Agricultural Heritage Landscapes of Greece: Three Case Studies and Strategic Steps towards Their Acknowledgement, Conservation and Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
the paper is well written and well presented. I suggest to explain better in the conclusions the highligthed qualities of the landscapes of the territories, instead of wrinting only "besed on the table... the landscape is outstanding.
Minor english check is required.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Q1.The paper is well written and well presented. I suggest to explain better in the conclusions the highligthed qualities of the landscapes of the territories, instead of wrinting only "besed on the table... the landscape is outstanding.
A1. It was better amended and explained. Line 629-634.
Q2. Minor english check is required.
A2. Check.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript addresses a timely topic of high relevance for the journal. The research question is well argued for and rooted in literature and, not least, linked to main global/European frameworks/policies for sustainability, heritage, agriculture and landscape. My following comments and recommendations are directed towards imporving clarity and 'readability':
Under Material and Methods and the section line 236-243: The different methods/sources for data are only briefly mentioned. More information should be added, for example what type of literature has been reviewed? How were local stakeholders approached and who are they? What did the on-site visitations contribute with?
A reflection when reading all three case-studies is that the issue of succession is not highlighted. This might be because there is no specific problem registered regarding the potential next generation farmers. If this is the case, it is of special interest to bring forward since many other studies of agrarian communities of this type often highlight problems related to an ageing farm population and no successor to take over the farm.
Results: Part 3 starts with quite compact tables with a lot of information. It might be an idea to shortly characterize the tables in an introductory paragraph in order to prepare the reader. For example, it might be useful if the authors commented on the differences in the three frameworks presented (LCA, GIAHS, WH-UNESCO). To specify, the LCA is a rather detailed and specific tool, more like a 'manual', while the two others are partly text descriptions more open for interpretation. It would be interesting to know how the authors have dealt with such differences. A text introduction will also prepare the reader in understanding what is shown in Table 1 and what is the focus of Table 2. They have almost the same title and Table 2 could be seen as simply the last page of Table 1 - so please explain why two tables. Table 3: Please indicate what '-' means compared to 'x'. One is left to wonder if '-' means low score on a criteria or if it means no documentation. It is not until line 552 that one gets is a hint on what '-' means.
Author Response
REVIEWER 2
The manuscript addresses a timely topic of high relevance for the journal. The research question is well argued for and rooted in literature and, not least, linked to main global/European frameworks/policies for sustainability, heritage, agriculture and landscape. My following comments and recommendations are directed towards imporving clarity and 'readability':
Q1.Under Material and Methods and the section line 236-243: The different methods/sources for data are only briefly mentioned. More information should be added, for example what type of literature has been reviewed? How were local stakeholders approached and who are they? What did the on-site visitations contribute with?
A1. It was better amended and explained. Line 240-245
Q2.A reflection when reading all three case-studies is that the issue of succession is not highlighted. This might be because there is no specific problem registered regarding the potential next generation farmers. If this is the case, it is of special interest to bring forward since many other studies of agrarian communities of this type often highlight problems related to an ageing farm population and no successor to take over the farm.
A2. There is no real problem of succession mostly financial aid issues by the Government. However, answers were given per case study. Lines 328-330, 403-404,476-479.
Q3. Results: Part 3 starts with quite compact tables with a lot of information. It might be an idea to shortly characterize the tables in an introductory paragraph in order to prepare the reader. For example, it might be useful if the authors commented on the differences in the three frameworks presented (LCA, GIAHS, WH-UNESCO). To specify, the LCA is a rather detailed and specific tool, more like a 'manual', while the two others are partly text descriptions more open for interpretation. It would be interesting to know how the authors have dealt with such differences. A text introduction will also prepare the reader in understanding what is shown in Table 1 and what is the focus of Table 2. They have almost the same title and Table 2 could be seen as simply the last page of Table 1 - so please explain why two tables. Table 3: Please indicate what '-' means compared to 'x'. One is left to wonder if '-' means low score on a criteria or if it means no documentation. It is not until line 552 that one gets is a hint on what '-' means.
A3. Detail explanations were provided. Lines 504-543, 562-564.
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript is interesting to understand the Agricultural Heritage Landscapes in Greece and is suggestive for the conservation of traditional agriculture in the world.
*Although there is very long history and tradition in these areas it is considered that there was an attempt of modernization of agriculture systems. If there was such history in each area it is also needed to explain with its result.
*L236-243 & four tables:
I must point out the miscount of the number of criteria. In Table 1 and Table 3 there are 16 criteria and the sixteenth criterion is numbered “xv”, which means there are two “xv” in these tables. So total number of criteria is twenty-six (not twenty-five as L236). As a result, the numbering of each criterion in Table 2 and Table 4 must be improved.
In addition, it is required that the explanation of each table in the text should be noticed in detail. At least the mention about the number of criteria (16 in the Table 1 and 10 in Table 2) is hoped to appear in the text.
*L333: “Fig. 06” => “Fig. 6”
*L408: “Case study 2” => “Case study 3”
*L437: “Indigofera tinctoria” => should be in Italic.
*L441: “62,611,000 m2” => “62,611 m2”
*L444: “that 300 years” => “than 300 years”
*L496: “steps for the (3) case studies” => “steps for acknowledgement and conservation for the (3) case studies”
*Table 3: In the columns of criterion “ix” there is no marks. Maybe “-“ should be added here.
*L444: “that 1000 yrs” => “than 1000 years”
*L537: “worldwide” => “worldwide”
*L556-557: “Masticulture in Chios island (9 criteria), Black (Corinthian) Raisin Vineyards in Aigialeia (Egialia) (12 criteria), and Olive groves of Thassos island (9 criteria).” => In this phrase, if the numbers of 9, 12 and 9 mean the number of “x” in Table 3, they are needed to improve to 13, 11 and 10 respectively.
*L608: “masticulture” => As this paragraph notices about Black Raisin Vineyards, this word is irrelevant. Maybe “black raisin cultivation” will be suitable.
*L699-700: “Koohafkan and dela 699 Cruz, 2011” => not be found in references.
Author Response
REVIEWER 3
This manuscript is interesting to understand the Agricultural Heritage Landscapes in Greece and is suggestive for the conservation of traditional agriculture in the world.
Q1.Although there is very long history and tradition in these areas it is considered that there was an attempt of modernization of agriculture systems. If there was such history in each area it is also needed to explain with its result.
A1. Explanation is provided. Lines 652-653
Q2.L236-243 & four tables:
I must point out the miscount of the number of criteria. In Table 1 and Table 3 there are 16 criteria and the sixteenth criterion is numbered “xv”, which means there are two “xv” in these tables. So total number of criteria is twenty-six (not twenty-five as L236). As a result, the numbering of each criterion in Table 2 and Table 4 must be improved.
In addition, it is required that the explanation of each table in the text should be noticed in detail. At least the mention about the number of criteria (16 in the Table 1 and 10 in Table 2) is hoped to appear in the text.
A2. Thank you all corrected.
Q3*L333: “Fig. 06” => “Fig. 6”
*L408: “Case study 2” => “Case study 3”
*L437: “Indigofera tinctoria” => should be in Italic.
*L441: “62,611,000 m2” => “62,611 m2”
*L444: “that 300 years” => “than 300 years”
*L496: “steps for the (3) case studies” => “steps for acknowledgement and conservation for the (3) case studies”
*Table 3: In the columns of criterion “ix” there is no marks. Maybe “-“ should be added here.
*L444: “that 1000 yrs” => “than 1000 years”
*L537: “worldwide” => “worldwide”
A3. All corrected
Q4. L556-557: “Masticulture in Chios island (9 criteria), Black (Corinthian) Raisin Vineyards in Aigialeia (Egialia) (12 criteria), and Olive groves of Thassos island (9 criteria).” => In this phrase, if the numbers of 9, 12 and 9 mean the number of “x” in Table 3, they are needed to improve to 13, 11 and 10 respectively.
A4. The above numbers refer to the quantity and not to the arithmetical order. Line 672-675
Q5. L608: “masticulture” => As this paragraph notices about Black Raisin Vineyards, this word is irrelevant. Maybe “black raisin cultivation” will be suitable.
A5. It was corrected as “masticulture landscapes”.
Q6.L699-700: “Koohafkan and dela 699 Cruz, 2011” => not be found in references.
A6. Reference was added.
Reviewer 4 Report
In this paper, the authors first summarized and compared the criteria from three different organizations to measure the importance of landscapes. The authors then proposed a new framework for acknowledging and conserving Agricultural Heritage Landscapes by combining the requirements from these three organizations. The proposed framework has been tested with three agricultural heritage landscapes of Greece. The manuscript is well-written. The literature review and the description of the methodology are very detailed. Although the study lacks scientific merit, organizations and policymakers may find it helpful in deciding the importance of agricultural heritage land. I only have a few suggestions as follow:
Line 110. Expand "HEREIN'.
Figure 1. Add scale, longitude, and latitude to the maps.
Figure 6. Add scale, longitude, and latitude to the maps.
Figure 9. Add scale, longitude, and latitude to the maps.
Table 1. Maybe put the proposed criteria as the last column.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
HEREIN stands for European Cultural Heritage Information Network according to the site https://www.coe.int/en/web/herein-system/.
Unfortunately we can add scale, longitude, and latitude information on the maps because they are indicative for a whole area and not a specific agricultural plot or small area.
