Exploring Public Recognition and Perceived Cultural Value of the Special Qualities within English Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the subject and the methods used for this analysis. It is a very interesting way to countify beauty, to measure it. I agree with the conclusions that the beauty is a cumulus of elements and it works like a system but there is a missing link that could improve the research from my point of view. The age of the users, their interests are different and the taste of beauty can be educated and influenced so what is considered beauty now ca stay beauty, can be considered either common or unique in e few decades. This layer could give a place in time for your conclusions and a better connection with the idea of sustainability.
Author Response
Hi
Many thanks for taking the time to review the paper. Your comments are very helpful and we have taken them into account.
The discussion has been updated to include the suggested comments, please see lines 385-389 and 402-408.
Many thanks again
Take care
John
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is a good inspection within the realm of environmental perceptions. Individual perceptions are properly investigated to shed light to the role of CES. As to improve references I suggest to take into account the following pivotal references:
Tengberg A., Fredholm s. et alii, (2012), Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: assessment of heriatge values and identity, Ecosystem Services, 2, 14-25.
Holleland H., Skrede J. and Holmgaard S.B., (2017), Cultural heritage and ecosystem services: a literature review, Conservation and management of Archaelogical Sites, vo. 19, n. 3, 210-237
Zandersen M. et alii, Assessing landscapes experiences as a cultural ecosystem service in public infrastructure projects, Copenhagen, Nordic Council of Ministers
I only suggest to achieve a more careful check of the text: there are some scattered typing mistakes (for instance at line 33 'in must' and 38 'typography')
Author Response
Hi
Many thanks for taking the time to review the paper. Your comments are very helpful and we have taken them into account.
The suggested reference have been now included into the paper and the typing errors have been checked and corrected.
Many thanks again
Take care
John
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is very interesting and authors present very important issue within landscape research. Introduction section is very clear presented and it gives very good insight into the subject. Although authors haven't followed instructions for references (References should be numbered in order of appearance and indicated by a numeral or numerals in square brackets—e.g., [1] or [2,3], or [4–6]. ) it made reading a lot easier. Nevertheless, I recommend that the references be aligned with the instructions.
The state in abstract (Lines 17-19) The study suggests that when presented with the same landscape there is huge diversity as to what should be considered ‘special’ should be elaborated in discussion part, especially in relation to the social groups involved in the research. Also manuscript lacks a review of participatory methods, and their relationship with relevant social groups. Instagram uploads is very questionable approach because it does not include the entire population, that is, it cannot be considered representative.
Please explain more MCA methods used in paper.
In line 269 there is Error! Reference source not found., please check.
In chapter 4.2. please try to elaborate the reasons for such results.
Figure 13 is not clear, maybe authors can try to find some other way for presenting these results (distribution).
Author Response
Hi
Many thanks for taking the time to review the paper. Your comments are very helpful and we have taken them into account.
All reference have been checked and presented in the correct format as per the instructions.
The discussion has been updated to include the suggested comments, please see lines 385-389 and 402-408.
Figure 13 has been reviewed however a suitable solution to improve the presentation of the figure could not be found. However, we were trying to present a heat map approach as the pie chart data is available elsewhere in the paper.
Many thanks again
Take care
John
