Developing a Tool for Landscape Sustainability Assessment—Using a New Conceptual Approach in Lebanon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to appreciate this author(s)'s work for the novelty of their research. Below I provide my comments on this manuscript.

1.      The abstract needs improvement. For example, authors should include a background to the field of research, what's the current knowledge gap, how this gap is addressed, discussing the results and drawing broader and more general conclusions and take home message to readers.

2.      The introduction and literature review is insufficient, not adequately defined and inconsistently, which is fully reflected in the references after the paper. The author tries to explain the Landscape Sustainability Assessment, but does not make it clear, so it is not clear why this study was carried out. As mentioned earlier, the underlying literature on which this article is based is not well represented. Please address this issue.

3.      The article only mentioned Sustainability assessment tools but did not clearly show the rationality and science of using this method, nor did it explain the application of this method, so it is difficult to understand the following analysis content.

4.      Robust the results section. Elaborate in detail sustainability indicators like Environmental Impact Assessment, Farm Sustainability Assessment, Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool.

5.      The conclusion needs to be improved using following aspect: Authors should insert implications for policymakers; How the result of this paper will help to overcome the research problem How your result help to the local people problems; How this result will help the policy makers, planners and stockholders; How this research methodology will help in future research; Limitation of the research and future research prospect

6.      Must Include these references

Developing a landscape sustainability assessment model using an analytic hierarchy process in korea. Sustainability, (2019), 12(1), 301.

Dynamics of land use and land cover change in peri urban area of Burdwan city, India: a remote sensing and GIS based approach. GeoJournal 88, 4189–4213 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-023-10860-3

Criteria and indicator approach of global sustainability assessment system for sustainable landscaping using native plants in Qatar. Ecological indicators, 69, 381-389 (2016).

 

 

Minor editing is required

Author Response

We thank you for your valuable comments and we have responded to all your concerns as below.

I would like to appreciate this author(s)'s work for the novelty of their research. Below I provide my comments on this manuscript.

1. The abstract needs improvement. For example, authors should include a background to the field of research, what's the current knowledge gap, how this gap is addressed, discussing the results and drawing broader and more general conclusions and take home message to readers.

Response: The whole abstract has been restructured to include the comments.

2. The introduction and literature review is insufficient, not adequately defined and inconsistently, which is fully reflected in the references after the paper. The author tries to explain the Landscape Sustainability Assessment, but does not make it clear, so it is not clear why this study was carried out. As mentioned earlier, the underlying literature on which this article is based is not well represented. Please address this issue.

Response: The introcuction and literature review have been restructured as well as new references were added (6 new references were added)

3. The article only mentioned Sustainability assessment tools but did not clearly show the rationality and science of using this method, nor did it explain the application of this method, so it is difficult to understand the following analysis content.

Response: More senetences and explanation have been added to the section. It is a decision making tool for conservation, correction ...; the proposed references also consolidated this part and we thank you.

4. Robust the results section. Elaborate in detail sustainability indicators like Environmental Impact Assessment, Farm Sustainability Assessment, Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool.

Response: It was taken into consideration and we have detailed sustainability indicators.

5. The conclusion needs to be improved using following aspect: Authors should insert implications for policymakers; How the result of this paper will help to overcome the research problem How your result help to the local people problems; How this result will help the policy makers, planners and stockholders; How this research methodology will help in future research; Limitation of the research and future research prospect

Response: the conclusion has been amended according to your comments and we thank you. 

1. Must Include these references

Developing a landscape sustainability assessment model using an analytic hierarchy process in korea. Sustainability, (2019), 12(1), 301.

Dynamics of land use and land cover change in peri urban area of Burdwan city, India: a remote sensing and GIS based approach. GeoJournal 88, 4189–4213 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-023-10860-3

Criteria and indicator approach of global sustainability assessment system for sustainable landscaping using native plants in Qatar. Ecological indicators, 69, 381-389 (2016).

Response: All the references were included and we thank you.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments

Overall, the abstract would benefit from clearer objectives, specific details about the identified problems, and a more explicit statement of the study's contribution to the field of landscape sustainability assessment.

 

Abstract

• Lines 1-2: Lack of Clarity in Purpose - The abstract lacks a clear statement of its primary purpose or research objective.
• Lines 3-6: Unclear Referencing of Existing Tools - Mention of existing tools for assessment lacks specificity and does not explain their shortcomings.
• Lines 7-10: Vague Mention of Non-Conventional Indicators - The importance of non-conventional indicators is mentioned but not explained or exemplified.
• Lines 11-14: Limited Explanation of Philosophies and Models - Relevant philosophies and models are briefly mentioned but not elaborated upon.
• Lines 15-16: Lack of Methodological Information - There is no mention of the methodology or approach for addressing the identified problems.
• Lines 17-19: No Mention of Data Sources or Research Methods - The abstract does not indicate the source of data or research methods to be used.
• Lines 20-21: No Clear Statement of Contribution - The abstract lacks a clear statement of how the review will contribute to the field.
• Lines 22-24: Lack of Clarity Regarding Lebanese Landscape Specifics - The uniqueness of Lebanese landscapes is mentioned, but its relevance and how it will be addressed are not clear.

 

Introduction

• Lines 24-30: Lack of Clear Definition - The introduction lacks a clear and concise definition of the term "Landscape."
• Lines 31-33: Vague Statement on Landscape's Unique Value - The unique value of landscapes is mentioned without specific examples or explanations.
• Lines 36-39: Unclear Attribution of Impact on Landscape - The impact of human activities on landscapes is mentioned but not elaborated upon.
• Lines 43-47: Unclear Attribution of Positive Change - The statement about change being positive if well-planned is vague and lacks concrete examples or explanations.
• Lines 51-70: Confusing Discussion of Landscape Policies - The introduction introduces landscape policies but lacks clarity in explaining their relevance or implementation.
• Lines 95-99: Lack of Holistic View - The introduction states the lack of a holistic view of landscapes and their sustainability without providing a clear path to address this issue.
• Lines 100-103: Mention of Existing Tools - The introduction mentions the need for tools to assess landscapes but does not explain why existing tools are insufficient or how they can be improved.

 

M&M

• Lines 107-111: Inclusion Criteria Clarification - While the focus on landscape indicators is mentioned, it would be beneficial to explicitly state the inclusion criteria for articles. This would make it clear what specific aspects of landscape indicators were sought in the review.
• Lines 112-116: Search Terms and Strategy - The use of key terms like "Landscape indicators," "Landscape Sustainability," and "Landscape assessment" is appropriate. However, providing a brief rationale for the choice of these specific terms and the decision to use "or" rather than "and" would be helpful.
• Lines 119-120: Limited Disciplines - The review's limitation to certain disciplines (Agriculture, Architecture, Ecology, and Environmental Sciences) is mentioned, but it would be valuable to explain the rationale behind this limitation and how these disciplines relate to the research objectives.
• Lines 126-129: Duplication Handling - The section mentions that no duplicates were noticed. While this is good, it's advisable to describe the process used for duplicate removal, even if none were found, to ensure transparency in the review process.
• Lines 132-142: Exclusion Criteria Explanation - The section provides insight into why certain articles were excluded (e.g., "No landscape indicator," "Not related to sustainability of landscapes"). However, it might be useful to provide a bit more detail for each exclusion category to help readers understand the selection process better.
• Lines 143-145: Quantitative Data - The section presents the number of articles at each stage of the review process, which is helpful. It would be more informative, however, if it also mentioned the total number of articles available initially to give a sense of the overall screening process's efficiency.

 

Results

• Lines 132-136: Introduction to Results - The introduction to the results section provides a clear transition from the methods section. However, it would be beneficial to briefly outline what specific results or findings will be presented in this section to give the reader a clear roadmap.

 

 

Discussion

Lines 300-303 - The discussion mentions the need for a holistic approach to landscape sustainability assessment but doesn't delve into how this can be achieved or what challenges might be associated with it.

Lines 307-309 - The discussion identifies a gap in research on Lebanese landscapes, but it doesn't explore the reasons behind this gap or the potential consequences for policy and development.

Lines 322-326 - While the law is mentioned, there's no in-depth analysis of its effectiveness, limitations, or potential impact on landscape sustainability.

Lines 330-333 - While community involvement is highlighted, there's no discussion of potential challenges or opportunities related to community-led landscape preservation.

Lines 335-338 - The concluding statement emphasizes the importance of preserving Lebanese landscapes but doesn't provide specific recommendations or strategies for achieving this goal.

 

Conclusion

Lines 342-343 - The conclusion mentions the complexity of reference in landscape-related concepts and tools but doesn't provide insights into how this complexity can be addressed or the implications for policy development.

Line 344 - The discussion points out that most approaches are qualitative and environmental indicator-based, but it doesn't explore why this is the case or discuss the limitations of such approaches.

Lines 345-346 - While it mentions the need for a new tool with adaptive indicators, the conclusion doesn't specify what these indicators might look like or how they would address existing challenges.

Lines 347-349 - It suggests adopting large sets of indicators for Lebanese landscapes without providing details on how this adaptation would take place or what specific challenges might arise.

Lines 355-356 - While it mentions a mixed and holistic methodology, there's no elaboration on what this methodology entails, what data types are required, or how it contributes to landscape sustainability assessment.

Lines 359-361 - While the conclusion highlights the uniqueness of Lebanese landscapes, it doesn't discuss the implications of these characteristics for conservation and management.

Lines 365-366 - It mentions the development of landscape indicators as the main component but lacks details on the timeline, research approach, or expected outcomes of these future studies.

It requires some moderate upgrade in quality of expressions used in the manuscript

Author Response

We thank you you very much for your review and please find attached our response and comments and we have ansered and amended the manuscript accordingly.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All the comments are properly addressed 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript can be published in its current form. I have no further comments.

The quality of english is above average.