Landscape Visual Affordance Evaluation at a Regional Scale in National Parks: A Case Study of the Changhong Area in Qianjiangyuan National Park

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the conclusions can be improved

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a practical application of the classical visual landscape evaluation in a national park in China. This article interested me because of the landscape visual affordance theory, which I have not heard of before. 

The methodology is scientifically robust as it uses a Raster Analysis in GIS. All the parameters were well described and it was really helpful, especially in this kind of study which has its heart in highly qualitative data. However, I missed a location map for those of us who are not from China. Furthermore, I missed page 6 information about satellite image correction, radiance correction, and GPS field point validation. Please take some ideas from:

• Vicente-Serrano, S.M.; Pérez-Cabello, F.; Lasanta, T. Assessment of radiometric correction techniques in analyzing vegetation variability and change using time series of Landsat images. Remote Sens. Environ. 2008, 112, 3916–3934.
• Chander, G.; Markham, B. Revised Landsat-5 Radiometric Calibration Procedures and Post calibration Dynamic Ranges. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2003, 41, 2.674–2.677.
• Hantson, S.; Chuvieco, E. Evaluation of different topographic correction methods for Landsat imagery. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2011, 13, 691–700. 
• Jaque Castillo, Edilia, Carolina G. Ojeda, and Rodrigo Fuentes Robles. "Landscape Fragmentation at Arauco Province in the Chilean Forestry Model Context (1976–2016)." Land 11.11 (2022): 1992.

The results and discussion sections are ok and do not need further improvement. I am pleased to see the limitations (section 4.3) because it acknowledges the inherent subjectivity of visual studies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I found your article extremely interesting and relevant and I read it with sincere interest. I have no major comments as the paper is very clear, logically organised, consistent and relevant in its results. Only few minor issues:

- Figures and captions: somehing happend with figures (there is figure 10 at page 13, before figure 4) and check few typos in the captions (first letter missing in the captions of figure2 and figure 4)

- Legend clarity: especially for figure 3 it might be better to use a colour scale instead of random colors, or group of colors for specific features (e.g. sunny areas in yellow-orange-red/shaded in green-blue-purple; valley lighter colour/ slope darker colour). 20 classes make it difficult to "read" the map and the only perceivable aspect is the variety of the landscape. Adjusting the colours might help in perceiving the variations and transitions.

- Case study: I am not familiar with the landscape of Changhong region and many readers are not as well. It can be useful to add a figure in the beginning with some relevant pictures and views of the area to better introduce the case study area.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study aims to quantify ‘visual affordance’ using tangible variables, which is an interesting and valuable approach for landscape planning and preservation. However, the manuscript is not effectively written or well-organized. 

In the Introduction, while the authors clearly state their research objectives, it is difficult to discern the significance of the topic, the findings of previous studies, and the existing gaps in the literature. Although the authors address some critical issues, their focus is primarily on regional national parks and natural reserves rather than directly on affordance. 

In the Methods section, the authors introduce the concepts of Physical Landscape Affordance (PLA) and Visual Sensory Affordance (VSA), proposing various components for each. However, the rationale for selecting these components and their relevance to the concept of ‘affordance’ are not sufficiently explained. For example, as shown in Table 1, the distinction between variables for Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) and Physical Landscape Affordance (PLA) is unclear. The selection of components for Visual Sensory Affordance (VSA) is more problematic. The variables listed in Table 2 are primarily landscape pattern metrics rather than direct measures of VSA. In specific, the study assigns SHDI and ED to visual complexity, PD to visual scale, and PR and LSI to imageability. However, I am not convinced that these specific landscape metrics effectively represent visual complexity, scale, and imageability. 

 

To strengthen this study, the authors need to provide a more robust justification for the selection of variables within each construct. I think  a clearer theoretical foundation and stronger empirical support can enhance the study's credibility and contribution.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this second review, I observed an improved manuscript with more theoretical background and robustness in the GIS aspects. Thanks for accepting our comments.

Now, the theory behind landscape visual affordance and why you chose it as the main theory to assess this mountainous region is clear. 

The conclusions were improved and sound better

Author Response

Thank you for your report about our research.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript appears to be a significant improvement over the previous version. In particular, the authors have made substantial enhancements to the theoretical foundation, research methodology, and overall significance of the study. By definition, the concept of ‘affordance’ should be linked to specific behaviors or psychological (or visual) experiences of visitors. Based on Figure 1, the authors seem to acknowledge this aspect of affordance theory. For instance, they have attempted to relate ‘Imageability’ to PD and LSI in Figure 1. However, the study does not clearly demonstrate how landscape characteristics correspond to specific behaviors or psychological (or visual) experiences. To improve the clarity of the study methodology, I recommend first identifying potential behaviors and visual experiences and then linking them to relevant landscape characteristics.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It looks good to me.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx