Why Do UNESCO Biosphere Reserves Get Less Recognition than National Parks? A Landscape Research Perspective on Protected Area Narratives in Germany
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article is fascinating and represents a scientific study consistent with the goals and topics of the journal. However, the Abstract is not conceptualized in terms of objectives and conclusions, and the findings in the article are much richer than the information in the abstract.
specific comments:
This study is devoted to finding an answer to the following question - why integrative approaches, such as UNESCO biosphere reserves, are given less attention and allocated fewer resources than national parks. This issue is relevant because biosphere reserves combine the two main trends of humanity's modern attitude to nature - protection, and development. The idea of caring for nature and the development of biosphere reserves are united by the authors. It is interesting that the authors talk about the problems of implementing biosphere reserves, making comparisons and discussing these issues from a general theoretical level. The authors focus on comparative analysis, which is fruitful for the disclosure of the stated issue. However, the authors rely on data presented in social networks. It is not clear whether they used Net-Map, the method of participation in social networks as a semi-structured method, etc. The author's view of the problem as a narrative can be traced but is not clearly indicated in the introduction to the study. If the authors also indicate the logic of the study, and not only its relevance in the Introduction, then the article will only benefit from this. It is necessary to make the research questions more identified in the introduction to improve the perception of the research.Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
We want to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their very encouraging and helpful comments. From our point of view, we were able to implement all suggestions and corrections in the manuscript and hopefully answer all questions.
Point 1: This article is fascinating and represents a scientific study consistent with the goals and topics of the journal. However, the Abstract is not conceptualized in terms of objectives and conclusions, and the findings in the article are much richer than the information in the abstract.
Response 1:
Thank you for this correction. We revised the abstract with respect to objectives and conclusions.
Point 2: It is interesting that the authors talk about the problems of implementing biosphere reserves, making comparisons and discussing these issues from a general theoretical level. The authors focus on comparative analysis, which is fruitful for the disclosure of the stated issue. However, the authors rely on data presented in social networks. It is not clear whether they used Net-Map, the method of participation in social networks as a semi-structured method, etc.
Response 2:
Thank you for the comment. We revised section 2.4 and provided more information on the data that we collected and analysed. In this paper we synthesize results that we have reached and collected over a period of two years using a variety of qualitative methods and taking advantage of our professional backgrounds in national park and biosphere reserves management.
Point 3: The author's view of the problem as a narrative can be traced but is not clearly indicated in the introduction to the study. If the authors also indicate the logic of the study, and not only its relevance in the Introduction, then the article will only benefit from this. It is necessary to make the research questions more identified in the introduction to improve the perception of the research.
Response 3:
Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the introduction, in order to provide the connection between social science landscape theory and the narrative concept. Reviewer 2 had recommended that the figure and explanation of the social media reach be presented in the results section. We have also followed this recommendation. We have also improved the comprehensibility of our research question.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presents a theme of great interest and relevance, namely in the way that biosphere reserves and nature parks are managed and perceived. The authors sought, in a systematized way and with conceptual support in current researches, to have a reading about these territories and their recognition in terms of natural and cultural values, as well as the social processes of their interpretation and even the mental construction of the associated landscapes.
The introduction, structured in two points, provides a conceptual clarification of the meaning and origin of these classified and protected spaces, with a focus on germany. It is considered less correct to insert a graph in the introduction, so it is suggested that it be considered at a later point and that the goals of the research be clarified, in terms of the purpose of the research, the main aspects investigated and the methodological paths followed.
The theoretical development on landscapes, protected areas and their narratives is coherent, well-founded, and makes use of current and appropriate references. The logics and supports of narratives and their main factors are explored. The reading is interesting and the construction produced is logical and well-founded. The results presented, and structured in a way that allows for an organized reading and interpretation, require further explanation of how they were achieved and produced, allowing for a development of the research design that can be applied to other territories or classified areas. In this context, and in particular in point 3.2, a more objective and methodical analysis is required, which allows for an understanding of the achievement of the results and especially of the interpretations produced.
We believe that the development of infograms or organizational charts may be of added value for the article and for a better interpretation of the achievement of the results.
In the research, many practices are described and orientations for the cultural and natural valorization of landscapes are pointed out, which should be in a final stage, even in the most structured and objective discussion.
The references presented reveal an in-depth research, theoretical and conceptual care and the analysis of current and relevant research works for the investigated theme
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
We want to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their very encouraging and helpful comments. From our point of view, we were able to implement all suggestions and corrections in the manuscript and hopefully answer all questions.
Point 1: The introduction, structured in two points, provides a conceptual clarification of the meaning and origin of these classified and protected spaces, with a focus on germany. It is considered less correct to insert a graph in the introduction, so it is suggested that it be considered at a later point and that the goals of the research be clarified, in terms of the purpose of the research, the main aspects investigated and the methodological paths followed.
Response 1:
Thank you for this correction. We have revised the introduction, shifted the graph to the results section and clarified the goals of the research.
Point 2: The results presented, and structured in a way that allows for an organized reading and interpretation, require further explanation of how they were achieved and produced, allowing for a development of the research design that can be applied to other territories or classified areas. In this context, and in particular in point 3.2, a more objective and methodical analysis is required, which allows for an understanding of the achievement of the results and especially of the interpretations produced.
Response 2:
Thank you for the comment. We revised section 2.4 and provided more information on the data that we collected and analysed. This will also explain better the results that we present in point 3.2.
Thank you very much for the idea to apply this approach to other territories or classified areas. In this paper we synthesize results that we have reached and collected over a period of two years using a variety of methods and taking advantage of our professional backgrounds in national park and biosphere reserves management.
Point 3: We believe that the development of infograms or organizational charts may be of added value for the article and for a better interpretation of the achievement of the results.
Response 3:
Thank you for this suggestion. We developed an additional figure to illustrate aspects of our comparison of biosphere reserves and national parks.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
