Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Need for clarifying the key issues in heritage management for rural areas before presenting the legislative context.

perhaps it would be a good idea to specify the typology of regulatory interventions in connection with a typology of problems in small rural areas (not in general stetements but in an operational form)

It would be necessary to be more analytical (not opinion statements) with references (not general type opinion publications)

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English needs careful editing (syntax and expressions)

Author Response

I'm sending a table where I present my responses to each of the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers, including how I proceeded to incorporate the suggested changes into the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title of the paper should mention Spain to be clearly understood. Only in the keywords Spain appears. But its important to clarify this issue.

The general quality is good. Although there are some minor corrections to be made. I think they can be typos.

In line 89 you should replace do by due

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The general quality is good. Although there are some minor corrections to be made. I think they can be typos.

In line 89 you should replace do by due

 

Author Response

I'm sending a table where I present my responses to each of the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers, including how I proceeded to incorporate the suggested changes into the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

The manuscript addresses a significant issue concerning the preservation of cultural and environmental heritage in rural areas. The introduction and discussion sections are well-witten. However, the methodology requires further work in order to ensure replicability and academic soundness. In this regard, I propose a series of questions and observations that should be adressed:

1. I suggest the inclusion of a detailed list of the ordinances analyzed, including their year of adoption, scope, and key conclusions or elements, that would help enhance the transparency and replicability of the research.

2. It is essential to consider whether the documents analyzed represent the entire regulatory framework governing the subject matter. In my experience there could be additional documents and guidelines, such as: urbanistic plans or local development strategies, that may complement or intersect with the ordinances. 

3. The selection of only 14 towns for analysis raises questions regarding its representativeness and generalizability. The criteria for town selection should be clarified, and the paper should present any potential limitations or biases introduced by this approach. Are the 14 municipalities the only ones with such regulations?The absence of similar regulations in other municipalities could offer valuable insights into regional variations in regulatory approaches.

4. The study's focus on municipalities listed under "The Most Beautiful Villages of Spain" may also limit the generalizability of its findings to other regions or countries. 

Author Response

I'm sending a table where I present my responses to each of the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers, including how I proceeded to incorporate the suggested changes into the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Is there a way to differentiate further the substance (topic) of ordinances , perhaps in terms of degree of austerity or substance or...? because you present only three topics : commercial advertising, occupation of public space and telecommunication infrastructure controls...

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

Thank you for your response. In my opinion your clarifications and the revised version of your manuscript are adressing all my observetions. 

Best regards!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf