; line 440 “to reject the null hypothesis” etc.).

3. Results

The presented research results are transparent but the method of presenting the results is not exactly adequate. For example, tables 2 and 3 contain “option 1-5” that are not explained.

Figure 5. Most practiced educational activities - must be redone and written in English.

4. Discussion

The discussion of the research results and the adopted assumptions is accurate, deepened and complements the research results.

There was also no information on who the research results are addressed, for whom they may be useful and to what extent. How research results can influence various decision-making processes (in the form of conclusions).

The list of references contains 108 references, including a large collection of current publications.

I would kindly ask for the improvements!

I wish the authors much success in their further scientific work!

Author Response

Dear reviewer, first of all, thank you for your positive assessment of our work. It is very important for us to continue in this direction. We have tried to include all your suggestions in the new version of the article.

In this case, the null hypotheses considered in this study and tested by Chi-square analyses have been specified. In addition, figure 5 has been modified.

In relation to clarifying how the results of the research can influence various decision-making processes, some examples are mentioned in the discussion: between lines 646-649 (need to promote greater dissemination of the multifunctional nature of the dehesa), 669- 672 (need to promote experiences that allow contact with intangible heritage, applied to different educational levels and involving actors from formal, non-formal and informal environments), 709-720 (examples of future proposals identified to reverse the crisis situation of traditional trades).

In addition, between lines 721-737 it is specified that this research should be taken into account in order to modify the decision-making process in relation to the design and creation of educational tourism products. Furthermore, it also influences the decision-making process in the educational field, as it aims to provide guidelines for adapting teaching strategies and activities to the level of knowledge and experiences observed among students.

We hope that the new version will be finally accepted. Once again, we thank you very much for your work on this paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript submitted for review concerns the issue of university students' perception of the dehesa and the associated traditional trades. This topic is part of the topic covered by the section and the special issue of the magazine. the topic is interesting and worth presenting to a wider audience. It is clear that the topic has been thoroughly researched and the manuscript has been well thought out, planned and executed. However, it requires some corrections before publication. Abstract - it is too general. There are general statements such as various quantitative and qualitative analyses. Please include the most important ones. Even though 24 students come from... - what percentage is that? The most important conclusions and application of the obtained results are missing. What are the plans for the future? What further research?

Fig. 5 is practically illegible - the font used is too small.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, first of all, thank you for your positive assessment of our work. It is very important for us to continue in this direction. We have tried to include all your suggestions in the new version of the article.

The abstract has been modified and expanded, considering that the word limit requested for it does not allow for an in-depth analysis of all the aspects indicated. However, those considered most relevant have been clarified. Other issues such as future plans and further research are considered in the discussion. In addition, figure 5 has been modified.

We hope that the new version will be finally accepted. Once again, we thank you very much for your work on this paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "University Students' Perception of the Dehesa and Associated Traditional Trades" to Sustainability. The article provides a valuable exploration of students' perceptions regarding traditional trades and the dehesa agroforestry system. Your comprehensive review of relevant literature and the methodological rigor applied in both quantitative and qualitative analyses are commendable. However, there are a few areas that require further refinement to enhance the clarity and depth of your study. These revisions will significantly strengthen the impact of your findings and their applicability in educational and conservation initiatives.

Resume:

The article exhibits several notable strengths. It provides a comprehensive background on the multifunctional dehesa agroforestry system and the significance of transhumant pastoralism, drawing from a robust review of relevant literature. The methodology is generally well-described, with clear explanations of the data collection instruments, sampling approach, and quantitative and qualitative analytical techniques employed. The results section presents insightful findings regarding students' knowledge gaps, perceptions, and attitudes towards the dehesa and shepherding, effectively triangulating data from various sources. Additionally, the discussion demonstrates a nuanced understanding of the findings within the broader scholarly discourse, offering valuable recommendations for educational initiatives and heritage conservation efforts. However, some areas could be further strengthened, such as providing more detailed justifications for the sample size determination and sampling criteria, as well as a more comprehensive discussion of the study's limitations and their implications. So, the article makes a meaningful contribution to the field, but addressing these weaknesses could further enhance its academic rigor and impact.

Review:

The introduction fulfills its purpose of providing a robust context, highlighting the importance of the topic, and clearly and substantively establishing the objectives of the study. The use of a formal and academic tone, supported by references to relevant literature, reinforces the quality and rigor of this section.

Providing more methodological details, justifying the decisions made during the study design, data collection, and analysis, and addressing ethical considerations would strengthen the methodology section and enhance the overall quality of the article.

·         The article mentions that a non-probability convenience sampling method was used, but it does not provide details on how participants were selected or the inclusion/exclusion criteria. This could introduce biases in the sample and affect the representativeness of the results. It is recommended to provide a clear justification for the sampling approach and the criteria used to select participants.

·         Another aspect that requires further clarification is the sample size determination. While the margin of error and confidence level are mentioned, the authors do not explain how the sample size of 400 respondents was calculated. It is essential to include the sample size calculation and justify its adequacy based on the study objectives and the target population.

·         Regarding the measurement instruments, the article indicates that an ad hoc survey was used, but it does not provide details about its validation, reliability, or development process. It is crucial to ensure that the instrument accurately measures the constructs of interest and to provide information on its psychometric properties to establish its validity and reliability.

·         The statistical analyses section could be improved by providing more details on the specific procedures followed for each quantitative and qualitative technique. For instance, the authors could elaborate on the assumptions evaluated for the statistical tests and the steps taken during the qualitative content analysis. This information is essential for other researchers to replicate the study and assess the appropriateness of the analytical methods used.

·         Finally, it would be beneficial for the authors to include a section discussing the limitations of the study, such as its cross-sectional design, non-probability sampling, or potential sources of bias. Acknowledging the limitations of the research allows readers to better evaluate the validity and generalizability of the findings.

The results section provides a comprehensive examination of students' perspectives and offers valuable insights for informing educational initiatives and conservation efforts related to the dehesa and pastoralism.

·         However, some areas could benefit from further clarification or expansion, such as the specific implications of the findings for curriculum development, program design, and policy recommendations.

The discussion and conclusions sections demonstrate a critical analysis of the study's findings, contextualized within the broader literature, and provide valuable insights and recommendations for future research and practice.

I hope these comments prove constructive and aid in the further refinement of your manuscript, enhancing its contribution to the scholarly discourse on this important topic.

Sincerely

Author Response

Dear reviewer, first of all, thank you for your positive assessment of our work. It is very important for us to continue in this direction. We have tried to include all your suggestions in the new version of the article.

In this case, particular aspects of the sample, such as the selection criteria of the participants and the justification of the sample size, have been further elaborated. The description of the qualitative and qualitative techniques has also been improved. A paragraph on the limitations of the study, mainly related to the characteristics of the sample, has also been included.

In relation to clarifying how the results of the research can influence various decision-making processes, some examples are mentioned in the discussion: between lines 646-649 (need to promote greater dissemination of the multifunctional nature of the dehesa), 669- 672 (need to promote experiences that allow contact with intangible heritage, applied to different educational levels and involving actors from formal, non-formal and informal environments), 709-720 (examples of future proposals identified to reverse the crisis situation of traditional trades).

In addition, between lines 721-737 it is specified that this research should be taken into account in order to modify the decision-making process in relation to the design and creation of educational tourism products. Furthermore, it also influences the decision-making process in the educational field, as it aims to provide guidelines for adapting teaching strategies and activities to the level of knowledge and experiences observed among students.

However, some explanations have also been slightly modified.

We hope that the new version will be finally accepted. Once again, we thank you very much for your work on this paper.