An Integrated Method for Landscape Assessment: Application to Santiago de Cuba Bay, Cuba

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Major comments:

Thank you for this interesting paper. The article presents an original contribution (the new interdisciplinary landscape assessment method), given the state of the current literature. The research aims are clearly presented. My general impression of the discussed paper is rather positive. The paper is properly structured and written in unambiguous and comprehensible English. The length of the paper is appropriate. The title is appropriate for the content of the paper. The abstract is generally well-organised. The citations are reasonable, including recent and older works by many authors in the field.

I cannot overemphasise how much I respect the work conducted by these authors so far, but I would strongly recommend providing more information about heritage protection.
Perhaps I accidently omitted this in the paper, but according to my best knowledge the research area includes also the San Pedro de la Roca Castle, Santiago de Cuba World Heritage Site (WHS). I was astonished the authors did not mentioned this fact in the first chapters. Some readers might be interested in this particular area that affects the landscape value in various layers.

How does the Core Zone and Buffer Zone (with the OUV's) of the heritage property affects the described method? This question is regarding e.g. to lines 505 ‘Landscape scientists will find IMLA useful in addressing the loss of identity and cultural heritage’ and 535 ‘The landscape scope units with higher values 535 were A (entrance to the Bay area)’.

Could you explain to the readers in what ways are the identified landscape units and features in the research area threatened (and name actual and hidden threats to them)?

Lastly, are there any landscape protection oriented management plans for the WHS and the Sierra Maestra National Park?

Minor comments:

Lines 39-40: Avoid words already included in the title: landscape assessment; landscape units; characterization value management; integrated  method; sustainability.

Line 43:  Define what is sustainable management of landscape and proper management?

Line 99: 'Methods'. Suggest providing the time and duration of the terrain (fieldwork) observations. Moreover, some readers might be interested was it before the COVID-19 pandemic?

Lines 125-137: Provide more detailed information about the committees and experts (research fields, specialization, years of experience maybe, etc.).

Line132: Was this online survey?

Line 299: There are 29 potential > There were... suggest using past tense.

Line 308: Suggest - Figure 6. Visuals from “San Pedro de la Roca” Castle World Heitage Site.

Line 385 ‘4.1. Key observations about the landscaping approach’  (e.g. landscape definition) fits better to the Introduction chapter.

Author Response

Please see attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

A well-structured paper. The research methods are clearly established and presented, the conclusions support the results.  Overall a complex work, landscape analysis involving a number of important and varied components for the final result. The appearance of the work (tables, images) somewhat, overshadows its scientific value, so I have some observations

The layout of the paper creates a slight confusion. Also, image quality needs to be improved and more attention must be paid to the size and insertion of these images into the text. Tablets can be resized and rearranged.

Author Response

Please see attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This article provides an interesting approach to advance our understanding of cultural and ecological landscapes that is not subjective.  It provides matrices to evaluate landscapes are are useful for other to consider.   The linking of the natural factors, cultural factors and scenic factors is a welcome addition to looking at how we asses landscapes with multiple values.  The paper describes a methodology to include cultural and other factors in land-use decisions and is worth exploring in other areas.

The paper provides an interesting approach to assess how to manage landscapes for cultural landscapes and natural values which have been challenging for all landscape planners.  This provides the first assessment approach but will need to be supplemented further with local level metrics before decisions are made.  But as a first landscape assessment, it is highly relevant and worth using.   It is an interesting approach that is being proposed.

The authors clearly know the literature and what has been conducted in this area.

Author Response

Please see attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx