Setting the Methodological Framework for Accessibility in Geo-Mining Heritage Settings—An Ongoing Study of Iglesiente Area (Sardinia, Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper pointed out the importance of active mobility within cultural landscape and its linkage to knowledge landscape as a step forward sustainable spatial development. Authors well explained the theoretical framework of research and  gave precise insight into the perspective of Iglesiente landscape and herritage. Still, it is not clear elaborated how local people's activities contribute to (1) the economic prosperity of area and to (2) positive trends in employment and increase in population, what is emphasized as an important factor in sustainable local development. Empirical prove of this research will surely be very interesting and valuable for further researches of geomining areas.

Check numbering in Literature (double 1).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your kind comments.

Our manuscript is almost rewritten completely. Hopefully, we responded to your recommendation appropriately for both issues raised. We considered influences of local people's activities contribute to (1) the economic prosperity of the area and to (2) positive trends in employment and increase in population primary in the framework of the project. However, the paper concentrates on spatial oriented problems. Corrections in literature have been corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article deals with an interesting problem regarding access to areas of significant landscape heritage. Unfortunately, the title of the study does not indicate a specific problem. It would be advisable to simplify the title to better indicate whether it is about management, conditioning or comparison to other areas on the example of "Geo-mining Park in Sardinia". In its current form, the title is imprecise.

The article lacks the cartographic location of the area. Please add a map with location to improve the readability of the topic for people outside of Europe. It is a pity that there are no photos or plans for the development area.

A serious objection is the less transparent way of writing an article. There is a lack of the methodological part and the result part. The purpose and scope of the work is described not very specifically. Recognizing the problem is too theoretical. It feels in every part of the text.

The introduction should explain the basic assumptions of creating similar objects. Instead of objects, the authors compare theories that try to match the area they are dealing with. It should be indicated which elements are crucial and why the authors decided that in this article they focused on selected problems. This type of area can be considered from the point of view of impact on the local community, due to ecosystem services and due to links and determinants based on spatial indicators. The authors did not choose the scope of the research problem. The structure of the organization is shown superficially. The authors have not addressed other areas where similar problems are being solved. Availability of the Inglesiente area should be considered on two scales: local and supralocal, which has not been separated and clarified.

One can get the impression that the article is dominated by the local context, without paying attention to external factors. It would be important to determine to what extent the situation is typical, and to what extent the situation is similar to that of Europe and the world. The authors focus most of their efforts on discussing the complexities of the theoretical situation in Sardinia. The theoretical characteristics are very little based on calculations or specific examples that could be used to compare with other similar areas.

The scheme, even the best, should not be devoid of references to the subject literature. To make the article attractive to readers from other regions of the world, its international context needs to be improved.

Author Response

Questioned issue no. 1: Imprecise title

Response 1: The title has been changed

Questioned issue no. 2: Cartographic representations are missing

Response2: Graphical elaborations have been inserted

Questioned issue no. 3 and 4: Less transparent way of writing and a bad conception of Introduction

Response 3 and 4: The structure of the paper has been changed and Introductive section has been completely rewritten

Question 5: Exclusive domination of local character in the paper

 Response 5: Rewritten text included this recommendation in the paper by contextualizing Iglesinte in a geographicaly and politicaly wider context.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have read your paper with interest. The topic is potentially interesting, but the current version presents major flaws that prevent from considering it for publication in its current state:

I would suggest you consider the following MAJOR revisions before re-submitting:

i. The paper is written in English language and expression of extremely poor quality (even fro a non-native speaker like myself). Please re-write it completely and have it reviewed by a native-English-speaker (professional or not) before resubmitting.

ii. There are barely any figures in the paper, hampering its legibility and clarity. I would suggest you include (at least): one first figure (map) showing the location and geographic context of your case study area (especially important for an international audience which is not knowledgeable of Italian geography); another one indicating to the diverse stages and actions in your research plan; and other synthesizing the sources of data, their characteristics and analyses performed over each of them.

iii. The structure is extremely poor and does not lead to clearly distinguishing between methods, results, discussion, etc...please re-arrange completely to fit onto such a structure (even if the names of each section does not need to strictly fit this terminology)

iv. I cannot really find out, even after reading it carefully a couple of times, what is it exactly that you aimed to better understand/explain, what you did exactly and how this supports (or dismiss) any hypothesis (which are equally unclear)

v. The list of references (especially regarding the introduction) is extremely short and very generic. Please make sure it is enlarged to reflect an updated and enlarged list that is more updated and illustrative. 

Although, these are all major flaws that may indicated to the paper being rejected, I feel that the topic and issues at stake seem relevant (potentially) and thus would like to recommend performing revisions before resubmitting.

With regards

The reviewer

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your kind comments.

Question no.1: revision of the English language

Response 1: we have been consulted an expert in the field of English language

Question no.2: Scarce graphical representation

Response 2: we have been included figures as suggested and to the new conception of the paper

Question no.3: Extremely poor structure

Response 3: We revised and reconstructed the paper structure. Hopefully, the rewritten structure reflects positively your recommendations.

Question no.4: Unclear paper

Response 4: Hopefully, this time, we have re-wrote the paper more clear.

Question no.5: References very short and generic.

Response 5: We have been upgraded the references in the text.

With regards,

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The introduced changes improved the readability of the article. The title is acceptable.

Figures require correction. Maps (figure 1 a, b) should contain the geographical coordinates and the scale. For aesthetic and formal reasons, they should be placed in frames.

Figure 3 should be easier to read - the size of the font is too small. The location of the route patterns should be plotted in simplified version on the maps as well (fig 1). This would improve readability of the maps in relation to the description.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments.

Comment no. 1: „Maps (figure 1 a, b) should contain the geographical coordinates and the scale. For aesthetic and formal reasons, they should be placed in frames“

Response 1: We have combined some figures and inserted missing elements.

Comment no. 2: „Figure 3 should be easier to read - the size of the font is too small. The location of the route patterns should be plotted in a simplified version on the maps as well (fig 1). This would improve the readability of the maps in relation to the description“

Response 2: We have enlarged the font size. Still, we prefer to have the route patterns at figure 3 abstract, because we argue principles of linking and networking. Precise positioning of the routes needs more empirical proves to be done in the next stage of the general project.

Kind regards,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, I am sorry about having to reach this decision, because I feel that the topic you address and the issues at stake are potentially relevant, but with much regret I must recommend the editors to reject your paper for publication in its current form. I would nonetheless suggest that you have the text revised by a native-English-speaker who can help you put together a new version that is legible and clear. Currently none of these essential qualities are apparent in the paper, which I have tried to read and understand several times, and yet failed. 

Along with extensive English grammar corrections, the key concepts in the paper (accessibility, landscape planning, knowledge landscape, etc..) need from a much clearer use for the paper to become publishable. 

Lastly, it remains unclear what the outreach and implications of your paper are: is it merely a theoretical framework that you are applying?, if this is the case, why do you test it over a real-world case study?, what are the implications beyond this case study in itself?. After reading the paper 3 different times, this remains highly unclear. 

I look forward to receiving a completely reshaped version that can be considered for publication.

With best regards

The reviewer 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to express our thanks for your time and all the comments and suggestions

which were very helpful to provide a more insightful and properly researched paper. We

did our best to address all of them, namely:

Comment no. 1: „I would nonetheless suggest that you have the text revised by a native-English-speaker who can help you put together a new version that is legible and clear.“

Response 1: An native-English-speaker have revised our manuscript.

Comment no. 2: „the key concepts in the paper (accessibility, landscape planning, knowledge landscape, etc..) need from a much clearer use for the paper to become publishable.“

Response 2: In this version of the manuscript, we tried to be more explicit and clear and the explanation of the key concepts and their use.

Comment no. 3: „is it merely a theoretical framework that you are applying“

Response 3: Yes, this manuscript aims to establish the methodological framework to be applied during the months to come and for the general framework of the „TSulki“ project.

Comment no. 4: „if this is the case, why do you test it over a real-world case study?“

Response 4: We consider positive the adaptation of good, real-world practice for the Sardinian context because we want our tool to be functional (this manuscript is only a first step in general framework of our project to be implemented, as we explained in the text).

Comment no. 5: „what are the implications beyond this case study in itself?“

Response 5: Primar aim of the paper is setting the methodological framework as an interpretative tool for this case study. Then, disseminating the results of the project currently in progress. Furthermore, the proposed method is applicable in any other context of geo-mining heritage in Europe because the territory would have the same or similar components and characteristics (in the terms of accessibility, landscape planning and knowledge landscape). Even more, if some are willing to apply it in any other context (of landscape with sparse heritage elements or sparse rural landscape) it can do so by changing the departing context and including different parameters about landscape knowledge.

Additionally, we reshaped some parts of the manuscript, slightly but hopefully significantly. Hopefully, this version fulfilled your requirements of „completely reshaped version“.

Kind regards,

Authors

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, I have now received and revised the edited version of your paper entitled "Setting the Methodological Framework for Accessibility in Geo-mining Heritage Settings: An Ongoing Study of Iglesiente Area (Sardinia, Italy)". The paper presents an interesting methodological approach to assess spatial and landscape accessibility in heritage sites with application for planning of sites with multiple values, but especially with cultural ones. Ultimately, it seems like the methodology proposed aims at providing with sustainable development alternatives and opportunities in these types of landscapes. The version submitted has improved and addressed some of gaps in the previous version and is now clearer. However, I still find several important faults in the paper that prevent me from recommending to accept it. Among the key issues that I consider still need correcting, I would urge the authors to resolve the following ones before resubmitting:

i. The structure of the paper  is extremely confusing. In particular; the methods section (section 2) is short and insufficient to understand what the authors did; in contrast section 5 (A Methodological Framework for Landscape Accessibility and Knowledge of the Iglesiente Area) seems to explain the main bulk of the methodology portrayed.

ii. In contrast with the former, the introduction section seems to lack a sufficient number of underpinning references, and thus many of the arguments are unsubstantiated in previous literature. In addition, sections 3 (Landscape Accessibility in Heritage Settings) and 4 (Landscape Knowledge and Heritage Settings: Construction of Thematic Route) seem to talk about issues that would perhaps fit better in an introduction. However, if sections 1, 3 and 4 were merged into an introductory chapter, this might end up becoming too long and the paper might end up being deeply unbalanced.

iii. The former points indicate to the need for a deep re-structuring of the (diverse sections in the) paper, although it remains unclear to me how this might be best achieved. This connects with what in my view is the main limitation in this paper (admittedly also by the authors); the overall impression of the paper seems to be the description of a purely theoretical model without any empirical results (and thus potentially also of relevant implications either for the case-study area or any other case studies) so-far.

iv. To resolve this issue I would fully re-write the paper to make very clear that this is a purely theoretical model (at least so-far) and discuss how you plan to apply onto the Iglesente case study (indicating to why), and then also what the limitations might be and how "exportable" this model mat be in other contexts. This would facilitate the reader avoiding to raise too many expectations about  any empirical results and related conclusions to be found.

v. The conclusions read more like an extended abstract than proper conclusions as they are currently written. I would totally re-write them to focus on the main findings and implications and also about the next steps ahead.

vi. Next. I am sorry to re-iterate this point, but English is still really poor, and needs a deep revision by an English language professional service. There are too many problems with language in the text to indicate them one by one, but I am sure that the paper is not up to the current standards of a global readership such as the one reaching Sustainability.

vii. Lastly, the list of references seems to be limited, and  especially lacking in international peer-reviewed papers. I acknowledge this is a particular and perhaps not-so-widely published field, but by re-reading the introduction one cannot fail to notice again the many unsubstantiated assertions that surely could be better grounded on existing literature. I could point to a few authors which could be revised for a better understanding of the state of the art in the subject, including: Martín-Duque (Universisidad Complutense de Madrid), Martin-Moreno (Universidade Complutense de Madrid), Nicolau-Ibarra (Universidad de Zaragoza), Lucía-Vela (Thübingen Universität), Machado (Universidade de Évora). I am sure there are many more, but just these initial references may help enlarge the list of relevant literature justifying the paper beyond its own case study. Perhaps a wider and more structured literature review in the topic (beyond the case study area itself) will help resolve this limitation.

Given these limitations I see myself forced to ask for major reviews. I will be happy to review a new version re-submitted.

Sincerely yours. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to express our thanks for your time and all the comments and suggestions which were very helpful to provide a more insightful and properly researched paper. We did our best to address all of them, namely, we have completely reshaped our paper. Thus, we are sorry not answering point by point on the issues you have been raised problematic. However, the general changes in the new version of our manuscript are:

a) a new structure due to merged sections. In line with this, introduction, methodology and conclusion sections have been completely rewritten to include your comments, suggestion, and requirements.

b) we have been enriched the paper with new references.

c) theoretical character of the paper, limitations of the model and its possible applications in other context are expressed more directly. Additionally, we explained the position of the paper in the general framework of the project, currently in progress, answering why and how the new steps of the project will continue.

We hope that, in this version of the paper, sufficient level has been achieved to fulfill the requirements.

Sincerely yours.

Round 4

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, I have now had the opportunity to read again your paper, which is vastly improved following the latest changes and edits. 

Nonetheless, to become publishable in Sustainability, there are a few (minor) points that would require some improvement:

i. Although the various issues addressed (accessibility, cultural landscapes, ...) and the objectives of the research are much more clear now, one key aspect is left that could be made much more clear. This aspect is the extent to which you reach any real-world conclusions or findings, beyond the mere construction of a theoretical model. The reader should be much more able of distinguish (by merely reading the paper) between theory and case-study testing. At the moment, I have some difficulties in getting this done. I would thus urge the authors to re-read the paper in depth to help resolve this problem.

ii. Consequential to my previous remark, it seems to me that the contents of the paper are unbalanced between theory and application. In this sense, it seems that the authors spend too much of the paper drawing and discussing on basic concepts and ideas, to then only at the end discusss the case study-area and its relevance for the key arguments made. This way, sections 2 and 3 still read too much like further conceptual discussion (e.g. wouldn´t a diagram synthesizing the methodology employed, and its various steps and sequence, help better understand it all?). Meanwhile the case study area is only introduced in section 4, which reads really like the core of the paper, but still partially disconnected from sections 2 and 3. As indicated above, if you could please try to re-structure/re-phrase the paper in a way in which sections 2,3 and 4 are better interconnected, that might help a lot.

iii. You mention repeatedly he TSULKY project, on which this research is framed, and refer to the fact that it is still on-going, and how this determines why what you present here is merely the conceptual model and not so much definitive findings or results. This is perfectly fine, of course. Nonetheless, it would be great if you could provide a link to the project (not only webpage, but also ideally to reports or descriptions) so that it can be examined in further depth by anyone interested. In addition, and although this is indeed preliminary and mostly theoretical research at this stage, I do not feel that your option to name section 5 "Instead of Conclusions" is acceptable. Either they are conclusions or not. This is scientific paper, and not a philosophical essay, where I feel this kind of language would fit better. Please re-think and modify accordingly.

iii. Lastly, I would suggest that an English language specialist (from the journal or otherwise) reads it thoroughly and suggests improvements so that language expression is up to the standards of an international journal and readership (I sincerely believe it currently isn´t). 

Once these (again, in my opinion, minor) issues are resolved, I consider the paper could be ready for publication.

Sincerely

The Reviewer

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to express our deepest thanks for your time, patience and all constructive comments and suggestions, which were very helpful to provide a more insightful and properly researched paper. We did our best to address all of them, namely:

i and ii) The paper has been slightly restructured to include your suggestions about distinguishing theoretical findings from the case study. We have been added some summarising diagram.

iii) We have been included more information about the TSulky project and the following link on the official website (Region of Sardinia). Unfortunately, there is no report due to the early stage of the project, but hopefully, the website will be properly updated with the results.

iii. Lastly) Two experts for the English Language have made some corrections.

We hope that, in this version of the paper, sufficient level has been achieved to fulfill the requirements.

Sincerely yours