Impacts of Changing Livestock Farming Practices on the Biocultural Heritage and Landscape Configuration of Italian Anti-Apennine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no further concerns about the text of the paper, but I am still concerned about the ethics issue

The comment of the authors in the Institutional Review Board Statement" is a self assertion

What I would have expected is that the authors would have gone to the ethics review board of their institution to obtain a signed statement by the board that prior ethics approval for the interviews is not necessary.

This is a simple and obvious step, alas it was not taken.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor final editing run needed

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback on our paper. We appreciate your diligence in examining the ethical aspects of our work.

We have obtained the Editors' approval regarding ethical issues after providing justifications supporting their decision.

Regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have accepted the suggestions made or suitably addressed the issues raised regarding the previous submission. As a result, the overall quality of the manuscript has substantially improved, and thus, it warrants publication in "Land."

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your thoughtful evaluation of our manuscript. We appreciate your efforts in reviewing the previous submission and are pleased to learn that our responses to the suggestions and addressing the raised issues have led to a substantial improvement in the overall quality of the manuscript.

We look forward to the possibility of seeing our improved manuscript published in "Land."

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Generally speaking, it is adequate to analyse the changes in landscape and loss of biocultural heritages according to the transition of farming methods; however, in my opinion, it is necessary to further emphasize the contribution of the study.

The detection of landscape dynamism does not seem sufficient for the discussion points. It would be better to strengthen the authors’ discussion points, or suggestions to prevent the loss of biocultural heritages.

The conclusion section mentions multifunctional agriculture, and if this can be a solution by promoting the coexistence of natural and human elements, more details would be needed.

In line 643, the authors said the public interventions have proven ineffective, therefore, it is recommended to mention which points were ineffective and suggest the effective methods.

Furthermore, the contents of traditional settlements, such as watering facilities or sheds could be site-specific to apply to other areas.

In the discussion section (Chapter 4), the contents seem to literature review, rather than a discussion. It is recommended to reconstruct the contents and emphasize the authors’ discussion points.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is read sufficiently.

Author Response

Dear Referee,

thank you for your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you invested in providing valuable insights. We have carefully considered your suggestions and implemented several changes to address the points you raised.

Emphasizing the contribution of the study: we have revised cap. 4 to further emphasize the contribution of our study, particularly in analyzing the changes in landscape and loss of biocultural heritages with respect to the transition of farming methods.

Strengthening discussion points on landscape dynamism: we have strengthened the discussion points related to landscape dynamism and provided additional insights into the authors' perspective on preventing the loss of biocultural heritages.

Enhancing details in the conclusion section: the conclusion section has been revised to include more details on multifunctional agriculture and its potential role in promoting the coexistence of natural and human elements. We have also addressed your suggestion to specify ineffective public interventions and propose effective methods.

Site-specific application of traditional settlement contents: we have considered your recommendation regarding the site-specific application of traditional settlement contents, such as watering facilities or sheds, to make the content more applicable to other areas.

Reconstruction of the discussion section: the discussion section in Chapter 4 has been reconstructed to place greater emphasis on the authors' discussion points, distinguishing it from a mere literature review.

We hope these revisions align with your expectations and enhance the quality and depth of our manuscript. Your feedback has been instrumental in refining our work, and we appreciate your commitment to improving the scholarly contributions in this field.

All modifications are in track changes.

Thank you once again for your valuable input.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the lights of the editor's decision about the ethics issue I have no further concerns

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The contribution of the study is emphasized adequately in the revised version.

The discussion section has been much more advanced with the addition of details, and the content of public intervention has also been presented appropriately.