Historical Centres, Protected Natural Areas, Communities and Sustainable Development: A Possible Balance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This interesting article deals with the topic of forestry enhancement of protected areas in southern Italy, describing a case study of the Campania region. The topic is well presented and the style and English grammar are good, as the text is easy to follow. However, further efforts are needed to make better use of the work. The following is recommended to the authors.

Method

I suggest further study of the forms of rural tourism found in Southern Italy and particularly in the area under study. In particular the forms of diffused hospitality such as the "albergo diffuso" which is particularly suitable for revitalising historic centres.

 

 

Author Response

Dear expert the table 5 has been replaced following the requested revision taking into account both rural tuorism facilities and those for the "albergo diffuso". The new table has been structured to identify all accomodation facilities including those lacated ouside the Park area an partly on the coast,  including also seasonal accomodation facilities. Naturally, this integration is part of an extension of the analysis not initially taken into consideration. As far as Southern Italy is concerned the approach shared by the authors is intended to be circumscribed also because the theme is very broad and much space would be needed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the opportunity to review this paper. Despite its strengths, this paper has several flaws. I believe, a subsample of Land readers would find the case study interesting, however, there is only a very limited amount of scientific background provided.

·       In this abstract, the information is very basic and incomplete. Using structured abstracts in the following style is strongly recommended by me: (1) Introduce the study and state its purpose; (2) Methods and methodology applied; (3) provide the article's key findings; (4) summarize the conclusions or interpretations.

·       As compared to existing literature, there is a lack of clarity regarding the genuine contribution of the current research.

·       In the introduction part, the research gap and objective are unclear. The authors need to clarify those.

·       The 'Mediterranean Diet' should be explained briefly in the introduction of the article so that international audiences can easily comprehend it.

·       In line no 108 Instead of writing "2. Data and Methodology o Material and Methods (the study area, data source, Methods)" simply the author should write "Methods and Methodology."

·       At the top and bottom of Tables 2, 3, and 7 the authors used the Italian language, which must be written in English. Moreover, I didn't find any references for Tables 2, 3, and 7. It is highly recommended to the authors use appropriate references for the data source.

·       The authors should verify that Figures 1, 2, and 6 do not violate any copyright.

·       In Figure 3 authors didn't use the reference appropriately.

·       Methods and methodology part has serious flaws and is inappropriate. Authors are recommended to rewrite that part. And follow some appropriate analytical methods to explain the result.

·       The results and discussion are largely underdeveloped. Authors must provide more discussion comparing their results from existing studies and pointing out the novelty of their work. This section must be deeply revised.

·       A large part of the conclusions is not appropriate, as it is only a concise repetition of the comments. In the conclusions, authors should simultaneously consider all they have discovered, and exploit it to add something new (or new interpretations), and policy indications.

·       The authors do not discuss the possible limitations of their study or the insights for future directions of research.

 

·       Many sentences are unclear because they are written using vague English. It is recommended that authors review the article very carefully and hire a professional proofreading service to improve the style of the article. 

Author Response

Dear expert, we have amended the abstract according to your instructions by adding data as requested. Regarding the existing literature on the subject of protected natural areas (very scarce), we have reported the results in the revised introduction (on p. 2) and on p. 3 in the methodology. The paper was intended to help fill the research gap. The Mediterranean Diet has been explained in footnote n. 1. The Italian words within the reported tables have been translated and references have been inserted into the text. We have verified that there is no copyright infringement for figures 1, 2 and 6. In figure 3 we have used the appropriate references. In the methodology, the analytical method has been fully reviewed to explain the results. The result and discussion have been appropriately reviewed in light of existing studies, Conclusions were completely revised according to the suggested indications. Limitations to our study and insights are part of the discussion. The English translation has been drastically revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents some interesting contextual data, but it simply reconfirms existing knowledge and relations in a new context. Given its limited new contribution to the word field, but it is worth being an Italian case.

 

Authors must pay attention to the capitalization of the title.

And "a possible balance"?

Positive or negative?

 

" The paper illustrates how the recovery and enhancement of protected natural areas can constitute, for the local communities of Italy's small inland areas, a flywheel of sustainable develop-ment with beneficial effects for the entire "country system". In this sense, central is the problem of the relationship between communities and the territory of the protected areas where important en-vironmental recovery processes are being launched to reconcile the reconstitution of 'natural capital' with the conservation of rural landscapes that affect many small towns throughout Italy..." The abstract was too long to read. And the description part was too much.  

For research articles, abstracts should give a pertinent overview of the work. We strongly encourage authors to use the following style of structured abstracts, but without headings: (1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; (2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied; (3) Results:  Summarize the article's main findings; and (4) Conclusions: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations.  The abstract should be an objective representation of the article, it must not contain results which are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.  

 

Table 5. has a wrong format.

 

“biodiversityii.”？On line 359.

 

The part about "Results" was not clear. It was too confusing to read.

And the authors need to show an identified result(positive or negative).

 

 

" ....a loss of human capital useful and necessary to guarantee the processes of self-propulsive local development [30].  "

"d economy of the environment, culture, tourism, and agrifood based on territories [31]. Effective governance in conjunction with the achievement of institutional goals, especially in the case of areas where fragility and potential resources are crucial aspects, must be designed by involving local communities and sharing strategies and choices [32]. " The conclusions should be an identified part from the author, not from references.

 

 

Author Response

Dear expert, we have amended the abstract according to your instructions by adding data as requested. The text has been revised and table 5 has been revised in format. We have the correct error in line 359. We have revised the results part according to the indication given. The authors highlighted both positive and negative aspects of the case study. The conclusions have also been revised according to the recommended guidelines. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

As a result of the second review of the manuscript, it appears to me that the authors have substantially updated the Manuscript. Nevertheless, I made a few minor suggestions.

    ·   There is a considerable increase in the length of the introduction part. It is suggested that the Introduction be made shorter by the authors.

 

• I am expecting some explanation between Table 1 and Figure 1 and between Figure 2 and Tables 2, 3, and 4. Because it looks like it merged all tables and figures together, the Tables and figures might be difficult to comprehend for a general audience. Adding a few lines after the mentioned Tables and Figures is recommended to explain the data clearly and logically. 

Author Response

To reduce the breadth to the introduction the next between lines 87 and 92 has been placed in a footnote making the next cleaner and more fluent. Considering the content from linea 102 to 106 of the introduction to be redundant we have reduced it. Between table 1 and figure 1, figure 2 and tables 2, 3 and 4, we have inserted short comments claruying yhe content of the figures and tables. All new additions have beeen highlighted inred. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I thought the previous revision manuscript did not revise as my comments.
So I comment the manuscript needs major revision.

The main issue about the previous comments was not revised.....

Author Response

The abstract has been revised and strucured taking due account the considerations of booth reviewer 1 and the second reviewer. In the conclusions we have removed references of other authors as advised by you. The conclusions  as well as the results and discussion have been completely revised. Concerning balance, which you expressly mentioned we woud like to emphasise that balance is possible if the indications in the next are followed. For the sake of clarification at present as a result of the research no balance is present in the Roccamonfina and Foce Garigliano park area, but the paper indicates ays in which balance can the achieved. All new additions have been highlighted in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Extensive editing of English language and style required.

And please check Table 5.