Digital Walking Tours as a Tool for Assessing Place Attachment and Community Responses to Regional Environmental Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is an evaluation of the ease and enjoyment of using a virtual walking trail. However, that is not what it claims as its aim. The paper aims to provide insight into the relationship between place attachment and the effectiveness of climate-change land-use planning. It does not do this. There is no discussion of how the data collected through the virtual walking tours offers insight into the three types of place attachment or how these relate to the climate change mitigation infrastructure. The paper simply does not do what it says it will. 

Author Response

Comment 1:

This paper is an evaluation of the ease and enjoyment of using a virtual walking trail. However, that is not what it claims as its aim. The paper aims to provide insight into the relationship between place attachment and the effectiveness of climate-change land-use planning. It does not do this. There is no discussion of how the data collected through the virtual walking tours offers insight into the three types of place attachment or how these relate to the climate change mitigation infrastructure. The paper simply does not do what it says it will.

 

Response:

The paper explicitly sets out to explore how virtual walking tours can be used as a methodological tool to investigate place attachment and perceptions of the landscape in the context of environmental change. The methodology was adapted due to the constraints of the Covid-19 pandemic, making the virtual walking tours an innovative solution to gather qualitative data that would otherwise be difficult to obtain. This approach is directly relevant to the paper’s aim, as the virtual walking tours are a means to an end—providing insights into how people relate to and perceive their environment under changing conditions. The paper does not just evaluate the tool itself but uses it to delve into the community’s place attachment and responses to environmental challenges, which ties directly into effective climate-change land-use planning. By doing so, the paper contributes valuable insights into how remote methodologies can be adapted for qualitative research, making it a significant addition to the literature on climate-change adaptation and land-use planning.

The paper does, in fact, discuss how the virtual walking tours elicited place-based memories and perceptions, which are crucial for understanding place attachment. The methodology enabled participants to reflect on their connections to specific locations within their community, revealing insights into the social, physical, and functional dimensions of place attachment. For example, the paper describes how visual stimuli during the virtual tours triggered memories and personal reflections, which are tied to the participants’ affective bonds with the place. These insights are vital for understanding how communities perceive and are likely to respond to climate change mitigation efforts, such as the construction of avalanche barriers. The immersion and emotional responses recorded during these tours are directly linked to the community's attachment to their environment, which is crucial for planning and implementing effective environmental interventions.

The findings from the virtual walking tours are highly relevant to climate-change land-use planning because they provide planners with a nuanced understanding of community values and attachments. The paper discusses how the insights gained from the virtual tours can inform the planning and design of climate change mitigation infrastructure by ensuring that such developments are sensitive to the community's existing place attachments. This is essential for minimising place disruption and enhancing community resilience. The paper suggests that understanding place attachment through these tours can lead to better-aligned adaptation strategies that respect and incorporate community values, which is directly relevant to effective land-use planning in the face of climate change.

The paper also addresses the social, physical, and functional aspects of place attachment through the data collected in the virtual walking tours. The interviews and participant interactions provided rich qualitative data that illustrate how residents of Patreksfjörður relate to their environment in various ways. These dimensions are explored in relation to their perceptions of the landscape and the changes brought about by climate mitigation infrastructure, such as avalanche barriers. The discussion section of the paper synthesises these insights, demonstrating their relevance to both place attachment theory and practical land-use planning.

Nonetheless, we deleted the section in the introduction that mentioned three main questions from the overall project (lines 65-70). We see that this was misleading and does indeed require more theoretical underpinnings regarding place attachment. We also changed the wording in the last section of the introduction, clearly showing the aim and focus of this paper (testing a method and sharing insights). We also share two references that provide the results regarding our theoretical approach.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This contribution describes "virtual walking tours" as an alternative to traditional walking transect methods, aiming to investigate the relationship between place attachment and perceptions of the landscape in Iceland, during the pandemic.

This contribution examines the correlation between place attachment and the perception of environmental threats, while also examining the community's response to adaptation measures implemented in the specific case study location.

The proposed methodology was based on established walking transect methods, but conducted using various online communication tools and adapted to create an experience while also gathering the required data.

The evaluation of this method demonstrated its suitability for conducting comprehensive and cost-effective community consultations. Participants expressed enjoyment and found the technology (online video calls and StreetView imagery) user-friendly and engaging.

There are some issues that authors should address. First of all, the use of immersion or immersive is not relevant to the suggested methodology, as there is no use of virtual reality technology. Authors have to use different terminology. In addition, "virtual walks" could be replaced with "digital walks", for the same reason. The most important is to enhance the Introduction section and Section 2 with updated references (>2021) from the international bibliography, preferably with journal articles. This is a major issue.

Some minor issues:

a) Add numbered headings level 2 or/and 3 in Section 2.

b) There are some typos (missing spaces).

Author Response

Comment 1

There are some issues that authors should address. First of all, the use of immersion or immersive is not relevant to the suggested methodology, as there is no use of virtual reality technology. Authors have to use different terminology. In addition, "virtual walks" could be replaced with "digital walks", for the same reason.

Response C1

We replaced virtual walks with digital walks to better align the working with the methodology described, we are also avoiding the notion of immersion and rather speak of engagement, participant involvement and emotional connection to convey the intended meaning without implying the use of VR technology.

 

Comment 2

The most important is to enhance the Introduction section and Section 2 with updated references (>2021) from the international bibliography, preferably with journal articles.

Response C2

Thank you for the suggestion. Please see a new section (section 2, lines 165ff) with six additional references from relevant journals, all published after 2021.

 

Comment 3

Add numbered headings level 2 or/and 3 in Section 2.

Response C3

Thank you for the suggestion. We have added numbered level 2 and level 3 headings in Section 2 to improve the organization and readability of the manuscript.

 

Comment 4

There are some typos (missing spaces).

Response C4

We double checked the manuscript regarding typos and missing spaces.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is undertheorized in terms of two literature strands: (i) place attachment and (ii) virtual walking, virtual reality, augmented reality, etc. The authors are asked to please add a literature review section before Materials and Methods. In said section they need to review the latest research on those two or three themes. This will provide the necessary background to fully understand and appreciate the case study’s reach and significance. The authors are also encouraged to explain the relationship between virtual reality and disaster or post-disaster situations; how can virtual environments remain important if there is a power cut and energy is down for hours or days? Please differentiate “transect walks” from “urban transect,” which is utilized to analyze urban densities and distinct zones in cities and suburbs. Also, there is a rich literature on “dérive” (unplanned journey through a landscape) - this ought to be discussed in the paper. The paper would also benefit from a thorough description of the village’s urban morphology, built and urban environments (e.g., streets, urban fabric, public spaces, parks and gardens, shopping, administrative, residential areas). Please provide more details about the availability (lack thereof) of “street view pictures” of walk-only precincts, which usually are not covered by automobile-based street view capturing devices and how to offset said limitation with alterative research/visitation strategies. This does not seem correct: “it is a cost-effective method for improving approaches to (…) marine spatial planning” – virtual walking tours and marine spatial planning? What exactly is the relationship? The references are not cited according to the journal’s reference style: please distinguish book chapters from journal articles.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Many thanks for the constructive feedback. We have taken most suggestions into account and hope that you will be able to follow our reasoning on the few points that we have not incorporated.

Comment 1

The paper is undertheorized in terms of two literature strands: (i) place attachment and (ii) virtual walking, virtual reality, augmented reality, etc.

Response C1

Following a suggestion from Reviewer 2, we slightly shifted the wording in the methodology to make it clearer that we are not utilising the emerging technology of virtual reality (VR) that in research is increasingly focused on the utilisation of respective hardware environments but that we are rather utlising a digital platform as a virtual environment in which the engagement and involvement of the participant takes place. Hence we refrain from shifting the theoretical notions of the use of VR in research rather than strengthening notions of using digital tools in qualitative research (including their relation to place attachement). With this in mind, we have added additional and also more recent literature (as also suggested by reviewer 2) to strengthen this aspect and the theoretical framework of the study.

In addition, we deleted the section in the introduction that mentioned three main questions from the overall project (lines 65-70). We see that this was misleading and does indeed require more theoretical underpinnings regarding place attachment. We also changed the wording in the last section of the introduction, clearly showing the aim and focus of this paper (testing a method and sharing insights). We also share two references that provide the results regarding our theoretical approach.

 

Comment 2

The authors are asked to please add a literature review section before Materials and Methods. In said section they need to review the latest research on those two or three themes. This will provide the necessary background to fully understand and appreciate the case study’s reach and significance.

Response C2

See our response to the first comment and Reviewer 2’s suggestion, we have strengthened the literature review/ intro in methods section through adding the latest research in the context of digital tools.

 

Comment 3

The authors are also encouraged to explain the relationship between virtual reality and disaster or post-disaster situations; how can virtual environments remain important if there is a power cut and energy is down for hours or days?

Response C3

The primary focus of this study was to explore the use of digital tools (now referred to as "digital walks" to avoid notions of VR) to assess place attachment and community perceptions of environmental change in a specific context, namely during the Covid-19 pandemic. The use of digital tools was necessitated by social distancing and travel restrictions, rather than as a direct response to disaster scenarios. As such, the methodology was not designed to replace traditional methods in all scenarios, particularly in post-disaster situations where power and connectivity might be compromised.

We acknowledge that digital tools, including those used for virtual walking tours, have limitations in disaster or post-disaster situations, particularly in cases where there may be power outages or loss of internet connectivity. This is an important consideration for the application of such methods in emergency situations though this is beyond the scope of our study as we are not considering emergency situations in our research design. In line with our arguments and conclusion, their role could be more significant in the preparedness phase rather than during or immediately after a disaster.

 

Comment 4

Please differentiate “transect walks” from “urban transect,” which is utilized to analyze urban densities and distinct zones in cities and suburbs.

Response C4

We are not entirely sure why we should include the aspect of urban transects in our paper which we have not mentioned in its current form. In this study, we adapted traditional walking transects—an established method for gathering in-situ qualitative data on community perceptions and place attachment—into a digital format, but this is not linked to or aims to analyse urban densities and distinct zones as suggested here. Therefore we do not see it valuable to differentiate this in our paper as it is not relevant. We made minor adjustments in the method outline and the conclusion to address the notion of transect walks even further than we already do.

 

Comment 5

Also, there is a rich literature on “dérive” (unplanned journey through a landscape) - this ought to be discussed in the paper.

Response C5

We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to discuss the concept of 'dérive,' which involves an unplanned journey through a landscape and has a rich literature, particularly within psychogeography and urban studies. While we recognise the conceptual relevance of 'dérive' in exploring how individuals interact with and experience their environments, the primary focus of our study is on assessing place attachment and community perceptions of environmental change using structured digital walks in a pilot study focusing on the digital methodology as the main aim. Our methodology was designed to gather specific data related to predetermined research questions about place attachment, environmental threats, and community responses to adaptation measures.

In contrast, 'dérive' emphasizes spontaneity and the subjective experience of wandering, which, while valuable, diverges from the structured and goal-oriented approach necessary for our research objectives. Including a detailed discussion on 'dérive' could potentially broaden the scope of our paper beyond its intended focus, diluting the specificity of our findings and the character of the pilot study. Therefore, we chose to maintain a clear focus on the methodologies and theoretical frameworks most directly aligned with our research aims. We believe this approach allows us to provide a more targeted and cohesive analysis of the relationship between place attachment and environmental perceptions within the context of our study.

 

Comment 6

The paper would also benefit from a thorough description of the village’s urban morphology, built and urban environments (e.g., streets, urban fabric, public spaces, parks and gardens, shopping, administrative, residential areas).

Response C6

We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to include a thorough description of the village's urban morphology and its built environment. However, given the rural context of our study area - Patreksfjörður, a small fishing village with a population of only around 700 - traditional aspects of urban morphology play a very limited role. The village's small size and rural setting mean that features typically associated with urban environments, such as extensive public spaces, parks, shopping districts, and administrative areas, are either minimal (one building) or absent.

Our research is focused on understanding place attachment and community perceptions of environmental change, specifically in the context of this rural setting. The elements mentioned are less relevant to the scope of our study, which centres on how residents relate to the natural landscape and the small-scale built environment, particularly in relation to climate change adaptation measures. Including an in-depth analysis of urban morphology would not only extend beyond the focus of our paper but also detract from the specific insights we aim to provide about place attachment in a rural community. Therefore, we have opted to maintain a focused approach that aligns with the unique characteristics and scale of the study area.

 

Comment 7

Please provide more details about the availability (lack thereof) of “street view pictures” of walk-only precincts, which usually are not covered by automobile-based street view capturing devices and how to offset said limitation with alterative research/visitation strategies.

Response C7

We appreciate the reviewer's observation regarding the limitations of 'street view' coverage in walk-only precincts. To address this, we have added a statement in the "Materials and Methods" section, specifically under the "Virtual Walking Tour Methodology" subsection.

 

Comment 8

This does not seem correct: “it is a cost-effective method for improving approaches to (…) marine spatial planning”

Response C8

Thank you for this suggestion. We have removed the marine aspect which is indeed not relevant here, but included community development and spatial planning instead as it would also be expected based on context we set out in the literature review.

 

Comment 9

The references are not cited according to the journal’s reference style: please distinguish book chapters from journal articles.

Response C9

Thank you for pointing out this important detail. We have revised the references to ensure they are cited according to the journal’s reference style. Specifically, we have now clearly distinguished book chapters from journal articles and formatted each reference type accordingly. The revised references have been carefully checked for accuracy and consistency with the journal’s guidelines.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The changes that the authors have noted in their written response do not, in fact, all appear in the new version of the paper. I assume this is some error. Perhaps the wrong version was uploaded? Also, there are now many grammatical errors - also suggesting that an incorrect file - perhaps a working file - may have been uploaded. Please check for this.

I have ticked 'reconsider after major revisions' just to indicate that the document requires further editing before I can review it as an amended version. I cannot provide a second review based on this file.

I thank the authors for their responses to my review comments. I am pleased that they have been able to see how a reframing of their aims will enable the paper to align its content and aims.

If the authors make the changes they have described in their written response, I consider I will be able to accept the paper. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have found the editorial revisions somewhat confusing. In many cases the changes appear to have led to significant grammatical and/or meaning errors. All the editorial changes in the revised document should be checked for these formatting and grammar errors. I think this may be an incorrect file issue. 

Author Response

In our resubmission we used tracked changes to ensure that the reviewers and editors could clearly see the modifications made during the revision. However, based on the feedback we received from two reviewers, it seems that the tracked changes cause some confusion. We looked at the submitted manuscripts and realised that in the PDF version the tracked changes are incompletely implemented and all removed elements of the original text are still included. The word version does not have this issue, but the false PDF version will have been the cause of this confusion. We apologise for this and would like to explain that this PDF was not submitted or generated by the authors.

We have carefully checked all additions that we made and asked a native speaker to look over these. We could not identify any formatting or grammar errors. We assume you are referring to inconsistent or wrong sentences and formatting due to the false display of the tracking feature in the PDF version so that this issue should now no longer exist in the PDF version.

In this second resubmission, we have removed all tracked changes from the first revision. All new modifications that we now made based on the second round of reviews are instead highlighted in yellow to make them better visible. We have also marked the main original additions to the manuscript in blue (apart from those changes that referred to virtual walks and notions of an immersive experience that we also made across the manuscript).

We apologise for the inconvenience. Should there be any further concerns regarding grammar or formatting in the newly added parts, we would kindly ask to get some examples for the issues that were identified.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors provided an updated version of the manuscript. All of my recommendations are addressed.

More specifically, the addition of relevant and updated references has been completed. This becomes clear in the section 2. In addition, the terminology of "immersion" has been replaced with more accurate words. The same happens with the terminology of "virtual walks", as the authors followed my suggestion and replaced it with "digital walks". Moreover, all the minor issues have been addressed.

The current status of the manuscript meets my expectations and for that reason, I suggest it be accepted for publication in present form.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive feedback and for your suggestions, which have greatly improved our manuscript. We appreciate your careful consideration of our work and are pleased that the revisions we made have met your expectations. Your recommendations, particularly regarding the terminology and the inclusion of updated references, have been invaluable. We are grateful for your support and are delighted that you find the manuscript suitable for publication in its current form.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript remains undertheorized. The minor improvements are insufficient to bring the paper to publication in Land. At the end of the introduction, the authors ask readers to consult other publications of the CliCNord project [2,10]. Was reference 10 an output of the CliCNord project? It is unclear why the authors invoke a paper on migrations in Accra (pop 2.6-million) West Africa to discuss a case study of an Icelandic small village of ~700 inhabitants. The authors wrote “we deleted the section in the introduction that mentioned three main questions”; however, the revised version still has the three research questions. The authors claim they added the “latest research in the context of digital tools”; however, this reviewer disagrees. The “digital tools” theme remains undertheorized. This reviewer’s comment regarding the relationship between virtual reality and disaster or post-disaster situations was not addressed in the revised version – what’s the purpose of including a figure showing avalanche risk areas when the topic is only minimally addressed? Some background on 'dérive' is likely needed because, apparently, some of the participants engaged in virtual 'dérive'-style deambulations (e.g., “often comments were made as asides or distractions, interrupting themselves”). The suggestion to clarify the unique character of the village was simply discarded, but I would like to remind authors that there is a rich literature on small and medium size cities, which could be extremely helpful to contextualize and help readers appreciate the smallness of Patreksfjörður.

Author Response

In our resubmission we used tracked changes to ensure that the reviewers and editors could clearly see the modifications made during the revision. However, based on the feedback we received from two reviewers, it seems that the tracked changes cause some confusion. We looked at the submitted manuscripts and realised that in the PDF version the tracked changes are incompletely implemented and all removed elements of the original text are still included. The word version does not have this issue, but the false PDF version will have been the cause of this confusion. We apologise for this and would like to explain that this PDF was not submitted or generated by the authors.

Comment 1

The revised manuscript remains undertheorized. The minor improvements are insufficient to bring the paper to publication in Land. At the end of the introduction, the authors ask readers to consult other publications of the CliCNord project [2,10]. Was reference 10 an output of the CliCNord project?

Response 1

We would like to clarify that the primary aim of this paper is not to extensively theorise but rather to present the methodological insights gained from the pilot study, as we clearly set out in the introduction. Our focus is on the innovative use of digital walking tours as a tool for assessing place attachment and community responses to environmental change, particularly in the context of the challenges posed by the Covid-19 pandemic.

In our first revision, we incorporated additional theoretical and conceptual notions to provide context for our study. However, we have deliberately kept the theoretical background concise, as it is not the main focus of our paper. The reference to another publication from the CliCNord project (reference [2, 10]) is intended to direct readers to more in-depth discussions of the theoretical framework and methods that underpins our work. We have included some brief additional context in the second revision that better explains the relevance of this reference. This allows us to maintain a clear focus on the methodological contributions of our study. 

We believe that the methodological insights presented in our paper offer valuable contributions to the field, particularly considering the challenges posed by remote research during a pandemic. Our approach demonstrates how digital tools can facilitate meaningful community engagement and data collection in settings where traditional methods may be impractical or impossible.

We hope this clarifies our intentions and the scope of our paper, and we appreciate your consideration of these points in your further review.

 

Comment 2

It is unclear why the authors invoke a paper on migrations in Accra (pop 2.6-million) West Africa to discuss a case study of an Icelandic small village of ~700 inhabitants.

Response 2

We have included this aspect during the revisions as part of an effort to address concerns regarding insufficient conceptual and theoretical notions. The reference to the study on migration in Northern Ghana is relevant to the paper because it highlights the importance of understanding how environmental changes affect communities, regardless of their size or geographic location. Both studies explore the impact of environmental factors on place attachment, community resilience, and adaptive capacity. By drawing parallels between these seemingly disparate contexts - one being a large urban area and the other a small village - the paper underscores the universal significance of place attachment in shaping community responses to environmental challenges. This comparison enriches the discussion by illustrating how cultural and environmental contexts influence community resilience across different scales and settings. We believe that this in combination with the other additions in this section of the paper enhances the quality of our manuscript considerably following the comments made by reviewer 2 and 3.

 

Comment 3

The authors wrote “we deleted the section in the introduction that mentioned three main questions”; however, the revised version still has the three research questions.

Response 3

As noted above and also in response to reviewer 1, we previously resubmitted a version with tracked changes to ensure that the reviewers and editor could clearly see the modifications made during the revision. However, based on the feedback we received, it seems that the tracked changes may not have been visible as intended or seem to have caused some confusion.

We looked at the submitted manuscripts and realised that in the PDF version the tracked changes are incompletely implemented and all removed elements of the original text are still included. The word version does not have this issue, but the false PDF version will have been the cause of this confusion.

We have rechecked the resubmitted version and confirmed that the relevant section was indeed removed, so this comment may be due to a misunderstanding. In this latest resubmission, we have not used tracked changes but instead highlighted the relevant modifications in yellow to make them more visible and to avoid any confusion that may have been caused by the tracked changes feature in Word. We have also marked the main original additions to the manuscript in blue.

Comment 4

The authors claim they added the “latest research in the context of digital tools”; however, this reviewer disagrees. The “digital tools” theme remains undertheorized.

Response 4

Regarding the comment about the “digital tools” theme, we would like to clarify that the purpose of our paper is to focus on the methodological innovation of using digital walking tours, rather than to provide an extensive theoretical discussion on digital tools or virtual reality in disaster or post-disaster contexts. We have added 400 additional words and identified six central recent publications in this regard to address this aspect, while not over-theorising our methodological focus. While we acknowledge the importance of these theoretical connections, our primary aim is to present the practical application and insights gained from this pilot study, particularly in the context of remote community engagement during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Comment 5

This reviewer’s comment regarding the relationship between virtual reality and disaster or post-disaster situations was not addressed in the revised version – what’s the purpose of including a figure showing avalanche risk areas when the topic is only minimally addressed?

Response 5

Thank you for your feedback and for highlighting this aspect again. As you rightly noted, our study does not address these aspects of virtual reality and disaster or post-disaster situations. Instead, our primary aim is to explore the use of digital tools, specifically digital walking tours, to assess place attachment and community perceptions (and we do so in a pilot within the context the specific situation in Patreksfjörður).

The map included in the paper is intended to provide a visual representation of the village's morphology, including recent protective measures that have altered the avalanche risk. The purpose of the map is not to delve into post-disaster scenarios but to give readers an understanding of the physical landscape and the context in which the community’s perceptions are being studied.

In response to feedback from another reviewer, we removed the initial references to virtual reality in our first revision to better align with our study’s objectives. The focus remains on the methodological innovation of using digital tools for remote community engagement, rather than on exploring virtual reality or emergency situations.

We acknowledge the importance of clear communication regarding the scope and aims of our study, and we hope this explanation clarifies our approach. Our intention is to provide insights into how digital methods can be effectively used to assess community values and perceptions, particularly in settings where traditional research methods may not be feasible.

 

Comment 6

Some background on 'dérive' is likely needed because, apparently, some of the participants engaged in virtual 'dérive'-style deambulations (e.g., “often comments were made as asides or distractions, interrupting themselves”).

Response 6

Thank you for your continued feedback and suggestions. We appreciate the recommendation to explore the concept of 'dérive'. However, our study is specifically focused on assessing place attachment and community perceptions of environmental change using a structured digital walking methodology. While the spontaneous and unstructured nature of 'dérive' provides valuable insights within psychogeography and urban studies, it diverges from the goal-oriented and structured approach we employed. Including a discussion on 'dérive' would broaden the scope of our paper beyond its intended focus, potentially diluting the specificity of our findings. We believe that maintaining our focus on the digital methodology and basic notions of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks directly aligned with our research objectives allows us to provide a more targeted and cohesive analysis within the context of this pilot study. We hope you understand our decision to keep the scope of our discussion aligned with the primary aims of our research.

 

Comment 7

The suggestion to clarify the unique character of the village was simply discarded, but I would like to remind authors that there is a rich literature on small and medium size cities, which could be extremely helpful to contextualize and help readers appreciate the smallness of Patreksfjörður.

Response 7

We would like to assure you that we carefully considered your suggestion to provide a thorough description of the village’s urban morphology and its built environment. In our previous response, we addressed this by explaining that the small size and rural nature of Patreksfjörður does not feature the traditional aspects of urban morphology that you initially referred to.

The smallness of Patreksfjörður is a central theme that is already clearly conveyed throughout our manuscript. From the outset, we describe the village as a small fishing community with around 700 inhabitants, setting the stage for the reader to understand the intimate scale of the setting. This context is essential for appreciating the unique dynamics of place attachment and community perception that our study explores.

Our manuscript details how the village’s compact size influences the relationship between residents and their environment. For example, the paper discusses how changes such as the installation of avalanche barriers directly impact the community’s daily life and perceptions of safety and landscape. This is further supported by the figures that we have included.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied that the issues of concern have been addressed and that the article is now publishable.