Mapping Pastoral Mobility: A Geospatial Inventory of Temporary Dwellings Within the Southern Carpathians

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very interesting study. I have one suggestion on Figure 1. the current figure of the study area missing labels and names in the map. This is important for introducing the study area name and location in the inset map. Also need to add other geographic details, climate, vegetation type,

average yearly Precipitation and population living in the study area.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive comments and for pushing us to strengthen the cartographic and contextual framing of the study area. Your suggestions were highly pertinent and have improved the clarity and usability of the paper.

1) Figure 1 lacked labels; add geographic names + climate, vegetation, precipitation, population. We revised the Study area section to provide a fuller physical geography context (planation surfaces, elevation ranges, altitudinal climate bands with indicative temperature and precipitation ranges, and major vegetation belts). Population context is now briefly summarised in the text to anchor the human geography dimension.

2) General cartographic clarity across figures. We reviewed all maps for consistency and added scale bars/coordinates and clearer legends where needed. Where density rasters are shown, we note the processing extent and masking in the captions to avoid confusion.

We appreciate your attention to these presentation details; they substantially improve the paper’s readability for both geographic and non-geographic audiences.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study integrates a geographic information system (GIS) with multi-source remote sensing data (1:5,000 orthophotos, 1:25,000 topographic maps, and the Corine land cover model), combined with field surveys, to systematically construct a spatial database of temporary pastoral dwellings (sheep pens and shelters) in the Southern Carpathians of Romania. The database also analyzes their distribution patterns, land use relationships, and ecological and environmental impacts. However, the article suffers from the following issues and shortcomings, which the authors need to address:

1. While the introduction cites numerous European mountain studies (e.g., the Italian Alps and the Polish Carpathians), it underrepresents Romanian research. Only sporadic studies in regions such as Maramures and Rucar-Bran are mentioned, lacking a systematic integration of existing pastoral geography research in the Southern Carpathians.
2. Regarding the presentation of the research's innovations: The authors emphasize the "first spatially explicit inventory" but fail to clearly demonstrate its methodological breakthrough compared to existing pastoral research (e.g., the ethnographic study of Marginimae Sibiului). The article simply reiterates known facts that have "not been officially documented." 
3. Although the study used multiple data sources (such as high-resolution orthophotos and topographic maps), there were temporal inconsistencies in the data sources in some areas (e.g., the 1:5000 orthophotos were not consistent with the Corine land cover data). This temporal mismatch may affect the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the analysis.
4. The methodological transparency is insufficient and needs to be improved, including: (1) The ArcGIS analysis only lists the tool modules (such as Spatial Analyst) and does not provide key parameters (such as the search radius of kernel density analysis and the threshold for cluster determination), which reduces the reproducibility of the results. (2) The authors claimed to use the LUCAS protocol for verification, but did not explain the details of the sampling strategy (such as sample size and spatial distribution representativeness), making it impossible to evaluate the reliability of the verification.
5. Results: The authors attributed land abandonment to "aging and youth migration", but can local policies (such as the impact of EU CAP subsidies) be discussed?
6. The article shows the spatial aggregation pattern of temporary housing, but the analysis of the underlying mechanism of the aggregation phenomenon is relatively weak.
7. Many figures lack scale and coordinate grid, which reduces academic rigor. In particular, regarding Figure 11, why does the interpolation result of sheepfold density not cover the entire study area but a rectangular area?
8. The Discussion section is weak. Can the data be compared with other pastoral areas in Romania (such as Maramureş)?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive comments and for pushing us to strengthen the cartographic and contextual framing of the study area. Your suggestions were highly pertinent and have improved the clarity and usability of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper completes an important and foundational work, providing the first systematic geospatial inventory of non-permanent pastoral dwellings (shelters and sheepfolds) in the central Southern Carpathians (Parâng-Cindrel Mountains), Romania. Utilizing a combination of high-resolution orthophotos, historical topographic maps, field surveys, and land cover data, the research identified and analyzed the spatial distribution, elevational characteristics, and relationship to land use of 5,411 shelters and 753 sheepfolds. The paper discusses this geographic inventory within a broader socioecological context, addressing key issues such as the decline of traditional pastoralism, biodiversity loss, cultural heritage, and policy implications. This work provides valuable baseline data for understanding the spatiotemporal patterns of traditional pastoralism in the region and has clear scientific value and potential policy implications.

However, the paper has shortcomings in terms of methodological transparency, depth of data analysis, and coherence between arguments and conclusions. The writing logic and scholarly presentation require further refinement and optimization. Specific revisions are as follows:

 

1、Abstract

1. Too many keywords; generally, no more than five is recommended.
2. It is recommended that the abstract be concise and use more professional academic language to highlight the key points.For example:

1) Problem: There is a certain jump in the flow from "Background" to "Methods." After stating the problem, the abstract jumps directly to "This research used data A, B, and C." This lacks a key connecting sentence. This reduces the research objective to a simple statement rather than a direct response to a known problem, making the research's purpose less logically prominent.

Suggestion: Use connecting sentences to make the logic more coherent, such as "Therefore, to fill this gap, this research aims to create the first systematic spatial inventory."

 

2) Problem: There is a lack of instrumental logic between "Methods" and "Results." The abstract lists steps such as "digitization, overlay, and ArcGIS analysis" and then directly introduces the results with "Thus." The reader cannot see how these methods directly lead to the key findings. For example, did the "overlay analysis" reveal the relationship with land use? Did the "spatial analysis" identify cluster patterns? The causal relationship between the methods and results is implied rather than explicitly stated. This weakens the methodological validity and the credibility of the results. The logical chain seems forced by the word "therefore" rather than naturally derived.

Suggestion: Miss logical connection between “methods” and “results”. For example: "These methods enabled us to not only map the locations but also to analyze their spatial patterns and relationships with land cover."

 

3) Problem: "...using several cartographic sources: 1:5,000 orthophotos, 1:25,000-scale topographic maps, the Corine Land Cover model, field investigation campaigns, and forestry maps to gather ground truth and validate settlement status and land-use classes." This sentence mixes data and purpose, making it somewhat lengthy.

Suggestion: It recommends splitting and emphasizes how to integrate.

 

4) Problem: "The methodological steps followed are: digitizing shelters, sheepfolds, and agricultural surfaces, overlaying elements of interest for the research, ArcGIS analysis..." This is an unbalanced sentence. The first two items are gerunds (digitizing, overlaying), and the third is a noun phrase (ArcGIS analysis), disrupting the parallel structure.

Suggestion: Use parallel structure to maintain grammatical consistency.

 

• Problem: "The research offers the first spatially explicit inventory of these shelters and sheepfolds, which could become a cornerstone for interdisciplinary policy-making, conservation, and local development priorities." The word "offers" is a bit colloquial; "provides" or "presents" are more formal. Also, the phrase "followed are" in the text. "Sheepfold" should be plural sheepfolds. The phrase "could become" is weak. Since this valuable research has been completed, it "is" a cornerstone. It is recommended to use "establishing it as a cornerstone" or "providing a cornerstone" to be more affirmative.

 

• Introduction

The introduction is very rich, showing the author's deep background knowledge of the research area. The logical thread generally follows a macro-to-micro structure, successfully placing the research in a broad context from the local (Southern Carpathians) to the European and even global context. However, its narrative logic can be refined and focused, and there is some redundancy in the expression:

• Problem: The introduction cites a large number of references, but in some places it is more like a list of references (for example, "in the Italian Alps it is "less obvious" [15], in the Pyrenees it is "common" [13], in the Polish Carpathians it is "extensive" [16]"), and there is a lack of synthesis and critical analysis of these findings. How do they point to a larger narrative? Suggestion: It is possible to further summarize rather than just state that abandonment exists in different regions: although the extent and drivers may vary from place to place, "abandonment of traditional agricultural land in mountainous areas" is a systemic challenge facing the entire European Carpathians, which highlights the urgency of recording and understanding it in this research area.

 

• Problem: After providing extensive background, the three research questions (Q1, Q2, and Q3) are presented somewhat directly, lacking a cohesive sentence. A logical conclusion should be: Given this background (importance, trends, and gaps), we propose the following research questions.

Suggestion: Add a transitional sentence before listing the research questions, for example: "To systematically understand the spatial organization of these temporary settlements and the factors driving them, this research aims to answer the following three questions:"

 

• Materials and Methods

1. It is recommended to add a framework diagram or flow chart of the research methodology to the Materials and Methods section, clearly demonstrating the complete steps from data collection, preprocessing, digitization, spatial analysis, and validation.
2. Is the "correlation" in Figures 6 and 11 a visual comparison or a spatial statistical test? It is recommended to supplement with quantitative analysis.
3. How were the thresholds for grouping sheepfolds into low, medium, and high altitudes (e.g., 1207m, 1500m) determined? Were they based on natural breakpoints, empirical values, or literature? Please provide your rationale.
4. Figures 4 and 8 are not very useful and should be deleted, especially the Figure 8 fails to show the intended high-altitude sheepfolds.
5. Maps like Figures 6 and 7 require clearer, more professional legends, especially the legends for the 1501-1703 elevation group and the 1704-2165 elevation group cannot be distinguished.
6. It is recommended that the elevation distribution maps (Figures 5 and 9) be better spatially combined with the density maps, for example, by using histograms alongside the maps to more intuitively demonstrate spatial heterogeneity. Furthermore, there are no legends for Figures 5 and 9.

 

• Discussion

This research contextualizes specific findings within a broader socioecological context, encompassing cultural dimensions, land use patterns, decline trends, ecological impacts, socioeconomic drivers, and policy implications, demonstrating the authors' commitment to comprehensive thinking. However, this section suffers from significant shortcomings in organizational structure, depth of argument, and connection to the introduction and results, rather than a logically structured and progressive argument.

Problem:

1). The Discussion section should be logically streamlined and condensed. It is strongly recommended that the Discussion section be reorganized into several subsections with subheadings to enhance clarity.

2). The Discussion section is disconnected from the introduction and fails to systematically and clearly address the three research questions posed in the introduction, leaving the reader to infer which content corresponds to which question.

3). The Results section is repetitive or simply paraphrased. Some paragraphs simply repeat the Results section without providing in-depth causal explanations. For many findings, the discussion remains focused on the "what" rather than delving into the "why" and "why this matters." For example, the paper mentions the sheepfold's proximity to the forest, but fails to fully demonstrate why this is significant.

Overall Suggestions: Restructure the logic of this section and concise the content. Focus on the three main research questions raised in the introduction, fully utilize the data to provide support and explanation. Deepen the analysis of each argument, converting from description to explanation,and strengthen the argumentation support of relevant literature

 

• Conclusion

This conclusion is deficient in terms of structure, sublimation of argument, and forward-looking perspective. It reads more like a strengthen "Results and Summary" than a cogent conclusion that distills the essence of the research and points to future directions.

Overall Suggestions: Reorganize the content based on the main questions and contributions of this research, moving from primary findings to secondary findings, and from description to explanation. For example, the following structure could be adopted:

1. Summary Statement: This research provides the first inventory of... and reveals... patterns.
2. Core Findings: Specific answers to the research questions (cluster distribution, relationship to land use).
3. Driving Factors : Comprehensively explain the reasons behind these patterns.
4. Research Limitations and Future Outlook: Identify the shortcomings of this research and identify future directions.

 

• Reference

1. The reference [2] is not cited in a standard format. Please use the correct reference format.
2. Please refer to the relevant reference citation standards and requirements and correct all reference citation formats to maintain consistency.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive comments and for pushing us to strengthen the cartographic and contextual framing of the study area. Your suggestions were highly pertinent and have improved the clarity and usability of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Temporary pastoral settlements are a keystone of high-mountains ecology, but they are

not included in any official datasets. The paper analyzed the distribution of high-altitude rural temporary dwellings and land use in the central part of the Southern Carpathians, by gathering ground truth and validate settlements status and land-use classes. The research holds both theoretical value and practical significance.

1. The data processing methods employed are relatively conventional and somewhat simplistic. Future research could explore the development of deep learning models to enable automated extraction of sheepfolds and shepherds' shelters.
2. Landscape pattern indices (such as aggregation index and fragmentation index) can be employed to quantify spatial distribution characteristics.
3. Spatiotemporal analysis models can be developed to examine both the historical evolution of pastoral settlement distribution across time and the spatial distribution patterns across different regions.
4. Does the research methodology proposed in this paper possess significant transferability, and can it establish a transferable methodological framework for studies on alpine pastoral systems?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your forward-looking methodological suggestions. They were very helpful in positioning this work as a baseline for further technical advances. We appreciate your emphasis on scalability and methodological innovation; it helped us frame the dataset as a foundation for future automation and longitudinal analysis. Thank you again for helping us make the manuscript both richer and clearer.

Please see attached the letter detailing how all the recommendations were addressed.

Sincerely,

Liliana Popescu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded well to my comments, and only minor formatting and layout optimization according to the journal template is still needed.