Review Reports - Seascape Visual Characterization: Combining Viewing Geometry and Physical Features to Quantify the Perception of Seascape

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review your study.

Please see the below comments:

1. Introduction

Lines 95-103: the previous paragraphs summarized the pros and cons for two complimentary approaches: on the one hand by using desk or map-based analysis and on the other by direct observations. However, it seems readers might want to know about GIS methodology for this type of study. As mentioned at the abstract, "The method first utilizes a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) model...", it would be beneficial to have (if any) research to use GIS for readers.

Figure 1: as an introduction of case study area, it might be good to have aquaculture points. However, it might not be relevant/necessary to show the points of aquaculture in figure 4, figure 7, figure 8.

3. Model components and development

Figure 2: this is a good conceptual framework of the study. But, it could be better to distinguish input data from output data as well as process. The linkages between boxes are somewhat unclear.

4. Results

Figure 4 should be a part of the previous chapter.

Figure 5 and 6: if possible, consider to combine two results into one with landscape orientation of the paper. That might show the difference clearly between the results from land and the sea.

4. Discussion and conclusions: is it chapter 5?

The first part of this chapter provides a good summary, but the discussion also needs to highlight the similarities or differences compared to existing literature (e.g.,. How your study differs from them? Does your study show similar results? How your GIS based methodology works? any improvement compared to previous methods?)

Also, consider to split your discussion from conclusion.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We would like to thank reviewers for taking the necessary time and effort to review the manuscript.
We sincerely appreciate all your valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us in improving the quality of the manuscript. Please see the responses below:

We agree with this comment. The paragraph has been improved by adding the necessary references and rephrasing a few lines, which now can be found under the following lines 98 to 107. Furthermore, we added some new references in line 68 where we introduces the desk or GIS map-based analysis.

We agree with this comment. All the aquaculture points were removed from the highlighted figures. That is to say only figure 1 in section “2. Study region” shows the aquaculture points.

Figure 2: this is a good conceptual framework of the study. But, it could be better to distinguish input data from output data as well as process. The linkages between boxes are somewhat unclear.

We agree with this comment. The conceptual framework redrawn using familiar shapes that are commonly used in developing flowcharts/algorithms. We hope this new version has improved the clarity.

Figure 4 should be a part of the previous chapter.

We agree with this comment. However, we thought this figure may not be absolutely necessary for the reader. It is just a simple process to establish the model and the text in lines 148 to 149 describe it very clearly: “two sets of regular grid vector points, spaced at one-kilometer intervals, were generated across the landward and seaward extents of the study area.” So, we decided to remove the figure and changed the flowing figures # accordingly.

Figure 5 and 6: if possible, consider to combine two results into one with landscape orientation of the paper. That might show the difference clearly between the results from land and the sea.

This is a good suggestion however we decided to keep it as it is as this attempt would have reduced the size of those five model outputs significantly.

We agree with this comment. We added a new paragraph that was inserted in the following lines 487 to 498.

We also added a new heading “Conclusion” in line 565 and our concluding statement was moved under it, line 566 to 577.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the manuscript is very interesting, taking into account that several type of industries (aquaculture and offshore wind power, for example) are being expanded and developed near coast line.

The text is comprehensible and result easy to read. The Materials and Methods (models and sub-models proposed) used are reasonable and Results are properly supported.

However, in my opinion, the following minor remarks should be considered by authors in order to improve the manuscript before publication.

11. Introduction section is well documented. Nevertheless, considering the hot topic of the manuscript, some more current reference should be included (at least, of the last 3 years). The most current reference included in this version of manuscript is dated on 2020 [reference 3].

22. Line 146. Authors mention that “an effective visual height of 1.8 meters”. From a viewpoint on the sea, the height of the ship about the waterline should also be considered. For this reason, an additional clarifying comment is recommended.

33. Quality of Figures must be improved. In Figure 3 is very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to see the symbols/letters.

44. Some legend of Figure 4 are not observed in the own Figure (e.g. “Viewpoint on the Land” in Figure 4 (a); and “height”, “city” “capital” in Figure 4 (b)). Furthermore, names included in Figure are unreadable.

5 5. The same of before comment is applicable to Figures 7 and 8.

66. Limitations of the study should be included in some place of Section 3. For example, the consideration of the effect of land cover as vegetation or buildings; the tide height; curvature of the earth; refraction; etc.

77. Discussion section is of utmost importance in this type of research. For this reason, Section 4 (Discussion and conclusions) must be split in order to avoid confusing the readers. One thing is the Discussion of the paper, and another very different is the Conclusions of the same.

88. Line 274. Where it reads “The AHT procedure is this study is composed …” it should read “The AHT procedure in this study is composed …”

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Introduction section is well documented. Nevertheless, considering the hot topic of the manuscript, some more current reference should be included (at least, of the last 3 years). The most current reference included in this version of manuscript is dated on 2020 [reference 3].

We agree with this comment and did attempt to add some new and recent references to the text (Please see the bibliography again). However, we would like to add some explanation as to why this occurred! There are not many publications in regard to visual characterization of the seascape that can be used to quantify the perception of seascape particularly at strategic scale (e.g., region) which has been the focus of this study. The majority of the seascape studies out there dedicated to this topic are concerned with the visibility analysis or viewshed analysis where the Boolean output highlights whether a location is visible or invisible from a single or multiple viewpoints. We explained this in a new paragraph in the discussion, line 494 to 505.

Line 146. Authors mention that “an effective visual height of 1.8 meters”. From a viewpoint on the sea, the height of the ship about the waterline should also be considered. For this reason, an additional clarifying comment is recommended.

This is a fair point. We added some clarifications that can be found in the following lines 150 to 153.

Quality of Figures must be improved. In Figure 3 is very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to see the symbols/letters.

We agree with this comment. The maps were modified and both texts and symbols were enlarged.

Some legend of Figure 4 are not observed in the own Figure (e.g. “Viewpoint on the Land” in Figure 4 (a); and “height”, “city” “capital” in Figure 4 (b)). Furthermore, names included in Figure are unreadable.

We agree with this comment. However, we thought this figure may not be absolutely necessary for the reader. It is just a simple process to establish the model and the text describe it very clearly from lines 148 to 149: “two sets of regular grid vector points, spaced at one-kilometer intervals, were generated across the landward and seaward extents of the study area.” So, we decided to remove the figure and changed the flowing figures number # accordingly.

The same of before comment is applicable to Figures 7 and 8.

We agree with this comment. The maps were modified and both texts and symbols were enlarged.

Limitations of the study should be included in some place of Section 3. For example, the consideration of the effect of land cover as vegetation or buildings; the tide height; curvature of the earth; refraction; etc.

We agree with this comment. We added our assumptions in the model which is clearly stated now in line 189 to 193.

Discussion section is of utmost importance in this type of research. For this reason, Section 4 (Discussion and conclusions) must be split in order to avoid confusing the readers. One thing is the Discussion of the paper, and another very different is the Conclusions of the same.

We agree with this comment. We added a new heading “Conclusion” in line 565 and our concluding statement was written under it line 566 to 577.

Line 274. Where it reads “The AHT procedure is this study is composed …” it should read “The AHT procedure in this study is composed …”

We agree with this comment. It was fixed, now in line 285.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for addressing my comments.

I don’t have any other suggestions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We would like to thank you for taking the necessary time and effort to review the manuscript.
We sincerely appreciate all your valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us in improving the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have addresses all remarks in a satisfactory manner. However, in this new version, some minor remarks are raised to be corrected before publication.

1. Lengend of Figure 3 is out of position.

2. Lines 539 - 547 are written in bold.

3. Conclusions title is inserted in a previous sentence.

4. Reference nr. 40 is not correctly writted according to journal's template.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Legend of Figure 3 is out of position.

We agree with this comment. The description of this figure was displaced due to adding new lines.

Lines 539-547 are written in bold.

We agree with this comment. The format has been fixed.

Conclusion title is inserted in a previous sentence.

We agree with this comment. The format has been fixed.

Reference nr. 40 is not correctly written according to journal’s template.

Thanks for this observation. The style has been corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf