Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewer thanks the authors and editors for the opportunity to review the manuscript.

 

 Comments to the manuscript:

Introduction: The authors generally describe a method for determining the potential exploitability of a deposit in view of various environmental factors. However, a more detailed review of other methods covering this issue is lacking. The authors omit a number of other factors that are also important in assessing the exploitability of a deposit (e.g., social or economic factors). The authors should emphasize this in their paper.

Additionally, it should be noted that the possibility of exploitation should not be viewed from the perspective of the current state. It is also necessary to look at future scenarios such as the feasibility and scope of reclamation.

 

Line 177: There is a dot missing at the end of the phrase.

 

Lines 193-194: Repeat information from lines 191-192.

 

Section 2.2.1: The authors indicate the environmental components that influence the determination of E.I. It should be noted that these are not all factors (e.g., a factor related to mineral quality is missing). The authors should highlight this in the manuscript.

 

General comment on chapter 3: The authors, while performing the analysis of a number of factors influencing the possibility of starting the exploitation of the deposit, should also look at the factors which make it impossible in advance to start the exploitation of the deposit (e.g. occurrence of cultural heritage objects), even if the impact of mining on other components of the environment is low. Although the authors give the critical factors the highest value in the method described, this does not allow to explicitly prevent mining due to the occurrence of such a factor. Could the authors comment on this?

 

Figures 2c and 2d look the same. Please check their correctness.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we would like to thank your time and kind suggestions and comments, which have helped us to improve the understability and quality of the manuscript. Please, find below our answers, and note that the references to the text are made according to the file with the changes track function enabled. We would like to comment that the text has undergone a depth review in terms of spelling, grammar and style, but in the following answer we will just refer the modifications that are related to your comments, so as to provide an answer.

 

“Introduction: The authors generally describe a method for determining the potential exploitability of a deposit in view of various environmental factors. However, a more detailed review of other methods covering this issue is lacking. The authors omit a number of other factors that are also important in assessing the exploitability of a deposit (e.g., social or economic factors). The authors should emphasize this in their paper.

Additionally, it should be noted that the possibility of exploitation should not be viewed from the perspective of the current state. It is also necessary to look at future scenarios such as the feasibility and scope of reclamation.”

 

At the end of the introduction section it is emphasized that the Exploitability Index considers factors such as social, economic, environmental ones, etc. This research is focused on the determination of the environmental factor, which is comprised within the Exploitability Index, as it is one of the most relevant factors. In addition to this, the social and economic factors have been properly defined in another work of us that we have cited [Reference 9].

 

“Line 177: There is a dot missing at the end of the phrase.”

[Page 4, line 198]. It has been modified.

 

“Lines 193-194: Repeat information from lines 191-192.”

[Page 5, lines 214-218]. It has been corrected. The paragraph regarding the Natural – Physical Subsystem has been included.

 

“Section 2.2.1: The authors indicate the environmental components that influence the determination of E.I. It should be noted that these are not all factors (e.g., a factor related to mineral quality is missing). The authors should highlight this in the manuscript.”

 In section 2.2.1. it is emphasized that there are very relevant factors that are considered in the Exploitability Index, but this research is exclusively focused on the environmental factor of the Exploitability Index. The rest of the factors are sufficiently contrasted in other works of research.

“General comment on chapter 3: The authors, while performing the analysis of a number of factors influencing the possibility of starting the exploitation of the deposit, should also look at the factors which make it impossible in advance to start the exploitation of the deposit (e.g. occurrence of cultural heritage objects), even if the impact of mining on other components of the environment is low. Although the authors give the critical factors the highest value in the method described, this does not allow to explicitly prevent mining due to the occurrence of such a factor. Could the authors comment on this?”

In section 3.3.9, it is explained that buffers of 200 and 500 meters are applied to the assets of cultural heritage, according to the type of Asset of Cultural Interest (ACI). A value of 5 is applied to the buffer, and 1 for the rest of the territory. This approach of avoiding the generation of areas of exclusion is justified due to the fact that in a general study as the one that is proposed in this research, it is not advisable to exclude any outcrop beforehand, as there are flexible or changing regulations which can change over time. Considering the case of Cantabria, the Regional Law was modified last year to favor a certain type of mining. Otherwise, a very high value (5) is applied, which conditions it in a severe way.

 

Figures 2c and 2d look the same. Please check their correctness.”

All the images have been revised and edited. Figure 2.c and 2.d have been modified.

 

We hope that these changes meet your criteria. Once again, thank you for your time and for reviewing our work.

Kind regards,

 

The Corresponding Author.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Please decide between "weighting coefficient" and "weighting factor".
2. Figure 2 is missing the following outcrops: L2, O2, O3, S5, S6 and S7.
3. Row 362- is missing A2.
4. How was the spatial extent of the impact determined?
5. When was the method for determining of the environmental factor developed and how long has it been used in Cantabria?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we would like to thank your time and kind comments, that have been really helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. Please, find our answers below, and note that the references to the text are made according to the file with the changes track function enabled. We would like to comment that the text has undergone a depth review in terms of spelling, grammar and style, but in the following answer we will just refer the modifications that are related to your comments, so as to provide an answer.

 

“1.          Please decide between "weighting coefficient" and "weighting factor".”

Weighting coefficient has been applied through the text, avoiding any reference to weighting factor.

 

“2.          Figure 2 is missing the following outcrops: L2, O2, O3, S5, S6 and S7.”

 

[Page 17, line 568]. All the images, including figure 2, have been edited to depict all the outcrops.

 

3. Row 362- is missing A2.

 

[Page 10, line 401] It has been included.

 

“4.          How was the spatial extent of the impact determined?”

[Page 10, lines 380-382] In section 3.1 a sentence has been included to describe the spatial extent of the impact, which is determined in variable ways according to the different components of the environment that are considered, although the global spatial dimension is the regional scope of Cantabria.

 

“5.          When was the method for determining of the environmental factor developed and how long has it been used in Cantabria?”

 

[Page 10, lines 375-385] In section 3.1. a time reference for the methodology of assessment of the Exploitation Index is included. It started in the year 2002 [Reference 19], with PhD Thesis of the second author of this work. The detailed analysis of the environmental factor is a research that have been developed by the authors of this work during the last 3 years. Nowadays, there are several works/articles derived from this line of research.

 

We hope that these changes meet your expectations. Once again, thank you for your time and for reviewing our work.

 

Kind regards,

 

The Corresponding Author.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Premises

Authors research addresses a very relevant topic for the mining sector, which is the integration of mining in land planning, aiming to identify and protect potentially exploitable resources, increasing the sustainability of mining operations and land uses.

The proposed method should allow for an effective assessment of most suitable areas for mining, but presents many weaknesses.

It looks like the research is addressed at mapping impact factors in the whole region rather than at assessing the exploitability of specific potentially mineable areas.

The research needs major improvement to be considered novel and scientifically relevant.

Too much importance is given to GIS, while the real innovation should be the muticriteria approach adopted (and GIS just a tool for its implementation).

General comments

Although I don't feel qualified for language review, my opinion is that the paper needs an extensive english editing. Moreover, many sentences are "broken" (words missing to complete the sentence). This strongly affects the reading and may have caused some misunderstanding in the review.

There are many inconsistencies in the text, which makes the overall reading very hard.

Many writing errors are present in the whole manuscript (wrong section titles, repeated text, mismatching definitions/acronyms, wrong keys in figures, wrong figures, etc.).

The overall paper structure should be revised. For instance, "Results" section looks more like "Case study", and many contents should be in the "Materials and methods" section.

State of art analysis needs to be improved, addressing the approaches adopted worldwide by other authors for environmental impact assessment using multicriteria approaches (alone and with the support of GIS), such as:

BERRY P., PISTOCCHI A. – A Multicriterial Geographical Approach for the Environmental Impact Assessment of Open-Pit Quarries – Proc. Of the 6th Int. Conf. On Environmental Issues and Management of Waste in Energy and Mineral Production, SWEMP 2000, Calgary, Alberta , Canada, Balkema, pp. 183 ÷ 190, nov. 2000

BANDINI A., BERRY P., DACQUINO C. – Implementation of a database for risk assessment of abandoned Italian mining sites. In: Mine Planning and Equipment Selection and Environmental Issues and Waste Management In Energy and Mineral Production. Banff, Alberta, Canada, 16 - 18 Nov. 2009, Irvine: The Reading Matrix Inc., p. 494 - 502, ISBN/ISSN: 978-0-9784416-0-9, 2009

but much more have been done in the last 20 years.

Of course, state of the art analysis is influenced by the research approach adopted, and it is not completely clear if the authors are focusing on "land mapping" or "site assessment".

Impacts assessment is highly questionable, as many details are missing or not properly described (i.e. how many and which type of active processes are considered in the database used for ground-soil impact? How did the authors linked the original processes and the criterion in table 5? Is it enough to assess this impact according to the definition given in section 2? etc.)

Specific comments

The most relevant comments are:

• AHP description is too long and it is better described in Saaty, 1990. Shorten it to the general procedure description and steps.
• The "previous research" is wrongly referenced;
• Outcrops are identified by points instead of areas/polygons, which makes the assessment much less reliable (considering that most of the impact factors are assessed with a "buffering" approach);
• Raster resolution used in GIS analysis is not defined, although being a fundamental factor in spatial analysis.
• It isn't clear how the buffers size has been chosen, as it is usually defined by the regultory framework or technical-scientific criteria, which are not described by the authors;
• Landscape impact: point of view and target location for viewshed analysis is not defined. Moreover, this parameter is one of the most complex to assess, and the approach adopted is highly questionable. Relevant viewpoints should be considered (did the authors used points or areas? This also makes a great difference) otherwise the risk is to over/under-evaluate this criteria;
• Population impact assessment is questionable. The approach adopted by the authors is more linked to risk (number of people exposed to pollution or danger) than to social acceptance (peoples from small communities acts stronger for environmentl protection than metropolitan citizens) andmust be approaced differently. Taking into account the mani economic activities in the area is an alternative (a land devoted to agriculture would be less mining-prone than a land where industril activity - or mining itself - is prevailing);
• The authors compare the results of previous research "unique criterion" assessment to the proposed multicriteria approach, but as this is semi-objective the comparison should be more carefully commented.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all we would like to show our appreciation for your time, revision and comments, which have helped us to improve our work. First of all, we would like to thank your time and kind comments, that have been really helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. Please, find our answers below, and note that the references to the text are made according to the file with the changes track function enabled. We would like to comment that the text has undergone a depth review in terms of spelling, grammar and style (changes track function has been used to introduce them) but in the following answer we will just refer the modifications that are related to technical aspects.

 

“General comments

“Although I don't feel qualified for language review, my opinion is that the paper needs an extensive english editing. Moreover, many sentences are "broken" (words missing to complete the sentence). This strongly affects the reading and may have caused some misunderstanding in the review.

There are many inconsistencies in the text, which makes the overall reading very hard.

Many writing errors are present in the whole manuscript (wrong section titles, repeated text, mismatching definitions/acronyms, wrong keys in figures, wrong figures, etc.).”

As it has been mentioned in the introductory paragraph of this cover letter, the manuscript has undergone a thoughtful revision that has been developed by two of the authors, who are bilingual. Grammar, Spelling and Style have been modified to enhance the comprehensibility of the text. Section titles have been checked and corrected, the acronyms and definitions have been unified, and the captions and figures have been modified. All these modifications have been made by means of the changes track function.

“The overall paper structure should be revised. For instance, "Results" section looks more like "Case study", and many contents should be in the "Materials and methods" section.”

The resemblance of the Results section to a Case Study can be due to the fact that the results are obtained from the application of the methodology to a particular case, although it could be applied to other cases. 

“State of art analysis needs to be improved, addressing the approaches adopted worldwide by other authors for environmental impact assessment using multicriteria approaches (alone and with the support of GIS), such as:

BERRY P., PISTOCCHI A. – A Multicriterial Geographical Approach for the Environmental Impact Assessment of Open-Pit Quarries – Proc. Of the 6th Int. Conf. On Environmental Issues and Management of Waste in Energy and Mineral Production, SWEMP 2000, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Balkema, pp. 183 ÷ 190, nov. 2000

BANDINI A., BERRY P., DACQUINO C. – Implementation of a database for risk assessment of abandoned Italian mining sites. In: Mine Planning and Equipment Selection and Environmental Issues and Waste Management In Energy and Mineral Production. Banff, Alberta, Canada, 16 - 18 Nov. 2009, Irvine: The Reading Matrix Inc., p. 494 - 502, ISBN/ISSN: 978-0-9784416-0-9, 2009

but much more have been done in the last 20 years.”

The state of the art analysis has been revised, and new references have been added, including the ones that are suggested here. 

“Of course, state of the art analysis is influenced by the research approach adopted, and it is not completely clear if the authors are focusing on "land mapping" or "site assessment".

The research is aimed at focusing on the assessment of the site. If the results are analyzed, it can be observed that the values of the environmental factors that are obtained for each outcrops are different, which proves that this research is focused on the site assessment. However, it is true that it is required to use the cartography to obtain the values of the different components. Hence, this symbiosis is difficult to separate.

“Impacts assessment is highly questionable, as many details are missing or not properly described (i.e. how many and which type of active processes are considered in the database used for ground-soil impact? How did the authors linked the original processes and the criterion in table 5? Is it enough to assess this impact according to the definition given in section 2? etc.)”

Section 3.3.2. includes the active geomorphological processes that have been considered, and are included in the data base of the Cartography at scale 1:25000 of the Government of Cantabria, which is detailed in (https://mapas.cantabria.es/)

This same section includes the criteria for the assignation of the active geomorphological processes to the values of Table 5.

The redaction of section 2.2.1. has been revised and describes the process in a more concrete way.

Specific comments

The most relevant comments are:

• “AHP description is too long and it is better described in Saaty, 1990. Shorten it to the general procedure description and steps.”

The section has been reduced.

• The "previous research" is wrongly referenced;

Three new references have been added. The “previous research” reference has been modified [9] instead of [2].

• Outcrops are identified by points instead of areas/polygons, which makes the assessment much less reliable (considering that most of the impact factors are assessed with a "buffering" approach);

 

A new paragraph is included after Figure 1 explaining that all outcrops are identified by means of point elements. This consideration is due to the fact that in this phase of mining exploration there is usually no detailed geological mapping that allows defining the perimeter of the outcrop and also the dimensions of the outcrops in Cantabria are relatively small, even more than the resolution of the raster used in the GIS analysis (55x33m), therefore, it can be said that the scale of work allows considering the outcrops as point elements.

 

• Raster resolution used in GIS analysis is not defined, although being a fundamental factor in spatial analysis.

The raster resolution is now defined in the aforementioned paragraph (55x33m).

 

• It isn't clear how the buffers size has been chosen, as it is usually defined by the regultory framework or technical-scientific criteria, which are not described by the authors;

There are several types of buffer sizing. In some cases they are defined by the normative framework (Sections 3.3.6 and 3.3.9) and in others by technical and scientific criteria (Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.3 and 3.3.11). Explanations on buffer sizing have been included in each component that requires it.

 

• Landscape impact: point of view and target location for viewshed analysis is not defined. Moreover, this parameter is one of the most complex to assess, and the approach adopted is highly questionable. Relevant viewpoints should be considered (did the authors used points or areas? This also makes a great difference) otherwise the risk is to over/under-evaluate this criteria;

 

Section 3.3.7 includes now the points (the main urban centers of the Autonomous Community of Cantabria), 1.60-meter-tall observer and visual field or range of 3,000 meters. This means that the most visible points of the territory have a higher score, and are the most susceptible to visual impact. Finally, a reclassification of the results is made

 

• Population impact assessment is questionable. The approach adopted by the authors is more linked to risk (number of people exposed to pollution or danger) than to social acceptance (peoples from small communities acts stronger for environmentl protection than metropolitan citizens) andmust be approaced differently. Taking into account the mani economic activities in the area is an alternative (a land devoted to agriculture would be less mining-prone than a land where industril activity - or mining itself - is prevailing);

 

Section 3.3.10. has been rewritten to clarify that the criterion that has been applied by the authors considers social rejection as a factor included within the Exploitability Index, and therefore it is not considered as an environmental component, which justifies that the environmental impact on the population is based on the number of people exposed to pollution or environmental risk.

 

• The authors compare the results of previous research "unique criterion" assessment to the proposed multicriteria approach, but as this is semi-objective the comparison should be more carefully commented.

 

It has been commented with more detail in [Page 26, lines 730-745]

 

 

We hope that these changes meet your expectations. Once again, thank you for your time and for reviewing our work.

 

Kind regards,

 

The Corresponding Author.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments

Authors state that "the general objective of this research is the generation of a tool to make decisions", in particular "the most adequate decision about the exploitation of a certain mining resource".

Nonetheless, a decision support tool is effective when all the assessment criteria have been carefully selected and analysed. Otherwise, the decision taken is far from being the roght one.

The authors replied that the research is focused on site assessment instead of land mapping. But what they presented is a thematic mapping for the whole Autonomous Region of Cantabria /which I consider a potentially relevant result as it could allow to highlight the most suitable areas for mining, and could be applied to different resources).

As commented in the first review report, focusing on site assessment or on thematic mapping strongly affects the approach to be adopted, the factors to be considered, the assessment criteria.

The authors briefly revised the state of the art, but many aspects of the research described are still questionable.

Once more, there's too much focus on the use of GIS /which is very basic as addressed by the authors) and not enough relevance is given to the multicriteria analysis proposed, which needs to be improved revising the assessment criteria.

In order to be considered for publication, the manuscript should introduce the described approach as a general and preliminary proposal to improve environmental factor assessment in E.I. calculation, in line with the limits recognised in section 4 (discussion).

Specific comments

Section 2.2.1

The authors describe the effect of mining on the selected environmental components, but all the values considered in the analysis are referred to a single pixel, while the wider [potentially] exploitable area should be considered. (this should have been estimated, as reserves estimate is considered by the Exploitation Index approach).

This areal approach could dramatically change the results obtained by the authors.

Line 377

The case study analyse the ofitic outcrops in the Autonomous Community of Cantabria. Nearby regions are neglected in the analysis, although very close and potentially affected by the potential exploitation (and the authors look like being aware of that, as they write in line 383). This limit should be clearly stated in the discussion or in conclusions.

Line 412

Although outcrop size is small and there's no detailed geological cartography at the stage of exploration considered, mining will affect a wider area. See previous comment on section 2.2.1

Line 473

Why raster format if, according to authors approach, all inputs and calculated maps are vector maps(points or areas)?
Raster maps are not necessary, excluding landscape impact which needs an elevation map.

Line 486

Buffers are calculated from urban centers (point), while urban areas boundary should be considered instead. Otherwise the real distance of inhabited areas would result much closer to the mining site than expected. If I'm wrong please clarify in the manuscript.

Line 487 and 553

The scientific and technical reasons which justify the classification buffers adopted is not referenced. Environmental impact factors require a  multidisciplinary analysis and a strong background. Although GIS allows for more complex analysis (e.g. considering the topography to better assess dust and gases propagation or to preliminary assess the effect of mining on surface drainage) the authors adopted a too basic approach which may bring to a wrong assessment.

Figure 2

As already commented, the authors performed a thematic mapping of the Autonomous Region of Cantabria. If the focus is on the outcrops, I suggest to colour the points with the assigned value (otherwise the reader always see green dots hiding the underlying raster value). Same comment for the other pictures (a similar and more effective graphical representation was adopted in authors previous work).

Lines 603-604

Reference needed. It is not clear if all protected ecosystems have the same protection areas and buffers (which should be already available in GIS format).

Lines 616-618

Where is the observer located within the uban center? What happens if the observer moves within urban area?
The approach adopted for determining landscape impact is wrong and is not referenced. In other words, this approach does not provide reliable results for landscape impact assessment, as it should be at least outcrop centered. But other approaches should be adopted at this stage of the analysis.

Moreover, it is not clear why the analysis is limited to 3000 m, while mining areas can be visible, also accoring to local topography, from much bigger distances.

Lines 689-690

As per previous factors, references are needed for the technical and scientificreasons justifying the buffers adopted. Laws and regulations usually define specific distances from infrastructures (e.g. different types of roads have different protection distances), it is not clear if the authors did refer to this or not.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Once again, we would like to show our appreciation for your kind and helpful comments. Please, find our answers below. All the changes are referred to the file with the track changes function enabled.

 

“Authors state that "the general objective of this research is the generation of a tool to make decisions", in particular "the most adequate decision about the exploitation of a certain mining resource".

Nonetheless, a decision support tool is effective when all the assessment criteria have been carefully selected and analysed. Otherwise, the decision taken is far from being the roght one.

The authors replied that the research is focused on site assessment instead of land mapping. But what they presented is a thematic mapping for the whole Autonomous Region of Cantabria /which I consider a potentially relevant result as it could allow to highlight the most suitable areas for mining, and could be applied to different resources).”

 

A new paragraph that highlights the relevance or this by-product has been included in the Conclusions Section. [Page 24, lines 787-791].

 

“As commented in the first review report, focusing on site assessment or on thematic mapping strongly affects the approach to be adopted, the factors to be considered, the assessment criteria.

The authors briefly revised the state of the art, but many aspects of the research described are still questionable.”

 

In section 2.2., It has been tried to improve the description of the Research that this work proposes. [Page 5, lines 205-209]

 

“Once more, there's too much focus on the use of GIS /which is very basic as addressed by the authors) and not enough relevance is given to the multicriteria analysis proposed, which needs to be improved revising the assessment criteria.”

The possility of  including other components and criteria has been included in Section 2.2.1 [Page 5, Lines 211-218]

“In order to be considered for publication, the manuscript should introduce the described approach as a general and preliminary proposal to improve environmental factor assessment in E.I. calculation, in line with the limits recognised in section 4 (discussion).”

The approach as a general and preliminary proposal has been included in Section 4 [Page 23, lines 709-713].

Specific comments

“Section 2.2.1

The authors describe the effect of mining on the selected environmental components, but all the values considered in the analysis are referred to a single pixel, while the wider [potentially] exploitable area should be considered. (this should have been estimated, as reserves estimate is considered by the Exploitation Index approach).

This areal approach could dramatically change the results obtained by the authors.”

 

A new paragraph that justifies the use of point outcrops instead of superficial ones has been included in Section 2.2.1. [Page 5, Lines 226-230]

 

“Line 377

The case study analyse the ofitic outcrops in the Autonomous Community of Cantabria. Nearby regions are neglected in the analysis, although very close and potentially affected by the potential exploitation (and the authors look like being aware of that, as they write in line 383). This limit should be clearly stated in the discussion or in conclusions.”

The connotations that may happen if a land context wider than an Administrative Region context was applied have been set in the discussion section [Page 23, lines 714-718].

 

“Line 412

Although outcrop size is small and there's no detailed geological cartography at the stage of exploration considered, mining will affect a wider area. See previous comment on section 2.2.1”

A sentence to justify the use of point outcrops has been included in Section 2.2.1. [Page 5, Lines 226-230]

 

“Line 473

Why raster format if, according to authors approach, all inputs and calculated maps are vector maps(points or areas)?

Raster maps are not necessary, excluding landscape impact which needs an elevation map.”

 

Cantabria counts with a magnificent service of cartography ( https://mapas.cantabria.es/ ),, but almost all the available layers are in raster format. In addition to the foregoing, the raster format is ideal for the development of certain logic operations, which are finally required for the generation of the map of total impact.

 

“Line 486

Buffers are calculated from urban centers (point), while urban areas boundary should be considered instead. Otherwise the real distance of inhabited areas would result much closer to the mining site than expected. If I'm wrong please clarify in the manuscript.”

It should not be forgotten that this research is focused on a preliminary scope, and a scale that allows dismissing this effect. [Page 15-16, lines 572-574]

Line 487 and 553

The scientific and technical reasons which justify the classification buffers adopted is not referenced. Environmental impact factors require a  multidisciplinary analysis and a strong background. Although GIS allows for more complex analysis (e.g. considering the topography to better assess dust and gases propagation or to preliminary assess the effect of mining on surface drainage) the authors adopted a too basic approach which may bring to a wrong assessment.

References and sentences to justify these aspects have been included [Page 12, lines 460-462, Reference [40]; Page 13, lines 498-501, Reference [41]]

“Figure 2

As already commented, the authors performed a thematic mapping of the Autonomous Region of Cantabria. If the focus is on the outcrops, I suggest to colour the points with the assigned value (otherwise the reader always see green dots hiding the underlying raster value). Same comment for the other pictures (a similar and more effective graphical representation was adopted in authors previous work).”

Figures 2 to 5 have been modified according to your suggestions.

“Lines 603-604

Reference needed. It is not clear if all protected ecosystems have the same protection areas and buffers (which should be already available in GIS format).”

A new reference has been included [42]. It has been explained that the protection areas in Cantabria are not the same for all the species, and in the case of Cantabria, the cartography/layer includes the levels of protection lines [Page 15, lines 549-550].

 

“Lines 616-618

Where is the observer located within the uban center? What happens if the observer moves within urban area?”

The location of the observer at the center of the urban core has been justified in Section 3.3.7. (Pages 15-16, 573-247)

“The approach adopted for determining landscape impact is wrong and is not referenced. In other words, this approach does not provide reliable results for landscape impact assessment, as it should be at least outcrop centered. But other approaches should be adopted at this stage of the analysis.”

A new reference has been included [43], and the reason why the observer is not located in the center of the exploitation has been explained (Pages 15-16, lines 560-567).

 

“Moreover, it is not clear why the analysis is limited to 3000 m, while mining areas can be visible, also accoring to local topography, from much bigger distances.”

It has been explained that the distance depends on the orography of the land. In this regard, Cantabria has a pronounced orographic component, which implies that short distances are considered.  [Page 567-569]

"Lines 689-690

As per previous factors, references are needed for the technical and scientificreasons justifying the buffers adopted. Laws and regulations usually define specific distances from infrastructures (e.g. different types of roads have different protection distances), it is not clear if the authors did refer to this or not.”

In Section 3.3.11, [Page 18, lines 641-645] it has been justified that the buffers are set according to different regulations/recommendations which have a regional or national nature, given the fact that regional or national infrastructures can exists, which justifies the technical reason for map merging.

 

Once again, thank you for your helpful contribution to improve our work. We expect that these changes meet your criteria.

 

Kind Regards,

The Corresponding Author.