Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This research has is a strong science methodology that also is sensitive to local cultural perceptions of the landscape. As such, it is both unique and produces essential findings. It is state of the art, building on what has been done before while moving the landscape analysis forward. I would publish. It will be read and used in the field. Solid research.

Author Response

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you very much for your very good review

Best regards

For all the authors. Eric Maire

Reviewer 2 Report

The study proposed by the authors is interesting, because it addresses a subject of extreme utility and innovative, if it is applied for the benefit of the community, even more since it is the result of a project with funding.

Given that this is a case study this should be more clearly reflected in the title of the article.

The summary should be clarified, it is not very objective in relation to the purpose of the article.

The Introduction is correct because the subject is contextualized, the objective that covers the identified gap is mentioned.

Literature review: It does not exist and should also contain a strong conceptual framework to the extent that it does not contextualize the themes addressed, does not present which bibliography analyzed.

The methodology is clearly explained, adding in detail what the weaknesses of the sample are.

The results should present a comparison with other similar studies.

The conclusions respond to the problems and objectives initially posed but should be improved because we do not realize what the benefits for the community, the resident population, of this study that is already 5 years old.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

You can find our answers directly in the text of your evaluation (cf attached file). With our thanks for your suggestions.

Best regards

For all authors.

Eric Maire

Author Response File: Author Response.docx