Key Drivers of Land Use Changes in the Rural Area of Gargano (South Italy) and Their Implications for the Local Sustainable Development
, Caterina De Lucia 3, Antonio Lopolito 3,* and Pasquale Pazienza 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The abstract effectively summarizes the main findings, but it could better highlight the novel aspects of your GIS and interview-based methodology. The introduction sets a solid background, yet it would benefit from a brief discussion on the specific socio-economic context of Gargano.
2. Your integration of GIS data and expert interviews is commendable for its comprehensiveness. However, elaborating on the selection criteria for expert interviews and any limitations in the GIS data used would strengthen the methodology section.
3. The review is thorough but adding recent publications particularly related to land use changes in similar Mediterranean rural contexts could enhance the relevance and update the paper's academic contribution.
4. The data presentation is clear with well-utilized tables and figures. Consider discussing the implications of land use changes in more detail, particularly how they affect the local ecological balance and community livelihoods.
5. The discussion insightfully connects the findings with broader socio-economic and policy implications. Expanding on how these insights could inform specific policy changes or interventions in Gargano would make this section more impactful.
6. The conclusion effectively recaps the study's findings and significance. It would be beneficial to directly address how this research contributes to the broader field of rural land use change, especially in areas like Gargano.
7. The results are well-presented with clear tables and figures. However, more detailed discussion on the implications of these land use changes on local communities and ecosystems could enhance the paper's impact.
8. The paper provides a good analysis of land use changes and drivers. Yet, a more critical examination of how these changes interact with socio-economic factors in the region could provide deeper insights.
9. The discussion on policy implications is valuable. Consider expanding this section to include specific policy recommendations or strategies for sustainable development in the Gargano area.
10. The conclusion succinctly summarizes the study's findings. It could be strengthened by directly linking the results to broader themes in land use and sustainability research.
Author Response
Please find a point-by-point response to your comments in the attached document
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsEditor-in-Chief
Land
# land-2814643
Manuscript Title: Key Drivers of Land Use Changes in the Rural Area of Gargano (South Italy) and their implications for the local sustainable development
Having carefully evaluated the manuscript, I would like to offer some feedback for the authors' consideration during the revision process, which may improve the strength of the paper. Therefore, a MAJOR revision is recommended for the manuscript. Details of the comments are as follows:
Abstract and Title:
- Introduce a preliminary sentence at the beginning of the abstract to highlight the significance of the subject matter.
- It is recommended to incorporate important findings and numerical results into the abstract.
Introduction:
- Much more literature can be included to engage readers in the analysis of land use/landscape dynamic change in different regions. You can explore more relevant works to enhance the content.
- Furthermore, in the introduction, reduce the number of continuous citations such as [11–16], [24-26], and consider highlighting the specific importance of each study or citing more significant works for better reader comprehension.
- Elaborate further on the different approaches to determining the driving forces of LULC change and Landscape assessment in the introductory section.
- Before stating the objective, provide a summary of previous research and emphasize the significant aspects of the research conversation to better underscore their importance.
- Lines 83 to 108 need to be rewritten and summarized, in other words, provide the closure statement.
- The final section of the introduction (lines 108 to 114) can be removed.
Study area/ Research Methodology:
- The Celsius symbol in the text needs correction.
- It is advisable to accompany the methodology section (lines 175 to 215) with valid references. Review the use of the abbreviation "minimum cartographable unit (MMU)" presented in lines 212 and 214.
- Regarding "drivers relevant to the study reported in table 1" in lines 250 to 252, it is better to refer to more relevant sources.
- The title presented in table 1 should be presented with details and as a stand-alone entity.
- The drivers presented in table 1 should be more explicit (for example, Livestock refers to the number of livestock or their intensity? Is Bushfire referring to the number of occurrences or their extent? and so on).
- The number of interviewees/respondents should be mentioned. Were the interviews conducted in groups or individually? Elaboration needed.
- Wouldn't it have been better to interview some farmers or rural individuals about the driving forces?
- Explain in more detail about the Degree of Causality in the methodology section.
Results and Conclusions:
- Specify the columns of table 6 (what is the last column?).
- One of the limitations of the study is the non-utilization of numerical values related to driving forces (in other words, it was determined solely based on expert elicitation). If numerical data had been utilized, the possibility of using statistical tests would have been available. It is better to mention this point in the Conclusions section.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript's English level is good, but some minor revisions are needed. These can be addressed by revising the manuscript.
Author Response
Please find a point-by-point response to the your comments in the attached document
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo more comments.
Author Response
Thank you
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsHello,
After a careful consideration it can be said that the authors have addressed the comments provided by the referees in a good way. Therefore, the paper can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Thank you
