Review Reports - The Application of Landscape Indicators for Landscape Quality Assessment; Case of Zahleh, Lebanon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a topic of particular scientific and social interest. The objectives are clearly defined, and the work fully meets them. From a methodological standpoint, the manuscript rigorously meets the requirements of a scientific paper.

Despite the undeniable quality of the work, it seems to me that the authors should consider the following:

1 - While the authors clearly state that they used exclusively two instruments to assess cultural quality (PROTAP: Historical Monuments; HLE: Historical Landscape Elements), it seems to me that reducing cultural dimensions to their tangible expression is clearly limiting. Therefore, I suggest that, if possible, the authors use another type of instrument that allows them to also consider other material and even intangible dimensions of culture. 2 - It seems to me that it would be valuable for the work if the authors could analyze in some detail two results that are transcribed below:
Case 1 - "Pockets of low-density (14.5%) and informal urban fabric (0.4%) toward the periphery, particularly in the eastern and southern zones adjacent to agricultural areas, suggesting less regulated development due to the residence of Syrian refugees, most of whom work as seasonal laborers in the agricultural sector."
Case 2 - "This area encompasses a diverse mix of land uses, including urban neighborhoods, cultivated agricultural lands, and a developing industrial zone. This convergence of functions influences the character and quality of the landscape."
Satellite images obtained from Google Earth Pro between 2004 and 2022 (Figure 3) reveal accelerated urban expansion that has largely reformed the land use structure over the past two decades. In 2004, urbanized zones accounted for 46.6% of the total area, while agricultural lands still covered (53.5%), reflecting their coexistence in a relative balance. By 2022, this balance has been shifted dramatically. The urban development has expanded to (54.5%), while agricultural lands declined to just (19%), meaning a concerning decline in productive lands.
Beyond the ecological and economic impacts, such as the erosion of agricultural livelihoods, loss of local food security, and landscape fragmentation, this transformation also affects the region's social fabric and cultural identity. To illustrate, the decrease in agricultural lands means not only a weakening of traditional rural identity but also a gradual etachment of communities from their agricultural heritage, once central to local life. Thus, accelerated spread and industrial growth are threatening the peri-urban character that defines Houch Al Oumaraa's identity.

I am sure that if the authors considered these suggestions they would improve the quality of the manuscript even further.

Author Response

Despite the undeniable quality of the work, it seems to me that the authors should consider the following:

comment 1 - While the authors clearly state that they used exclusively two instruments to assess cultural quality (PROTAP: Historical Monuments; HLE: Historical Landscape Elements), it seems to me that reducing cultural dimensions to their tangible expression is clearly limiting. Therefore, I suggest that, if possible, the authors use another type of instrument that allows them to also consider other material and even intangible dimensions of culture.

Response 1: Thank you for raising a very important point about the limitations of focusing solely on tangible cultural expressions, and we agree that incorporating intangible dimensions would provide a more holistic view of cultural quality. Our selection of these specific indicators was guided by the methodological framework of our study. As we detailed, our approach is based on the foundational work of Sowińska-Świerkosz and Michalik-Śnieżek, who proposed a specific set of 11 indicators for landscape quality assessment. A primary objective of our research is precisely to examine the potential limitations and applicability of this existing set—originally validated in protected natural areas—when applied to a peri-urban context.

Therefore, to conduct a rigorous test of this methodology, we intentionally adhered to the original set of indicators. We recognized that assessing intangible heritage poses a significant challenge when relying primarily on spatial data, which was a core constraint of the applied framework. We sincerely appreciate your suggestion, as it aligns directly with our own conclusions. In fact, we have highlighted this specific limitation in the Discussion section of the manuscript, noting the need for future research to integrate complementary methods that can effectively capture the intangible dimensions of culture as you mentioned.

Comment 2 - It seems to me that it would be valuable for the work if the authors could analyze in some detail two results that are transcribed below:
Case 1 - "Pockets of low-density (14.5%) and informal urban fabric (0.4%) toward the periphery, particularly in the eastern and southern zones adjacent to agricultural areas, suggesting less regulated development due to the residence of Syrian refugees, most of whom work as seasonal laborers in the agricultural sector."
Case 2 - "This area encompasses a diverse mix of land uses, including urban neighborhoods, cultivated agricultural lands, and a developing industrial zone. This convergence of functions influences the character and quality of the landscape."

Response 2. Thank you for your constructive feedback. We agree that a more detailed analysis of these points significantly strengthens our manuscript.

As you suggested, we have performed a more detailed analysis of the two cases you mentioned. This expanded the subsection "Current Land Use/Landcover" in the Results section, which delves into the functional mix of the area as well as the socio-spatial dynamics of the peripheral development.

The changes can be found in lines 280-291 and 294-303 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 3. Satellite images obtained from Google Earth Pro between 2004 and 2022 (Figure 3) reveal accelerated urban expansion that has largely reformed the land use structure over the past two decades. In 2004, urbanized zones accounted for 46.6% of the total area, while agricultural lands still covered (53.5%), reflecting their coexistence in a relative balance. By 2022, this balance has been shifted dramatically. The urban development has expanded to (54.5%), while agricultural lands declined to just (19%), meaning a concerning decline in productive lands.
Beyond the ecological and economic impacts, such as the erosion of agricultural livelihoods, loss of local food security, and landscape fragmentation, this transformation also affects the region's social fabric and cultural identity. To illustrate, the decrease in agricultural lands means not only a weakening of traditional rural identity but also a gradual etachment of communities from their agricultural heritage, once central to local life. Thus, accelerated spread and industrial growth are threatening the peri-urban character that defines Houch Al Oumaraa's identity.

Response 3.: The text was updated accordingly; thank you.

I am sure that if the authors considered these suggestions they would improve the quality of the manuscript even further.

Response :

Thank you for your invaluable insights, these suggestions were taken into consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Landscape quality assessment has been a critical problem in landscape planning and design. This paper presents a set of landscape indicators to support the LQ assessment. Overall, I think this paper is well-written and the methods are good. However, it should be revised before its acceptance.

First, the English should be refined. The are some incomplete sentences and grammatical errors. Authors should double check.
Line 20-24, the descriptions are vague. I suggest authors should revise. Moreover, why per-urban areas? The research questions and research focus should be refined.
The abstract should also present some quantitative results and identify the challenges in case study areas.
Before landscape indicators, I suggest authors should add a subsection of landscape functions. Once its benefits to environmental, social, economic, ecological, health and so, the authors can better define the landscape quality. Basically, the landscape structure, function, and services are interlinked. Please refer some studies on biophilic design and ecological benefits, such as

Biophilic street design for urban heat resilience. Progress in Planning, 199, 100988.

Towards a comprehensive green infrastructure typology: a systematic review of approaches, methods and typologies. Urban ecosystems, 20(1), 15-35.

Multidimensional factors affecting tree-induced cooling benefits: A comprehensive review. Building and Environment, 113242.

Line 67-70, I think the argument here is not solid.
Line 73-74, authors have to justify why they limited the research scope into such four dimensions. Moreover, what are the full dimensions? Please clarify. Furthermore, Fig.1 is not sound. You cannot entitle it as dimensions of landscape quality which you only defined your scope.
In Table 1, on the data sources, how about Lidar? There are many emerging methods to collect data.
On the LQ dimensions, you have listed some, but are they enough?
On the scale, I cannot agree with you. You may refine.
Subsection 1.4, why peri-urban areas? Any differences from urban landscape systems?
Line 134-139, this is the duplication of previous descriptions.
Figure 2 has not been explained the main text. You should explain it with proper references, or readers cannot be convinced.
Subsection 2.1, you are required to add the location and basic images of the case study areas and their landscapes. You should also describe the landscape in Houch Al Oumaraa.
Line 188, what are the 11 Lis? Please indicate and explain them with a table. Moreover, how did you determine them?
Subsection 3.2, a table is also needed. You may incorporate the table into Fig.3. Moreover, you should also explain why LULC changed over 20 years.
Table 3 should go to method section, see Q14. By the way, authors have not presented a sound explanation of such indicators. Why them? How to calculate them?
Table 4, are you going to combine such indicators into a comprehensive indicator? That is to say, how to quantify the landscape quality?
Moreover, I do not think authors have discussed the development of the landscape indicator system in the Discussion section. It is then not safe to say the method is advanced.

Author Response

Comment1.

First, the English should be refined. The are some incomplete sentences and grammatical errors. Authors should double check.

Response 1. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and accordingly refined the English and also have it checked by our english instructors. Grammatical errors were corrected and sentence structures were improved.

Comment 2: Line 20-24, the descriptions are vague. I suggest authors should revise. Moreover, why per-urban areas? The research questions and research focus should be refined.

Response 2: This was taken into consideration and the revised manuscript provided more precise and concrete language. Peri-urban areas, our research focus, represent dynamic and often overlooked landscapes where the pressures of urbanization interact directly with traditional agricultural systems, leading to unique and complex sustainability challenges. Hence choosing the precise area of research . This was highlighted in the revised manuscript. Accordingly, introduction and research questions were refined (particularly subsection 1.5: Assessment of LQ within Houch Al Oumaraa: a peri-urban landscape on pages 4 and 5.

Comment 3: The abstract should also present some quantitative results and identify the challenges in case study areas.

Response 3: key quantitative results ere added and challenges addressed

Comment 4. Before landscape indicators, I suggest authors should add a subsection of landscape functions. Once its benefits to environmental, social, economic, ecological, health and so, the authors can better define the landscape quality. Basically, the landscape structure, function, and services are interlinked. Please refer some studies on biophilic design and ecological benefits, such as

Biophilic street design for urban heat resilience. Progress in Planning, 199, 100988.

Towards a comprehensive green infrastructure typology: a systematic review of approaches, methods and typologies. Urban ecosystems, 20(1), 15-35.

Multidimensional factors affecting tree-induced cooling benefits: A comprehensive review. Building and Environment, 113242.

Response 4: added upon point 4 as subsection "1.1. Multifunctionality of the landscape" to better define landscape quality. Suggested references were also introduced. Thank you

Comment 5. Line 67-70, I think the argument here is not solid.

Response 5: Consolidation and clarity improved in the attached manuscript. Thank you.

Comment 6. Line 73-74, authors have to justify why they limited the research scope into such four dimensions. Moreover, what are the full dimensions? Please clarify. Furthermore, Fig.1 is not sound. You cannot entitle it as dimensions of landscape quality which you only defined your scope.

Response 6: As redefined in the manuscript, We limited our scope to the spatial dimensions to test whether spatial data is enough to access the LQ of landscapes differently from protected areas (where they have been applied first and proved sufficient), specifically peri-urban areas, our case. This was clarified in lines 143–146 in subsection 1.5. The full dimensions of landscape quality, according to the literature review, are: structural, ecological, visual, cultural, social, and economic as mentioned in lines 51-53. Fig.1 and its caption have been revised. Appropriate and clear title was adapted.

Comment 7. In Table 1, on the data sources, how about Lidar? There are many emerging methods to collect data.

Response 7: We have added LiDAR as an example and accordingly clarified that many other data sources exist. Added reference accordingly. Thank you.

Comment 8: On the LQ dimensions, you have listed some, but are they enough?

Response 8: We acknowledge that other dimensions may exist, but the dimensions of Landscape Quality listed in this part were the ones identified and defined by Sowińska-Świerkosz and Michalik-Śnieżek (hence the title of the column). This table compares their methodology to other methodologies, which helps us to point out its special features (such as being holistic, using various data sources…). This explains why we chose their methodology as a baseline to which we have integrated our own refinements to better align with the study's specific objectives. (our methodological contributions are detailed explanation in subsection 1.5 lines 147-158).

Comment 9: On the scale, I cannot agree with you. You may refine.

Response 9: refined this part to better clarify the distinctions regarding the scale.

Comment 10: Subsection 1.4, why peri-urban areas? Any differences from urban landscape systems?

Response 10: You are right to highlight that the distinction between peri-urban and purely urban landscapes is important. In response, we have expanded subsection 1.5 to provide a clearer justification for this focus and added a more detailed explanation of the significance of peri-urban areas in lines 133-142. We believe this clarification strengthened our methodological choice thanks to your feedback.

Comment 11: Line 134-139, this is the duplication of previous descriptions.

Response 11: We have eliminated the repeated descriptions and ensured the necessary information was integrated into the preceding lines for a smoother narrative.

Comment 12: Figure 2 has not been explained the main text. You should explain it with proper references, or readers cannot be convinced.

Response 12: We have expanded the explanation in the main text preceding Figure 2 (lines 172-178) to introduce its purpose and overall structure clearly. A detailed explanation of each stage, along with the proper supporting citations, is provided in the subsequent subsections of the methodology.

Comment 13: Subsection 2.1, you are required to add the location and basic images of the case study areas and their landscapes. You should also describe the landscape in Houch Al Oumaraa.

Response 13: we have added basic location maps for the case study areas to provide immediate geographical context. We have also included a brief yet straight to the point description of the landscape in Houch Al Oumaraa in the lines 191-200. A more detailed and comprehensive description of this landscape, including its historical land-use changes and a thorough analysis of its current Land Use/Land Cover (LULC), is now provided in the subsequent sections dedicated to the historical analysis and LULC results.

Comment 14: Line 188, what are the 11 Lis? Please indicate and explain them with a table. Moreover, how did you determine them?

Response 14: We have added a table which clearly summarizes the 11 Lis. These indicators were determined after a comprehensive literature review, we found that the first study to consider the multiple dimensions of LQ was that of Sowińska-Świerkosz and Michalik-Śnieżek, which suggested the use set of 11 indicators directly related to landscape quality. After adding our input to the methodology, our research aims to examine possible limitations of applying a set of landscape quality indicators, originally developed and validated within protected natural areas, to our peri-urban landscape context. (explained in lines 235-245). Also, the comparison to other methodological approaches, are discussed in the introduction of the paper in Table 1 to provide context for our analytical choice.

Comment 15: Subsection 3.2, a table is also needed. You may incorporate the table into Fig.3. Moreover, you should also explain why LULC changed over 20 years.

Response 15: We have incorporated Table 4 as suggested to better present the data. Furthermore, we expanded the subsection to include a clear explanation for the drivers behind the LULC changes observed over the 20-year period (Lines 266-269). In addition, we have moved Figure 3 (historical Google Earth images) to the Methodology section. We believe this placement functions better, as it now directly supports the description of our data sources and study area context.

Comment 16: Table 3 should go to method section, see Q14. By the way, authors have not presented a sound explanation of such indicators. Why them? How to calculate them?

Response 16: We have moved Table 3 to the Method section as requested. Regarding the indicators, their dimensions are explained earlier in the literature, which give a clear idea of what they are expected to reflect. To ensure clarity and avoid redundancy, we have included key references next to each indicator in the table. This allows the reader to refer directly to the foundational works by the authors for detailed explanations of their calculation and significance

Comment 17: Table 4, are you going to combine such indicators into a comprehensive indicator? That is to say, how to quantify the landscape quality?

Response 17: Developing a single comprehensive indicator to quantify landscape quality was not the primary objective of this study. Instead, our aim was to address the main questions, presented here and clarified in the manuscript :

(a) To what extent can remote sensing data alone be relied upon to accurately assess the landscape quality (LQ) of Houch Al Oumaraa?

(b) What are the limitations of applying a set of landscape quality indicators, originally developed for protected natural areas, to a peri-urban context?

We agree that synthesizing these findings into a compound indicator is a valuable direction for future research, and it is a path that we or other researchers may explore in subsequent papers.

Comment 18: Moreover, I do not think authors have discussed the development of the landscape indicator system in the Discussion section. It is then not safe to say the method is advanced.

Response 18: We have taken your feedback into consideration and have revised the Discussion section to include a critical evaluation of the landscape indicator system and its limitations (page 15). We have removed the claim that the method is "advanced" and reframed our conclusion to focus on its utility as an adaptable framework requiring context-specific refinement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article investigates landscape quality (LQ) in Houch Al Oumaraa, Zahleh, Lebanon, using a set of landscape indicators through geospatial analysis techniques. The study underlines the importance of assessing LQ in peri-urban areas, which have traditionally been less explored in landscape research. The methodological approach combines spatial analysis using Geographic Information Systems and visual studies, seeking to quantify landscape quality in four dimensions: structural, ecological, cultural, and visual. The results reveal that, although some indicators are universal and applicable across diverse geographies, the need for a standard and differentiated framework is crucial to capture the complexity of LQ. The study highlights that landscape quality is related not only to natural elements but also to the cultural significance and socioeconomic context of the area, suggesting the importance of incorporating holistic approaches in territorial planning.

Landscape quality is predominantly urban, with 48.3% of the surface area covered by dense urban fabric, indicating high urbanization and the need for constant monitoring. Structural indicators reveal a moderate level of fragmentation and low ecological diversity, raising concerns about the sustainability of habitats in the peri-urban area. Culturally, the area has a high density of monuments (4.19 monuments/km²) but presents limitations in organized historical elements, suggesting that cultural identity may not be well integrated into green spaces. Visual quality is affected by unnatural elements, with a low percentage (3%) of positive landscape elements, highlighting the need for intervention to improve the area's aesthetics. It is suggested that a set of landscape indicators tailored to the specific characteristics of peri-urban areas be standardized to facilitate effective assessment and planning.

Author Response

Comment 1: This article investigates landscape quality (LQ) in Houch Al Oumaraa, Zahleh, Lebanon, using a set of landscape indicators through geospatial analysis techniques. The study underlines the importance of assessing LQ in peri-urban areas, which have traditionally been less explored in landscape research. The methodological approach combines spatial analysis using Geographic Information Systems and visual studies, seeking to quantify landscape quality in four dimensions: structural, ecological, cultural, and visual. The results reveal that, although some indicators are universal and applicable across diverse geographies, the need for a standard and differentiated framework is crucial to capture the complexity of LQ. The study highlights that landscape quality is related not only to natural elements but also to the cultural significance and socioeconomic context of the area, suggesting the importance of incorporating holistic approaches in territorial planning.

Response 1: We have carefully reviewed and included your suggestions for improvement regarding the findings discussion, the presentation of results, and the support for our conclusions. Thank you for your invaluable contribution in enhancing the quality of the manuscript.

We are pleased that you found several strengths in our work, including the clear presentation of the research design and the coherence of our arguments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Comments

The manuscript focuses on the suburban transitional zone of Houch Al Oumaraa in Lebanon, assessing landscape quality through multiple landscape indicators. The topic is of practical significance, and the methodology builds on an existing indicator-based LQ framework, with an attempt to validate its applicability in a new geographical and social context. However, the manuscript shows some weaknesses in methodological rigor, justification of indicator selection, and the depth of comparative analysis, which require further refinement.

The abstract does not clearly present the main findings and core contributions of the study. It currently emphasizes research background and objectives rather than highlighting key results and their implications. The authors are encouraged to revise the abstract to emphasize the novelty of this research, clearly summarize the most important findings, and highlight their practical significance, which would enhance the completeness and attractiveness of the abstract.
The manuscript adopts a set of indicators originally developed for the context of Polish national parks, but the analysis of their applicability and limitations in suburban landscapes remains underdeveloped. A more critical evaluation of transferability to the Mediterranean suburban context is needed.
The rationale behind the choice of the 11 indicators is not sufficiently explained. The authors should clarify why these specific indicators were selected, whether they are representative and scientifically sound, and discuss whether additional aspects, such as intangible cultural heritage, should be incorporated for suburban contexts.
The use of Google Earth Pro imagery for land cover classification is not accompanied by any validation of classification accuracy, nor is there a comparison with other data sources. This raises concerns regarding the robustness of the results.
The evaluation relies on only 12 panoramic photographs and expert-based interpretation. The small sample size and reliance on expert judgment limit the representativeness of the results. The inclusion of public perception or a larger sample base would strengthen the reliability of the findings.
The comparison with Roztocze National Park is largely limited to numerical differences. The discussion should go beyond values and explain why certain indicators perform differently across landscape types, and what these differences imply about the universality and adaptability of the indicator system.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is written in generally clear and fluent English. However, certain passages could benefit from further editing to improve conciseness and to align the tone with formal academic writing.

Author Response

Comment 1: The abstract does not clearly present the main findings and core contributions of the study. It currently emphasizes research background and objectives rather than highlighting key results and their implications. The authors are encouraged to revise the abstract to emphasize the novelty of this research, clearly summarize the most important findings, and highlight their practical significance, which would enhance the completeness and attractiveness of the abstract.

Response 1: We have carefully considered your suggestion regarding the abstract. In response, we have comprehensively revised the abstract to:

Emphasize the novelty of our research in testing the universality of landscape quality assessment framework in a peri-urban context, in addition to incorporation of visual studies through expert analysis.

Clearly summarize the key quantitative findings and their implications.

Explicitly highlight the practical significance of our conclusions for policymakers and spatial planning.

Comment 2: The manuscript adopts a set of indicators originally developed for the context of Polish national parks, but the analysis of their applicability and limitations in suburban landscapes remains underdeveloped. A more critical evaluation of transferability to the Mediterranean suburban context is needed.

Response 2: Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We have taken your note fully into consideration and have now significantly strengthened the discussion by expanding it to further support the critical evaluation of the indicator framework's transferability and limitations. The subsection “Strengths, limitations, and prospects” on page 15 has been expanded.

Comment 3: The rationale behind the choice of the 11 indicators is not sufficiently explained. The authors should clarify why these specific indicators were selected, whether they are representative and scientifically sound, and discuss whether additional aspects, such as intangible cultural heritage, should be incorporated for suburban contexts.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. These indicators were determined after a comprehensive literature review, we found that the first study to consider the multiple dimensions of LQ was that of Sowińska-Świerkosz and Michalik-Śnieżek, which suggested the use set of 11 indicators directly related to landscape quality. After adding our input to the methodology, our research aims to examine possible limitations of applying this set of landscape quality indicators, originally developed and validated within protected natural areas, to our peri-urban landscape context.Also, the comparison to other methodological approaches, are discussed in the introduction of the paper in Table 1 to provide context for our analytical choice. This has been clarified in the lines 235-245.

Comment 4: The use of Google Earth Pro imagery for land cover classification is not accompanied by any validation of classification accuracy, nor is there a comparison with other data sources. This raises concerns regarding the robustness of the results.

Response 4: You are right to highlight that the use of Google Earth Pro imagery for formal land cover classification would require rigorous accuracy assessment and validation against other data sources to ensure the robustness of the results. We should clarify the intent behind including those two images. Their primary purpose was not to perform a detailed land use/land cover classification, but rather to visually demonstrate the significant scale of urban expansion and change at the site over time. They serve as illustrative evidence to underscore the critical need for the kind of detailed assessment our study proposes, helping to validate the research gap we are aiming to address. We appreciate you raising this concern, as it allowed us to clarify our methodology. The actual landcover classification for our analysis was based on the Corine Land Cover (CLC) classification, updated after 2022, obtained from the National Council for Scientific Research CNRS in Lebanon.

Comment 5: The evaluation relies on only 12 panoramic photographs and expert-based interpretation. The small sample size and reliance on expert judgment limit the representativeness of the results. The inclusion of public perception or a larger sample base would strengthen the reliability of the findings.

Response 5: Thank you for this valuable feedback. We should clarify that, initially, a set of 35 panoramic photographs was captured. However, during the preliminary analysis, it became evident that many of these images featured similar visual typologies, leading to undesired repetition. To ensure the efficiency of the expert-based evaluation and to avoid redundant data without adding new information, a refined, representative sample of 12 unique photographs was carefully selected. This approach was chosen to maximize the diversity of views assessed and to ensure that each photograph contributes a distinct perspective to the analysis. This was clarified in the lines 219-233.

Comment 6: The comparison with Roztocze National Park is largely limited to numerical differences. The discussion should go beyond values and explain why certain indicators perform differently across landscape types, and what these differences imply about the universality and adaptability of the indicator system.

Response 6: Thank you for this insightful feedback. We have taken your note into consideration and have revised the discussion to move beyond the numerical comparison. The text now provides a deeper analysis of why the indicators perform differently between the protected and peri-urban landscapes and explicitly discusses what these differences imply for the universality and necessary adaptations of the indicator system. We believe these changes have significantly strengthened the manuscript. The changes can be found in the following lines of the revised manuscript: 441-449; 456-463; 470-475; 481-489.

Thank you and we really appreciated the comments in order to improve our manuscript.