Landscape–Ecological Problems Resulting from Spatial Conflicts of Interest in the Poľana Biosphere Reserve

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presented a methodological procedure for assessing landscape- ecological problems resulting from conflicts of interest and its application in the Poľana Biosphere Reserve. The manuscript had a few confusion or needed to be improved.

1. The manuscript focused on the methodological procedure, indeed, this methodology is quite common and lacks innovation. 

2. The results are presented unclear in maps(figures), the figures are needed to be improved with high resolution map. 

3. The threatened phenomena from conflicting of interests were listed in table 2. How to decide the degree of threatening and combine many threatening factors together?  then the results can be expressed quantitatively on the map.   I suggest to improve the results in this part. 

 4. This research location is on Nitra Bio-reserve, how can the results be applied in other regions？  

 

 

Author Response

1. The manuscript focused on the methodological procedure, indeed, this methodology is quite common and lacks innovation. 

 

Answer:  We accepted your comment and introduction and discussion have been revised and citations have been added.

 

2. The results are presented unclear in maps(figures), the figures are needed to be improved with high resolution map. 

Answer: For the clearer understanding of maps of threatened and threatening phenomena , we exported them with higher quality (dpi) in A3 size and uploaded them as supplementary files.  A final map showing the main groups of problems has been included.

3. The threatened phenomena from conflicting of interests were listed in table 2. How to decide the degree of threatening and combine many threatening factors together?  then the results can be expressed quantitatively on the map.   I suggest to improve the results in this part. 

Answer:

We did not quantify degree of threatening, if more threatening phenomena meet at one location within one group, this can be seen from the table. We have shown the overlap of the problem groups in a map that we have updated in the article

4. This research location is on Nitra Bio-reserve, how can the results be applied in other regions？  

Answer: We updated the Conslusions in the MS following your comment:  ,,Approach presented in this paper can be used to other biosphere reserves to identify areas with spatial conflicts of interests as well as to build and extend the geographical dataset of problems resulting from spatial conflicts, as a critical step in the development of precise and effective measures for their mitigation or elimination. Also the biosphere reserves are envisioned as model regions for sustainable development, where can be the approaches applied, and tested if they achieve the main objectives. Functioning as "learning places for sustainable development," they emphasize the active involvement of local communities and stakeholders in planning and management processes. Moreover, they serve as "sites of excellence", facilitating the testing of interdisciplinary approaches to address and manage changes and interactions within social and ecological systems [38].”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines the critical issue of balancing environmental protection with human well-being. It presents a comprehensive approach that involves analyzing and mapping conflicts to mitigate these issues. The authors conducted an extensive inventory of the various factors that interact within this complex system using GIS techniques. They analyzed various factors in vector data format using GIS, examining how the information spatially coexisted. This resulted in a spatial overlay (intersect) with two variables (see Table 2) and a total of 121 cases: 67 different situations for group A, 22 for group B, and 32 for group C. The vector approach enables the description of individual conflicts; however, it does not provide a comprehensive analysis of anthropogenic pressure based on multiple criteria.

We have now arrived at the most problematic issue in this work. The author wrote about using multi-criteria assessment and factor analysis in many parts of the MS. Additionally, on line 311, they wrote, “The final step involved assessing the relevance of individual 310 data on conflicts of interest through expert evaluation by the authors”.

The analysis done in this article has nothing to do with multi-criteria assessment using GIS and more with factor analysis using these results. Since this is also mentioned in the summary (Line 13), the reader will first see that the authors developed these statistical tasks using GIS. People usually read the summary of an article first and then the main text.

I was eager to see how the multi-criteria assessment, combined with factor analysis, addressed the central question of the paper. However, I found merely a qualitative analysis of 121 conflicts, accompanied by an overwhelming amount of data and percentages. This information about the area covered would be better presented in a supplemental table. Additionally, there is an extensive amount of text featuring detailed descriptions of each part and section, which ultimately causes readers to lose sight of the main objective of this paper (L63: developing a methodological approach for assessment of landscape-ecological problems resulting from conflicts of interest),

This MS will require a FULL revision to be accepted. Firstly, the methodology for the combined analysis with vector information should be described clearly and accurately. A method using vector data should be developed to spatially evaluate locations impacted by multiple conflicts. It is essential to assess the current zoning situation and explore ways to enhance protection based on the findings of this study. The analyzed measures that can be applied to each specific area could be mapped using geographical information analysis.

In addition to the overall comments, I have some specific comments that will improve the MS.

Comment 1

The title conveys the main idea of the manuscript more efficiently than the "complex" analysis provided by the authors (οr at least consider what was done in the work).

If the authors wish to keep the work in its basic form, they should concentrate on analyzing conflicts and mitigation measures, significantly reducing the text and avoiding references to advanced GIS procedures.

Comment 2

I think the "2.1 Theoretical Background" section should be included in the introduction section.

 Comment 3

L224 – 225 “Invasive Alien Plant Species – The buffer of 10 m from the occurrence point of invasive alien plant species, was incorporated into threatening phenomena.”

How was this buffer used across several thousand hectares, or in cases where there was a 20m or 2m buffer? How was it spatially combined with threatened phenomena to create distinct assessment units?

Minor comments

1. L34 “Human impacts on landscapes are particularly dangerous …”

I believe that the term "dangerous" does not accurately reflect the meaning of the sequence. Other words like "harmful" or "threatening" could be more appropriate.

2. L182. “b. Threatened Phenomena”

It should be written as "b. Threating Phenomena - Negative Phenomena."

3. L 307 "The final conflicts of interests (Ax-An, Bx-Bn, Cx-Cn)".

A clearer interpretation of what the acronyms mean is needed. Reading the previous text, it is rather clear that “An” means area A) Problems of Endangering Biodiversity and Ecological Stability non-relevant (n), but what does “Ax” mean? A) Problems of Endangering Biodiversity and Ecological Stability intersected areas? Which factor are the authors referring to? They are analyzed later in Table 2, “Identified conflicts of interests,” but a summary analysis will be needed here in the methodology.

 4. L 320. “Slovakia – Hrb.”

What does "Hrb" mean?

 5. L 340 “Figure 2. Map of the Poľana Biosphere Reserve and zones”

The map should include the study area's relative position to Slovakia, as well as a grid with coordinates around the image. Furthermore, I believe that including geographical information about the Natura sites (SCIs and SPAs) within the BR boundary would greatly enhance the understanding of the MS. As illustrated in Figure 3, the current information may not be entirely clear.

Author Response

• This paper examines the critical issue of balancing environmental protection with human well-being. It presents a comprehensive approach that involves analyzing and mapping conflicts to mitigate these issues. The authors conducted an extensive inventory of the various factors that interact within this complex system using GIS techniques. They analyzed various factors in vector data format using GIS, examining how the information spatially coexisted. This resulted in a spatial overlay (intersect) with two variables (see Table 2) and a total of 121 cases: 67 different situations for group A, 22 for group B, and 32 for group C. The vector approach enables the description of individual conflicts; however, it does not provide a comprehensive analysis of anthropogenic pressure based on multiple criteria.

 

answer:

yes, we agree that we only analyzed various threatening phenomena and did intersection with threatened phenomena. We updated the manuscript with the map of the problem groups that shows also overlap between three groups of problems. 

 

• We have now arrived at the most problematic issue in this work. The author wrote about using multi-criteria assessment and factor analysis in many parts of the MS. Additionally, on line 311, they wrote, “The final step involved assessing the relevance of individual 310 data on conflicts of interest through expert evaluation by the authors”.

Answer: The assessment of the conflict relevance was done on the basis of the authors' expert evaluation. Some conflicts of interest were evaluated as non-relevant (n) due to characteristics and spatial abilities of mentioned phenomena. The final conflicts of interests (A1-A67, B1-B22, C1-C32) were categorized by type of conflict of interests into A) Problems of Endangering Biodiversity and Ecological Stability, B) Problems of Endangering Natural Resources, and C) Problems of Endangering Environment of Human Society.

 

 

 

The analysis done in this article has nothing to do with multi-criteria assessment using GIS and more with factor analysis using these results. Since this is also mentioned in the summary (Line 13), the reader will first see that the authors developed these statistical tasks using GIS. People usually read the summary of an article first and then the main text.

Answer:

We have revised and corrected the manuscript to avoid the use of the terms multicriteria evaluation and factor analysis, as we did only intersection of the layer and statistical evaluation.

 

• I was eager to see how the multi-criteria assessment, combined with factor analysis, addressed the central question of the paper. However, I found merely a qualitative analysis of 121 conflicts, accompanied by an overwhelming amount of data and percentages. This information about the area covered would be better presented in a supplemental table. Additionally, there is an extensive amount of text featuring detailed descriptions of each part and section, which ultimately causes readers to lose sight of the main objective of this paper (L63: developing a methodological approach for assessment of landscape-ecological problems resulting from conflicts of interest),

 

Answer: accepted, quantitative assessment is done in new table number 3

• This MS will require a FULL revision to be accepted. Firstly, the methodology for the combined analysis with vector information should be described clearly and accurately. A method using vector data should be developed to spatially evaluate locations impacted by multiple conflicts. It is essential to assess the current zoning situation and explore ways to enhance protection based on the findings of this study. The analyzed measures that can be applied to each specific area could be mapped using geographical information analysis.

Answer: We did not used MC analysis and factor analysis. We updated the methodology as well as the flowchart. We also created map for each problem group for better overview.

Comment 1

• The title conveys the main idea of the manuscript more efficiently than the "complex" analysis provided by the authors (οr at least consider what was done in the work).
• If the authors wish to keep the work in its basic form, they should concentrate on analyzing conflicts and mitigation measures, significantly reducing the text and avoiding references to advanced GIS procedures.

Answer: accepted, we revised the MS and reduced the text

Comment 2

• I think the "2.1 Theoretical Background" section should be included in the introduction section.

 

Answer: The 2.1 Theoretical Background was moved into introduction section for better flow and understanding the manuscript

 Comment 3

• L224 – 225 “Invasive Alien Plant Species – The buffer of 10 m from the occurrence point of invasive alien plant species, was incorporated into threatening phenomena.”
• How was this buffer used across several thousand hectares, or in cases where there was a 20m or 2m buffer? How was it spatially combined with threatened phenomena to create distinct assessment units?

Answer: It was corrected. The data from State Nature Conservancy of Slovak Republic about occurrence of IAS are obtained only in form of point shapefile (localised in the middle of polygon) and the attribute table contains only information about area size: 4, 16, 110, 130, and 200 m². We created the buffer with the buffer distance (radius) derived from formula Area=π × Radius2 to Radius=Areaπ. The conversion the buffer distance (radius) is:   4 m²: 1.13 m; 16 m²: 2.26 m; 110 m²: 5.92 m; 130 m²: 6.43 m; 200 m²: 7.98 m. The limitation of data lies in that we using the radial form of occurrence and they could have different polygonal or more linear forms. The second limitation of this approach is, that data from SNC SR do not contain all especially new occurrence of IAS. During intersection with the threatened phenomena the localisation of IAS were identified in areas of most important habitats, elements of TSES, buffer area and transition area of BR. 

 

Minor comments

• 1. L34 “Human impacts on landscapes are particularly dangerous …”
• I believe that the term "dangerous" does not accurately reflect the meaning of the sequence. Other words like "harmful" or "threatening" could be more appropriate.

Answer: Thank you for comment, it was changed to reflect the current situation more accurately.

• 2. L182. “b. Threatened Phenomena”
• It should be written as "b. Threating Phenomena - Negative Phenomena."

Answer: The sentence in MS was updated correctly.

 

• 3. L 307 "The final conflicts of interests (Ax-An, Bx-Bn, Cx-Cn)".
• A clearer interpretation of what the acronyms mean is needed. Reading the previous text, it is rather clear that “An” means area A) Problems of Endangering Biodiversity and Ecological Stability non-relevant (n), but what does “Ax” mean? A) Problems of Endangering Biodiversity and Ecological Stability intersected areas? Which factor are the authors referring to? They are analyzed later in Table 2, “Identified conflicts of interests,” but a summary analysis will be needed here in the methodology.

Answer: The interpretation was corrected for clearer understanding. A1-A67, B1-B22, C1-C32 are the acronyms for conflicts of interest. “n” means non-relevant. 

 

•  4. L 320. “Slovakia – Hrb.”
• What does "Hrb" mean?

Answer: We filled the sentence - Hrb Hill. A name “Hrb“ is hill,  where is identified the centre of Slovak Republic. 

•  5. L 340 “Figure 2. Map of the Poľana Biosphere Reserve and zones”
• The map should include the study area's relative position to Slovakia, as well as a grid with coordinates around the image. Furthermore, I believe that including geographical information about the Natura sites (SCIs and SPAs) within the BR boundary would greatly enhance the understanding of the MS. As illustrated in Figure 3, the current information may not be entirely clear.

Answer: the map was updated according your comment. You can see the position of Poľana Biosphere Reserve within boarders of Slovak Republic. There were added the boundaries of Poľana Spatial Protected Area and SCIs. In the centre of map is placed point with coordinates. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is very well written and addresses an important issue of assessing landscape ecological problems in a biosphere reserve, integrating interdisciplinary methods. The study is methodologically robust and contributes significantly to sustainable landscape management practices.

The abstract provides an overview but lacks specific results and their implications, adding key findings to emphasize the significance of the research would be better for general public. Introduction provides a comprehensive background but it has to be more focused on research gap and objectives. The objective statement (Lines 61-65) should be more explicit, highlighting the novelty of the methodological approach. The methodological steps are detailed and well organized. Clarify better how expert evaluation influenced the categorization of conflicts. Were there predefined criteria for expert judgments? Line 300–304: Explain how the Python console was used for spatial overlays. For example: “The QGIS Python console was utilized for automated overlays, ensuring accuracy in detecting intersections.” Results are well-documented, but the visual presentation (e.g., Fig 3 and 4) lacks clear explanations. Ensure that all figures mentioned logically in text.

Author Response

 

• The abstract provides an overview but lacks specific results and their implications, adding key findings to emphasize the significance of the research would be better for general public. Introduction provides a comprehensive background but it has to be more focused on research gap and objectives. The objective statement (Lines 61-65) should be more explicit, highlighting the novelty of the methodological approach. The methodological steps are detailed and well organized. Clarify better how expert evaluation influenced the categorization of conflicts. Were there predefined criteria for expert judgments? Line 300–304: Explain how the Python console was used for spatial overlays. For example: “The QGIS Python console was utilized for automated overlays, ensuring accuracy in detecting intersections.” Results are well-documented, but the visual presentation (e.g., Fig 3 and 4) lacks clear explanations. Ensure that all figures mentioned logically in text.

Answer: accepted: The introduction has been revised based on your comments. We updated the Methodology section based on your comment: ,,Data from Table 1 were processed in QGIS 3.24.2-Tisler, and in ArcMap 10.8 software. Firstly, we created a database of vector shapefile layers from available sources, or raster maps were georeferenced and digitized into vector shapefiles. During the synthesis, for identification of conflicts of interests the individual threatening and threatened phenomena were intersected using the Python console of QGIS for spatial overlays. The QGIS Python console was utilized for automated overlays, ensuring accuracy in detecting intersections. to identify the spatial relationship between threatened phenomena and threatening phenomena, we utilized the Python Console in QGIS. The process involved importing the threatened and threatening phenomena into QGIS and ensuring both datasets shared the same coordinate reference system (CRS), followed by verifying attribute tables and geometry validity to ensure data integrity. Using the QGIS Python Console, we imported required libraries such as qgis.core for vector layer access and qgis.analysis for geoprocessing operations. The layers were then loaded into the script, and an output layers were created to store the intersection results. The output layers were subsequently loaded into the QGIS interface for visual inspection and validation. Finally, the resultant dataset was exported for identification of presence or absence (0) of conflicts of interests, where the absence represents an empty layers”.

In results - the maps of threatened and threatening phenomena consist of all identified threatened and threatening phenomena. The maps were in low dpi, so we exported them in higher quality and in A3 size, but as supplementary files. According to they have a lot of informations and confused the readers. We incorporated into MS the map with group of problems (A, B, C) and zones of BR for clearer  view.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigates landscape-ecological conflicts of interest within the Poľana Biosphere Reserve (BR), employing an interdisciplinary methodology combining GIS spatial analysis, multi-criteria assessment, and factor analysis. The primary objective is to identify and evaluate conflicts arising from competing land-use interests, focusing on biodiversity conservation, natural resource protection, and the environmental quality of human societies. The methodological framework integrates data layers representing threatened and threatening phenomena, which are spatially analyzed to identify areas of conflict. Threatened phenomena include protected areas, high-quality soils, and ecologically significant zones, while threatening phenomena consist of anthropogenic activities such as intensive forestry, waste disposal, and power infrastructure, alongside natural risks like erosion and landslides. Key results highlight the spatial intersections of these factors, revealing significant conflicts in areas critical to biodiversity and ecological stability, such as NATURA 2000 sites and protected habitats. The study identifies the impact of land-use abandonment, invasive alien species, and inadequate forestry practices on ecological integrity. Additionally, stressors like soil contamination, flooding, and anthropogenic infrastructure adversely affect natural resources and ecosystem services, emphasizing the need for targeted management strategies. The study concludes that effective conflict resolution in the Poľana BR requires integrated landscape management, stakeholder collaboration, and adherence to sustainable development principles. Recommendations include enhancing conservation policies, adopting nature-based solutions, and improving land-use planning to balance ecological protection with socio-economic development.

I have the following comments and suggestions for including information and improvements:

 

Abstract

1.    The abstract would benefit from a more comprehensive description of the research methodologies employed and the findings obtained. Additionally, the authors should explicitly outline the primary goals of the investigation to ensure readers comprehend the study's objectives. In the other hand, the results section in the abstract is underdeveloped, making it difficult for readers to quickly grasp the core findings of the study.

 

2.     It is recommended that the authors revise the keywords to include alternative terms not already present in the title. By diversifying the keywords to include related concepts or synonyms, the paper's visibility in search engines can significantly improve. This approach will increase the likelihood of the article being discovered by a broader audience, enhancing its reach and impact.

Introduction

I strongly suggest to the authors that this entire section be thoroughly reviewed and revised.

1. The authors should provide a thorough overview of state-of-the-art research on Landscape-Ecological Problems, with an emphasis on recent advancements and their practical applications in addressing challenges resulting from spatial conflicts across various spatial and temporal scales. Such an overview would broaden the analytical scope of the study and establish its relevance within the wider body of contemporary research on spatial landscape impacts. Additionally, highlighting the practical implications of these advancements for managing and mitigating spatial landscape impacts and associated risks further underscores the study's significance.

 

2. Another critical aspect is exploring and integrating methodological techniques and qualitative approaches commonly employed in the literature to quantify landscape-ecological conflicts. Explicitly identifying and analyzing prevalent methods would strengthen the study's methodological framework. Such a discussion would highlight the paper's alignment with current scientific practices and underscore its contributions to advancing the understanding and resolution of landscape-ecological conflicts.

 

3. The authors should include a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art in landscape-ecological conflicts, as this constitutes the foundation of the study. By thoroughly examining current advancements, key applications, and recent developments in the field, the authors can effectively situate their work within the broader scientific context. This review will underscore the study's originality and importance, while also clarifying how it aligns with or diverges from existing research paradigms.

 

4. The research objectives are not clearly or expressly stated. In this regard, I request the authors to develop an introductory paragraph that better justifies the relevance of the paper's topic. Following this, another paragraph should be included to clearly and consistently present the objectives. In its current version, the paper's purpose is unclear to the reader.

Methods 

The Methods section requires additional detail to ensure that readers, regardless of expertise, can replicate the study’s results. To achieve this, all subsections should be expanded to include more comprehensive descriptions of the processes and techniques used. While specific areas requiring further elaboration will be highlighted, more thorough documentation of the methodology is essential. The authors are encouraged to present their methods in a more organized and structured manner by creating a detailed flowchart outlining each step of the process that led to the results. Each step in the flowchart should correspond to the relevant section of the methodology and be explained thoroughly within the text.

1. Flowchart for Methodology

1. Develop a detailed flowchart illustrating the workflow from data collection and preprocessing to analysis and interpretation of results.
2. Ensure that each step is clearly linked to the corresponding sections of the methodology (e.g., 1, 2, 3, etc.) and provide a concise explanation within the text for each stage.

2. 2.2 Metodological steps

In Section 2.2, including all its items, it is essential to explain the methodological rationale behind each decision. While it is acknowledged that you have included references to papers to support your methodology, this does not exempt you from explaining why certain thresholds, constants, distances, or approaches were used. For example, why was a 5-meter buffer chosen instead of 10 or 15 meters for recreational areas? Is this related to local municipal legislation? Similarly, what justifies this choice for Environmental burdens with a 300-meter buffer? Or, for Waste Dumps, why was a 10-meter buffer area applied?

 

I kindly request a thorough review of each methodological step described in Section 2.2. For each, please include at least a plausible justification for the parameters used, even if the explanation is as straightforward as being based on currently available data. It is important to highlight that every decision behind these descriptors will directly impact the final results of your analysis.

 

3. Validation

A significant step in your work, which has not been addressed, is validating the "conflicts of interest" identified. This must be included, as you have utilized third-party maps, and all maps inherently carry errors of omission and commission. These errors must be considered in your analyses and discussions to ensure the reliability and robustness of your findings.

 

Results

I kindly request the authors to revise the results section to make it less repetitive in its writing style, particularly within subsections 3.1.1. Problems of Endangering Biodiversity and Ecological Stability, 3.1.2. Problems of Endangering Natural Resources, and 3.1.3. Problems of Endangering the Environment of Human Society. Additionally, the numbering of these subsections is incorrect and should be adjusted accordingly.

Discussion

The discussion section would greatly benefit from a thorough revision to enhance its clarity, precision, and informative value. This enhancement should involve a more comprehensive examination of the study's implications, a detailed comparison with relevant existing literature, and a clear articulation of the potential applications of the findings.

The authors are encouraged to incorporate a dedicated section that compares the methods and analyses presented in this paper with those of similar studies conducted in other geographical contexts.

Incorporating a discussion of the study's limitations would further strengthen the manuscript. This should encompass considerations such as the use of high-resolution images for classifying land use and land cover changes, as well as any methodological constraints.

 

Conclusions

The results of this study offer meaningful insights that can guide and inspire future academic endeavors. The authors should emphasize the broader relevance of their work and highlight promising directions for further investigation. By embracing a forward-thinking perspective, the research will not only stimulate additional studies but also provide a robust framework for future scholars aiming to build upon the foundational knowledge established in this work.

 

Author Response

Abstract and keywords

1.   The abstract would benefit from a more comprehensive description of the research methodologies employed and the findings obtained. Additionally, the authors should explicitly outline the primary goals of the investigation to ensure readers comprehend the study's objectives. In the other hand, the results section in the abstract is underdeveloped, making it difficult for readers to quickly grasp the core findings of the study.

It is recommended that the authors revise the keywords to include alternative terms not already present in the title. By diversifying the keywords to include related concepts or synonyms, the paper's visibility in search engines can significantly improve. This approach will increase the likelihood of the article being discovered by a broader audience, enhancing its reach and impact.

 

Answer: We updated the abstract to better outline the primary goals and results of the MS. The added more keywords characterised for our MS and for better visibility in searching engines.

Introduction

I strongly suggest to the authors that this entire section be thoroughly reviewed and revised.

1. The authors should provide a thorough overview of state-of-the-art research on Landscape-Ecological Problems, with an emphasis on recent advancements and their practical applications in addressing challenges resulting from spatial conflicts across various spatial and temporal scales. Such an overview would broaden the analytical scope of the study and establish its relevance within the wider body of contemporary research on spatial landscape impacts. Additionally, highlighting the practical implications of these advancements for managing and mitigating spatial landscape impacts and associated risks further underscores the study's significance.

 

Answer: accepted: The introduction has been revised based on your comments

•  

1. Another critical aspect is exploring and integrating methodological techniques and qualitative approaches commonly employed in the literature to quantify landscape-ecological conflicts. Explicitly identifying and analyzing prevalent methods would strengthen the study's methodological framework. Such a discussion would highlight the paper's alignment with current scientific practices and underscore its contributions to advancing the understanding and resolution of landscape-ecological conflicts.

Answer: Accepted: we updated the disscusion and prevailing methods

 

1. The authors should include a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art in landscape-ecological conflicts, as this constitutes the foundation of the study. By thoroughly examining current advancements, key applications, and recent developments in the field, the authors can effectively situate their work within the broader scientific context. This review will underscore the study's originality and importance, while also clarifying how it aligns with or diverges from existing research paradigms.

 

Answer: accepted: The introduction has been revised based on your comments

1. The research objectives are not clearly or expressly stated. In this regard, I request the authors to develop an introductory paragraph that better justifies the relevance of the paper's topic. Following this, another paragraph should be included to clearly and consistently present the objectives. In its current version, the paper's purpose is unclear to the reader.

Answer:  the current status of the solution to the given issue was assessed

Methods 

The Methods section requires additional detail to ensure that readers, regardless of expertise, can replicate the study’s results. To achieve this, all subsections should be expanded to include more comprehensive descriptions of the processes and techniques used. While specific areas requiring further elaboration will be highlighted, more thorough documentation of the methodology is essential. The authors are encouraged to present their methods in a more organized and structured manner by creating a detailed flowchart outlining each step of the process that led to the results. Each step in the flowchart should correspond to the relevant section of the methodology and be explained thoroughly within the text.

1. Flowchart for Methodology

1. Develop a detailed flowchart illustrating the workflow from data collection and preprocessing to analysis and interpretation of results.
2. Ensure that each step is clearly linked to the corresponding sections of the methodology (e.g., 1, 2, 3, etc.) and provide a concise explanation within the text for each stage.

Answer: The methodology was described in more detail in the diagram (Fig. 1)

1. 2.2 Metodological steps

In Section 2.2, including all its items, it is essential to explain the methodological rationale behind each decision. While it is acknowledged that you have included references to papers to support your methodology, this does not exempt you from explaining why certain thresholds, constants, distances, or approaches were used. For example, why was a 5-meter buffer chosen instead of 10 or 15 meters for recreational areas? Is this related to local municipal legislation? Similarly, what justifies this choice for Environmental burdens with a 300-meter buffer? Or, for Waste Dumps, why was a 10-meter buffer area applied?

 

Answer: We updated the metolodical steps. Protective Hygienic Zones are determined based on the expected negative impact of a given anthropogenic object on the landscape and its components. The size is based on legislative regulations and technical standards. A summary specification of all hygienic zones is provided in the Manual for the processing of local territorial systems of ecological stability for the needs of creating a basic baseline for regulating the design of green infrastructure construction Esprit (2020).

 

I kindly request a thorough review of each methodological step described in Section 2.2. For each, please include at least a plausible justification for the parameters used, even if the explanation is as straightforward as being based on currently available data. It is important to highlight that every decision behind these descriptors will directly impact the final results of your analysis.

Answer: accepted: we updated the methodology section. 

1. Validation

A significant step in your work, which has not been addressed, is validating the "conflicts of interest" identified. This must be included, as you have utilized third-party maps, and all maps inherently carry errors of omission and commission. These errors must be considered in your analyses and discussions to ensure the reliability and robustness of your findings.

Odpoveď:  accepted:  we updated the MS and added a paragraph into discussion. 

4. Results

I kindly request the authors to revise the results section to make it less repetitive in its writing style, particularly within subsections 3.1.1. Problems of Endangering Biodiversity and Ecological Stability, 3.1.2. Problems of Endangering Natural Resources, and 3.1.3. Problems of Endangering the Environment of Human Society. Additionally, the numbering of these subsections is incorrect and should be adjusted accordingly.

Answer: accepted, we reduced the text.  We revised and corrected the numbering of following subsections.

Discussion

The discussion section would greatly benefit from a thorough revision to enhance its clarity, precision, and informative value. This enhancement should involve a more comprehensive examination of the study's implications, a detailed comparison with relevant existing literature, and a clear articulation of the potential applications of the findings.

The authors are encouraged to incorporate a dedicated section that compares the methods and analyses presented in this paper with those of similar studies conducted in other geographical contexts.

Incorporating a discussion of the study's limitations would further strengthen the manuscript. This should encompass considerations such as the use of high-resolution images for classifying land use and land cover changes, as well as any methodological constraints.

Answer: we accepted the comment and improve the clarity etc of MS in Disscusion and Conclusions, we alaso added the comparison with other sustainable land use assessment and tools in BR. We added paragraph about the limitations of this study. 

Conclusions

The results of this study offer meaningful insights that can guide and inspire future academic endeavors. The authors should emphasize the broader relevance of their work and highlight promising directions for further investigation. By embracing a forward-thinking perspective, the research will not only stimulate additional studies but also provide a robust framework for future scholars aiming to build upon the foundational knowledge established in this work.

Answer:   accepted, conclusion revised

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I haven't any other comments

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the paper, we thank the authors for accepting the comments and suggestions for including additional information and improvements. Therefore, the manuscript with ID land-3396292 is ready for acceptance and publication in Land.