A Multiscale Approach to Identifying Vernacular Landscape Pattern Characteristics in River Basins: A Case Study of the Liuxi River, Guangzhou

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed article is a very thorough, detailed study of vernacular landscapes in the Liuxi River Basin area of China. As the authors write, many studies of such landscapes can be found in the literature in relation to smaller spatial units, such as cities, parks or protected areas. And since there is a lack of studies relating to larger-scale areas, including river basins in Chinese research, the authors undertake to fill this research gap. 

The main strength of the work is the extremely thoroughly described research methodology. Each stage and step of the research is presented, further enriched by tabular summaries. The authors emphasise that the methodology used can also be used to study other areas in southern China. This immediately raises the question of whether the same methodology can be applied to other regions of the world. 

Thus, it would be worthwhile for the authors in the Conclusions part to address the question of the possibilities and possible barriers to the application of their proposed method in other countries and regions around the world. Such information would enhance the methodological value of the article and attracted the interest of a wider audience.

Similarly, in order to increase the application value of the study, it would be worthwhile for the authors to present more generalised ways of using research on vernacular landscapes in spatial management and planning. I.e. to indicate possible levels of action in the space of local and regional authorities using the results of similar research. 

Generalising, undoubtedly the article would have been of greater value if the case study of the Liuxi River Basin had been used by the authors to formulate more general and universal conclusions, applicable also outside China. 

Other strengths of the study include a satisfactory grounding in the literature on the subject and a clear and comprehensible explanation of the concept of the vernacular landscape itself. Its interpretation by the authors leaves no doubt as to the substantive scope of the term. 

Finally, it has to be said that the article is written in a professional and at the same time understandable language for the average reader which is a great asset. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The research on landscapes through a multilevel and multidimensional approach corresponds to an important contribute to knowledge and policy design aiming more sustainable societies. The paper should be improved in the following aspects:

1. Since this is, also, a historical approach, it should be clear since the begining (abstract) the time/historic analytical dimension. The period under analysis 1974-2020 should be mentioned at the very start.
2. The abstract should be shorter.
3. Regarding the 'historic' approach, the authors mention very remote eras that are not under analysis. My advice is to have some precautions at this regard.
4. One of the levels of the research is missing in topic 2 (materials and methods).
5. Table 1 should include a column with the date of the source, considering the historical approach. In fact, some sources have the date, but this should be more visible and systematic.
6. The paper should be simplified/clarified in some data components. It is not easy to follow all the information and results. For instance, figure 4 presents 'vernacular landscape patterns' in 1985. What about the other years?
7. The conclusion is very short considering paper's lenght and results presented, namely a more developed presentation of eventual impact on public policy on land use.
8. Last but not least: the paper should present a fundamentation of the research carried on. What were the main drivers to develop the research?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript proposes a dual-scale analytical framework ("basin -vernacular unit") to achieve multi-scale analysis, offering a new paradigm for studying watershed-based vernacular landscapes. However, several notable shortcomings must be addressed:

1. While the authors claim to establish an integrated " basin -vernacular landscape" analytical framework, the analyses at these two scales remain entirely separate. The work essentially constitutes a mere shift in statistical scale rather than a true multi-scale integration, with no examination of inter-scale correlations.
2. The rationale for selecting influencing factors across different scales remains unclear. The authors should explicitly justify the criteria and methodology used for factor selection at each scale.
3. The manuscript structure currently resembles a technical report rather than a scientific research paper. Greater emphasis should be placed on theoretical interpretation and scholarly discourse rather than purely descriptive reporting.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf