Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper proposes interesting reflections that contribute to improving the profile of analysis of the relationship between decision makers, land management tools, landscape and environment, and social movements and civil society. The theoretical background provided is commensurate with the objective of the paper, which is essentially to confirm the interfering role, of social movements in planning but also the proactive role in terms of landscape protection and conservation.

The reviewer considers the paper to be well done, of extreme interest and topicality but would like to propose two reflections to the authors.

Regarding the first, the paper juxtaposes two international cities as an experimental case for the application of what is called reading by "seven impact-based categories." It is not obvious to the reviewer why the two cities were chosen and especially whether the research intends to continue with this mode of comparison to draw further reflections. In fact, the conclusions are well clear about the comparison between the two case studies but tell us less about how to reiterate this comparison (between other cities) or what this comparison possibly left undetected. A concluding reflection on the above is suggested.

In the second aspect, however, concerns the fact that in the contribution, several attributes are associated with the word movement, such as: local movement, social movement, territorial defense movement, environmental movement, pro-democracy movement. The question the reviewer poses is in fact whether all these social forces (which the paper tends to equate) do not act or define themselves differently and, finally, whether the seven impact categories (which work well with one subject) remain effective if different movements move on the chessboard. Would the ability to read a trad off between the success of a predominantly environmental movement with another that protects jobs exist? A long-standing question that the reviewer does not ask the authors to resolve but only to ponder.

Finally, the following minor revisions are suggested :

 1. I recommend reviewing the structure of the paper with regard to numbering and the hierarchy of titles. The paper in fact moves from the point "1. Introduction" (line 25) to a point "2.2 "Savingscapes" project: theoretical framework and methodology" (line 69) followed by a sub-section "2.1 Movements in the last decades' theories" (line 70).

2. Line 47: Exposing both mobilisations would be more appropriate to start the sentence with the plural

3. Line 64: In order to better clarify the analysis that will follow in the course of the text, the authors are advised to anticipate (even in summary) the topic of the seven impact-based categories that will be applied, anticipating that it is their proposal for analysis or (on the contrary) citing its origin.

4. Line 90: Authors such as [9] give various reasons [...]. although this form is accepted in academic writing, for clarity the reviewer suggest at least write the author's name and year and then use the correct bibliographic coding. For example: Several authors such as Subra in 2016 [9] give various reasons [...].

5. Same as number 4 in line 93.

6. The sentence from line 138 to 140 does not seem to work perfectly. Either it contains a repetition of the word 'impacts' or, if these are the first of the four elements, the sentence needs a punctuation correction.

7. Line 180: the auditor does not know the source of the data on the width of Liguria, but I believe that in the coastal area of Imperia the width also exceeds 35 km.

8. Line 239: Simultaneously, according to [25] […] the same as number 4 and 5.

9. Figure 4 on page 10: There is a possibility that the writing in the first box at the top is not fully legible in white.

10. Line 369:  if the reference is to Soja's concept of trialectics, perhaps it deserves a citation if not also a brief summary, cosidering also that the role that the authors attribute to civil society in the contribution, seems precisely that of a third element to break established rules.

 

Author Response

The paper proposes interesting reflections that contribute to improving the profile of analysis of the relationship between decision makers, land management tools, landscape and environment, and social movements and civil society. The theoretical background provided is commensurate with the objective of the paper, which is essentially to confirm the interfering role, of social movements in planning but also the proactive role in terms of landscape protection and conservation.

The reviewer considers the paper to be well done, of extreme interest and topicality but would like to propose two reflections to the authors.

Regarding the first, the paper juxtaposes two international cities as an experimental case for the application of what is called reading by "seven impact-based categories." It is not obvious to the reviewer why the two cities were chosen and especially whether the research intends to continue with this mode of comparison to draw further reflections. In fact, the conclusions are well clear about the comparison between the two case studies but tell us less about how to reiterate this comparison (between other cities) or what this comparison possibly left undetected. A concluding reflection on the above is suggested.

>> Thanks to the reviewer for the opportunity to specify this aspect. For us, the confrontation with Genoa is a way to test the proposed taxonomy; as mentioned in this paper, our reflection started from a previous article published in Land regarding the case of Girona. The purpose is, now, to test the methodology on another case that could be comparable -of course- but not with the main aim of a “traditional” geographical comparison. Therefore, we inserted a brief explanation on this point (§ 1, § 2.2). About the possible future research and the method that can be applied to reiterate the study, we added a further conclusion (§4), which reflects our vision of movements that is at the same time “global” (environmental mobilizations present worldwide features related to the time in which they spread out, § 2.1) and “local” (the foreseen impact of territorial transformation is the cause of activation).

In the second aspect, however, concerns the fact that in the contribution, several attributes are associated with the word movement, such as: local movement, social movement, territorial defense movement, environmental movement, pro-democracy movement. The question the reviewer poses is in fact whether all these social forces (which the paper tends to equate) do not act or define themselves differently and, finally, whether the seven impact categories (which work well with one subject) remain effective if different movements move on the chessboard. Would the ability to read a trad off between the success of a predominantly environmental movement with another that protects jobs exist? A long-standing question that the reviewer does not ask the authors to resolve but only to ponder.

>> It is a very interesting reflection. The text focuses on mobilizations for the defense of the territory, the natural environment or the landscape based on a specific, identifiable conflict with local impact, and on the results obtained with respect to the claims they express. In the article, we have therefore opted for the first and explicit purpose (usually the one that gave rise to the mobilization) as an identifying element of the mobilized subject, over other characteristics they may have.

On the other hand, some of the adjectives mentioned - "pro-democracy", "defense of the territory" - as well as the question of whether there can be a trade-off between the success of a predominantly environmental movement with another that protects jobs, require a very long reflection and explanation. Among other reasons because the Girona and Genoese historical and social contexts in various aspects can give rise to different answers. For example, in the Spanish case it is clear that the mobilizations under the Franco regime had a pro-democracy component as important as the Environmental defense component (in fact, environmental aggression was identified with the Franco regime); or the protection of the landscape can be perceived very differently in a context of an economy with a strong presence of industry or in one where tourism is the fundamental economic base. We tried to explain this change of perspective/meaning providing also an “evolutionary map” of the main objectives of movements along the time-line (fig. 2).

Finally, the following minor revisions are suggested :

1. I recommend reviewing the structure of the paper with regard to numbering and the hierarchy of titles. The paper in fact moves from the point "1. Introduction" (line 25) to a point "2.2 "Savingscapes" project: theoretical framework and methodology" (line 69) followed by a sub-section "2.1 Movements in the last decades' theories" (line 70).

>> Authors thank the reviewer for the punctual comment. Numbering and hierarchy of the titles have been edited and modified.

2. Line 47: Exposing both mobilisations would be more appropriate to start the sentence with the plural

>> Thank you. Plural form has been substituted.

3. Line 64: In order to better clarify the analysis that will follow in the course of the text, the authors are advised to anticipate (even in summary) the topic of the seven impact-based categories that will be applied, anticipating that it is their proposal for analysis or (on the contrary) citing its origin.

>> Authors thank the reviewer for the punctual comment. References to the seven impact-based categories have been added in the summary to make its origin clearer.

4. Line 90: Authors such as [9] give various reasons [...]. although this form is accepted in academic writing, for clarity the reviewer suggest at least write the author's name and year and then use the correct bibliographic coding. For example: Several authors such as Subra in 2016 [9] give various reasons [...].
5. Same as number 4 in line 93.

>> Thank you. References’ form has been edited.

6. The sentence from line 138 to 140 does not seem to work perfectly. Either it contains a repetition of the word 'impacts' or, if these are the first of the four elements, the sentence needs a punctuation correction.

>> Authors thank the reviewer. Sentence has been rephrased.

7. Line 180: the auditor does not know the source of the data on the width of Liguria, but I believe that in the coastal area of Imperia the width also exceeds 35 km.

>> Authors thank the reviewer for the punctual comment. A typo has occurred, 40 and not 30 km was the correct distance.

8. Line 239: Simultaneously, according to [25] […] the same as number 4 and 5.

>> Thank you. Reference’s form has been edited.

9. Figure 4 on page 10: There is a possibility that the writing in the first box at the top is not fully legible in white.

>> Thank you for the useful suggestion. Writing in the first box has been made darker.

10. Line 369:  if the reference is to Soja's concept of trialectics, perhaps it deserves a citation if not also a brief summary, cosidering also that the role that the authors attribute to civil society in the contribution, seems precisely that of a third element to break established rules.

>> Indeed, the concept "trialectics" usually refers to Henri Lefebvre and Edward Soja, especially from the latter's publication of The Thirdspace, where, based on the French sociologist's reflections on space, suggests that spatiality is built from three conceptions -lived, conceived and perceived-. In the text, "trialectics" is applied in a different way to how Lefebvre and Soja do it, and perhaps closer to Marxist conceptions of dialectics. In this case, we refer as "trialectics" to the dynamic of interaction and permanent tension between three profiles of territorial actors with often opposing/complementary interests - institutions/technicians, the real estate sector and environmental movements - which end up impacting in a way determinant in the processes of transformation/protection/management of the landscape in Girona.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The text and its conclusions are really interesting and make a valuable contribution to the knowledge and analysis of emerging forms of territorial and landscape governance catalysed through civil society. In my opinion, the perception of loss or destruction of the landscape character, understood from its multiple natural, cultural and symbolic (and identity) dimensions, is a key factor that explains the action of these social movements. The authors could consider introducing this concept in the text.

On the other hand, in line 356, to be more precise, the Council of Europe should also be cited, in addition to the European Union, since landscape policies are influenced by the European Landscape Convention, promoted by this other European institution. An alternative would be to refer to European conventions and directives in general.

Author Response

The text and its conclusions are really interesting and make a valuable contribution to the knowledge and analysis of emerging forms of territorial and landscape governance catalysed through civil society. In my opinion, the perception of loss or destruction of the landscape character, understood from its multiple natural, cultural and symbolic (and identity) dimensions, is a key factor that explains the action of these social movements. The authors could consider introducing this concept in the text.

>> thanks for the good point, we added a remind of the extraordinary value of the landscape in both areas in introduction as well as in the final, because reviewer suggested us a new perspective for the future of our work: can this taxonomy be adequate in cases where the landscape character is not so peculiar?

On the other hand, in line 356, to be more precise, the Council of Europe should also be cited, in addition to the European Union, since landscape policies are influenced by the European Landscape Convention, promoted by this other European institution. An alternative would be to refer to European conventions and directives in general.

>> Sure. We added a specific remind to the Convention and the sentences, now, better specify the evolution in terms of awareness of the Landscape value to be preserved.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article studies how social mobilizations have an impact on the configuration of the landscape, an interesting topic. 

However, it does not present a clear research. 

It takes two case studies but does not explain why those two specifically, beyond the fact that they are Mediterranean coastal cities. One of them, moreover, has already been studied in very similar terms by two of the authors in a much more incisive and methodical paper [22]. 

I would understand more if this particular paper were dedicated to the city of Genoa in the same incisive way and, in the discussion section, the results were discussed by comparing them with those of the previous article. Otherwise, the selection of the two cities as case studies does not make much sense. They cannot be compared in the conclusions, because they are not closely related to begin with, nor do they serve to draw generic conclusions, since two cities can hardly be representative of such a complex issue as the landscape-territorial impact of social mobilizations. 

Moreover, the method is not clearly explained, nor are the sources. The results are included almost as a subsection of the section dedicated to the case studies.

In conclusion, the paper needs to revise the position it adopts, to go deeper into the Genovés case study (since Girona is already well studied in [22]), and to better describe the research process.

 

Author Response

The article studies how social mobilizations have an impact on the configuration of the landscape, an interesting topic. 

However, it does not present a clear research. 

It takes two case studies but does not explain why those two specifically, beyond the fact that they are Mediterranean coastal cities. One of them, moreover, has already been studied in very similar terms by two of the authors in a much more incisive and methodical paper [22]. 

I would understand more if this particular paper were dedicated to the city of Genoa in the same incisive way and, in the discussion section, the results were discussed by comparing them with those of the previous article. Otherwise, the selection of the two cities as case studies does not make much sense. They cannot be compared in the conclusions, because they are not closely related to begin with, nor do they serve to draw generic conclusions, since two cities can hardly be representative of such a complex issue as the landscape-territorial impact of social mobilizations. 

>> For us, the confrontation with Genoa is a way to test the proposed taxonomy, starting from comparable cases but not due to a “traditional” geographical comparison. Nevertheless, we inserted a brief explanation of this point, too (§1, §2.2). Thanks for the opportunity to specify.

Moreover, the method is not clearly explained, nor are the sources. The results are included almost as a subsection of the section dedicated to the case studies.

In conclusion, the paper needs to revise the position it adopts, to go deeper into the Genovés case study (since Girona is already well studied in [22]), and to better describe the research process.

>> Reference [22] represents somewhat the original source of the conceptualization of the proposed taxonomy. Present work aims at implementing and enlarging the original concept into an outcome-based taxonomy and to test it as well, through the application on the cases of Genoa and Girona. Case-studies indeed do not constitute this work’s focus, but they enable authors to provide the rationale of the chosen approach. Further explanations have been added in the introductory part to better highlight this point, thank you for the punctual comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors:

Thank you for your efforts in applying the changes, but they do not address the real problems with this paper that were exposed in my previous review. I still believe that the paper will benefit greatly from a complete rewrite and resubmission.

Author Response

>> Thank you for your accurate comment. We tried to improve further our work adding some methodological notes and explanation.

In details:

• We inserted deeper analysis of methodological steps in paragraph 2.2 to underline the specific role Genoa case study plays within our research. The proposed taxonomy requires indeed to be applied to case-studies that belong to different contexts from the Catalan one that somewhat originated it. It is therefore necessary to test whether a similar impact-based approach may both fill effectively the highlighted literature research gap and be transferable and replicable as well within a wider range of territorial mobilizations outside Catalonia. Furthermore, the selection of Genoa case-study has been suggested as well by the pre-existence of an Academic Partnership between Genoa and Girona Universities, that made mutual confrontation easier and fostered the proposed taxonomy test on this Italian Case.
• We changed some elements of the paragraphs structure and naming, as well in order to make it more suitable to describe our research structure and path.
• Finally, we added some further explanations in the conclusive section to highlight that our taxonomy and therefore our methodology, being an impact-based one, descends inductively from the analysis of an extended, though place-based, dataset of case studies that allowed the authors to formulate a possible classification. Future research could focus instead on deepening the systematic approach proper to deductive methodologies.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx