Heritage Sustainability of the Territory: Photogrammetric Survey of the Castle of Beas de Segura (Jaén, Spain)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present an interesting topic whereas close range and low altitude photogrammetry has been combined along with standard topographic survey to document the castle of Beas de Segura. The scope and overall concept of the paper fits very well with the journal however i have some comment to make to the authors before the publication:

1. A background research is missing. In it current form the paper begins with a long-length explanation of the various chronological phases of the castle (>4 pages). While this information was interesting i recommend to the authors to remove some parts. They can probably add a table with the various chronological phases.
2. please include a background research chapter. some text is found under the methods but this needs to further extented
3. some references are missing from the list (e.g. millan 2020, 2021 etc)
4. section 2: methods needs to be re-organized. keep it short and to then topic. probably a methodological diagram will be supportive
5. more details are needed for the equipment used. not only the name of the provided but the specifications regarding the accuracy, pixel size etc.
6. more details are needed for the photogrammertic results (sections and 3D). RMS and TRMS needs to be mentioned and discussed, how many ties points have been used? did you faced any problems with the flights with the processing, with the noise of the data? this information are important for readers to understand the difficulties of the case study
7. a discussion about the use and re-use of the digital data is needed. are the data available in some repository for re-use? 
8. an overall map indicating the case study area is needed (even before fig. 1)
9. fig 4: is this really of the 14th century? is seems like a photograph (19th century perhaps?)
10.  

 

Author Response

Dear Mr / Ms

First of all, thank you very much for the time and dedication you have taken to read and evaluate the results of the research that we have carried out and presented in this article. Your positive comments and recommendations have been a great help in our attempt to present the entire document more coherently. Below I have outlined each of the changes introduced:

1. We have presented a background for the investigation in response to your recommendation, we have removed parts of the chronological phases and provided these as a table.
2. We have introduced the background section, and expanded and developed all the examples used and analysed for the development of this work.
3. All references appearing in the text have been amended and revised.
4. In line with your recommendations, Section 2 has been reviewed and reorganised, to provide a more procedural applied methodology.
5. More technical details have been introduced regarding the equipment used, such as size, type of files handled, precision, resolution, post-production phases, etc.
6. We are in complete agreement with your comment on the need to discuss RMS and TRMS. In addition, we have clarified the number of points located within the territory, as well as detailing the complexity of data collection. This was fundamentally based on increased noise and interference, due to the important cavities of the caves, as well as significant vegetation, and the abandonment of the structures, almost at risk of structural collapse. We have introduced this and presented it so that, as you say, the reader understands the complexity of the case study.
7. Regarding digital data, we have stated that, once the article is published, all data will be available on the municipal and public platform of Beas Council, so researchers from different areas can use these in the development of their work. We also want the Master Plan for the management of interventions taking place in the castle, to have a monitoring platform for all the interventions carried out.
8. In line with your recommendation, a plan has been made (Figure 01) which is much more general, so that the case study area can be understood more clearly.
9. Our apologies, this was a misprint. You are quite correct, it was the nineteenth century not the fourteenth century. This has been amended.

Once again we would like to thank you for the time, dedication and encouragement you have shown towards our research. All your recommendations have been incorporated.

Your assistance is much appreciated.

Yours sincerely

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper needs a primary revision starting from the introduction, which does not provides any information about the research, the questions, the approach, and the history of the investigation (e.g., the project mandate from the municipality as a professional consultancy). On the contrary, it provides a short and little referenced history of the site (and based on escavations and discoveries). In particular, not enough is said about what happened to the site from the end of the middle age to today. The figures, although interesting, do not add enough information (one is wrongly described - fig. 04). 

Re-organising the introduction would limit the other paper's weaknesses. The proposed methodology does not fully answer to the title based on social and heritage sustainability of the territory. The paper shows a certain superficiality in the use of "heritage" and does not give scientific evidence of the population, which is simply considered not the original inhabitants. Also the estate ownership, as well as the stakeholders, is not adequately considered. This considerable absence of analysis could depend on the municipality mandate (please clarify). Also in the results, the paper descibes only the relevant and interesting work of photogrammetry and the graphic outcomes. Nothing is said about other analyses, how the Masterplan proposal has been developed, if the tourism stakeholders and local community have a role for making the action sustainable. Finally, we must state the absence of any real reference to the planning process, needed for developing a new local identity and guarantee the site conservation.   

Author Response

Dear Mr/Ms

We would like to thank you for your time and dedication in reading our work, and very much appreciate your comments and suggestions, which we have incorporated into the original document. All of these have been of great help to highlight certain points that, as you say, were in need of certain reorganisation.

The article focuses, monographically, on the field of the graphic tools linked to heritage, which is why many aspects (planning, social, anthropological, etc.) have remained at a second level. Here, we have given greater relevance to the graphic aspect and its impact on heritage conservation, as it is the main topic of the publication.

In response to your recommendations, in the introduction we have inserted and reorganised the statement of the problem, from which the need for this research arises, so that, from the beginning (before the history of the heritage context), the objectives set out are understood. We have also explicitly stated the mandate of the Town Council. This is not a professional consultancy, as the work has been carried out by a variety of research teams from the University.

On the other hand, we have qualified the title, as we do not focus on “social sustainability”. The complete work does have different approaches, and one of them is social, but in the summary brought together in this article, we have focused on photogrammetry and surveys as instruments for heritage conservation, as it is the monographic topic. However, we have grouped and clarified the approaches that you suggested to us.

Regarding a complete revision of the English, this has been revised by a native journalist and editor. However, as the authors, we have taken your advice and have revised the text to ensure simpler grammatical structures.

We would like to thank you for your contribution and comments which we believe have been reflected in the revised text. We trust the revised article now provides greater cohesion and argumentative logic to the research results, brought together in this article.

Yours sincerely 

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the interest, the documentation and the analysis performed. Many more historical sites should be treated so seriously. I look forward to reading about the next phases in the future.
The Introduction needs more references (pages 1-3)

Author Response

Dear Mr/ Ms

Firstly, we would all like to thank you for your generous comments on this work.

We very much appreciate your positive responses and encouragement and we thank you for your opinion on the results collected in this article. We hope that the full results will soon see the light of day and, in the not too distant future, you will be able to read about the different phases undertaken.

With regard to your helpful recommendation, we have inserted more references into the introduction.

Thank you again for your time, interest and enthusiasm when reviewing our work.

Yours sincerely

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised their paper and some of my comments have been addressed. However i would like to draw to their attention 3 points that I the authors should better address in their article:

1. section 0. please remove 0 as a number it starts with 1. in this section the background research should focused not on the background agenda of the particular study but rather to the general literature review for similar case studies. In the literature there is a plethora of examples of how photogrammetric techniques have been used to document cultural heritage sites.
2. section 1. the case study is too extensive (7-pages). i think the authors should reduced the description here and included references for readers that wish to read more on the details of the castle and the area
3. a more detail discussion of the photogrammetric errors and documentation accuracies (RMS and TRMS) need to be addressed. At this point the authors state that due to noise the authors "skipped" these metrics. But the problem still is there: how accurate and reliable are your result? its not only doing the work but doing it well. if this point can be addressed the article could attract the interest of other readers doing similar documentations and see how problems are solved.

I am sure that the authors can address these points.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you again for your time and dedication in studying our text and your apposite comments. We agree that these provide several points on clarifying comprehension and we address your comments as follows:

We have introduced some of the most significant references, in terms of photogrammetric techniques employed in heritage site documentation. It was not possible to mention all the techniques but we have included those most utilised. However, we have retained part of the background as we believe these to be essential to understanding the final objective of the work.

Although seven pages, there are actually only three of text, plus a number of images and a table. In order to understand the use of photogrammetry and the analysis of material structures, we believe it is necessary to know when each element was built, therefore specific detail has been provided. However, as recommended, we have shortened the description so that it is not so extensive.

On the debate over the accuracy of the photogrammetric documentation (RMS and TRMS), we have expanded on this point. We believe this topic would make a separate specific article in itself and even then the subject would not be exhausted. However, as this would suggest, we have made the entire process carried out, more explicit.

Once again, we appreciate your apposite comments and trust that the text may now be considered finalised.

Yours sincerely

Reviewer 2 Report

The structure of the manuscript has been improved since the title, and now it appears coherent and clear. However, there are still some missing references and english mistakes to revise. I would suggest to not stress under the period modern times all castle history after the middle age (which also should be better defined in terms of years).

Author Response

Thank you again for taking the time and dedication to review the work we have presented in this article. We believe your comments contribute various elements to make the text richer and more complete. All of your comments have been addressed.

After reviewing the references, we have included those which were missing. As recommended, we have summarised the text regarding the period of the Middle Ages, removing parts making reference to the modern era, where we believe there could be some confusion. The text has been reviewed again by the team of native translators.

After these appropriate changes, we hope the text may now be finalised.

The authors would like to thank you for your most helpful comments and support.

Yours sincerely

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed the comments and the paper can be published.