Landscape Indicators—An Inventive Approach for the Sustainability of Landscapes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The manuscript "Landscape Indicators —an inventive approach for the sustainability of landscapes" (sustainability-3033271). Therefore, I am recommending this work for major revisions.

 

As major observations, which must be considered, I highlight: 

1 – Authors must reformulate the abstract. Note that you are presenting an abstract with 274 words, and Sustainability limits an abstract to 200 words. I also highlight that authors must follow the premise of presenting the highlights of the results in the abstract, something that I did not observe in this summary.

2 – The topic “1.1. Predecessors” present in line 82 should make up “1.2. Conceptual framework” (line 111), then becoming topic 1.2.1 “Predecessors”.

3 – The authors mention in lines 249 and 250 that " interviewed landscape managers of different reserves as well visitors and local inhabitant of the Tannourine Cedar Nature Reserve" it is important to present the number of professionals interviewed, It is suggested to include this information in table format. 

4 – It is understood that the indicators in the " indicators (inventive)" category (Line 303) were defined based on a literature review (which is not presented in the study). Therefore, there is a need to cite the studies that supported the selection of these indicators. I realize that the authors reformulated the text after the first review, however, the requested information has not yet been inserted.

5 – The authors considered in part the comment made in the last review that says, "Considering that in the "Discussion" section, the authors should contextualize the results within the existing knowledge on the subject, discuss their implications and relevance, and highlight their findings in relation to other In addition, the authors can also address the limitations of the study and suggest areas for future research. In this sense, it is essential that the authors rewrite the "Discussion" section in its entirety, considering the points highlighted in comments 7 and 8".

However, it is still necessary to base the discussions presented on other impactful articles related to the research topic. I understand that the research is an innovation, however, this observation is necessary mainly to support the conclusions that were drawn up by the authors.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language requiredMinor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we thank you very much for your review and please find below our response to your observations:

1 – Authors must reformulate the abstract. Note that you are presenting an abstract with 274 words, and Sustainability limits an abstract to 200 words. I also highlight that authors must follow the premise of presenting the highlights of the results in the abstract, something that I did not observe in this summary.

Authors response: 

Abstract restructured to meet the requirements as outlined by reviewer for whom we extend our thanks.  Led to the establishment, and for the first time, of an educational tool for landscape sustainability assessment.  The following results were highlighted in the abstract: 

• A total of 15 potential tools were examined and 51 indicators were prioritized and categorized based on (i) the three dimensions of sustainability (ii) their direct applicability to landscape and (iii) visuals and perceptions.
• Led to the establishment, and for the first time, of an educational tool for landscape sustainability assessment

The results from the implementation were missing accordingly added (While some LIs needed further attention, Transformative management was proposed)

2 – The topic “1.1. Predecessors” present in line 82 should make up “1.2. Conceptual framework” (line 111), then becoming topic 1.2.1 “Predecessors”.

Authors response: Thank you and it is adjusted.

3 – The authors mention in lines 249 and 250 that " interviewed landscape managers of different reserves as well visitors and local inhabitant of the Tannourine Cedar Nature Reserve" it is important to present the number of professionals interviewed, It is suggested to include this information in table format. 

Authors response: Thank you and a table was inserted includingthe number of professionals interviewed and a restructure is made.

4 – It is understood that the indicators in the " indicators (inventive)" category (Line 303) were defined based on a literature review (which is not presented in the study). Therefore, there is a need to cite the studies that supported the selection of these indicators. I realize that the authors reformulated the text after the first review, however, the requested information has not yet been inserted.

Authors response: thank you and we have included the complete set of initial set from different countries was introduced to compile with the LIs development cycle in table 4. and a restructure has been made (refer to attached manuscript).

5 – The authors considered in part the comment made in the last review that says, "Considering that in the "Discussion" section, the authors should contextualize the results within the existing knowledge on the subject, discuss their implications and relevance, and highlight their findings in relation to other In addition, the authors can also address the limitations of the study and suggest areas for future research. In this sense, it is essential that the authors rewrite the "Discussion" section in its entirety, considering the points highlighted in comments 7 and 8".

Authors response: Thank you again and we had restructured in later review and now chronologically enhanced and supported with relevant references

However, it is still necessary to base the discussions presented on other impactful articles related to the research topic. I understand that the research is an innovation, however, this observation is necessary mainly to support the conclusions that were drawn up by the authors.

Authors resposne: We have made several corrections and suporting references were also added. thank you again fr your review

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear colleagues! The article once again emphasizes the complexity and versatility of the problem of determining and assessing the sustainability of landscapes, which has been very popular in recent years. In the classical geographical understanding, landscape stability is the ability of a landscape to maintain its structure and functioning under changing environmental conditions. It is assessed by identifying the stability of the properties of individual components, as well as spatial and temporal aspects of the landscape structure. In this case, we see the use of the terminology of the concept of sustainable development (its main blocks are ecology, economics, social sphere) in relation to landscapes. It can be agreed that with regard to the landscapes of northern Lebanon, which are and were formed to a significant extent under anthropogenic influence, such an approach has the right to exist. It is also justified to introduce a fourth aspect of assessing the stability of the landscape – visual, since visually a person receives the vast majority of information about the state of an object. It makes no sense to analyze the legality of using certain indicators, as well as their quantitative estimates. They are generally logical and characterize different aspects of the state of landscapes and are largely subjective. And the authors themselves write that when introducing estimates, their quantitative characteristics, the opinion of experts was used. The quantitative approach is really interesting and promising. I found the work very interesting and original. I agree with the authors that this is only the beginning of research in this direction. In my opinion, it is very promising, since there are a lot of landscapes with anthropogenic influence. From the comments: all axes in figures (7-10) should be indicated, words from the title of the article should not be duplicated in the Keywords block.

 

 

Author Response

We thank reviewer 2 for the much rewarding comments and we hereby provide answers to the queries.

Dear colleagues! The article once again emphasizes the complexity and versatility of the problem of determining and assessing the sustainability of landscapes, which has been very popular in recent years. In the classical geographical understanding, landscape stability is the ability of a landscape to maintain its structure and functioning under changing environmental conditions. It is assessed by identifying the stability of the properties of individual components, as well as spatial and temporal aspects of the landscape structure. In this case, we see the use of the terminology of the concept of sustainable development (its main blocks are ecology, economics, social sphere) in relation to landscapes. It can be agreed that with regard to the landscapes of northern Lebanon, which are and were formed to a significant extent under anthropogenic influence, such an approach has the right to exist. It is also justified to introduce a fourth aspect of assessing the stability of the landscape – visual, since visually a person receives the vast majority of information about the state of an object. It makes no sense to analyze the legality of using certain indicators, as well as their quantitative estimates. They are generally logical and characterize different aspects of the state of landscapes and are largely subjective. And the authors themselves write that when introducing estimates, their quantitative characteristics, the opinion of experts was used. The quantitative approach is really interesting and promising. I found the work very interesting and original. I agree with the authors that this is only the beginning of research in this direction. In my opinion, it is very promising, since there are a lot of landscapes with anthropogenic influence. From the comments: all axes in figures (7-10) should be indicated, words from the title of the article should not be duplicated in the Keywords block.

Authors response: We have corrected the axes in Figures and alaso adjusted the keywords. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the corrections provided by the authors, I am considering this study for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a method for a new approach to assessing landscape sustainability. As the authors state, the study aims to identify and develop landscape indicators to provide a holistic assessment of landscape sustainability. Fifteen potential tools were explored and 51 indicators were ranked and categorised based on the three dimensions of sustainability and their direct application to the landscape.

In the reviewer's opinion, the article represents some attempt at a new approach to the ever-evolving problem of landscape assessment. The paper may represent an advance in current knowledge provided that the criteria for the selection of individual landscape valuation factors as well as the way in which they are weighted are described in more detail. The abstract is briefly written and fully reflects the content of the research described in the article.  The literature review is also positive, referring directly to the subject of the research and presenting mainly current scientific achievements in this field, although it should be expanded to include international literature. The research methodology does not raise any objections.

Summing up: The work represents to a large extent an advance in current knowledge. It is written in good, scientific language supported by figures and charts as well as tables. The aim of the work clearly defined and described both in the introduction and later developed in the paper. The research element of the paper is described in sufficient detail which helps to interpret the results. In the reviewer's opinion the paper meets the requirements of the journal and can be published

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your valuable comments and please find below our response and the adjustement made in the uploaded revised version.

Reviewer 1: The paper presents a method for a new approach to assessing landscape sustainability. As the authors state, the study aims to identify and develop landscape indicators to provide a holistic assessment of landscape sustainability. Fifteen potential tools were explored and 51 indicators were ranked and categorised based on the three dimensions of sustainability and their direct application to the landscape.

In the reviewer's opinion, the article represents some attempt at a new approach to the ever-evolving problem of landscape assessment. The paper may represent an advance in current knowledge provided that the criteria for the selection of individual landscape valuation factors as well as the way in which they are weighted are described in more detail. The abstract is briefly written and fully reflects the content of the research described in the article.  The literature review is also positive, referring directly to the subject of the research and presenting mainly current scientific achievements in this field, although it should be expanded to include international literature. The research methodology does not raise any objections.

Authors response: 

The abstract has been reqritten to include details. 

As for the selection of criteria it has been also rewritten in 2.2. It is similar to overlapping the prerequisite indicators, to those mentioned in the law, to new indicators resulting from collected data, surveys with stakeholders, tenant and society involvement.

Unfortunately, there was no previous references directly related to the subject, since the tool mentioned and the LIs are the innovative part of the research. This was mentioned in the abstract (Yet, no quantitative approach for landscape sustainability assessment was identified, neither locally nor internationally). 

Reviewer 1: Summing up: The work represents to a large extent an advance in current knowledge. It is written in good, scientific language supported by figures and charts as well as tables. The aim of the work clearly defined and described both in the introduction and later developed in the paper. The research element of the paper is described in sufficient detail which helps to interpret the results. In the reviewer's opinion the paper meets the requirements of the journal and can be published.

Authors response:

We thank Reviewer for his positive feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

  This research seeks to contribute to the identification and development of a set of Landscape Indicators (LIs) to facilitate a comprehensive assessment of landscape sustainability. These indicators aim to transcend the limitations of previous methodologies, incorporating research methods and involving stakeholders and landscape managers in their development and application. They examined 15 potential tools and identified 51 indicators. These indicators were meticulously prioritized and categorized based on their alignment with the three dimensions of sustainability and their direct relevance to landscapes in visual and perceptual terms. The selection of ILs was further validated through consultations with various landscape experts and local stakeholders. Site visits, data collection, and a thorough review of international and local policies were integral components of the investigation process. 

Despite the importance of the conclusions and the potential implications for landscape sustainability, the absence of a dedicated discussion section in the document represents a critical impediment to its publication. A robust discussion section is essential for contextualizing the results within the broader literature, critically assessing their implications, addressing limitations, and proposing avenues for future research. Without this critical component, the article lacks the depth and rigor necessary to advance academic discourse in the field of landscape sustainability.

 

It is imperative that the authors revise the article to include a comprehensive discussion section that elucidates the implications of their findings, addresses any limitations, and describes future research directions. Only through the incorporation of this critical component will the article be able to realize its full potential and contribute significantly to the discourse on landscape sustainability.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We thank you for your valuable review and please find below our response to the raised questions:

Reviewer: This research seeks to contribute to the identification and development of a set of Landscape Indicators (LIs) to facilitate a comprehensive assessment of landscape sustainability. These indicators aim to transcend the limitations of previous methodologies, incorporating research methods and involving stakeholders and landscape managers in their development and application. They examined 15 potential tools and identified 51 indicators. These indicators were meticulously prioritized and categorized based on their alignment with the three dimensions of sustainability and their direct relevance to landscapes in visual and perceptual terms. The selection of ILs was further validated through consultations with various landscape experts and local stakeholders. Site visits, data collection, and a thorough review of international and local policies were integral components of the investigation process. 

Despite the importance of the conclusions and the potential implications for landscape sustainability, the absence of a dedicated discussion section in the document represents a critical impediment to its publication. A robust discussion section is essential for contextualizing the results within the broader literature, critically assessing their implications, addressing limitations, and proposing avenues for future research. Without this critical component, the article lacks the depth and rigor necessary to advance academic discourse in the field of landscape sustainability.

Authors response:

Thank you for pointing out the the concern on the discussion. A rearrangment has been done as per attached revised version; where the results were clearly separated form the discussion; and the assessment of the four dimensions and components and zooming-in landscape indicators and analysis of the results were included in the Discussion section in order to reply to the broader context of the article.

Reviewer: It is imperative that the authors revise the article to include a comprehensive discussion section that elucidates the implications of their findings, addresses any limitations, and describes future research directions. Only through the incorporation of this critical component will the article be able to realize its full potential and contribute significantly to the discourse on landscape sustainability.

Authors response:

A more comprehensive discussion was included. As for the limitations, some of them were raised in the conclusion. Lack of data, few or no prerequisites. missing a performance test, lack of policies are among these limitations.

For the time being, the furture research direction are to test, apply and validate the tool on a diverse set of landscapes. This can help on one hand, assess its reliability and adaptability to a various typology of landscapes.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript " Landscape Indicators —an inventive approach for the sustainability of landscapes" (sustainability-2913385). I observe that the study presents an innovative approach to optimize landscape sustainability assessment, based on the identification of new landscape indicators. However, based on my evaluation, there is a need to substantiate the observed results and discuss their implications and relevance. Therefore, before recommending the manuscript for publication, the authors should improve several aspects of the present study. Therefore, I am recommending this work for major revisions.

As major observations, which must be considered, I highlight: 

1 – I noticed some grammatical errors in writing, therefore, I suggest the revision of English by a native speaker.

2 – Authors must reformulate the abstract. Note that you are presenting an abstract with 205 words, and Sustainability limits an abstract to 200 words. I also highlight that authors must follow the premise of presenting the highlights of the results in the abstract, something that I did not observe in this summary.

3 – The first topic addressed in "Materials and Methods" (New adaptive set of indicators - Line 106) includes information that could be more appropriately discussed in the Introduction section - Conceptual framework. This excerpt essentially justifies the need to develop a set of indicators to assess landscape sustainability objectively and quantitatively but does not provide details about the materials or methods used in the study. It is suggested to review the text and, if it is of interest to the authors, include it in the Materials and Methods section or, preferably, adapt and relocate it to the Introduction.

4 – Whenever concepts are introduced throughout the article, it is essential to cite the authors responsible for the definition used, since concepts may vary depending on the references adopted. An example of this are the concepts of Landscape Resiliency and Feasibility, mentioned in lines 160 and 168, respectively. These definitions were not originated by the authors of the article in question. Therefore, it is recommended to review the entire text to ensure proper attribution of authorship to the concepts used.

5 – The authors mention in lines 189 and 190 that "several interviews and surveys (and later validation) were conducted with stakeholders," it is important to present the number of professionals interviewed. It is also recommended to include the questionnaire model used as supplementary files to provide readers with the opportunity to familiarize themselves with its content.

6 – It is understood that the indicators in the "antecedent research-based indicators" category (Lines 252-255) were defined based on a literature review (which is not presented in the study). Therefore, there is a need to cite the studies that supported the selection of these indicators.

7 – The authors propose the creation of an innovative set of landscape indicators, which will subsequently be implemented and tested through the Landscape Sustainability Assessment (LSA) tool in the Tannourine Cedar Forest Nature Reserve, North, Lebanon. It is observed that the texts and figures presented in the "Discussions" section (Lines 345-396) correspond to the results obtained in the second phase of the study, namely, the evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed set of landscape indicators in the research. Therefore, it is suggested that all the text and respective analyses be adapted and transferred to the "Results" section...

8 – Considering that the "Discussion" section, the authors should contextualize the results within the existing knowledge on the subject, discuss their implications and relevance, and highlight their findings in relation to another research. Additionally, the authors may also address the limitations of the study and suggest areas for future research. In this sense, it is essential for the authors to rewrite the "Discussion" section in its entirety, considering the points outlined in comments 7 and 8.

9 – The authors depict in the conclusions that the implementation of Landscape Indicators using the LSA method to assess overall performance in the Tannourine Cedar Forest Natural Reserve was promising, however, such information cannot be provided without any theoretical or statistical basis. As previously mentioned, there was no effective discussion of the results found, no analysis, or even comparison with other studies developed on the research topic. It is suggested that the conclusions be reviewed, or that these results be mentioned and discussed throughout the text.

As a minor and main note, I highlight:

1 – Use the Mendeley Reference Manager for references as well as citations, as both Sustainability standards are not standardized in the body of every manuscript.

2 – It is requested that the quality of Figures 3 and 7 be increased, as it is not possible to easily read the elements that make them up.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We thank you for your valuable comemnts and we hope that our corrections meet with your expectations

Please find below our response to the points raised.

Reviewer: The manuscript " Landscape Indicators —an inventive approach for the sustainability of landscapes" (sustainability-2913385). I observe that the study presents an innovative approach to optimize landscape sustainability assessment, based on the identification of new landscape indicators. However, based on my evaluation, there is a need to substantiate the observed results and discuss their implications and relevance. Therefore, before recommending the manuscript for publication, the authors should improve several aspects of the present study. Therefore, I am recommending this work for major revisions.

As major observations, which must be considered, I highlight: 

1 – I noticed some grammatical errors in writing, therefore, I suggest the revision of English by a native speaker.

Authors response: Thank you for pointing out and we have asked our writing center at the University which have many native english speaking professors to revise the manuscript

Reviewer: 2 – Authors must reformulate the abstract. Note that you are presenting an abstract with 205 words, and Sustainability limits an abstract to 200 words. I also highlight that authors must follow the premise of presenting the highlights of the results in the abstract, something that I did not observe in this summary.

Authors response: We have restructured the abstract and we hope that it will meet with your expectations. As for the number of words we have sent for the Sustainability jounal and they do not have a limit for 200 words; so basically this should not be problem. 

Reviewer: 3 – The first topic addressed in "Materials and Methods" (New adaptive set of indicators - Line 106) includes information that could be more appropriately discussed in the Introduction section - Conceptual framework. This excerpt essentially justifies the need to develop a set of indicators to assess landscape sustainability objectively and quantitatively but does not provide details about the materials or methods used in the study. It is suggested to review the text and, if it is of interest to the authors, include it in the Materials and Methods section or, preferably, adapt and relocate it to the Introduction.

Authors response: We have restructured the Introduction and the Materials and Methods (as per attached revised version) abstract and we hope that it will meet with your expectations.

Reviewer: 4 – Whenever concepts are introduced throughout the article, it is essential to cite the authors responsible for the definition used, since concepts may vary depending on the references adopted. An example of this are the concepts of Landscape Resiliency and Feasibility, mentioned in lines 160 and 168, respectively. These definitions were not originated by the authors of the article in question. Therefore, it is recommended to review the entire text to ensure proper attribution of authorship to the concepts used.

Authors response: We have 

5 – The authors mention in lines 189 and 190 that "several interviews and surveys (and later validation) were conducted with stakeholders," it is important to present the number of professionals interviewed. It is also recommended to include the questionnaire model used as supplementary files to provide readers with the opportunity to familiarize themselves with its content.

Authors response: We have reorganized this section as recommended and we have detailed the professionals interviewed;however the number is not included because our intention is the different takeholders rather than the number of individuals (Lines 238 through line 254 in the new revised manuscript). The questionnaire will be attached as a supllementary file as recommended and we thank you for drawing our attention to this option.

Reviewer: 6 – It is understood that the indicators in the "antecedent research-based indicators" category (Lines 252-255) were defined based on a literature review (which is not presented in the study). Therefore, there is a need to cite the studies that supported the selection of these indicators.

Authors response: Thank you for pointing outthe above and the authors have anticipated a review study which was published where all these indicators were cited and accordingly we have added the reference at the end of the session (Line 304 in the new revised version).

Reviewer: 7– The authors propose the creation of an innovative set of landscape indicators, which will subsequently be implemented and tested through the Landscape Sustainability Assessment (LSA) tool in the Tannourine Cedar Forest Nature Reserve, North, Lebanon. It is observed that the texts and figures presented in the "Discussions" section (Lines 345-396) correspond to the results obtained in the second phase of the study, namely, the evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed set of landscape indicators in the research. Therefore, it is suggested that all the text and respective analyses be adapted and transferred to the "Results" section...

Authors response: Thank you for your recommendation and we have done accrodingly, all results (figures and tables) are now in the Results section and the analysis is kept for the Discussion; Due to the lack of references to compare our tool; we did nto include any comparison in the Discussion.

Reviewer: 8 – Considering that the "Discussion" section, the authors should contextualize the results within the existing knowledge on the subject, discuss their implications and relevance, and highlight their findings in relation to another research. Additionally, the authors may also address the limitations of the study and suggest areas for future research. In this sense, it is essential for the authors to rewrite the "Discussion" section in its entirety, considering the points outlined in comments 7 and 8.

Authors response: Thank you for your comments and we have arranged this along with your previous comment and we hope that the new manuscript structure meet with your expectations

Reviewer: 9 – The authors depict in the conclusions that the implementation of Landscape Indicators using the LSA method to assess overall performance in the Tannourine Cedar Forest Natural Reserve was promising, however, such information cannot be provided without any theoretical or statistical basis. As previously mentioned, there was no effective discussion of the results found, no analysis, or even comparison with other studies developed on the research topic. It is suggested that the conclusions be reviewed, or that these results be mentioned and discussed throughout the text.

Authors response: We have corrected the discussion and we have made few corrections to the conclusion to reflect the new revised manuscript

As a minor and main note, I highlight:

1 – Use the Mendeley Reference Manager for references as well as citations, as both Sustainability standards are not standardized in the body of every manuscript.

2 – It is requested that the quality of Figures 3 and 7 be increased, as it is not possible to easily read the elements that make them up.

Author response: Done

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review : Landscape Indicators —an inventive approach for the sustainability of landscapes

The paper's topic and conducted research are important in a high-quality Journal. However, some issues need to be addressed carefully. Please see my comments and suggestions below.

The article ,,Landscape Indicators —an inventive approach for the sustainability of landscapes” does not include:

- corrected written abstract ( objective of the work, research methods, effect)

- the objective of the research conducted is missing

- lack of thesis/hypothesis along with questions to verify it, which significantly reduces the scientific quality of this manuscript

- The article lacks an indication of the research gap  (A research gap is a question or a problem that has not been answered by any of the existing studies or research within your field)

- The literature review - is very poor in the article

- lacks an international research references including the latest trends and international research on landscape (article is local is about one country)

-discussion ( not at all in the content of the article)

Part of the Materials and Methods should be in restructured, as the authors added a literature review , but left out the key points, which is the description of methods and materials Please organize this chapter leave only the Materials and Methods parts in it. Please write more about the methodology. Lack of detailed descriptions and general wording, in a sentence: In order to identify the new landscape indicators, several interviews and surveys (and later validation) were conducted with stakeholders. It is mainly the case of landscape  tenants, managers and local society, in order to tackle the real needs around the landscape.

 Please indicate who represented the interviews ?Who are with stakeholders, managers and local society?   Where and when was the research conducted?

The article is missing  the effects and results of the research conducted.  Please provide specific solutions to whom it can serve and to what extent?

The conclusions presented are very general.

The strength of the article is the interesting topic and that landscape research is key to climate change measures.

The complete article should be corrected according to the journal's standard. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text of the article needs to improve some of the wording in the content of the article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your valuable comments and we hope that pour corrections and attention to your comments meet with your expectations.

 

Reviewer : The paper's topic and conducted research are important in a high-quality Journal. However, some issues need to be addressed carefully. Please see my comments and suggestions below.

The article ,,Landscape Indicators —an inventive approach for the sustainability of landscapes” does not include:

- corrected written abstract ( objective of the work, research methods, effect)

Authors response:

The abstract was restructured as attached revised version. The objectiv as well as the research methods, and effect were clarified in the abstract as well. The research led to the establishment and for the first time, of an educational tool for landscape sustainability asessment, the LSA tool that will help landscape tenants or stakeholders thropough decision making towards landscape correction, conservation or even protection.

Reviewer:

the objective of the research conducted is missing

Authors response:

The objective is clarified, This article first recalls the main concepts underlying a system of sustainability indicators, and then raises the replacement of existing indicators and design new LIs to address the landscape sustainability. It also enhances the view towards guiding policies in favor of landscapes and evaluating them.

 

Reviewer: - lack of thesis/hypothesis along with questions to verify it, which significantly reduces the scientific quality of this manuscript

Authors response: The hypothesis is clarified and mentioned in the introduction of the revised version.

Reviewer: The article lacks an indication of the research gap  (A research gap is a question or a problem that has not been answered by any of the existing studies or research within your field)

Authors response: The research gap has been mentioned at the end of the introduction in the attached revised version.

Reviewer: - The literature review - is very poor in the article

Authors response: A review article by the main author anticipated this current study and cited (Aad and Nemer, 2023). It contained prerequisite tools and existing indicators that can be potentially used in this study. Three main inspirations tools were briefed in this manuscript.

 

Reviewer: lacks an international research references including the latest trends and international research on landscape (article is local is about one country)

Authors response: Unfortunately, no previous reference directly related to the subject were found. the tool and the LIs are the innovative part of the research.

Reviewer: -discussion ( not at all in the content of the article)

Authors response: The Discussion was reviewed and the results were removed form this part and placed in the results section as per attached revised manuscript.

Reviewer: Part of the Materials and Methods should be in restructured, as the authors added a literature review , but left out the key points, which is the description of methods and materials Please organize this chapter leave only the Materials and Methods parts in it. Please write more about the methodology. Lack of detailed descriptions and general wording, in a sentence: In order to identify the new landscape indicators, several interviews and surveys (and later validation) were conducted with stakeholders. It is mainly the case of landscape  tenants, managers and local society, in order to tackle the real needs around the landscape.

Authors response: The methodology was restructures and reorganized to address all the raised concerns as per attached revised version.

Reviewer: Please indicate who represented the interviews ?Who are with stakeholders, managers and local society?   Where and when was the research conducted?

Authors response: The authors addedd all the misisng information to the text as per atatched revised version.

 

Reviewer: The article is missing  the effects and results of the research conducted.  Please provide specific solutions to whom it can serve and to what extent?

Authors response: The effects as well as the solutions to whom it can serve are included now in the Discussion as per attached revised manuscript  

Reviewer: The conclusions presented are very general.

Authors response: The conclusions have been reviewed as per attached revised version.

Reviewer: The strength of the article is the interesting topic and that landscape research is key to climate change measures.

Authors response: thank you and we belive the same too that landscape research is key to climate chnage measures.

 

The complete article should be corrected according to the journal's standard. 

Done

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did not meet the requested corrections, some parts were improved, I recognize the authors' efforts. However, the main thing was the "discussions" and "improvement of references" the authors practically ignored. Therefore, I am rejecting the manuscript for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

A new section was added to the introduction to address the ecological concepts and the tools (line 106-on).

The results were also restructured and more details were added (Line 443-line 465).

The discussion was reshaped and new sections were added (line Line 472-Line 539).

The conclusion was also reshaped to include more tangible conclusive statements (Line 555 – Line 572).

 

We believe that with this new version, we have addressed all concerns of the reviewers.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for including comments in the content of the article.

Author Response

A new section was added to the introduction to address the ecological concepts and the tools (line 106-on).

The results were also restructured and more details were added (Line 443-line 465).

The discussion was reshaped and new sections were added (line Line 472-Line 539).

The conclusion was also reshaped to include more tangible conclusive statements (Line 555 – Line 572).

We believe that with this new version, we have addressed all concerns of the reviewers.