DIGITALESCAPE Project—Aerial Remote Sensing, HBIM, and Archaeology for the Preservation and Dissemination of the Cultural Heritage at Risk in the Sierra Sur and Sierra Morena Regions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Due to a careful review, the work here presented seems to me clearer in its aims and better organized.  It is more evident that a methodological process is being presented, of which the case of Magaña hamlet represents only a first example of application.

The project seems still too ambitious to me and the coexistence of very different and complex objectives (historical analysis, effects of climate change, conservation and enhancement aspects, tourist apps, population participation) seems to me a bit forced and difficult to achieve in its entirety.

 However, the methodological ideas are interesting, as are the data taken into consideration and the tools used for processing.

Some weak points need a further review:

-What kind of project are we talking about? Is it a European, national or regional project? What funding does it have and which collaborations? In cap. 5 (Discussion 734-748), Letters of interest are mentioned, but this information should be written in the introduction to make reading clearer and the purposes of the work more understandable.

67: What the “aforementioned Heritage Red List” consists of? It isn’t “aforementioned”, it does not appear before in the text. At line 72 it is called “Spanish Heritage Red List”.

- In the historical- archaeological description of the sites, there is a total lack of bibliographic references: where did the historical information come from?

158-162: For what is regarding the historical cartography, some more information is needed. The only bibliographic reference is related to a Lidar survey on Angkor that I don't understand what has to do with this case study.

265-267: Regarding the historical-archaeological objectives, I am not convinced of a tourist app that deals with the issue of the effects of climate change. How to present to tourists a theme that scholars are currently starting to address?

- In the fieldwork phase, the contribution of historians, archaeologists and architects is not clearly indicated. On the other hand, specialized intervention of archaeologists and architects are fundamental for the reading of the sites, interpretation of the structures identified by remote sensing, structural analysis in view of conservation programs and for the implementation of the 'app.

455-461: It is unclear how climate data will be managed by HBIM platform. What a "climatic approach" is? (459). Within a HBIM we can see the effects that climate change has brought on monument (e.g. lichens and mold, damage due to rain and floods, fractures due to sudden changes in climate), but not the data relating to the climate . Please, specify.

Attention: Figure 9 appears three times.

 603: Fig. 11B

 614-615: As specified below, Sentinel images have too low resolution in order to identify possible archaeological remains.

 657-658: something wrong in letters and figures.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, attached you can see an answer to answer text.

Thank you very much for your comment and appreciations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This is an interesting and important project. The proposed methodology is ambitious, and while few results have yet been achieved, beyond an initial case study, it will be a significant achievement if the authors can establish and implement their methodology more widely. It should be published, BUT ONLY after extensive copy-editing and corrections to the formatting (see next section).

The paper needs extensive copy-editing and formatting corrections before it can be published. There were several instances of reference software errors and other formatting issues. I observed the following, and I'm sure there are things I missed.

General:

- Use of Figure vs. Fig. is not standard throughout text, and sometimes it is italicised and sometimes not.

- Reference software errors in Line 92, 569-70, 599

- Line spacing seems inconsistent throughout

Specific:

Line 118-119 - delete line break error

Line 150-151 - delete line break error

Pages 13-14 - Figure 9 appears to be repeated two extra times unnecessarily

Line 444 - grammar 'Is in the field...'

Lines 468 - grammar 'environmental factors'

Page 15-16 Table should not break over pages

Pages 16-17 Excessive blank lines

Line 569 - Is there a figure missing here? Why is the first line italicised? It makes little sense.

Line 574 - 'As can be seen in 0...' - makes no sense, should this refer to a missing figure?

Page 17 - This should be Table 2

Line 603 - reference to Figure 11 A should be 10 A?

Line 611 - 'such as'

Line 635 -formatting of rainfall figure seems wrong

Line 777 - what is (0)?

Author Response

Dear reviewer, attached you can see an answer to answer text.

Thank you very much for your comment and appreciations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear authors,

the starting point of the paper is really interesting and the aims and scopus offers a new point of view about the multiple uses that the modern digital documentation and data offer to the study and preservation of Cultural Heritage.

But, on the other hand, i think that a it is necessary a global revision of the paper.

Though you briefly highlight that the paper is focused on the theoretical approach of project and on the advances about only one pilot case study of the 5 sites that you mentioned (line 31-32), an important part of the paper (pp. 3-7) is focused on the history and analysis of the remains of al the 5 sites (with historical information but without the related bibliography). In my opinion, the quality of the paper can be improved if you reorganize the structure and focus the entire paper only on the theoretical principle of the project and on the pilot case study of the Aldea de Magaña.

If this suggestion will be accepted, then it will be necessary to improve the quality of the results about the pilot case study. On one hand, as you show in table 1 and as you well explain in the text, this is a in progress study with some lacking results; on the other, I think that is necessary, at least, better explain how you think to carry out the lacking aims that you summarize in the chapter "matherial and methods", specially about the points 14 (HBIM design and build), 15 (Smart tourism app creation), 16 (Online GIS): it will be very useful for the readers to understand if you have deeply define a clear technical structure and the specific type of contents and the type of user-experiences that you want to offers through the HBIM, the Smart tourism app (geolocation? VR-AR experiences?), the Online GIS and the technical development, because actually it seems to be quite undefined and only a "declaration of intent".

 

About the images and tables:

the image 9 is repeated 3 times (pp. 13-14);

the table 1 is divided in two pages (pp. 15-16);

lack of one image in p. 16 (lines 569-572);

paragraph 4.3 "historical aerial imagery analysis: the table about the "Historical imagery used" is Table 2, not Table 1

 

Errata:

p. 3, line 92: lack reference source

p. 3, line 108: the word "villages" is repeated 2 times

p. 12, line 414: "geophysical survey" is incorrect. You have carried out a geological survey, not a geophysical survey.

p. 17, line 569-570. lack reference source

p. 18, line 603: "As noted in Figure 11A" it's wrong (the reference is to Figure 10A)

p. 20 , line 685: lack reference source

p. 20, line 698-699: "Is appears to..." is incorrect ("It is appears to...)

 

 

 

 

The quality of English is good. The few errata are described in the "Comments and Suggestions for Authors" section.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, attached you can see an answer to answer text.

Thank you very much for your comment and appreciations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear authors,

thank you for your exhaustive reply and to clarify your point of view.

In my opinion, now the paper can be published (but be careful: the pdf document that I can download actually visualizes all the notes and comments of the revision section of Microsoft Word).

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

I thank you very much the authors for replying to all my comments.

Here’s my further remarks on the revised paper:

-         - Since the paper describes the theoretical framework of a research project proposal and then demonstrate the early implementation phases of the methodology for a case study, this should be clearly stated in the abstract, which gives now the misleading idea that the full workflow was applied for the Magaña hamlet. The objectives and phases/aspects of the general methodology and the preliminary results from the demonstration should be highlighted and differentiated here.

-         -The methodology should be rearranged to have a full consistency between the scheme (figure 9) and the text in section 3. To this end, I recommend to avoid numbering the sub-paragraphs in the text (the numbers are different from those in the picture). Conversely, it would be better to follow the same structure of the picture, referring to PHASE I, II, III and IV and for each PHASE to discuss the sub-topics and eventually the mutual relationships (arrows in the scheme). It is quite confusing to list the different aspects in the order proposed by the authors and to have no clear correspondences (why multispectral analyses  (3.12) after BIM (3.11)? Why “analysis of satellite data time series” (3.6) after “aerial orthophotography and historical cartography” (3.5)? Is “historical cartography” in the text the same of “thematic cartography” in the scheme? Where are “Inclusion and accessibility” in the scheme? The “Description and evaluation of cultural property state of conservation” is “restoration” in the scheme?)

-         - I recommend to remove Figure 10, 11 and 12. Figure 10 is not meaningful because it displays the same content of Figure 6. Figure 11 is not meaningful because it displays a model from other researches on a very different case study compared to those investigated by the authors and does not provide with any added information in the text (where it is not even referenced). Figure 12 is confusing since it shows a very specific aspect/result within a very general description. Moreover, it is referenced in the discussion section on Megana case study even if it is referred to Buenos Aires case study.

-         - When introducing  the case study, please refer the activities carried out to the revised terms and structure of section 3 (scheme and text), in order to better clarify which phases/aspects of the methodology were actually implemented.

-         - Check paragraph 4.2 because the pdf file reports an error

-         - Check section 5 because the pdf file reports an error

-         - Please revise thoroughly the style and language of the paper, which shows, especially in the added red part, a great number of typing, syntax and grammar errors (e.g. “It location beside the walls of the hamlet reject the possibility to be a thresshing fllor” instead of “Its location beside the walls of the hamlet rejects the possibility to be a threshing floor” or “Lastly terraces done during the reforestation process can be clearly identify in both, historical aerial imagery and Lidar data (Figure 17) has altered the landscape considerably and has eliminated any possible remains in the surroundin area” which should be rephrased to match subjects and verbs).  Moreover, make sure to explain the acronym the first time they appear in the text (e.g. SNAP, ESA, NDWI) or to add a list of abbreviations.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, the work is well written, the topics are covered in a clear manner, the images highlight the research results well. I therefore believe that the work is adequate for the purposes of the journal.

I need to clarify the reason for my "major revision" rating. I believe that the title and the abstract are completely inconsistent with what is discussed in the article. We talk about new technologies and the latest successes of digital research, but what I believe is a fundamental part of the approach to cultural heritage is completely ignored: the geophysical investigation.

I therefore believe that the authors should deal with this aspect or, alternatively, make it clear that their research refers to a limited aspect of the digital approach to cultural heritage.

Only and exclusively as an example, I report some works recently published in MDPI journals, which testify to the cognitive contribution of geophysics in this area: the authors can consider that there are many works of this type.

Cozzolino, M.; Mauriello, P.; Patella, D. The Extended Data-Adaptive Probability-Based Electrical Resistivity Tomography Inversion Method (E-PERTI) for the Characterization of the Buried Ditch of the Ancient Egnazia (Puglia, Italy). Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 2690. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052690

 

Reviewer 3 Report

In my understanding, the paper represents a tentative of integrated assessment and/or monitoring of 5 cultural heritage sites from 2 regions of Spain: Sierra Sur and Sierra Morena.

Title: The very first observation is the title does not reflect the content: although the information provided by the study-cases could be used by the decision-making authorities for the preservation of the sites – this is not the topic of the article.

Title: What “diffusion” stands for? According to Encyclopedia Brittanica is a physics term: https://www.britannica.com/science/diffusion

Title: Please consider using plural for “Sierra Sur and Sierra Morena region”

The text of the proposed article needs major improvements, as it is very difficult to follow.

Many ideas are presented in future tense verbs – the article should focus on what has been done.

Why large text parts are in red?

What does Magana hamlet actually stands for? Should have been explained and described from archaeological point of view.

Introduction – mostly irrelevant in the context of the proposed title. Historical facts not really needed. Instead, there is no proper geographical positioning, which is absolutely needed for most of the readers.

Quoting starts at [2]

Figure 1 – Needs improving: please consider keeping only the boundaries of Jaen area in the left image; also, I would encourage using a physical map of the Iberic Peninsula, which is more informative for the reader. Detail in the right image is ok. Explanation of Figure 1 lacks mentioning of Sierra Sur region.

Figure 1 is not mentioned in the text.

Lines 88-89: Which is the meaning of “Both study areas reflect the same idea, the transformation of the territory through projects for the foundation of new populations.”? Unclear, especially in the context of the proposed title.

Figure 2 – is redundant: content is the same as in Figure 1 – right. Should be removed.

Figures 3-5 are not authors’ photos – it is a large minus form my point of view, in the context of an article including UAV photogrammetry – why not using authors’ own field photos?

Figure 3 represents a pile of rocks – no Susana Castle and no explanation why (completely destroyed, etc.)

Insufficient description of BIM (Building Information Modelling) methodology, when this should be one of the article’s cores, according to the proposed title. There is no information in this respect actually related to the mentioned study areas.

Figure 11 – irrelevant for the study case.

Discussion: How exactly would be related to climate the reforestation process? The reforestation definitely changed the landscape – but did it also change the climate? How?

What do you mean by “climatic behaviour” of the archaeological site of Magana hamlet? (lines 761-762).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The project is very ambitious and methodologically effective. Comprehensive data analysis is expected and I appreciate the intention to work with data made available online by different National and European bodies, managing them in an open access GIS such as QGis. The multitemporal analysis of data is essential for the evaluation of the effects of climate change. The authors intend to face this issue in a methodologically correct way.

However, given the scale of the project, the list of activities and types of data that will be used risks remaining at theoretical level .  It is therefore important to specify how the work team is made up, what are the interconnections between the scholars, what methods of data sharing are envisaged and the chronogram of the project.

the 2.2 c (291-294) objective seems forced to me. The project is already ambitious enough, it is not necessary to cover all possible aspects and the topic on women does not seem relevant to this type of research.

The presented case study of Magaña Hamlet is limited to some actions foreseen by the methodological model. Nonetheless, it can give an idea of the possible developments of a wide-ranging integrated investigation.

Some specific remarks:

83-94: the text is not very clear and has repetitions.

Fig 1 and 2 are the same. Fig. 2 could be removed by indicating the Guadalquivir River in fig. 1, or fig. 2 could be enrich of further territorial and anthropic elements useful for research (hydrography, contour lines, modern centers of reference, etc.)

188- the description of Aldea of Buenos Aires can be more organic. The dates in brackets are not needed, since the history of the site is described in the previous sentences. Data redundancy can be confusing.

280-283- revise the sentence

284-287- it is not clear to me how an app for tourism purposes can also deal with the climate change questions.

291 293 – revise the sentence.

500- it is not clear to me how drone multispectral data can provide information on climate. By the example of  fig. 12, it can be seen that this type of data can be very useful for highlighting geo-morphological variations, but the relationship with climate change needs to be specified better.

520- the different techniques are described in section 3.

549-553- the paragraph is not clear. Have you queried in Copernicus Land Cover Service this type of information? Please, specify.

579- fig 13B

590-592- review the sentence

Paragraph 4.4- review English style and spelling mistakes

The text needs a language review. It has many style and spelling mistakes. Please review carefully!