Identifying Potential National Park Locations Based on Landscape Aesthetic Quality in the Hengduan Mountains, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article focuses on the aesthetic quality of landscapes in the context of a study area research. The main value of the research is the method of analysis that can be used on a larger spatial scale without field survey. It is an interesting study with a multidisciplinary view, the authors have also outlined possible directions for further development of the research, offering a number of possibilities.

The literature review provides adequate support for the research and the number of references is sufficient. I suggest that European landscape character research be considered within the context of this article and mentioned among the sources used (e.g. Swanwick, 2002: Landscape character assessment).

The methodology is appropriate for the purpose and provides sufficiently precise results. For a study on aesthetics, I suggest one or two photographs illustrating the dominant character of the landscape (line 85-94).

I consider colour as such, no clear aesthetic value can be assigned to them, as this can change even within a year. I suggest that the justification for this assessment criterion be added (line 170-191).

I propose to supplement the manuscript with a few more limitations of the method used (line 454-470): e.g. aesthetics of the landscape can only be judged from certain perspectives / viewpoints, it requires percepcional assessments, where the person of the observer, his/her attachment to the landscape is decisive. In my opinion, certain features of the landscape are suitable and necessary for landscape description, but not for classification.

It is interesting to note that a separate assessment method is planned for rural landscapes (line 465-470)! Although in my opinion, in the case of aesthetic evaluation, the naturalness of vegetation and habitats is less decisive in itself, traditional agriculture has historically been a coherent part of the landscape view and does not reduce its value (depending on its extent and nature).

The practical utility of the research (designation of national parks) is valuable in itself.

Author Response

Reviewer # 1:

1. Comment: The article focuses on the aesthetic quality of landscapes in the context of a study area research. The main value of the research is the method of analysis that can be used on a larger spatial scale without field survey. It is an interesting study with a multidisciplinary view, the authors have also outlined possible directions for further development of the research, offering a number of possibilities.

Response: Thank you for your positive and detailed revision comments on our paper. We will respond to all your comments and questions one by one. All modifications are highlighted in the “Details of the revisions to the manuscript”.

2. Comment: The literature review provides adequate support for the research and the number of references is sufficient. I suggest that European landscape character research be considered within the context of this article and mentioned among the sources used (e.g. Swanwick, 2002: Landscape character assessment).

Response: Thank you very much for your excellent comment. We added the literature at the corresponding position in the introduction (lines 41-44, “Although significant progress was made in mapping and quantifying LAQ, mapping and evaluating it was still challenging because it focused on common aesthetic needs, was based on key elements that are objective, operable, and targeted, and is reliably applicable in a wider geographical area [5].”).

[5] Swanwick, C. Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland; Prepared on Behalf of the Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage; Countryside Agency, 2002;

3. Comment: The methodology is appropriate for the purpose and provides sufficiently precise results. For a study on aesthetics, I suggest one or two photographs illustrating the dominant character of the landscape (line 85-94).

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We added Figure 2 to the text to illustrate the dominant character of the landscape (lines 101-102). As follows:

Figure 2. Typical natural landscapes of the Hengduan Mountains region.

4. Comment: I consider colour as such, no clear aesthetic value can be assigned to them, as this can change even within a year. I suggest that the justification for this assessment criterion be added (line 170-191).

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. The assignment of values ​​to colors is a relative concept that can explain their aesthetics because it is also a quantitative approach. We describe it in detail in this paragraph (“The study area of this paper, the Hengduan Mountains, has diverse marine glaciers, where glaciers blend with forests to form magnificent landscapes. In spring and summer, the alpine flowers (such as rhododendrons, which belong to shrubs) compete in beauty; in autumn, the primary forests are colorful, creating rich and multi-layered landscapes. Meanwhile, forest landscape elements present different colors and diverse scenes with seasonal changes in the year. Therefore, the color beauty value of snow mountains, glaciers, deciduous broad-leaved mixed forests, coniferous broad-leaved mixed forests, and shrubs was assigned the highest. Besides, the paper mainly evaluated the aesthetic quality of natural landscapes and emphasized the original, so the artificial landscape value was assigned the lowest.”). Further, explanations are given for concerns about seasonal changes throughout the year (lines 187-188, “We classified landscape types into five levels based on their aesthetic and color change during one season and multiple seasons of the year.”).

5. Comment: I propose to supplement the manuscript with a few more limitations of the method used (line 454-470): e.g. aesthetics of the landscape can only be judged from certain perspectives / viewpoints, it requires percepcional assessments, where the person of the observer, his/her attachment to the landscape is decisive. In my opinion, certain features of the landscape are suitable and necessary for landscape description, but not for classification.

Response: Thank you very much for your detailed comment. We supplemented the limitations (lines 439-440, “the ranking of landscape types was based on expert evaluation and scientific visits, considering the audience’s perception and conducting questionnaires in later research”).

6. Comment: It is interesting to note that a separate assessment method is planned for rural landscapes (line 465-470)! Although in my opinion, in the case of aesthetic evaluation, the naturalness of vegetation and habitats is less decisive in itself, traditional agriculture has historically been a coherent part of the landscape view and does not reduce its value (depending on its extent and nature).

Response: Thank you very much for your excellent comment. Regarding this issue, evaluating landscapes in China and Europe may differ slightly. China’s agricultural landscape is strongly affected by human interference, and beauty is less considered, while Europe will build the agricultural landscape into types of landscapes that are available for viewing and have aesthetics. When demarcating national park boundaries, focusing on the original natural landscape, agricultural landscapes are considered areas of high human disturbance, so they are assigned lower values, which differs from studying rural landscapes alone.

7. Comment: The practical utility of the research (designation of national parks) is valuable in itself.

Response: Thank you again for your positive and excellent comments, which have greatly improved this paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review of “ Identifying potential National Park locations based on  Landscape Aesthetic Quality in the Hengduan Mountains,  China”

 Manuscript ID: land-3118327

 The manuscript concerns landscape aesthetic quality (LAQ) evaluation for the designation of areas that have significant potential for establishing national parks in the Hengduan Mountains (China). The analyses were performed at a very general regional level and they can be seen as a preliminary step to further and more advances studies ( as it is also mentioned in the conclusion).

 The structure of the manuscript is basically correct and consistent with the editorial requirements. However, I would like to give some additional recommendations.

  

Comment 1: Keywords

 Skip “Hengduan Mountains” – there is no need to list is as a keyword as it is already mentioned in the title

 Comment 2: Chapter 2. Materials and methodology

 Structure of this chapter should be reconsidered. I suggest the following layout:

 2.1. Study area

2.2. Data sources and preparation,

2.3. Methodological approach to Landscape aesthetic quality- concerning  general concept of the methodology;

2.4 Methodology for assessing the main Attributes of LAQ analysis – regarding three types of criteria (three aspects?), which are

2.4.1 Natural attributes of LAQ;

2.4.2. External characteristics of LAQ;

2.4.3 Maintenance state of LAQ

  Comment 3: Chapter 2.4.1. Characteristics of landscape color – lines 189-191 and Table 1

 The classification and colour beauty value of landscape types, according to the Authors referred to the study of Schirpke et al. (2021). In the aforementioned study the aesthetic values were estimated for single viewpoints using a spatially explicit modelling approach which relates people’s landscape preferences from perception surveys with visual landscape characteristics derived from spatial analysis. The article presents a significantly different approach to assessing landscape quality. The subject of my concern are color beauty value of landscape types presented in Table 1. I tried to find further explanation regarding landscape types and  colour beauty value corresponding to landscape type (CBi ) because several landscape types are not clear for me, such as: closed and open forest, especially: Closed forest, unknown; Open forest, unknown. I suggest to check the references given and to add additional explanation for landscape types. Nevertheless, this part of the analysis has some flows and it  is definitely very general

 Comment 4: 2.4.2. Characteristics of landscape shape  Line 195-199

 In this chapter, one can read that “ (…) the paper selected spatial patterns of the combination of vegetation-interlaced zones to reflect the beauty of the landscape shape. The non-vegetation landscapes were merged into one type, while the vegetation  landscapes were individual. The shape beauty index (SI) statistics the number of landscape types in each evaluation unit.” In this case, the description of the assessment methodology is too general, vague and difficult to apply to other studies. Try to be more specific, add relevant references.

 Comment 5: Line 204

 “The LAQ can be fully displayed only when the essence of natural beauty is preserved completely and the interference of natural disasters or human activities is slight”

– I would suggest to skip the statement concerning “natural disasters”. The input data used in the study do not enable to assess the issue

 Comment 6: 2.6. Landscape aesthetic quality Line 243

 I suggest to add some explanation concerning normalisation method as it is mentioned in Line 293.

  

Date of rev. 24.07.2024

 

Author Response

Reviewer # 2:

Comment: The manuscript concerns landscape aesthetic quality (LAQ) evaluation for the designation of areas that have significant potential for establishing national parks in the Hengduan Mountains (China). The analyses were performed at a very general regional level and they can be seen as a preliminary step to further and more advances studies ( as it is also mentioned in the conclusion). The structure of the manuscript is basically correct and consistent with the editorial requirements. However, I would like to give some additional recommendations.

Response: Thank you for your positive and detailed revision comments on our paper. We will respond to all your comments and questions one by one. All modifications are highlighted in the “Details of the revisions to the manuscript”.

1. Comment: Keywords

Skip “Hengduan Mountains” – there is no need to list is as a keyword as it is already mentioned in the title

Response: Thank you very much for your detailed comment. We skipped the keyword“Hengduan Mountains”.

2. Comment: Chapter 2. Materials and methodology

Structure of this chapter should be reconsidered. I suggest the following layout:

2.1. Study area

2.2. Data sources and preparation,

2.3. Methodological approach to Landscape aesthetic quality- concerning  general concept of the methodology;

2.4 Methodology for assessing the main Attributes of LAQ analysis – regarding three types of criteria (three aspects?), which are

2.4.1 Natural attributes of LAQ;

2.4.2. External characteristics of LAQ;

2.4.3 Maintenance state of LAQ

Response: Thank you very much for the valuable comment. We adjusted the structure of Chapter 2 and modified the content. It is as follows:

2. Materials and methodology

2.1. Study area

2.2. Data sources and preparation

2.3. Methodological approach to Landscape aesthetic quality

2.4. Methodology for assessing the main Attributes of LAQ analysis

2.4.1. Natural attributes of LAQ

(1) Diversity of geomorphic landscape

(2) Diversity of ecological landscape

2.4.2. External characteristics of LAQ

(1) Characteristics of landscape color

(2) Characteristics of landscape shape

2.4.3. Maintenance state of LAQ

(1) Authenticity of landscape elements

(2) Integrity of landscape pattern

3. Comment: Chapter 2.4.1. Characteristics of landscape color – lines 189-191 and Table 1

The classification and colour beauty value of landscape types, according to the Authors referred to the study of Schirpke et al. (2021). In the aforementioned study the aesthetic values were estimated for single viewpoints using a spatially explicit modelling approach which relates people’s landscape preferences from perception surveys with visual landscape characteristics derived from spatial analysis. The article presents a significantly different approach to assessing landscape quality. The subject of my concern are color beauty value of landscape types presented in Table 1. I tried to find further explanation regarding landscape types and colour beauty value corresponding to landscape type (CBi ) because several landscape types are not clear for me, such as: closed and open forest, especially: Closed forest, unknown; Open forest, unknown. I suggest to check the references given and to add additional explanation for landscape types. Nevertheless, this part of the analysis has some flows and it is definitely very general

Response: Thank you very much for the excellent comment. To avoid misleading, we deleted some references and supplemented the original text to explain the relationship between closed and open forest, as well as closed forest (unknown) and open forest (unknown) (lines 184-187, “ It should be noted that closed forest refers to tree canopy > 70%, while open forest refers to top layer-trees 15-70% and second layer-mixed of shrubs and grassland; since closed forest (unknown) and open forest (unknown) refer to forests that do not match the other definitions, their value is relatively low.”).

4. Comment: 2.4.2. Characteristics of landscape shape Line 195-199

In this chapter, one can read that “ (…) the paper selected spatial patterns of the combination of vegetation-interlaced zones to reflect the beauty of the landscape shape. The non-vegetation landscapes were merged into one type, while the vegetation  landscapes were individual. The shape beauty index (SI) statistics the number of landscape types in each evaluation unit.” In this case, the description of the assessment methodology is too general, vague and difficult to apply to other studies. Try to be more specific, add relevant references.

Response: Thank you very much for the detailed comment. We supplemented the original text (lines 197-199, “The non-vegetation landscapes (such as cropland, urban/built up, snow and ice, and permanent water bodies) were merged into one type, while the vegetation landscapes (such as forests, shrubs, herbaceous vegetation, herbaceous wetland, moss and lichen, and bare/sparse vegetation) were individual.”) and added the reference (“Brielmann, A.A.; Dayan, P. A Computational Model of Aesthetic Value. Psychological Review 2022, 129, 1319–1337.”).

5. Comment: Line 204 “The LAQ can be fully displayed only when the essence of natural beauty is preserved completely and the interference of natural disasters or human activities is slight”

– I would suggest to skip the statement concerning “natural disasters”. The input data used in the study do not enable to assess the issue

Response: Thank you very much for the detailed comment. We skipped “natural disasters” (line 205, “The LAQ can be fully displayed only when the essence of natural beauty is preserved completely, and the interference of human activities is slight.”).

6. Comment: 2.6. Landscape aesthetic quality Line 243

 I suggest to add some explanation concerning normalisation method as it is mentioned in Line 293.

Response: Thank you very much for the excellent comment. We supplemented and revised the section (lines 115-122, “This paper constructed the evaluation framework (based on the methodology proposed by Hermes et al. (2018)) of the aesthetic quality of large-scale mountain natural landscapes from natural attributes, external characteristics, and maintenance state. In order to facilitate the overlay of various indicators, we adopted Fuzzy Membership for normalization. To avoid the difference in results caused by the weight size, we assigned weights in equal proportions (the weight of a single indicator is 0.5, and the weight of each aspect is 0.33) and applied the raster calculator to operate. Further, the results were divided into five grades based on the natural breaks (Jenks) method. Fig. 4 shows the relation and weight of indicators in the three aspects.”).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I think you paper contributes importantly to the field of valuation of aesthetic quality of the landscape. To my understanding this is important for future development of estimation of supply of cultural ES, which is - compared to other ESs - underdeveloped. Thus the paper offers new insights, which can be used in terms of ecosystem accounting and incorporating ES information into spatial planning and decision making.

General concept comments

Paper is generally well written and clear, with only a few minor things, which could be improved.

General comments

The only two major comments I have are. One is related to ch. 2.5 Maintenance state of LAQ. Perhaps naming this element of the overall assessment brings a bit of confusion as it is not intuitive why "maintenance". Please reconsider this.

The ch. 2.6, which is to present how all individual elements are aggregated lacks the description how summing the layers was done. It is clear that weights are similar, but not the rest of the procedure.

Author Response

Reviewer # 3:

Comment: Dear authors, I think you paper contributes importantly to the field of valuation of aesthetic quality of the landscape. To my understanding this is important for future development of estimation of supply of cultural ES, which is - compared to other ESs - underdeveloped. Thus the paper offers new insights, which can be used in terms of ecosystem accounting and incorporating ES information into spatial planning and decision making.

General concept comments

Paper is generally well written and clear, with only a few minor things, which could be improved.

Response: Thank you for your positive and valuable revision comments on our paper. We will respond to all your comments and questions one by one. All modifications are highlighted in the “Details of the revisions to the manuscript”.

1. Comment: General comments The only two major comments I have are. One is related to ch. 2.5 Maintenance state of LAQ. Perhaps naming this element of the overall assessment brings a bit of confusion as it is not intuitive why “maintenance”. Please reconsider this.

Response: Thank you very much for the detailed comment. The “landscape maintenance state” in this paper includes authenticity and integrity, emphasizing the original existence of the landscape and evaluating its value from two aspects. “Maintenance state” is a word connected. We characterize the degree of “maintenance” of natural landscape aesthetics by quantifying authenticity and integrity. In addition, we supplemented and revised the text (lines 206-208, “The paper characterized the degree of “maintenance state” of natural landscape aesthetics by quantifying authenticity and integrity. ”).

2. Comment: The ch. 2.6, which is to present how all individual elements are aggregated lacks the description how summing the layers was done. It is clear that weights are similar, but not the rest of the procedure.

Response: Thank you very much for the valuable comment. We modified and supplemented the section (lines 115-122, “This paper constructed the evaluation framework (based on the methodology proposed by Hermes et al. (2018)) of the aesthetic quality of large-scale mountain natural landscapes from natural attributes, external characteristics, and maintenance state. In order to facilitate the overlay of various indicators, we adopted Fuzzy Membership for normalization. To avoid the difference in results caused by the weight size, we assigned weights in equal proportions (the weight of a single indicator is 0.5, and the weight of each aspect is 0.33) and applied the raster calculator to operate. Further, the results were divided into five grades based on the natural breaks (Jenks) method. Fig. 4 shows the relation and weight of indicators in the three aspects.”).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for taking my comments into consideration. I recommend your article for publication.