Long-Term Development Trend of the Historical Cultural Landscape of the UNESCO Monument: Vlkolínec (Slovakia)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Dear Authors,

thank you a lot for the interesting paper. You chose a very important topic. I was in the neighborhood of this place, I know it a bit. So I was happy to read something more about it. I think we have to take care of all historical cultural landscapes because it is part of our heritage.

Now let’s come back to the part I should do. I know that my duty, as reviewer, is to comment your work, especially to show what you should change. No one like critics, me neither, but it is only to make your paper better. I found many mistakes, so I have some comments for you. I hope you will treat them as my advices. Remember, I am here not to say only bad comments but to help you to improve your paper. I hope you will correct it as soon as possible to give it to readers.

Your paper is well constructed, includes all necessary section. In abstract all content is well summarized. The introduction presents the main aim of the paper and the authors’ contribution to the science. Methodology and results are presented in reasonable and interesting way. All paper seems to be good written and reasonable. References relatively new and adequate to the presented text. However, I found some mistake that should be corrected.

So no elements that should be corrected:

1. Title: Think if it is not too long. This is only a suggestion.
2. You presented data from years: 1769, 1823, 1949, 2007 and 2017. Add 1-2 sentences why these years.
3. Abstract: Check the size of letter. It seems like both paragraphs have different size of letters. But it can be only an illusion.
4. Introduction: underline your contribution to science, why your paper is so important. In 2-3 sentences write also what was done.
5. Line 44: “According to [2]”: Put the name of author(s), it would look better is such constructions. Even to show respect that they inspired you in any way. Also do it later in the text.
6. Line 116: beginning of the line: “20107 and 2017”. Maybe “2007 and 2017”?
7. Point 2: Write something about construction of the survey. We need to know its maim, form, how many questions, what type of question etc. Especially that later, when you present the results of this survey I feel lost. You need to introduce it with more details.
8. Line 129: 55 surveys: all were valid? You should also explain the size of the sample in some way, people can think it is too small. Later I could read that there are only 19 people. Just one sentence can dispel all doubts.
9. Figure 3: Add titles of both axis.
10. Line 215: I think you missed Figure number and title.
11. Point 3.2.2.: it does not look good. In the line with title (line 225) you should put title of this subsection and below one sentence to introduce the list.
12. Line 231: dot at the end.
13. Figures 6-10: enlarge legend, it is too small. I am old, and I have difficulties to read it.
14. Table 1: Last line with total is not needed, you showed percentage, so it is obvious you should have 100.
15. Conclusion: any limitation of your research? So please add it.

As you see, there is not too much to correct according to my opinion.

Good luck in your future scientific work and all the best in 2021.

Author Response

Thanks to the opponent for his valuable comments, they helped us improve the quality of the article. The answers are attached in the annex.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with a very interesting and current issue in the contemporary debate.

Some of the authors' statements appear peremptory but require clarifications. In fact, they declare that "sustainability of historic village communities does not mean maintaining morphologically stable village environments" without, however, sufficiently arguing for this claim. If the evolution of these villages is dynamic - and therefore their morphology is also dynamic - it is also true that in many cases a conservative approach in this direction can guarantee sustainability scenarios for the development of historic villages.

A contradictory element concerns the continuity of use: "As the inhabitants still use or live in the houses [...] This partly hampers its sustainable development". This is a fairly problematic statement that certainly requires clarification, since for decades the debate on conservation - at different scales - has been fairly in agreement on the continuity of use, possibly even housing, precisely to guarantee the conservation of a building, a portion of the urban fabric, a part of the rural landscape, etc. Therefore, the presence of inhabitants may even prove necessary for conservation and sustainable development (think, for example, only of the minimum essential maintenance practices).

For the points already highlighted and, in general, for the entire review of the paper, the reading of the essay by F. Bandarin and R. Van Oers, The Historic Urban Landscape. Managing Heritage in an Urban Century, Oxford-Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, is not only suggested but indispensable. Although the authors consider UNESCO indications for a long time, the most recent indications regarding Historic Urban Landscape are not sufficiently analyzed with reference to Vlkolínec.

Paragraph 3.3 - Changes in landscape structure on historical maps and aerial photographs - seems "weak" in the research setting and, therefore, also in the paper. The historical analysis of the historical landscape is not sufficiently thorough. The comparison in the text, also visible in figg. 6-10, focuses almost exclusively on the use of the land; however, this is a very partial analysis that does not take into account the morphological and structural elements of the landscape: what are any invariant elements? How did they influence the formation and transformation of the landscape? How can they drive the sustainability of the conservation and development of that landscape? Other elements of the landscape are not taken into consideration, even if starting from important cartographic bases: in this sense the reading of C. Tosco, Il paesaggio storico: le fonti e i metodi di ricerca, Rome-Bari, Laterza , 2009, could be very helpful.

The considerations of a more sociological nature are interesting and present no particular problems. The considerations on rural buildings are very relevant and interesting.

Some hints about text formatting:

- some images must be centered;

- the caption of fig. 4 must be rewritten;

- line 231: insert the point/period at the end of the sentence;

- lines 44, 71, 86: specify the references after “According to” or “As”, and not limit yourself to indicating only the number of references;

- final references need revision.

Finally, a comprehensive revision of the English text is strongly suggested. At the moment the text looks like a literal translation which, however, does not take into account certain syntactic forms typical of the English language (for example lines 98-99: the verb "to provide" does not want "to" but directly "us").

Author Response

Thanks to the opponent for his valuable comments, they helped us improve the quality of the article. The answers are attached in the annex.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This revised version only partially accepts the suggestions of the last revision. The paper presents an element that is both a merit and a limit: it poses to the reader a series of very interesting and stimulating questions which, however, are not all sufficiently addressed.

I agree with the authors' note when they say that "the morpohological village environment must also take into account the needs of visitors". Indeed, this is inevitable and necessary. They do not clarify enough, however, how this should happen. In fact the morphology of the site does not necessarily change with the introduction of new services for visitors.

Furthermore, even if Vlkolínec has a limited extension and there are only 19 permanent residents, the UNESCO recommendations on the Historic Urban Landscape would be particularly useful since they allow a qualitative interpretation of the site's values. The authors declare that they want to consider this aspect in the future development of their research.

In paragraph 3.3 a clarification on the choice of parameters (landscape elements) would be appreciated, since the methods of investigation and the selection criteria already direct towards certain results and, in the field of historical landscape, there are many variables to be considered (as already reported in the previous review). The choice of Land-use (which is well highlighted in the figures) should be better justified.

The word “questionnaires” is repeated on line 138.

The caption of Fig. 4 has been corrected; however a different formatting of the images would be advisable (for example with the two images of the same size, or aligned).

 

Author Response

Thanks to the reviewer for additional questions that improved the article.

 

This revised version only partially accepts the suggestions of the last revision. The paper presents an element that is both a merit and a limit: it poses to the reader a series of very interesting and stimulating questions which, however, are not all sufficiently addressed.

--- agree with the authors' note when they say that "the morpohological village environment must also take into account the needs of visitors". Indeed, this is inevitable and necessary. They do not clarify enough, however, how this should happen. In fact the morphology of the site does not necessarily change with the introduction of new services for visitors.

• We have added a text in introduction and discussion which is dedicated to morphology of the sites with special protection (like UNESCO localities). One of the conditions for Vlkolínec as a UNESCO site is the preservation of small historic village community (permanent residents) and archaic visual character of the settlement with the mosaic of small fields and meadows in the surrounding. And as we were written in the text, settlement is very intensively visited by tourists. Therefore, it is necessary provide sufficient services for visitors and also create the conditions for ordinary life of residents. The morphology of the locality is crucial. The interest of city management to solve absent services is high. Nowadays Vlkolínec has not enough positive visual impact. This status is caused, for example, by parking of resident's and property owners cars. From the point of view of the need to comply the UNESCO conditions, it is desirable that the cars of the inhabitants do not create a negative landscape image.  It's not possible to build new parking buildings in the interested territory. But the farm buildings in the settlement no longer fulfil their original function. Their new services could be providing the places for car parking (cars will be hidden from view of visitors) or their interior could be used for sanitary facilities for tourists. But the building of new sanitary facilities is conditioned many rules and legislations. Therefore acceptable approach in this case is to build new buildings with visual features of local architecture. This approach supports minimum changes in the morphology of settlement. Other problem of locality is protection of settlement against wild animals. This very serious problem is not possible to solve without modern protecting elements located in the plots. These devices and their visibility are not acceptable from point of view of care of historical monuments and l historical landscape.

---Furthermore, even if Vlkolínec has a limited extension and there are only 19 permanent residents, the UNESCO recommendations on the Historic Urban Landscape would be particularly useful since they allow a qualitative interpretation of the site's values. The authors declare that they want to consider this aspect in the future development of their research.

• The basic problem is mismanaging tourism at present in the locality. The population of residents is low because the city does not motivate inhabitants. But the situation is changing. A management plan is being prepare and offers many solutions. But this topic represents another research area. Proposals of infrastructure development with regards to the visitors are only outlined. They are further elaborated in the landscape and ecology study which is one of the source documents for the general plan of the municipality. The implementation thereof, however, is in the hands of the Ružomberok city, namely the city council together with the civic association Vlkolinec, other stakeholders, and local inhabitants. Finances should be obtained through the EU funds, endowment funds, and the city budget. The plans are counting on using the existing buildings in order to avoid disruption of the historical architecture of the site. As it is a living village, not an open-air museum, this monument should not depict exclusively the life of our ancestors from past centuries. But also how people can now use buildings, their architecture, layout, colours and design, how they can combine original technologies with new ones. Their inhabitants represent the most fundamental potential for the future of these monuments. Thanks to them, we can talk about a living monument, about life in a monument reserve, they present and create a bridge between the past and the present.

 

In paragraph 3.3 a clarification on the choice of parameters (landscape elements) would be appreciated, since the methods of investigation and the selection criteria already direct towards certain results and, in the field of historical landscape, there are many variables to be considered (as already reported in the previous review). The choice of Land-use (which is well highlighted in the figures) should be better justified.

• The Vlkolínec UNESCO site has created its own protection zone in order to save it. The protection zone complements and stabilizes the UNESCO monument. In our research, we focused in detail on the evaluation of individual elements of the landscape structure. In terms of the goals of the publication and visualization, we have generalized these into elements from which the degree of human intervention in the context of possible preservation of historical elements of the landscape clearly follows. We wanted to visualize the development of the intensity of land use (especially the intensification of agriculture and the abandonment of mosaics), which may negatively affect the preservation of the main goal of the UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The word “questionnaires” is repeated on line 138.

- comment is accepted

The caption of Fig. 4 has been corrected; however a different formatting of the images would be advisable (for example with the two images of the same size, or aligned).

- comment is accepted, pictures have same size

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf