Landscape Model of Waerebo Village: Topographic Adaptation & Indigenous Spatial Patterns (Horizontal–Vertical) Based on Local Culture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has potential value for cultural landscape and heritage studies, particularly in its attempt to connect indigenous spatial organization with environmental analysis. However, major revisions are required to improve methodological transparency, strengthen the quantitative evidence, clarify the conceptual framework, and moderate several overextended conclusions before the manuscript can be considered suitable for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments : The manuscript has potential value for cultural landscape and heritage studies, particularly in its attempt to connect indigenous spatial organization with environmental analysis. However, major revisions are required to improve methodological transparency, strengthen the quantitative evidence, clarify the conceptual framework, and moderate several overextended conclusions before the manuscript can be considered suitable for publication.

Respons : We sincerely thank the reviewer for this constructive overall assessment of the manuscript. In response to these comments, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript to improve methodological transparency, strengthen the presentation and interpretation of the quantitative evidence, clarify the conceptual framework, and moderate several conclusions to better align them with the level of evidence provided by the study. Detailed point-by-point responses and descriptions of all revisions are provided in the attached response to reviewers document and cover letter. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read this paper with great interest and found it valuable both for specialists working on the study area and, more broadly, for scholars interested in human–landscape relationships.

The overall structure of the article is clear and logically organized, allowing the reader to follow the argument with ease and engagement. I only wonder whether some of the more general theoretical reflections could be brought together and developed further. For example, the discussion of the concept of zoning (ending with note [38]) and the authors’ conception of landscape as primarily natural and physical until human interaction occurs (note [36]) could perhaps be expanded. Making the theoretical and methodological positioning more explicit would strengthen the paper and help readers better situate the authors’ approach within the broader scholarly debate.

The writing is fluent and effective throughout, with little repetition and a consistently readable style, which makes the paper particularly enjoyable to read. I noticed only one minor typographical error: a double comma on page 2 near note [12].

Author Response

Comments 1: I only wonder whether some of the more general theoretical reflections could be brought together and developed further. For example, the discussion of the concept of zoning (ending with note [38]) and the authors’ conception of landscape as primarily natural and physical until human interaction occurs (note [36]) could perhaps be expanded. Making the theoretical and methodological positioning more explicit would strengthen the paper and help readers better situate the authors’ approach within the broader scholarly debate.

Respons 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion to expand and strengthen the theoretical foundation of the manuscript. We agree that explicitly positioning our approach within the broader scholarly debate improves the conceptual clarity of the study. In the revised manuscript, we synthesized and expanded the discussions related to References [36] and [38]. We explicitly positioned our framework within the co-evolutionary theory of cultural landscapes and clarified the dynamic relationship between landscape and society. Rather than treating the landscape as a passive physical setting, we describe how the community actively transforms topographic and environmental conditions into a structured socio-ecological system through customary practices and long-term human–environment interactions.

We also expanded the discussion of customary zoning. The revised text presents zoning not only as a spatial land-use arrangement but also as an institutional mechanism that connects spiritual, cosmological, and ecological functions within the landscape. This perspective highlights how customary practices guide the organization and management of landscape elements across different zones. We incorporated these revisions into the relevant sections of the manuscript to provide a clearer theoretical context and to help readers better understand the conceptual basis of our methodological approach.

Comment 2:  I noticed only one minor typographical error: a double comma on page 2 near note [12].
Respons 2: The authors thank the reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript. The double comma on page 2 near note [12] has been successfully removed, and the surrounding text has been thoroughly proofread to ensure grammatical accuracy

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is very interesting and well documented, and it provided an opportunity to explore this fascinating site.

When discussing NDVI, it would be advisable to clearly indicate in the main text which satellite platform the imagery is derived from, even if this information is already included in the Materials and Methods section; the same clarification should also be provided in the captions of figures showing satellite images.

In addition, I recommend revising the layout of the figures within the text, as Figures 2 and 3 currently appear separated from their captions and overlap with the text, which affects readability.

 

 

Author Response

Comments 1: When discussing NDVI, it would be advisable to clearly indicate in the main text which satellite platform the imagery is derived from, even if this information is already included in the Materials and Methods section; the same clarification should also be provided in the captions of figures showing satellite images.
Response 1: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have revised the manuscript to explicitly state that the NDVI analysis was derived from Landsat 8 and Landsat 9 satellite imagery. More detailed information regarding the imagery source and NDVI processing has been provided in Section 2.5.  Additionally, we have updated the captions of all relevant figures showcasing the satellite images to include this clarification, ensuring consistency and clarity throughout the manuscript. 

Comments 2: In addition, I recommend revising the layout of the figures within the text, as Figures 2 and 3 currently appear separated from their captions and overlap with the text, which affects readability
Response 2: The layout of Figures 2 and 3 has been revised to ensure that each figure is properly aligned with its corresponding caption and does not overlap with the main text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx