Cultural Landscapes in the Central American Region: Analysis of the Legal Framework for Protection and Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented text is just a review, as the authors said. It is not a paper. I suppose the editors of the journal were expected just this kind of the text. If yes, the text is OK. The text is short but long enough for a review. Theory and methodology are OK, results are only quantitative, descriptive and stastitical. I did not find any qualitative analysis. But as I said, it is maybe what was expected.

What I miss is the mention about the sacred site and ritual landscape as parts of Indigenous worldview (cosmovision). That is what I expected. But I do not insist on adding it because the review is about something else.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. This article diagnoses the legal situation of protected and cultural landscapes in the Central American region. However, we are currently conducting more in-depth research for a doctoral thesis that addresses the worldview of indigenous peoples and how this is part of the values ​​of the landscape.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a good review of heritage cultural landscape preservation in 8 Central American nations. Each expresses a national ethical and legal commitment to protecting landscapes, however, all fail to establish cultural landscapes in terms of UN criteria. Some cultural landscapes have been established but for only a small segment of the variables that should be considered - generally economics dominate these rather than social-cultural heritage. In short, international management of cultural landscapes has yet to be achieved in Central America.

Useful for the authors would be some comparisons where national cultural landscapes have been established using the UN criteria. Especially important is the issue of cross-national boundaries in the management of cultural landscapes. There are some of these and they illustrate goals of heritage preservation.

Missing from the analysis and perhaps not possible is why these countries would form an organization for the protection of cultural landscapes and then not achieve this goal on either a cross-national or national basis. There is literature on preservation agreements for fish and wildlife at the national and international levels. How did these get established?

I would publish as is because it is a strong review. It could be stronger, however, were the authors to address some of the issues mentioned.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. This article diagnoses the legal situation of protected and cultural landscapes in the Central American region. The conclusions highlight the need for intraregional cooperation derived from SICA, taking advantage of existing bodies to promote this initiative.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well structured and provide interesting insight on the nature and landscape protection in SICA countries.

I would suggest few measures to improve it:

- The article needs a good language revision, maybe by a native speaker?

- Usually footnotes should not be included in an abstract

- Very few literature is used in the section 5. Discussion - it would be relevant to mention them in order to provide a sound base for the discussion

Some suggestions direct to the text:

line 45 - are “countries” not more precise than regions?

Line 71, 72 - geographical order is not a common term, maybe set the countries in alphabetical order?

line 160 - better explain why rural areas? This is not clear

line 161 - why capital letters in the word “System”

line 208 - why to a property? Is it not better to use “asset”?

line 297 - what is “natural legislation” maybe find a more appropriate title

line 464 - is it not a bit naive to pose in this way, “actions have harmoniously evolved over time”. This is an assumption for protection, but it in reality seldom the actions do evolve harmoniously! Maybe here describe or use a case from table 5 to provide an evidence

Line 489 - the mentioned relationship is not clear - maybe work on this issue further?

Lines 510-514 - this topic (buffer zones) is introduced here - maybe take this part to the discussion

Lines 522-527 - It is not clear where the authors take this request from. If it is a call already done in further literature these should be mentioned, if this is a request posed by the authors this has to be mare more explicit. The requested review contents are already part of the international framework, aren’t they?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text needs a final language review

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files:

-The article needs a good language revision, maybe by a native speaker?

R/: We agree with this comment, a native speaker has reviewed the article.

-Usually footnotes should not be included in an abstract

R/: Thank you for pointing this out, the footnote has been moved to Introduction chapter.

-Very few literature is used in the section 5. Discussion - it would be relevant to mention them in order to provide a sound base for the discussion

R/: Agree. Five new quotes have been added to this section.

 

Some suggestions direct to the text:

line 45 - are “countries” not more precise than regions?

R/: Thank you for pointing this out. Changed.

Line 71, 72 - geographical order is not a common term, maybe set the countries in alphabetical order?

R/: We agree with this comment. Changed to alphabetical order,

line 160 - better explain why rural areas? This is not clear

R/: Modified. It was explained the reason. 

line 161 - why capital letters in the word “System”

R/: Because we are mentioning the proper name of the IUCN Categorization System.

line 208 - why to a property? Is it not better to use “asset”?

R/: Changed.

line 297 - what is “natural legislation” maybe find a more appropriate title

R/: Changed. Now, we are suggestion "Environmental and Natural Resources Law"

line 464 - is it not a bit naive to pose in this way, “actions have harmoniously evolved over time”. This is an assumption for protection, but it in reality seldom the actions do evolve harmoniously! Maybe here describe or use a case from table 5 to provide an evidence

R/: We agree with this comment, however UNESCO assumes it in this way, we make a contrast in the following section.

Line 489 - the mentioned relationship is not clear - maybe work on this issue further?

R/: To demonstrate this relationship, further study is needed to expand the discussion, and since it is not substantial, the paragraph has been eliminated.

Lines 510-514 - this topic (buffer zones) is introduced here - maybe take this part to the discussion

R/: Lines 437-445 in Discussion chapter discuss the issue of buffer zones.

Lines 522-527 - It is not clear where the authors take this request from. If it is a call already done in further literature these should be mentioned, if this is a request posed by the authors this has to be mare more explicit. The requested review contents are already part of the international framework, aren’t they?

R/: Modified. As the comment suggests the paragraph was clarified.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf