Integrating Landscape Character Assessment with Community Values in a Scenic Evaluation Methodology for Regional Landscape Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I congratulate the authors on a generally well-conceived and well-written paper.

My main concerns have to do with the minimally-acknowledged limitations of both SAM and m-Sam, having to do with the problems of researcher bias in image selection and weighting of variables, and the inherent limitations of emphasis on the visual through online/digital/remote tools in trying to get at the human individual and collective experience and valuation of a place/landscape. There is a brief section toward the end that does little to address these concerns. Elaborate earlier in the paper.

Detailed comments are attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate the insightful feedback provided by the reviewer. The comments have proven to be constructive in addressing gaps and refining the manuscript. A comprehensive response to each comment has been outlined in the attached Word document for your consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Land- 2840715 Integrating Landscape Character Assessment with Community Values in a Scenic Evaluation Methodology for Regional Landscape Planning

This is a very well written research article which belongs in the Land Journal Special Issue “Exploring the Multisensory Landscape: 2023 Visual Resource Stewardship Landscape”.

A few minor suggestions are made to improve this manuscript.

Line 31- Key words: spell out acronyms or delete them.

Introduction

Lines 44-45- It would be good to note that the USDI Bureau of Land management also developed a landscape character classification scheme similar to the US Forest Service which was also heavily used for Federal lands in the Western US. In addition, BLM sponsored the only early academic research addressing landscape perception. See Smardon R.C., Feimer N. R., Craik K.H., Sheppard R.J. 1983. Assessing the reliability, validity and generalizability of observer based visual impact assessment methods for the western United States. In Rowe R.D. & Chestnut L. G. (eds.) Managing Air Quality and Scenic Resources at National Parks and Wilderness Areas. Westview Press, Boulder Colorado, pp. 84-152.

Methodology

Line 124- could you provide some references for the US pyscho-social approaches?

Lines 216-218- please describe how the focus groups were conducted- step by step.

Lines 236-238- please describe how the multiple site visits were used to identify the 13 broad LCTs.

Lines 263-264- please explain the testing process used with the expert landscape planners.

Results

Line 417- why change the raw SPR value range to 1 to 10? What was the rationale?

Line 431-why three exposure map options? What was the rationale?

Discussion and Conclusion are fine as is.

Author Response

We express our gratitude for the thoughtful comments from the reviewer. These observations have been instrumental in identifying areas for improvement and enhancing the overall quality of the manuscript. A thorough and detailed response to each comment can be found in the accompanying Word document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx