Landscape Assessment Methods Derived from the European Landscape Convention: Comparison of Three Spanish Cases

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript I received for review is very well prepared. However, it requires several improvements as indicated below to make it publishable.
1) In the introduction, the author refers to information about different approaches to the implementation of the ELC provisions in different European countries. It would be useful to add information about which countries have not yet signed the Convention and how the Convention has been implemented in different countries. Was it on a national, regional level, as in Spain, or was it on a local level? 
2) Not all of the guidelines from the convention were analyzed here - I missed information on whether the methods analyzed included guidelines on the need to report changes in the landscape and the factors causing them (driving forces). The ELC lists this as one of the implementation measures. 
3) The description of individual methods lacks the date of their introduction - this is quite important information, because technological progress allows the use of increasingly new methods and software. 
4) The text states "Therefore, we propose here the evaluation and comparison of three cases in which the ELC principles have already been translated into concrete landscape analysis methods". (L47-49) despite the fact that there is only one author here.
5) The article lacks the Discussion section, where the author could compare results of similar analyses from other European countries. In this regard, I recommend the literature on ELC implementation in Poland, e.g.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/471/11/112035/meta

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for his comments and hope that the modifications seem appropriate:

1) In the introduction, the author refers to information about different approaches to the implementation of the ELC provisions in different European countries. It would be useful to add information about which countries have not yet signed the Convention and how the Convention has been implemented in different countries. Was it on a national, regional level, as in Spain, or was it on a local level?

• I have added information on the countries that have signed and ratified the ELC, as well as those that have not yet signed it or those that apply it only partially (L 32-38).
• In addition, I have further added particular applications in different landscapes, such as Spain, Italy, the Netherlands or Switzerland. I have also incorporated a mention that Spanish decentralization, which translates into diverse implementation policies, is not unique to this country. (L 48-59)

2) Not all of the guidelines from the convention were analyzed here - I missed information on whether the methods analyzed included guidelines on the need to report changes in the landscape and the factors causing them (driving forces). The ELC lists this as one of the implementation measures.

• I have incorporated an explicit reference to the main guidelines of the ELC in relation to the methods studied (L 117-122).

3) The description of individual methods lacks the date of their introduction - this is quite important information, because technological progress allows the use of increasingly new methods and software.

• I have added a reference to the fact that the methods have been in use in their respective communities for more than 10 years (L 90-92). Since there are no publications that indicate the exact date, this is the closest approximation that can be made. Regarding the technological issue, the discussion refers to assessment methods that make use of remote sensing and GIS since the beginning of the present century.

4) The text states "Therefore, we propose here the evaluation and comparison of three cases in which the ELC principles have already been translated into concrete landscape analysis methods". (L47-49) despite the fact that there is only one author here.

• Thanks for the observation, the sentence has been changed to make the subject impersonal (L 60).

5) The article lacks the Discussion section, where the author could compare results of similar analyses from other European countries. In this regard, I recommend the literature on ELC implementation in Poland, e.g. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/471/11/112035/meta

• A discussion section (L 395-473) and the reference suggested by the reviewer have been included.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article provides an interesting evaluation look  of the concepts of landscape ecological evaluation of the country to improve the quality of decision-making processes in the territory. LEC concept  requires the participation of the public and land users in the evaluation processes, so that the result objectively serves the application of landscape ecological documents in land use. In this sense, the contribution served its purpose.

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for these comments. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents three different approaches to landscape assessment how they were applied in different Spanish regions. The difficult topic of landscape assessment is clearly presented and all methods are inspiring for the other regions or countries.

However, I miss the discussion; the discussion part is completely missing. Landscape assessment and typology and implementation of the European Landscape Convention were applied also in other European counries, regions or municipalities. The list of references should be much longer and include relevant papers about other European experiences.

I also miss the paragraph about participative planning in the introductionfocused on the advantage and difficulties of this type of planning.

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for his comments and hope that the modifications seem appropriate.

The paper presents three different approaches to landscape assessment how they were applied in different Spanish regions. The difficult topic of landscape assessment is clearly presented, and all methods are inspiring for the other regions or countries.

However, I miss the discussion; the discussion part is completely missing. Landscape assessment and typology and implementation of the European Landscape Convention were applied also in other European countries, regions or municipalities. The list of references should be much longer and include relevant papers about other European experiences.

• A discussion section has been included (L 395-473) and, consequently, more references have been added. The European context has also been further explored in other sections of the paper (L 32-38; L 49-59).

I also miss the paragraph about participative planning in the introduction focused on the advantage and difficulties of this type of planning.

• Specific mention is made of participatory planning along with other ELC precepts that are addressed by the methods studied.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All my comments have been incorporated into the text of the manuscript. The article is ready for publication.

Good job Authors!

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript was enhanced about the discusion and it is ready to publish.

Only one small remark: L 36: Denmark not Dinamarca.