An Assessment of Landscape Perception Using a Normalised Naturalness Index in the Greater Seoul Area

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Greetings Authors,

 

The present work is relevant for EIA including landscape changes therein.

However, many non-minor details have been found in my review and I wish you may resolve them in order to improve the quality of your research paper.

--

General comment:

You need to explain the Figures better in terms of what is being shown and a brief interpretative guiding sentence thereon. Improve readability in general.

Please stick to a logical narration of the formulated hypothesis and aims, language is important to guide the reader and make a difference between a 'natural report' and a scientific testing of hypotheses.

Comments per line number:

2. Title 'normalised' instead of nomalised.

11. Avoid acronym, or explain instead.

22. So 'rapid degradation' is the current status diagnosis ?

26. Is it an assessment or a tool or a 'Diagnose' ? The word diagnose is no longer used afterwards in the document but mentioned several times in the Abstract.

27. Why not putting GSA instead of Seoul metro area instead? GSA was the predominant location/area mentioned before.

30. Is the hypothesis that suburban development causes changes of some sort? This is evident, but if the hypothesis is somewhat more specific it should be stated clearly so that the Aim and Objectives of the study are evident for the reader.

34. Is the Aim to establish a baseline? to diagnose either a phenomena or dynamic in GSA ?

56-87 You mention landscape analysis approach from UK and even Germany; nevertheless we wonder if any local metrics in South Korea are available for the same purpose (you mention something in line 127). Actually, the very second introductory paragraph states the importance of subjective perception which implies local epistemic background, heritage and notions of difference between artificial/natural.

75. As landscapes can also be created or assembled, is there a premise to differentiate those artificial landscapes (e.g. with exogeneous species or aesthetic guidelines) ? I ask this because notions of 'intactness' are often created by narrative and policies.

88. Is this a Table created by the Authors or from References? Cite if necessary.

90. Has the stated knowledge-gap covered econometric tools? For land-use purposes, landscape integrity is often inserted in the value analysis and consequently in the derived metrics. For example, natural-insurance-value is inherent to management strategies, implying that either 'spoiling' or damaging natural assets will decrease the natural value of the analyzed objects.

104. Figure2 is illegible; avoid putting such small names which cannot be read. IT is important to see the 'stopped development' area.

114. Capital letter in Hemeroby before. 

146. Can the mean of the two dimension values be enough to discuss whether one dimension is more relevant than other?

169. Should not this be a bar-graph ?

181. the map SHOWS a result.

183-186. Are the colors referring Fig.5 correct ?

201. This paragraph is a sort of personal discussion on your own method and not part of Result section. Additionally 'appears to be a good indicator' is lay jargon adjective, not an objective interpretation (e.g., compared to another indices).

220-231. All this is discussion...

283. Conclusion on the use of the tools proposed, but what about the main objective which was stated as a 'Diagnose' ?

289. These paragraphs go together.

292. Was this hypothesis established before ? You mention the bias in the abstract but you should state a hypothesis as such in the last part of the introduction.

296. How can there be a lack of awareness if the experts themselves presented what you call a 'bias'. Is not this bias inherent to the subjective experience itself? 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Once changes are done, please check the whole document to avoid unnecessary jargon and improve overall readability.

Author Response

Ref.:
 Ms. No. land-2999514

Assessment of Landscape Perception Using Normalised Naturalness Index in the Greater Seoul Area
Land _ 1^st REVISION

 

Response to reviewer comments

The response to reviewer comments for Reviewer #1

 

Response to reviewer comments

Firstly, thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to review this manuscript. We have revised most of the manuscript according to your comments, please check.

 

1. Reviewer General comment:

You need to explain the Figures better in terms of what is being shown and a brief interpretative guiding sentence thereon. Improve readability in general.

Please stick to a logical narration of the formulated hypothesis and aims, language is important to guide the reader and make a difference between a 'natural report' and a scientific testing of hypotheses.

 

1. L2. Title 'normalised' instead of nomalised.

Response:

Thank you for your feedback. We've made the following changes based on your advice.

L 2. Assessment of Landscape Perception Using Normalised Naturalness Index in the Greater Seoul Area

 

2. L 11. Avoid acronym or explain instead.

Response:

L 11. This study analysed the Greater Seoul Area (GSA) in terms of naturalness, a representative indicator of natural scenic beauty, and created an assessment map by shifting from a traditional urban development perspective to a landscape perspective.

 

22. So 'rapid degradation' is the current status diagnosis ?

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the overall sentence in the abstract to be clearer.

L 14. As a result, the landscape of the GSA demonstrates the following five characteristics. First, the central business districts in the capital city of Seoul are densely developed areas with a very high degree of human intervention. Second, the satellite cities built to solve Seoul's housing and logis-tics problems are rated as ‘A little less, but still heavily humanised’ as a landscape characteristic. These areas are becoming increasingly humanised.

 

26. Is it an assessment or a tool or a 'Diagnose'? The word diagnose is no longer used afterwards in the document but mentioned several times in the Abstract.

Response:

We've unified them into assessments.

 

30. Is the hypothesis that suburban development causes changes of some sort? This is evident, but if the hypothesis is somewhat more specific it should be stated clearly so that the Aim and Objectives of the study are evident for the reader.
31. Is the Aim to establish a baseline? to diagnose either a phenomena or dynamic in GSA ?

Response:

L 9. This study analysed the Greater Seoul Area (GSA) in terms of naturalness, a representative indicator of natural scenic beauty, and created an assessment map by shifting from a traditional urban de-velopment perspective to a landscape perspective. It also developed a ‘normalised naturalness in-dex’ by combining the results of expert metric score with the Hemeroby index, which was used as a representative of naturalness assessment item. Then it interpreted the naturalness status of the GSA landscape characteristics.

L 44. The aim of this study is to understand the current perceived natural state of the GSA landscape in terms of naturalness, and to do so, we created a normalised naturalness index using the ecological indicator Hemeroby and expert assessment data.

 

27. Why not putting GSA instead of Seoul metro area instead? GSA was the predominant location/area mentioned before.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have changed the keywords in the abstract.

Keywords: Landscape Assessment; Regional Planning; Perceived Naturalness; Landscape characteristics; Landscape indicators

 

56-87 You mention landscape analysis approach from UK and even Germany; nevertheless we wonder if any local metrics in South Korea are available for the same purpose (you mention something in line 127). Actually, the very second introductory paragraph states the importance of subjective perception which implies local epistemic background, heritage and notions of difference between artificial/natural.

Response:

L 100. The use of indicators from landscape ecology has also become common (Gobster et al., 2007; Kim and Pauleit, 2007; Fry et al., 2009; Martín et al. 2019). This calls for an eclectic effort to integrate data-driven approaches with those of social sciences to simplify and present them in a single intuitive score. In this regard, the Ministry of Environment in South Korea, has produced the Ecological Naturalness Map (https://egis.me.go.kr/map/map.do) and the Environmental Conservation Value Assessment Map (Song, W., et al; https://mwebgis.neins.go.kr/mobile.do), which are available by region. In addition, NDVI, EVI, land cover, etc. are used to identify the degree of physical vegetation integrity (Cho et al., 2014; Kang et al., 2023). However, these efforts are mainly focused on assessing physical or ecological naturalness, with the main purpose of mark-ing areas of special concern for development sensitivity. Therefore, there are limited studies that consider the perceptual aspects of the landscape characterisation process.

 

75. As landscapes can also be created or assembled, is there a premise to differentiate those artificial landscapes (e.g. with exogeneous species or aesthetic guidelines) ? I ask this because notions of 'intactness' are often created by narrative and policies.

Response:

L 113. 1.2. Naturalness of landscape character.

Naturalness as a concept generally describes how close the current landscape is to a state of nature as perceived by humans (Tveit et al. 2006; Kim and Son 2022). Perceived naturalness therefore may be assessed differently from ecological naturalness.

In Tveit's study, the dimensions of naturalness were defined as intactness, wilderness or pristine wildness, naturalness, and ecologically robustness. The following attributes were selected for assessment: natural features, structural integrity of vegetation, vegetation/ground cover type, water, management, patch morphology, and edge morphology. Canopy cover, area, and spatial cover were selected as potentially measurable indicators. ‘Vegetation richness’ refers to the amount or density of vegetation growing in each space and includes natural vegetation and man-made plantings. Specifically, studies that have used canopy as an indicator of naturalness include one that categorised vegetation density into two categories, high and low density (Purcell and Lamb, 1998), one that used quan-titative values (Oheimb et al., 2005), and one that surveyed the amount of vegetation around residential areas (Hur et al., 2010).

 

88. Is this a Table created by the Authors or from References? Cite if necessary.

Response:

L 139.  This table was created by the author.

 

90. Has the stated knowledge-gap covered econometric tools? For land-use purposes, landscape integrity is often inserted in the value analysis and consequently in the derived metrics. For example, natural-insurance-value is inherent to management strategies, implying that either 'spoiling' or damaging natural assets will decrease the natural value of the analyzed objects.

Response:

L 161.  Among them, this study derived a nomalised indicator of ‘naturalness’ that integrates objective indicators from ecological research concepts and public evaluative perceptions. Naturalness is of great importance as an alternative perception indicator for preventing human-induced environmental degradation and development conflicts. Naturalness here refers to the degree of naturalness as perceived by humans.

 

104. Figure2 is illegible; avoid putting such small names which cannot be read. IT is important to see the 'stopped development' area.

Response:

L 179.  We improved the readability of the illustrations.

 

114. Capital letter in Hemeroby before.

Response:

L 179. We changed the spelling.

 

146. Can the mean of the two-dimension values be enough to discuss whether one dimension is more relevant than other?

Response:

L  We've deleted this sentence.

 

169. Should not this be a bar-graph ?

Response:

L 268.  We improved the readability of the illustrations.

 

181. the map SHOWS a result.

Response:

L 302.  You changed the title of a illustrations.

 

183-186. Are the colors referring Fig.5 correct ?

Response:

L 308 - 314.  You changed the color.

201. This paragraph is a sort of personal discussion on your own method and not part of Result section. Additionally 'appears to be a good indicator' is lay jargon adjective, not an objective interpretation (e.g., compared to another indices).

Response:

L  We've deleted this sentence.

 

220-231. All this is discussion...

Response:

L  The content previously on line 220 has been changed to better describe the landscape character of the Capital Region, so it has been replaced in its entirety. Please check the manuscript.

 

283. Conclusion on the use of the tools proposed, but what about the main objective which was stated as a 'Diagnose' ?

Response:

L  The content previously on line 220 has been changed to better describe the landscape character of the Capital Region, so it has been replaced in its entirety. Please check the manuscript.

 

289. These paragraphs go together.

Response:

L  The content previously on line 220 has been changed to better describe the landscape character of the Capital Region, so it has been replaced in its entirety. Please check the manuscript.

 

292. Was this hypothesis established before ? You mention the bias in the abstract but you should state a hypothesis as such in the last part of the introduction.

Response:

L  The content previously on line 220 has been changed to better describe the landscape character of the Capital Region, so it has been replaced in its entirety. Please check the manuscript.

 

296. How can there be a lack of awareness if the experts themselves presented what you call a 'bias'. Is not this bias inherent to the subjective experience itself?

Response:

L  The content previously on line 220 has been changed to better describe the landscape character of the Capital Region, so it has been replaced in its entirety. Please check the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the Authors focused on identifying the environmental characteristics of the Greater Seoul Area, considering the role of urban development. The Authors used the concept of ‘naturalness’ as core of the research and a methodological approach, which includes the use of the hemeroby index, Delphi survey, etc. While the manuscript has the potential to be of interest to international scholars, it presents pitfalls that the Authors are advised to address. Please see the detailed report below. In my opinion, the manuscript is not ready for publication.

 

Detailed report

Abstract. “This study analysed the GSA in terms of naturalness, a representative indicator of natural scenic beauty, and created an assessment map to diagnose its current status. This study developed a normalised assessment index to diagnose the current status of the natural landscape of the Greater Seoul Area (GSA) in terms of landscape naturalness by shifting from the traditional urban development perspective to a landscape perspective”. Please consider rephrasing.

 

1. Introduction.

Lines 40-42: “The ELC defines landscape as "the area that people perceive”, placing the public at the centre of any understanding of the landscape (CoE, 2000). This is more related to the cognitive concept of perception than to the natural scientific context”. I would like to ask the Authors to be clearer when they refer to the European Landscape Convention. The European Landscape Convention (ELC) is much more than a simple tool “related to the cognitive concept of perception than to the natural scientific context”. If the Authors decide to maintain the reference to the ELC, then the manuscript will need to be adequately integrated in terms of relevance of the ELC to European and non-European member states. The Authors can integrate the manuscript by including additional references.

According to the ELC: “"Landscape" means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors” (https://rm.coe.int/16807b6bc7). Please consider including the official definition of “Landscape” established by the ELC.

Furthermore, why did the Authors refer to the ELC if the research was conducted in the Greater Seoul Area?  Can the Authors refer to additional definitions of landscape adopted by the Republic of Korea? How does the Republic of Korea consider the landscape?

Lines 46-47: “These cognitive studies argue that the evaluation of landscapes should consider user subjectivity or the level of public awareness of the environment”. What did Scott, 2002; Groening, 2007; Butler and Berglund; 2014; Kim and Son 2022 point out in their research? What are the main findings of these studies? Please provide a summary of these studies.

Lines 50-55: “Experts and local activists […] are reflected in assessments”. Please add adequate references to support this part.

Please define the concept of “naturalness” as early as possible in the manuscript. On the line 68 the Authors introduce the term “naturalness’ indicators” but there is not a clear definition of “naturalness”. On the lines 71-72 the Authors said, “In this context, naturalness refers to the degree of naturalness as perceived by humans”. This is not a definition as the Authors are define “naturalness” in terms of “naturalness”.

Line 83: “CLC code”. What does the “CLC code” mean? The acronym has not been defined.

Figure 1. A clear description of Figure 1 is missing. In addition, please consider improving the quality of the image.

Lines 92-93: “Landscapes are often treated in terms of development rather than management”. Please consider explaining.

 

2. Material and methods.

Figure 2. Please consider improving the quality of the image.

Line 111: “there is a restricted development zone between Seoul and Gyeonggi-do”. This reviewer does not understand: in Figure 2, where is the “development zone between Seoul and Gyeonggi-do”?

What is the equation of the hemeroby index? See, for example:

·        Wu, T., Zha, P., Yu, M., Jiang, G., Zhang, J., You, Q., & Xie, X. (2021). Landscape pattern evolution and its response to human disturbance in a newly metropolitan area: A case study in Jin-Yi Metropolitan Area. Land, 10(8), 767.

·        Tian, Y., Liu, B., Hu, Y., Xu, Q., Qu, M., & Xu, D. (2020). Spatio-temporal land-use changes and the response in landscape pattern to hemeroby in a resource-based city. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(1), 20.

 

What is the equation of the normalised naturalness index? See, for example:

·        Côté, S., Beauregard, R., Margni, M., Bélanger, L. Using Naturalness for Assessing the Impact of Forestry and Protection on the Quality of Ecosystems in Life Cycle Assessment. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8859. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168859

 

Lines 114-115: “from the Evaluation and Awareness of Local Ecological Value (2020) to derive normalised scores through min”. What is the “Awareness of Local Ecological Value”? Is a reference missing?

Lines 126-128: “This study did not use the […] was used as the base map”. Please consider rephrasing and adding more details.

Line 128: “National Institute of Ecology (2020)”. Is a reference missing?

Line 131: “Delphi survey”. Please briefly describe the “Delphi survey”.

Line 133: “function matrix values from the experts”. Who are the “experts”? What are the criteria adopted to identify “experts”? How were they involved in the research (meetings, workshops, on-line survey, …)?

Figure 3 lacks adequate description.

Please check the quality of Table 1. In addition, please check the acronyms PNV, which has not been defined.  

 

3. Results.

Lines 162-164: “Due to the different values of the hemeroby Score and ecological function matrix score for land cover classification, normalisation index scaling was used to convert the different scores to the same items (see Appendix A)”. Please consider rephrasing.

Figure 4. Please consider improving the quality of Figure 4.

Figure 5. Please consider improving the quality of Figure 5.

Lines 193-194: “that is highly preserved due to the 38-degree military demarcation line”. What do the Authors mean by “38-degree military demarcation line”?

The acronyms CBD and DMZ have not been defined. Please check the full set of acronyms in the manuscript.

 

4. Discussion.

Lines 266-272: “This result could, of course, be because these areas are located in the periphery, far away from Seoul, the centre of the GSA at the cognitive level. However, this is a novel finding that people have higher expectations of naturalness in areas with more grassland and cultivated land. This result could, of course, be because these areas are located in the periphery, far away from Seoul, the centre of the GSA at the cognitive level. However, this is a novel finding that people have higher expectations of naturalness in areas with more grassland and cultivated land”. Please check.

 

5. Conclusion.

I would suggest the Authors clearly explain why the findings of the study can be useful in practice, i.e., in terms of land use and spatial planning. What are the lessons learned? Why should the research be relevant to international scholars?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Ref.:
 Ms. No. land-2999514

Assessment of Landscape Perception Using Normalised Naturalness Index in the Greater Seoul Area
Land _ 1^st REVISION

 

Response to reviewer comments

The response to reviewer comments for Reviewer #2

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the Authors focused on identifying the environmental characteristics of the Greater Seoul Area, considering the role of urban development. The Authors used the concept of ‘naturalness’ as core of the research and a methodological approach, which includes the use of the hemeroby index, Delphi survey, etc. While the manuscript has the potential to be of interest to international scholars, it presents pitfalls that the Authors are advised to address. Please see the detailed report below. In my opinion, the manuscript is not ready for publication.

 

 

Firstly, thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to review this manuscript. We have revised most of the manuscript according to your comments, please check.

 

 

Detailed report

 

Abstract. “This study analysed the GSA in terms of naturalness, a representative indicator of natural scenic beauty, and created an assessment map to diagnose its current status. This study developed a normalised assessment index to diagnose the current status of the natural landscape of the Greater Seoul Area (GSA) in terms of landscape naturalness by shifting from the traditional urban development perspective to a landscape perspective”. Please consider rephrasing.

Response:

L 11. This study analysed the Greater Seoul Area (GSA) in terms of naturalness, a representative indicator of natural scenic beauty, and created an assessment map by shifting from a traditional urban development perspective to a landscape perspective.

 

 

 

1. Introduction.

 

Lines 40-42: “The ELC defines landscape as "the area that people perceive”, placing the public at the centre of any understanding of the landscape (CoE, 2000). This is more related to the cognitive concept of perception than to the natural scientific context”. I would like to ask the Authors to be clearer when they refer to the European Landscape Convention. The European Landscape Convention (ELC) is much more than a simple tool “related to the cognitive concept of perception than to the natural scientific context”. If the Authors decide to maintain the reference to the ELC, then the manuscript will need to be adequately integrated in terms of relevance of the ELC to European and non-European member states. The Authors can integrate the manuscript by including additional references.

 

According to the ELC: “"Landscape" means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors” (https://rm.coe.int/16807b6bc7). Please consider including the official definition of “Landscape” established by the ELC.

 

Furthermore, why did the Authors refer to the ELC if the research was conducted in the Greater Seoul Area?  Can the Authors refer to additional definitions of landscape adopted by the Republic of Korea? How does the Republic of Korea consider the landscape?

Response:

L 36- 60 The rapid development of the Greater Seoul Area (GSA) since the 1960s has trans-formed it into a busy metropolis, resulting in expansive suburban cities. This has caused the urban population and development to expend to the suburbs, leading to significant environmental problems, with the original landscape of the GSA gradually disappearing. The United Nations was the first to put forward the concept of ‘sustainable development’ in 1987, defining it as ‘meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/). In terms of promoting sustainability, the current rapid environmental change of the earth means the decline of biodiversity and the difficulty of carbon neutrality (Lu, Y et al., 2015). Therefore, this study analysed the GSA in terms of naturalness, a representative indicator of natural scenic beauty, and created an assessment map to highlight its current status. The aim of this study is to understand the currently perceived natural state of the GSA landscape in terms of naturalness. In doing so, we created a normalised naturalness index using Hemeroby and expert assessment data.

‘Landscape’ means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors (https://rm.coe.int/16807b6bc7). In other words, Human-environment interaction corresponds to the concept of landscape, and the ELC defines landscape as "the area that people perceive” placing the public at the centre of any understanding of the landscape (CoE, 2000). As Butler puts it, “Being recognised as an entity perceived by people moves the focus of landscape from being a purely physical area to being dependent on individuals and society” to provide it with meaning (Butler and Berglund; 2014). This is related to the cognitive concept of perception also in the natural scientific context. In the majority of studies by Korean experts, landscape is defined as a socio-ecological system where systematic interactions occur among diverse ecosystems and human society (Jun et al., 2021; Kim and Son 2022).

 

 

 

 

Lines 46-47: “These cognitive studies argue that the evaluation of landscapes should consider user subjectivity or the level of public awareness of the environment”. What did Scott, 2002; Groening, 2007; Butler and Berglund; 2014; Kim and Son 2022 point out in their research? What are the main findings of these studies? Please provide a summary of these studies.

Response:

L 61 - 86 In social sciences, the concept of perception relates more with the intellectual/cognitive sense of perception, which has largely been the domain of environmental psychology (Scott, 2002; Groening, 2007; Butler and Berglund; 2014; Kim and Son 2022). Scott's (2002) study of the Denbighshire region of the United Kingdom suggests the need to integrate land use with user perceptions of landscape, argued that “public perception is complex and idiosyncratic, rendering that simple analysis or generalisation hardistic.” However, also said that, if used well, public perceptions can reveal implications that top-down strategies have failed to address.

Butler and Berglund (2014) argue that landscape characterisation is a process of “understanding the differences between distinct landscape regions and types and that characterisation of landscape is needed to identify what makes each place special not in terms of rating it better or worse”, but rather what makes it unique. This means that cognitive evaluation is needed to uncover the localities that distinguish one area from another in human perception.

Furthermore, in his book, Jones (2019) argues that public participation in landscape assessment enables decision-making to incorporate public knowledge, values, perspectives, and behaviours, and facilitates solution-seeking by providing administrators with a better understanding of the problems perceived by the public.

Kim and Son (2022) used a Q-methodology to examine the public's “perceived naturalness” of urban parks in Seoul, South Korea, and found that different groups of the pub-lic had different perceptions of naturalness, suggesting that there is a fragmented public perception, as argued by Scott earlier. However, Kim and Son did find a dominant group of perceptions of landscape naturalness, suggesting that there is a representative public perception for assessing naturalness. These cognitive studies suggest that landscape as-sessment should consider the subjectivity of users or the level of public awareness of the environment.

 

 

Lines 50-55: “Experts and local activists […] are reflected in assessments”. Please add adequate references to support this part.

Response:

L  We've changed this sentence.

A notable example of landscape-based regional planning is the United Kingdom’s (UK’s) Landscape Characterisation Assessment (LCA) under the European Landscape Convention (ELC) (Tudor; 2014). The landscape characterisation method in the UK is used to describe the features of a local landscape that distinguish it from the surrounding areas (James and Gittins; 2007). Experts and local activists combine qualitative and quantitative studies to evaluate landscapes at the national, regional, or local government levels. The LCA step presents an objective expert-level assessment using spatial data, such as GIS, as the basis for public assessment. Experts play a key role in assigning identifiable landscape attributes and selecting specific proxy indicators to efficiently distinguish landscape features (Rogge et al., 2007; Vizzari, 2011; Martín et al. 2016). The results of landscape characterisation distinguish between ‘landscape areas’ and ‘landscape types’ and are made available to the public for decision-making in local communities. These results may be used as the basis for regional planning.

 

 

 

Please define the concept of “naturalness” as early as possible in the manuscript. On the line 68 the Authors introduce the term “naturalness’ indicators” but there is not a clear definition of “naturalness”. On the lines 71-72 the Authors said, “In this context, naturalness refers to the degree of naturalness as perceived by humans”. This is not a definition as the Authors are define “naturalness” in terms of “naturalness”.

Response:

We added a chapter on naturalness in section 1.2.

In that section, naturalness is defined as follow

 

L 114 Naturalness as a concept generally describes how close the current landscape is to a state of nature as perceived by humans (Tveit et al. 2006; Kim and Son 2022). Perceived naturalness therefore may be assessed differently from ecological naturalness.

In Tveit's study, the dimensions of naturalness were defined as intactness, wilderness or pristine wildness, naturalness, and ecologically robustness.

 

 

 

Line 83: “CLC code”. What does the “CLC code” mean? The acronym has not been defined.

Response: We've changed this sentence.

L 131 Kerebel et al. (2019) analysed naturalness using the Corine Land Cover (CLC) clas-ses(https://collections.sentinel-hub.com/corine-land-cover/readme.html).

 

 

 

Figure 1. A clear description of Figure 1 is missing. In addition, please consider improving the quality of the image.

Response: L 139 We improved the readability of the illustrations.

 

Lines 92-93: “Landscapes are often treated in terms of development rather than management”. Please consider explaining.

Response:  We've deleted this sentence.

 

 

 

2. Material and methods.

 

Figure 2. Please consider improving the quality of the image.

 

We improved the quality of the figure 2 image.

 

 

 

Line 111: “there is a restricted development zone between Seoul and Gyeonggi-do”. This reviewer does not understand: in Figure 2, where is the “development zone between Seoul and Gyeonggi-do”?

 

Response: L 179 We improved the readability of the illustrations.

 

 

 

What is the equation of the hemeroby index? See, for example:

 

• Wu, T., Zha, P., Yu, M., Jiang, G., Zhang, J., You, Q., & Xie, X. (2021). Landscape pattern evolution and its response to human disturbance in a newly metropolitan area: A case study in Jin-Yi Metropolitan Area. Land, 10(8), 767.

 

• Tian, Y., Liu, B., Hu, Y., Xu, Q., Qu, M., & Xu, D. (2020). Spatio-temporal land-use changes and the response in landscape pattern to hemeroby in a resource-based city. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(1), 20.

 

 Response: L 238 We cited the paper that recommended it.

 

 

 

 

What is the equation of the normalised naturalness index? See, for example:

 

• Côté, S., Beauregard, R., Margni, M., Bélanger, L. Using Naturalness for Assessing the Impact of Forestry and Protection on the Quality of Ecosystems in Life Cycle Assessment. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8859. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168859

 

Response: L 238 We cited the paper that recommended it.

 

Thirdly, the average score of the two normalised scores was assigned to at a thirty-meter grid scale of registers and evaluated using the Hemeroby equation.

 

NHI = Normalised Hemeroby index;

h = Number of degrees of normalised hemeroby (here: n = 10);

SA = Total area of grid unit;

Si = Area of cover types with interference level i.

 

 

 

 

 

Lines 114-115: “from the Evaluation and Awareness of Local Ecological Value (2020) to derive normalised scores through min”. What is the “Awareness of Local Ecological Value”? Is a reference missing?

Response: L 513 We cited the research report well.

 

38. A Study on the Evaluation and Awareness of Local Ecological Value. (2020). Korea, National Institute of Ecology, Team of Ecosystem Services, 11-16.

 

 

Lines 126-128: “This study did not use the […] was used as the base map”. Please consider rephrasing and adding more details.

Response: We've changed this sentence.

L 201-206 This study did not use the existing seven scales but converted scores into five scales to suit the land cover of the GSA. The land cover classification of the Ministry of Environment, South Korea using 2021 data(https://egis.me.go.kr/map/map.do) was used as the base map. National Institute of Ecology (2020) was referred to determine the degree of human perception of naturalness for each Hemeroby class according to ecosystem type as the expert survey value.

 

 

 

Line 128: “National Institute of Ecology (2020)”. Is a reference missing?

 

Response:

38. A Study on the Evaluation and Awareness of Local Ecological Value. (2020). Korea, National Institute of Ecology, Team of Ecosystem Services, 11-16.

 

 

 

Line 131: “Delphi survey”. Please briefly describe the “Delphi survey”.

 

Response:

L 207-214 The expert survey was conducted by the National Institute of Ecology and was calcu-lated using the Delphi method. According to the report, the expert survey was an online survey. The Delphi method is a flexible approach to gathering expert views on an area of interest. It relies on the core assumption that predictions made by a group are more accu-rate than those made by an individual, the Delphi technique is to construct predictions from expert consensus through structured iterations (Barrett and Heale., 2020). In this study, land cover scores based on the Hemeroby index were compared to ecological func-tion matrix values from experts. then calculated the average value per unit of land cover.

 

 

 

Line 133: “function matrix values from the experts”. Who are the “experts”? What are the criteria adopted to identify “experts”? How were they involved in the research (meetings, workshops, on-line survey, …)?

Response:

L 207-212 The expert survey was conducted by the National Institute of Ecology and was calculated using the Delphi method. According to the report, the expert survey was an online survey. The Delphi method is a flexible approach to gathering expert views on an area of interest. It relies on the core assumption that predictions made by a group are more accurate than those made by an individual, the Delphi technique is to construct predictions from expert consensus through structured iterations (Barrett and Heale., 2020).

 

 

Figure 3 lacks adequate description.

Response:

L 217-259

First, we assigned scores to 25 land cover-based ecosystem types in Korea by comparing them with corine land cover types in Europe and previous studies (Tian et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2021; Kim and Son 2021). Secondly, we normalised the scores assigned to each Hemeroby index and the expert land cover assignment scores to take on a value between 0-1.

Specifically, the classification of urbanised land cover was given one point. As shown as Table 1, Non-irrigated arable land and complex cultivation patterns were assigned a score of 4, excluding orchards, which had a higher perceived score of 6. Ranch, aquaculture farms, and pastures were assigned six points each. Non-irrigated rice paddies/fields were given 3 points. However, water bodies such as ponds, rivers, and lakes were considered to have a similar degree of naturalness within the city; they were, therefore, given 8 points. In addition, the bare-rock space received eight points. Green forest spaces, such as coniferous forests, broadleaf forests, and mixed forests, were rated 10 points.

Min-max normalisation can make comparisons easier by evaluating each data point on the same scale (0, 1) by performing a linear transformation on the original data. This land-cover-based assessment has the advantage that results can be derived quantitatively by reflecting qualitative values when assessing perceived naturalness on a wide scale.

Thirdly, the average score of the two normalised scores was assigned to at a thirty-meter grid scale of registers and evaluated using the Hemeroby equation.

Based on previous studies, the grid-specific assigned scores for perceived naturalness are combined with the actual situation to give a score to the landscape types in the study area (Table 1).

Finally, we used a Zonal statistics algorithm to organise the characteristics of each region. The zonal statistics operation calculates statistics on the cell values of a raster (value raster) within an area defined by specific vector dataset, and in this study, we utilized QGIS (https://qgis.org/pyqgis/master/analysis/QgsZonalStatistics.html). The Zonal statistic algorithm is a statistical method that calculates the mean by summing all cell val-ues and then dividing by the number of cells in the zone.

 

 

Please check the quality of Table 1. In addition, please check the acronyms PNV, which has not been defined. 

 

Response:

L 260

PNV   >   Potential Natural Vegetation

 

 

 

3. Results.

 

Lines 162-164: “Due to the different values of the hemeroby Score and ecological function matrix score for land cover classification, normalisation index scaling was used to convert the different scores to the same items (see Appendix A)”. Please consider rephrasing.

 

Response:

L 263-265

The two different scores were normalised, averaged, and assigned to the grid. As shown in Figure 4, several land cover scores differed between the perceived naturalness scores by Hemeroby and the expert scores (see Appendix A).

 

 

 

Figure 4. Please consider improving the quality of Figure 4.

Lines 193-194: “that is highly preserved due to the 38-degree military demarcation line”. What do the Authors mean by “38-degree military demarcation line”?

 

Response:

L 300.  We improved the readability of the illustrations.

 

 

 

The acronyms CBD and DMZ have not been defined. Please check the full set of acronyms in the manuscript.

Response:

We have corrected all abbreviations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Discussion.

 

Lines 266-272: “This result could, of course, be because these areas are located in the periphery, far away from Seoul, the centre of the GSA at the cognitive level. However, this is a novel finding that people have higher expectations of naturalness in areas with more grassland and cultivated land. This result could, of course, be because these areas are located in the periphery, far away from Seoul, the centre of the GSA at the cognitive level. However, this is a novel finding that people have higher expectations of naturalness in areas with more grassland and cultivated land”. Please check.

Response:

We fixed that repetitive sentence and replaced it with a different takeaway.

 

L 217-259 This study made an unexpected discovery by evaluating the mean value between perceived and actual naturalness scores and made an unexpected finding: neighbour-hoods with more irrigated cropland, plains, grasslands, and open space were more likely to have higher naturalness scores. While these regions are statistically in the same catego-ry, they have two different implications.

While they may have the same mean score, different characteristics within a neigh-bourhood mean different things by their nomalised hemeroby, indicating either that values at the extremes have converged to the mean, or that values at the extremes are mod-erate, which happened in two cases.

First, areas within Seoul are green urban areas with forests or rivers nearby, which means they have a very high standard deviation of land cover values, like urban spaces. Second, areas outside of Seoul converge around a mean value of 0.5-0.6, indicating a mod-erate landscape with a landscape naturalness of around 0.5 due to open spaces such as farmland or agricultural fields, or wetlands or coastal areas.

Thus, the results support existing research findings that perceived naturalness at the macro level is the sum of internal and external environmental conditions and is perceived through contrast and association with the surroundings (Liding et al., 2003; Ferrari et al., 2008; Van den Berg et al., 2014; Kim and Son 2021).

 

 

5. Conclusion.

 

I would suggest the Authors clearly explain why the findings of the study can be useful in practice, i.e., in terms of land use and spatial planning. What are the lessons learned? Why should the research be relevant to international scholars?

 

Response:

L 408-427 This study, therefore, analysed the GSA in terms of naturalness, a representative indicator of natural scenic beauty, and created an assessment map to address its current status. To assess naturalness, we developed an index that integrates physical and cognitive landscape naturalness. As mentioned in the UK’s LCA case and the literature, decision-making in environmental science requires consideration of the human perception of landscapes. Intellectual/cognitive perception, a domain of environmental psychology in social sciences, was therefore incorporated into the assessment of local landscapes.

 

Fortunately, the normalised naturalness index that was developed with two dimensions of indicators accurately reflects the environmental characteristics of the GSA. The results provide an overall understanding of the environmental status. The result of this study can, therefore. be used to assess the naturalness of large areas efficiently. 

Of course, the limitation of this study is that the normalised naturalness index does not reflect the subjective naturalness evaluations of public members. However, this study devised an alternative method to evaluate perceived naturalness using expert evaluation values for publicly available land covers. The actual public perception of naturalness should be devised in the future based on the results of this study.

Globally, landscape research is moving towards an integrated perspective to uncover local character and promote landscape as a regional attraction. The perspective of looking at megacities in terms of sustainable environmental planning should also be explored in the direction of typifying landscape characteristics.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the revision of your manuscript. You have addressed our comments and improved the quality of your work.

Ensure that Figures will be readable in the final version, I understand that images are compressed in the pdf version for review, but be sure that the final version will have the desired quality.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

You need an additional language revision, use an auto checking tool or similar. Overall, the document is readable yet has minor errors.

 

Author Response

Response to reviewer comments

Firstly, thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to review this manuscript. We have revised according to your comments, please check.

 

1. Reviewer General comment:

Thanks for the revision of your manuscript. You have addressed our comments and improved the quality of your work.

Ensure that Figures will be readable in the final version, I understand that images are compressed in the pdf version for review but be sure that the final version will have the desired quality.

 

Detailed report

 

You need an additional language revision, use an auto checking tool or similar. Overall, the document is readable yet has minor errors.

Response:

We've reviewed and changed the English wording based on your suggestions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, thank you for your work that improved the manuscript. Some problems remain:

“Response: L 513 We cited the research report well”. In the section “References”, we generally cite the author first and then the title of the paper/document. Please consider fixing.

“Response: 38. A Study on the Evaluation and Awareness of Local Ecological Value.(2020). Korea, National Institute of Ecology, Team of Ecosystem Services, 11-16”. In the section “References”, we generally cite the author first and then the title of the paper/document. Please consider fixing.

 

The following comments from this reviewer appear to have been ignored by the Authors:

I would suggest the Authors clearly explain why the findings of the study can be useful in practice, i.e., in terms of land use and spatial planning. (In other words, the Authors are advised to clearly explain why a municipality or public body should be interested in assessing "the naturalness of large areas efficiently". Can the findings be useful to improve people's lives? If so, how?) What are the lessons learned? Why should the research be relevant to international scholars?

 

Line 107: please define the acronyms “NDVI, EVI”.

Line 245: “Based on previous studies”. What studies? Please consider adding references. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Response to reviewer comments

Dear Authors, thank you for your work that improved the manuscript. Some problems remain:

1. “Response: L 513 We cited the research report well”. In the section “References”, we generally cite the author first and then the title of the paper/document. Please consider fixing.
2. “Response: 38. A Study on the Evaluation and Awareness of Local Ecological Value.(2020). Korea, National Institute of Ecology, Team of Ecosystem Services, 11-16”. In the section “References”, we generally cite the author first and then the title of the paper/document. Please consider fixing.

 

Response:

Firstly, thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to review this manuscript. We have revised most of the manuscript according to your comments, please check.

 

L188. The study used the Hemeroby index and figures from Kwon, H. et al. (2020) to derive normalised scores through min-max nominalisation.

L203. Kwon, H. et al. (2020) was referred to determine the degree of human perception of naturalness for each Hemeroby class according to ecosystem type as the expert survey value.

 

L509. Kwon, H., Choi, T., Kim, I., Kim, S., Kang, D., Jun, B., Jeong, D., Lee, J., Joo, W., & Seo, C. (2020). A Study on the Evalua-tion and Awareness of Local Ecological Value. (No. 11–16). Korea, National Institute of Ecology, Team of Ecosystem Services. https://www.nie.re.kr/nie/bbs/BMSR00025/view.do?boardId=1730185&menuNo=200064

 

 

The following comments from this reviewer appear to have been ignored by the Authors:

2. I would suggest the Authors clearly explain why the findings of the study can be useful in practice, i.e., in terms of land use and spatial planning. (In other words, the Authors are advised to clearly explain why a municipality or public body should be interested in assessing "the naturalness of large areas efficiently". Can the findings be useful to improve people's lives? If so, how?) What are the lessons learned? Why should the research be relevant to international scholars?

 

L407 - 420. As urbanisation progresses, the environment that is harmful to human mental and physical health increases. As a result, due to various climate changes and pollution haz-ards in the social environment, modern society's demand for good natural landscapes and environmental conservation grows.

Naturalness aims to grasp the relationship between the human perception of nature based on the physical ecology in nature and is recognised as important in terms of identi-fying a consensus on the natural environment and ultimately forming the motivation for environmental stewardship. The importance of the fundamental link between nature and human health is increasingly recognised in global and regional policy development.

However, previous assessments of perceived naturalness have been conducted mainly through psychometric surveys using photographic data (Carrus et al., 2013; Marselle et al., 2021), and there have been a few attempts to transfer perceptions of natu-ralness through qualitative methods to mapping data. As a result of these limitations, per-ceived naturalness has mostly been assessed within a limited space with the opinions of a small number of subjects, requiring the application of a broader spatial scale.

 

L438.  Globally, landscape research is moving towards an integrated perspective to uncover local character and to promote landscape as a regional attraction. The perspective of look-ing at megacities in terms of sustainable environmental planning should also be explored in the direction of typifying landscape characteristics.

 

 

Line 107: please define the acronyms “NDVI, EVI”.

Response:

L107.  In addition, normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), enhanced vegetation index (EVI), land cover, etc. are used to identify the degree of physical vegetation integrity (Cho et al., 2014; Kang et al., 2023).

 

Line 245: “Based on previous studies”. What studies? Please consider adding references. 

L245.  Based on Tian et al (2020), Wu et al (2021) and Kim and Son (2021)’s studies, the grid-specific assigned scores for perceived naturalness are combined with the actual situ-ation to give a score to the landscape types in the study area (Table 1).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx