Comparative Evaluation of Mountain Landscapes in Beijing Based on Social Media Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author*,
thank you for the work you have done which is potentially very interesting. I think there are some comments to consider to improve the impact of the research.
In the introduction there are no references for many of the sentences you write.
The gap and the relevance of the work are not highlighted.
There is a lack of a section dedicated to discussing the theory, and after the introduction you move on to the method.
In the method and data part there are too many graphs; there is too much information. I recommend choosing the most relevant graphs and eliminating the others (it is not necessary to report the graph for each information given). If the gap and the research question were clear, it would perhaps be easier to select the most relevant information.
Conclusions: in my opinion, the first part can be eliminated because it describes what you did. Actually in the conclusion/discussion you should present your results and compare them with existing theory to underline the contributions.
From this point of view you should also add a part devoted to managerial and theoretical implications.
I hope these comments will be helpful.
Good luck.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: In the introduction there are no references for many of the sentences you write.
Response 1: Thank you for your advice. Based on your suggestion, we have deleted the sentences that are not related.
Point 2: The gap and the relevance of the work are not highlighted.
Response 2: Thank you for your advice. Based on your suggestion, we have highlighted the gap and relevance of the work in the final part of the introduction.
Point 3: There is a lack of a section dedicated to discussing the theory, and after the introduction you move on to the method.
Response 3: Thank you for your advice. Based on your suggestion, we have added the discussion of the theory in the section 2.2.1 ,2.2.2and 2.2.3.
Point 4: In the method and data part there are too many graphs; there is too much information. I recommend choosing the most relevant graphs and eliminating the others (it is not necessary to report the graph for each information given). If the gap and the research question were clear, it would perhaps be easier to select the most relevant information.
Response 4: Thank you for your advice. Based on your suggestion, we have chosen the most relevant graph for the most relevant information.
Point 5: Conclusions: in my opinion, the first part can be eliminated because it describes what you did. Actually in the conclusion/discussion you should present your results and compare them with existing theory to underline the contributions. From this point of view you should also add a part devoted to managerial and theoretical implications.
Response 5: Thanks for your suggestion. The first part of the conclusion was deleted, and the structure of the conclusion was modified to especially present the research results and related comparisons. We also added a part devoted to implications for tourism management.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presents an analysis of the Beijing Mountain landscape through geotagged social media data. The aim of interpreting this data is to increase the scenic quality and amenities of the landscape, to strengthen its knowledge and to better handle tourism management. Its major contribution is to introduce a novel way of assessing the landscape through comprehensively analysed tourist social media data.
However, the structure of the article is unclear: there are concepts that need more development and the introduction, presentation of results and conclusions should be better focused. I suggest including tourism sustainability among the keywords. The abstract must be improved in terms of clarity and order.
It is also necessary to clarify why this research is relevant and its contribution regarding previous research. The theoretical framework has been poorly defined. Authors must avoid vague references, such as "some studies also showed" (p.2).
Consider introducing an explanation of the study area. Listing the general characteristics of the subject of the study (the Beijing mountains) would make the text easier to read. For example, the division of the mountainous landscape into 10 administrative districts is an interesting fact that is not specified until page 16. There are key concepts that are not explained. A fundamental one is “forest city”.
The research method section (p.3) can be better organised. It seems clearer to give a summary justifying the choice of methods and then to describe the method without interruptions.
As for the cited references, they seem enough and updated. However, there are some recent works missing, such as that of an author of whom other works are cited, who addresses a similar topic.
Jinguang Zhang, Yingyi Cheng, Yuheng Mao, Weizhen Cai, Bing Zhao, "What are the factors influencing recreational visits to national forest parks in China? Experiments using crowdsourced geospatial data". Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Volume 72, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127570.
I encourage you to read this text and note the clarity of its structure.
Authors must revise the tables and figures. The texts are too small. A better layout of the tables would make them easier to understand. The semantic networks (figures 9 to 14, and 15 to 17) provide vague information.
There are somewhat premature conclusions. That fact that negative evaluations are recorded in social data media about tickets, transportation, infrastructure, and park management services may not imply that these are aspects to be improved; they are perhaps more likely to be checked (p.13).
It is possible that the overall evaluation of the mountain landscape is high does not mean that parks are well managed. (p. 16). Most of the public cannot perceive all the complex aspects of the management of a forest park.
It appears necessary to review the indicators of the evaluative indexes of the experiences of mountain landscapes in terms of the five senses (p. 9).
On page 18, there is a semantic network analysis of the textual evaluations of the mountain landscapes, which does not seem relevant. That the mountainous landscape in Changping District has both mountain and water views and is characterised by the Ming Tombs is a fact that does not require such an analysis. What is meant by "the mountain landscape in Pinggu District has a certain religious colour"?
The most interesting section is the one on IPA of Tourist Groups' recreational Experiences (p. 19- 21).
The work fits the journal scope. However, the contribution of the study is not clear, as authors have not defined the previous theoretical framework. The authors cite some references, but not critically. The interpretation and presentation of the data obtained in the research needs to be improved.
With better redaction and structure, the article might interest the journal's readers. As it stands, it is only partially significant, as there are some rushed or irrelevant conclusions and the results of the research are poorly presented.
The English level must be improved.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: However, the structure of the article is unclear: there are concepts that need more development and the introduction, presentation of results and conclusions should be better focused. I suggest including tourism sustainability among the keywords. The abstract must be improved in terms of clarity and order.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. We added the characteristics of the Beijing mountains based on your advice. We also have attached the ‘tourism sustainability’ to the keywords based on your suggestion. The abstract part has also been improved in terms of its clarity and order.
Point 2: It is also necessary to clarify why this research is relevant and its contribution regarding previous research.The theoretical framework has been poorly defined. Authors must avoid vague references, such as "some studies also showed" (p.2).
Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion. The theoretical framework has been improved for the manuscript based on your suggestion. The abstract part has also been improved in terms of its clarity and order. We also have clarified the relevant studies. The theoretical framework was modified in the section 2 of the manuscript.
Point 3: Consider introducing an explanation of the study area. Listing the general characteristics of the subject of the study (the Beijing mountains) would make the text easier to read. For example, the division of the mountainous landscape into 10 administrative districts is an interesting fact that is not specified until page 16. There are key concepts that are not explained. A fundamental one is “forest city”.
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion. The specification of 10 administrative districts has been added to the introduction section for the manuscript based on your suggestion. We have also given the general description of the ‘forest city’ in the first paragraph of the introduction.
Point 4: The research method section (p.3) can be better organised. It seems clearer to give a summary justifying the choice of methods and then to describe the method without interruptions.
Response 4: Thanks for your suggestion. The structure of the research method has been improved for the manuscript based on your suggestion. We have given the overall structure to the readers and then specifically described the each part of the method.
Point 5: Authors must revise the tables and figures. The texts are too small. A better layout of the tables would make them easier to understand. The semantic networks (figures 9 to 14, and 15 to 17) provide vague information.
Response 5: Thanks for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we modified the tables some lines that split main categories (table 2), evaluation terms (table 3), gender (table 5) for a better layout to readers.
Point 6: There are somewhat premature conclusions. That fact that negative evaluations are recorded in social data media about tickets, transportation, infrastructure, and park management services may not imply that these are aspects to be improved; they are perhaps more likely to be checked (p.13).
Response 6: Thanks for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, There may be no indication that tickets, transportation, infrastructure, and park management services should be improved based on the negative feedback recorded in social media, instead we have changed the meaning to that - there is a greater likelihood that they will be checked.
Point 7: There are somewhat premature conclusions. That fact that negative evaluations are recorded in social data media about tickets, transportation, infrastructure, and park management services may not imply that these are aspects to be improved; they are perhaps more likely to be checked (p.13).It is possible that the overall evaluation of the mountain landscape is high does not mean that parks are well managed. (p. 16). Most of the public cannot perceive all the complex aspects of the management of a forest park.
Response 7: Thanks for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, There may be no indication that tickets, transportation, infrastructure, and park management services should be improved based on the negative feedback recorded in social media, instead we have changed the meaning to that - there is a greater likelihood that they will be checked.
Point 8: It appears necessary to review the indicators of the evaluative indexes of the experiences of mountain landscapes in terms of the five senses (p. 9).
Response 8: Thanks for your suggestion. A research index is constructed based on the content of relevant literatures and adjusted accordingly.
Point 9: On page 18, there is a semantic network analysis of the textual evaluations of the mountain landscapes, which does not seem relevant. That the mountainous landscape in Changping District has both mountain and water views and is characterised by the Ming Tombs is a fact that does not require such an analysis. What is meant by "the mountain landscape in Pinggu District has a certain religious colour"?
Response 9: Thanks for your suggestion. We have deleted the sentence that is not relevant. "the mountain landscape in Pinggu District has a certain religious colour" is because there are some historical sites such as ancient temples in the mountain landscape of Pinggu District. Because some tourists in China will visit a certain classic with religious colors many times due to religious reasons, resulting in differences.
Point 9: However, the contribution of the study is not clear, as authors have not defined the previous theoretical framework. The authors cite some references, but not critically. The interpretation and presentation of the data obtained in the research needs to be improved.
Response 9: Thanks for your suggestion. Based on your suggestion, we have added the discussion of the theory.We have improved the structure of the entire manuscript and the result of the research.
Point 10: The English level must be improved.
Response 10: Thanks for your suggestion. The article has been edited and structured more effectively. The MDPI website has also been polished to improve the English level of the entire document.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Article deals with really interesting and important topic. Recreation is important part of life for a lot of people. To fully understand the developmental status of mountain landscapes in Beijing, the paper comparatively evaluates 45 mountain landscapes in Beijing based on social media data. Using big data capture, semantic network analysis, IPA, etc., it explores the composition of tourist groups in mountain parks, the preferences of tourists, and the relationships between park tourists and different influencing factors, and it evaluates the recreational experiences of tourist groups.
Big strength of this paper is the methodology used and quality of presentation of the data.
Big weakness is the presentation of tables. It is not so clear to read and to understand - probably some lines that split main cathegories (table 2), evaluation terms (table 3), gender (table 5). For me the discussion part is missing. Authors do not compare their data with another´s authors data. Could be a part of Conclusion too. The data analysis is huge and brings interesting results but it is not so clear or concrete how to use it. Comments are too general. Could authors desribe any concrete materials, steps etc. where could we use the data?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: Big weakness is the presentation of tables. It is not so clear to read and to understand - probably some lines that split main cathegories (table 2), evaluation terms (table 3), gender (table 5). For me the discussion part is missing. Authors do not compare their data with another´s authors data. Could be a part of Conclusion too. The data analysis is huge and brings interesting results but it is not so clear or concrete how to use it. Comments are too general. Could authors desribe any concrete materials, steps etc. where could we use the data?
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we modified the tables some lines that split main categories (table 2), evaluation terms (table 3), gender (table 5).We have added a discussion on research methods, materials and steps and improve the comments. We also have compared the data with another´s authors data as part of Conclusion.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comparative evaluation of mountain landscapes in Beijing based on Social Media data
The topic is interesting, but the reliability of the research in terms of reproducibility and accuracy is doubtful. It is also necessary to broaden the theoretical basis underlying the empirical analysis.
In addition, it is necessary to review the writing of the manuscript, because scientific articles tend to avoid personal and possessive pronouns. For example, “this study” instead of “our study”, or “this research” instead of “our research”, etc.
Abstract
Please include some mention of the destination image perceived by tourists or travellers and shared on social media, because it is a crucial issue in this study.
Please include the meaning of the acronyms the first time they appear. For example: you should replace IPA with importance-performance analysis (IPA).
Keywords
“Three to ten pertinent keywords need to be added after the abstract. We recommend that the keywords are specific to the article ...”
'city' is a common word and has little relation to the case study. Therefore, I suggest some more suitable key terms to increase the visibility of the manuscript through bibliographic search engines:
nature tourism; mountain landscape; perceived destination image; social media data; user-generated content; text analysis; importance-performance analysis; Beijing; China
Introduction
Once the importance of the topic to be discussed has been demonstrated, at the end of this section, readers should be clear about the aims and/or rationale of the research. What research questions does the study intend to answer, and how does it propose to do so (materials and methods).
Background
The conceptual model is missing. The concept of tourist destination image (TDI), which has been studied for more than half a century by scholars in the field of tourism, could be useful. Specifically, the concept of perceived destination image. Regarding the data source, the tourist- or traveller-generated content (TGC) is of vital importance, which represents the destination image perceived by tourists and shared in social media. This TGC constitutes a new and unsolicited organic image-formation agent in Gartner's model. Please see the popular article “Destination image analytics through traveller-generated content” (Sust., 2019).
Materials and Methods
“Table 1. Score”
How did you get the score?
It is necessary to inform readers about the context.
“tourist destinations of Grade 3A and above”
What are the tourist destinations of grade 3A?
“we used web crawler tools on Dianping, CTrip, and Mafengwo”
What crawler tools did you use? Are they reliable?
Why did you select these platforms and not consider other social media sources as Weibo?
“The sample period was from January 2021 to June 2022”
Could the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (COVID-19) have influenced the behaviour of tourists? For example, some authors have shown that rural tourism increased during the pandemic.
“we quantitatively analyzed 31,367 tourist photos”
The classification criteria for pictures are not clear. The average of about 50 characters associated with each photo does not seem sufficient to carry out a complex classification. With the scant information available in the manuscript, the experiment is not replicable.
“... tools in ROSTCM6”
Is there any reliable research that used these tools?
“Table 3. Infrastructure (D)”
An important tourist resource remains to be considered: Accommodation facilities.
Results and Discussion
“According to the classification of landscape resources summarized in Table 1”
Can it be the classification of Table 2?
Table 7. Average Rating Star
What criteria did they follow to award the scores?
Conclusions
“Through a statistical analysis of pictures ...”
I do not see an analysis of pictures but a classification of photos through the analysis of the associated text.
The concluding remarks section should include a summary of the main outcomes and how to obtain them, and three subsections: Theoretical contribution, Managerial implications, and Limitations and future work. For example, it is interesting to contrast the results obtained through organic sources, with the TDI projected by other induced and autonomous agents. Please see the major article “Online tourism destination image: components, information sources, and incongruence” (JTTM, 2020). It is also interesting to classify the photos using image recognition software. Please see the major article “A framework for quantitative analysis and differentiated marketing of tourism destination image based on visual content of photos” (TourMan, 2022).
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Point 1: In addition, it is necessary to review the writing of the manuscript, because scientific articles tend to avoid personal and possessive pronouns. For example, “this study” instead of “our study”, or “this research” instead of “our research”, etc.
Response 1: Thank you for your advice. All personal and possessive pronouns have been replaced with scientific expressions.
Point 2: Please include some mention of the destination image perceived by tourists or travellers and shared on social media, because it is a crucial issue in this study.
Response 2: Thank you for your advice. We have attached 5 destination images shared by travelers to the section 2.2.2 Image recognition and statistic of the manuscript.
Point 3: Please include the meaning of the acronyms the first time they appear. For example: you should replace IPA with importance-performance analysis (IPA).
Response 3: Thank you for your advice. The importance-performance analysis (IPA) has been replaced with the IPA when it is being used for the first time.
Point 4: “Three to ten pertinent keywords need to be added after the abstract. We recommend that the keywords are specific to the article ...”
'city' is a common word and has little relation to the case study. Therefore, I suggest some more suitable key terms to increase the visibility of the manuscript through bibliographic search engines:
nature tourism; mountain landscape; perceived destination image; social media data; user-generated content; text analysis; importance-performance analysis; Beijing; China
Response 4: Thank you for your advice. As part of our keyword research, we have added key terms such as perceived destination image; social media data; Beijing; China; and important-performance analysis (IPA).
Point 5: Once the importance of the topic to be discussed has been demonstrated, at the end of this section, readers should be clear about the aims and/or rationale of the research. What research questions does the study intend to answer, and how does it propose to do so (materials and methods).
Response 5: Thank you for your advice. We have clarified the aims of the research and related research questions, materials, and methods in the introduction.
Point 6: The conceptual model is missing. The concept of tourist destination image (TDI), which has been studied for more than half a century by scholars in the field of tourism, could be useful. Specifically, the concept of perceived destination image. Regarding the data source, the tourist- or traveller-generated content (TGC) is of vital importance, which represents the destination image perceived by tourists and shared in social media. This TGC constitutes a new and unsolicited organic image-formation agent in Gartner's model. Please see the popular article “Destination image analytics through traveller-generated content” (Sust., 2019).
Response 6: Thank you for your advice. There is value in the concept of the tourist destination image (TDI) for a deeper understanding of tourism.
Point 7:
“Table 1. Score”
How did you get the score?
Response 7: Scores were obtained from social media, in which the overall score is 5. Then, we calculated the weighted average of tourist reviews of scenic spots on the three social platform websites selected for the study.
Point 8:
It is necessary to inform readers about the context.
“tourist destinations of Grade 3A and above”
What are the tourist destinations of grade 3A?
Response 8: Thanks for your suggestion. From high to low, China's tourist attractions are classified into five levels, AAAAA, AAAA, AAA, AA, and A-level. After AAAAA and AAAA, AAA (3A) is the second highest level of quality for tourist attractions. The related explanation for the 3A tourist destination was attached.
Point 9:
“we used web crawler tools on Dianping, CTrip, and Mafengwo”
What crawler tools did you use? Are they reliable?
Why did you select these platforms and not consider other social media sources as Weibo?
Response 9: The data capture code is written by computer professionals, and the information is captured on public web pages in a valid manner. We have reviewed and compared the information and determined that it is accurate and reliable, therefore the data is reliable. Since Weibo does not capture user information, these platforms are able to effectively obtain user information, as well as possess a large amount of data, sufficient picture information, synchronization of graphic and text information, accurate authentication information, and a wide range of age and regional coverage.
Point 10:
“The sample period was from January 2021 to June 2022”
Could the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (COVID-19) have influenced the behaviour of tourists? For example, some authors have shown that rural tourism increased during the pandemic.
Response 10: A pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) does not affect the behavior of tourists. As many of these photos were taken after this time, they were not affected by the change.
Point 11:
“we quantitatively analyzed 31,367 tourist photos”
The classification criteria for pictures are not clear. The average of about 50 characters associated with each photo does not seem sufficient to carry out a complex classification. With the scant information available in the manuscript, the experiment is not replicable.
Response 11: Image classification is based on the Chinese national standard "Tourism Resource Classification, Investigation and Evaluation" (GB/T18972-2017) for image identification and classification, and the types of landscape resources are divided into the following eight types: cultural landscape, water landscape, biological landscape, Astronomical and climatic landscapes, buildings and facilities, historical relics, tourist shopping products, and cultural activities include sufficient landscape classification types. We have added method examples for identifying picture landscape resources based on your suggestions.
Point 12:
“... tools in ROSTCM6”
Is there any reliable research that used these tools?
Response 12: Thanks for your suggestion. The ROSTCM6 analysis system is used in many different types of literature. ROSTCM6 is a humanistic research platform developed by Professor Shen Yang, Wuhan University, etc. The software supports word segmentation, emotion analysis, and other analysis methods. Based on the ROSTCM method, five domestic terraced field scenic spots were selected as examples and the impact of media communication on doctor-patient relationships was explored using ROSTCM6.
Xu, Y., You, X., Wang, Y. (2018) A study on the evaluation of tourist satisfaction based on ROSTCM method -- taking five domestic terrace scenic spots as examples. Tourism BBS, 11(05):22-34.
Point 13:
“Table 3. Infrastructure (D)”
An important tourist resource remains to be considered: Accommodation facilities.
Response 13: Thanks for your suggestion. This limitation was attributed to the fact that only a few scenic spots with accommodation facilities were found in the 45 mountain landscapes selected for the study.
Point 14:
“According to the classification of landscape resources summarized in Table 1”
Can it be the classification of Table 2?
Response 14: Thank you for your advice. We have changed “According to the classification of landscape resources summarized in Table 1” to “According to the classification of landscape resources summarized in Table 2” since this sentence is analyzed according to Table 2.
Point 15:
Table 7. Average Rating Star
What criteria did they follow to award the scores?
Response 15: There were 45 mountain landscapes selected for the study, distributed in 10 districts of Beijing, and a weighted average was calculated based on the star ratings of the users of the three social platforms studied for each mountain landscape in each district.
Point 16:
The concluding remarks section should include a summary of the main outcomes and how to obtain them, and three subsections: Theoretical contribution, Managerial implications, and Limitations and future work.
Response 16: As a result of your suggestion, we have deleted this sentence as it should be included in the method part. The conclusion has been revised to include theoretical contributions, managerial implications, limitations, and future work, with a focus on describing the outcomes and how they were obtained.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, please find attached a pdf file with some comments. You have done a significant improvement to your paper. However, I consider that some graphs and tables still have a lot of room for improvement. I have also made some comments on minor issues.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Maybe this explanation can be in an end note. Why must be buildings covered by vegetatios? To fight pollution, climate change?
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. We have made corrections and modifications according to your suggestions.
Point 2: Humanistic is a term that links with philosophy. Consider using anthropic, or human-made instead.
Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion. We have corrected these mistakes based on your suggestions.
Point 3: I don't quite understand the meaning of this phrase. Does it mean that the temples are worshipped by the common people as well as by royalty?
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion. We have made corrections and modifications according to your suggestions.
Point 4: Readibility can be enhanced by simplifiying: from AAAAA (the highest level), to A (the lowest).
Response 4: Thanks for your suggestion. We have improved the readability of the article according to your suggestions.
Point 5: Isn´t it the 3rd level?
Response 5: Thanks for your suggestion. We have corrected this mistake based on your suggestions.
Point 6: Maybe this information can be in an endnote.
Response 6: Thanks for your suggestion. We have made corrections and modifications according to your suggestions.
Point 7: This table requires a better design. Perhaps the row division lines should be included.
Response 7: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised the table according to your suggestions.
Point 8: These semantic networks are somewhat confusing. Can you highlight the main concepts in size or colour?
Response 8: Thanks for your suggestion. We have modified these semantic networks according to your suggestions.
Point 9: These semantic networks are unreadable.
Response 9: Thanks for your suggestion. We have modified these semantic networks according to your suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comparative evaluation of mountain landscapes in Beijing based on Social Media data
The manuscript has improved significantly and therefore I recommend its publication in Land once an essential section on scientific studies has been completed.
Conclusions
The concluding remarks section should include a summary of the main outcomes and how to obtain them, and three subsections: Theoretical contribution, Managerial implications, and Limitations and future work. For example, it is interesting to contrast the results obtained through organic sources, with the TDI projected by other induced, autonomous and organic agents. Please see the major article “Online tourism destination image: components, information sources, and incongruence” (JTTM, 2020). It is also interesting to classify photos using image recognition software. Please see the major article “A framework for quantitative analysis and differentiated marketing of tourism destination image based on visual content of photos” (TourMan, 2022).
In the current wording, while the summary and managerial implications are well expressed, it is not clear what the theoretical contribution to the body of knowledge on landscapes is. The limitations of this work and future lines of research are also missing.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Point 1:
Conclusions
The concluding remarks section should include a summary of the main outcomes and how to obtain them, and three subsections: Theoretical contribution, Managerial implications, and Limitations and future work. For example, it is interesting to contrast the results obtained through organic sources, with the TDI projected by other induced, autonomous and organic agents. Please see the major article “Online tourism destination image: components, information sources, and incongruence” (JTTM, 2020). It is also interesting to classify photos using image recognition software. Please see the major article “A framework for quantitative analysis and differentiated marketing of tourism destination image based on visual content of photos” (TourMan, 2022).
In the current wording, while the summary and managerial implications are well expressed, it is not clear what the theoretical contribution to the body of knowledge on landscapes is. The limitations of this work and future lines of research are also missing.
Response 1: Thank you for your advice. We have revised the content of the conclusion according to your suggestions, including the theoretical contribution, the limitations of the work and future lines of research. Thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
