Gardens of Memory as Cultural Landscapes for Sustainable Destination Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study analyzes three Florentine commemorative places—Santa Croce, the English Cemetery, and the Florence American Cemetery—based on arboreal symbolism, cultural heritage, and sustainable tourism planning. The study is intriguing and nicely written but certain significant changes are suggested to improve the structure and refine the scientific framework of the paper. My comment for improvement in order for increasing the readability and enhancing the understanding of the attained research results follows below:

1 Structure order: It is recommended to place the literature review materials (Sections 3–5, specifically the historical and symbolic context) before placing the materials and methods section so that theoretical justification of the research becomes more understandable. This re-ordering of material would make it the methodological approach clearer and more readable.

2 Research question: Currently the research question is not explicit. It must be made an explicit statement within the Introduction sooner rather than later and clearly related to method and results. This would enhance coherence and make it easier to follow the logical thread between inquiry and results.

3 Case study selection: While the selection criteria for the three Florentine sites are mentioned (integration of vegetation, symbolic engagement, accessibility), the justification could be strengthened. Discuss why Florence is particularly relevant in comparison to other Italian or European contexts, and why these three sites—among many in Florence—were chosen.

4  The justification of choosing the three analytical categories applied in the interpretative reading should be made explicit to enhance the methodological transparency and repeatability of scientific research

5  For greater value in the study, it is suggested to draw comparisons with other Italian cities' comparable commemorative landscapes (e.g., Cimitero Monumentale di Milano, Staglieno in Genoa). This will allow the Florence cases to be situated within a wider national landscape of heritage and draw attention to their unique aspects.

6 It is recommended to enhance the comparative examination between the three Florentine memorials, highlighting the ways in which discrepancies of building date, commemorative intent, and symbolic flora mirror divergent social values and memory politics. This might be offered within a table or synthesis part to highlight contrasts and similarities.

7 The conclusion section would be more convincing if it specifically connected each significant result with the research question and showed how the results answer the original question.

Author Response

The study analyzes three Florentine commemorative places—Santa Croce, the English Cemetery, and the Florence American Cemetery—based on arboreal symbolism, cultural heritage, and sustainable tourism planning. The study is intriguing and nicely written but certain significant changes are suggested to improve the structure and refine the scientific framework of the paper. My comment for improvement in order for increasing the readability and enhancing the understanding of the attained research results follows below:

Comment 1 Structure order: It is recommended to place the literature review materials (Sections 3–5, specifically the historical and symbolic context) before placing the materials and methods section so that theoretical justification of the research becomes more understandable. This re-ordering of material would make it the methodological approach clearer and more readable.

Response 1 . We thank the Reviewer for this valuable suggestion regarding the structure of the paper. Following the recommendation, we have re-organized the manuscript so that the historical and symbolic framework now precedes the Materials and Methods section. Specifically, we have:

• moved the discussion of classical arboreal symbolism, the Saint-Cloud Decree, and the evolution of garden cemeteries into a newSection 2 (Historical and Symbolic Framework);
• placed theMaterials and Methods section immediately after this contextual foundation;
• ensured smoother transitions between sections in order to improve readability and strengthen the logical connection between theory, method, and results.

We believe this restructuring clarifies the methodological approach and makes the paper more coherent and accessible to readers.

Comment 2 Research question: Currently the research question is not explicit. It must be made an explicit statement within the Introduction sooner rather than later and clearly related to method and results. This would enhance coherence and make it easier to follow the logical thread between inquiry and results.

Response 2 . We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. In the revised version, we have made the research question explicit within the Introduction, immediately after presenting the three Florentine sites under study. The revised passage now reads: “Building on this selection, the central research question guiding this paper is: how can commemorative gardens—through their arboreal symbolism, cultural layering, and governance models—function as sustainable heritage infrastructures in destination planning, and what insights can be drawn from the comparative analysis of these three Florentine sites?” This addition strengthens the coherence of the paper by explicitly linking the introduction, methodological framework, and results.

Comment 3 Case study selection: While the selection criteria for the three Florentine sites are mentioned (integration of vegetation, symbolic engagement, accessibility), the justification could be strengthened. Discuss why Florence is particularly relevant in comparison to other Italian or European contexts, and why these three sites—among many in Florence—were chosen.

Response 3 . We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In the revised version, we have strengthened the justification for the selection of Florence and the three sites under study. We now explain that Florence provides a particularly suitable context because it uniquely combines monumental, Romantic, and transnational commemorative traditions within a single cultural landscape. The three selected sites—Santa Croce, the English Cemetery, and the Florence American Cemetery—were chosen as emblematic examples that represent national, cosmopolitan, and transnational perspectives. This rationale has been made explicit in the Materials and Methods section to clarify why Florence, and these three sites specifically, were chosen as the focus of our analysis.

Comment 4  The justification of choosing the three analytical categories applied in the interpretative reading should be made explicit to enhance the methodological transparency and repeatability of scientific research

Response 4: We appreciate this observation. In the revised manuscript, we have made explicit the rationale for adopting the three analytical categories (botanical symbolism, commemorative function, spatial and aesthetic design). We now clarify that these categories were selected to integrate symbolic, social, and spatial dimensions of commemorative landscapes, ensuring methodological transparency and enhancing the replicability of our interpretative approach.

Comment 5  For greater value in the study, it is suggested to draw comparisons with other Italian cities' comparable commemorative landscapes (e.g., Cimitero Monumentale di Milano, Staglieno in Genoa). This will allow the Florence cases to be situated within a wider national landscape of heritage and draw attention to their unique aspects.

Response 5 : We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In the revised version, we have added a comparative reflection that situates the Florentine memorials within the broader Italian context (with reference to the Cimitero Monumentale di Milano and Staglieno in Genoa). This addition highlights the distinctive character of Florence, where both monumental (Santa Croce) and vegetated memorial models (English Cemetery and Florence American Cemetery) coexist. This diversity underscores the city’s uniqueness in the national commemorative landscape, offering a richer and more plural framework for the study of cultural memory and heritage planning.

Comment 6 It is recommended to enhance the comparative examination between the three Florentine memorials, highlighting the ways in which discrepancies of building date, commemorative intent, and symbolic flora mirror divergent social values and memory politics. This might be offered within a table or synthesis part to highlight contrasts and similarities.

Response 6 : We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the comparative analysis of the three Florentine memorials, explicitly contrasting their founding periods, commemorative intents, symbolic vegetation, and social values. A new synthesis table has been added, along with a comparative discussion, to highlight the ways in which the three cases represent divergent but complementary paradigms of memory politics in Florence.

Comment 7 The conclusion section would be more convincing if it specifically connected each significant result with the research question and showed how the results answer the original question.

Response 7: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In the revised version, we have strengthened the conclusion by explicitly reconnecting the main findings with the central research question. The new concluding paragraph highlights how the analysis demonstrates the role of arboreal symbolism, cultural layering, and governance models in shaping commemorative gardens as sustainable heritage infrastructures. This addition ensures that the results directly address the research question and clarify their broader implications for destination planning and heritage management.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I very much appreciate the idea and overall style of this paper. The conceptualization of hybrid environmental areas as Gardens of Memory or commemorative gardens offers a meaningful and innovative perspective. These spaces can function as part of both ecosystem services and cultural heritage, while also serving as reflective landscapes in contemporary tourism cities. It is certainly a topic worth further exploration. I especially value the statement on line 599: “these places confirm that memory can be planted, nurtured, and inherited, not extracted or staged.” This line eloquently captures the spirit of the paper and reflects its contribution to the broader discussion. The paper adds undeniable value to the special issue.

At the beginning of the introduction, however, the literature citations could be more consistent. The paper claims that tourism destination planning has evolved significantly in recent years, referring to works from 2023, but the assertion about commemorative landscapes gaining recognition is supported by a much older citation from 2001, a bit outdated piece. Moreover, no clear definition of commemorative landscapes is provided. It would strengthen the introduction if more recent references were included and the theoretical background were updated to reflect current debates.

The methods chosen in the paper are well suited to the subject matter and research problem. One of the article’s key strengths lies in the interdisciplinarity of its methodological triangulation. The approach to source selection and analysis is presented in a detailed and convincing manner. That said, I would suggest reconsidering the classification of classical works and similar materials as primary sources. While they are indeed central to the analysis, they were not created specifically for the purposes of this study, primary typically refers to data or material generated directly by or for the research itself.

The results are presented and discussed in a rich and rigorous qualitative manner, demonstrating a strong interpretative approach.

Given that the paper is submitted to a special issue focused on new, sustainable aspects of destination planning, I would have appreciated more developed conclusions in this regard. The authors touch upon important issues in the final section, such as "balancing access and preservation, fostering civic participation, and offering visitors meaning-rich alternatives to extractive models of cultural consumption," (lines 626–628), but these points are only briefly mentioned. It would be highly beneficial to expand on how the integration of Gardens of Memory into destination planning could actively contribute to these aims. Similarly, a more detailed explanation of the “integrated approach” referred to in lines 629–633 would enhance the paper’s contribution and practical relevance.

In conclusion, this is an insightful and timely paper that makes a valuable contribution to both cultural/natural heritage and tourism planning discourse. Some minor revisions are needed, particularly strengthening the theoretical framing and drawing clearer conclusions regarding tourism planning practice.

Author Response

I very much appreciate the idea and overall style of this paper. The conceptualization of hybrid environmental areas as Gardens of Memory or commemorative gardens offers a meaningful and innovative perspective. These spaces can function as part of both ecosystem services and cultural heritage, while also serving as reflective landscapes in contemporary tourism cities. It is certainly a topic worth further exploration. I especially value the statement on line 599: “these places confirm that memory can be planted, nurtured, and inherited, not extracted or staged.” This line eloquently captures the spirit of the paper and reflects its contribution to the broader discussion. The paper adds undeniable value to the special issue.

Comment 1 : At the beginning of the introduction, however, the literature citations could be more consistent. The paper claims that tourism destination planning has evolved significantly in recent years, referring to works from 2023, but the assertion about commemorative landscapes gaining recognition is supported by a much older citation from 2001, a bit outdated piece. Moreover, no clear definition of commemorative landscapes is provided. It would strengthen the introduction if more recent references were included and the theoretical background were updated to reflect current debates.

Response 1 : We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In the revised Introduction, we updated the theoretical background by including more recent references (e.g., Duxbury & Jeannotte 2022; Richards 2021; Timothy & Boyd 2015) alongside Osborne (2001), thereby situating commemorative landscapes within current debates in tourism planning. Furthermore, we now provide a clear operational definition of “commemorative landscapes,” emphasizing their hybrid role as cultural heritage, green infrastructure, and reflective public space. These additions strengthen the conceptual clarity and timeliness of the paper.

Comment 2 : The methods chosen in the paper are well suited to the subject matter and research problem. One of the article’s key strengths lies in the interdisciplinarity of its methodological triangulation. The approach to source selection and analysis is presented in a detailed and convincing manner. That said, I would suggest reconsidering the classification of classical works and similar materials as primary sources. While they are indeed central to the analysis, they were not created specifically for the purposes of this study, primary typically refers to data or material generated directly by or for the research itself.

Response 2 : We thank the reviewer for this important clarification. In the revised version, we have replaced the label “primary sources” with “documentary sources” to describe classical texts, legal documents, and literary works. We reserve the term “empirical data” for the material directly generated through our site visits, mapping, and field observations. This adjustment improves methodological accuracy and transparency, distinguishing between historical/archival sources and data produced specifically for this study.

Comment 3 :The results are presented and discussed in a rich and rigorous qualitative manner, demonstrating a strong interpretative approach.

Response 3 : We sincerely thank the reviewer for this positive evaluation of our results and interpretative approach. We are glad that the qualitative richness and rigor of the discussion were recognized, as this was a central aim of the paper.

Comment 4 :Given that the paper is submitted to a special issue focused on new, sustainable aspects of destination planning, I would have appreciated more developed conclusions in this regard. The authors touch upon important issues in the final section, such as "balancing access and preservation, fostering civic participation, and offering visitors meaning-rich alternatives to extractive models of cultural consumption," (lines 626–628), but these points are only briefly mentioned. It would be highly beneficial to expand on how the integration of Gardens of Memory into destination planning could actively contribute to these aims. Similarly, a more detailed explanation of the “integrated approach” referred to in lines 629–633 would enhance the paper’s contribution and practical relevance.

Response 4 : Following the recommendation, we have substantially expanded the Conclusion to explicitly connect the results to the central research question and to articulate how the integration of commemorative gardens into destination planning can advance key sustainable goals. In particular, we now discuss in detail how these landscapes contribute to balancing access and preservation, fostering civic participation, and offering meaning-rich alternatives to extractive tourism. We have also clarified what we mean by an “integrated approach,” specifying its coordination of cultural heritage management, ecological planning, and participatory governance. These revisions strengthen the practical relevance of the paper within the framework of sustainable destination planning.

In conclusion, this is an insightful and timely paper that makes a valuable contribution to both cultural/natural heritage and tourism planning discourse. Some minor revisions are needed, particularly strengthening the theoretical framing and drawing clearer conclusions regarding tourism planning practice.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our work. In line with the suggestion, we have strengthened the theoretical framing in the Introduction by integrating more recent references and refining the definition of commemorative landscapes. Additionally, the Conclusion has been expanded to draw clearer implications for tourism planning practice, particularly by highlighting how commemorative gardens can actively contribute to sustainable destination strategies.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses a relevant topic: The relationship  between traditional Western and south Europe trees, usually present in cemeteries, Memory celebration and built environment, highlighting the role of cemeteries as contemporary places of Sustainable tourism. This is quite novel in heritage fruition approaches and opens a new trend in tourism planning and cultural and ecological tourism consume.

The paper is strongly supported and clearly structured. The 3 case studies selected are quite suitable, by crossing different cultural diversity bases and models.

Its not clear in the paper if the author just want to highlight a theoretic model or if this approach is already being explored. Perhaps this issue  could be clarified. 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

This paper focuses a relevant topic: The relationship  between traditional Western and south Europe trees, usually present in cemeteries, Memory celebration and built environment, highlighting the role of cemeteries as contemporary places of Sustainable tourism. This is quite novel in heritage fruition approaches and opens a new trend in tourism planning and cultural and ecological tourism consume.

The paper is strongly supported and clearly structured. The 3 case studies selected are quite suitable, by crossing different cultural diversity bases and models.

Its not clear in the paper if the author just want to highlight a theoretic model or if this approach is already being explored. Perhaps this issue  could be clarified. 

Response : We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. The paper is primarily conceptual and interpretive, but we have clarified in the Conclusion that the proposed framework is already reflected in emerging practices, such as participatory stewardship initiatives, heritage education projects, and the integration of cemeteries into cultural itineraries. This addition highlights that the model is not only theoretical but also resonates with ongoing practical developments in sustainable tourism planning.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your paper. The topic is quite interesting, but whenever reviewing a paper without empirical research, it is challenging to assess whether the work is sufficiently clear for all readers. One always wonders whether it may be overly subjective, both in its content and in the reviewing. Nevertheless, any contribution in this field is valuable and commendable from the perspective of urban landscapes, as it brings new insights to this area of science. This paper is well-written and supported by extensive literature; however, it requires substantial improvements in the following aspects: A large portion of the manuscript reads as an extended introduction. Sections such as 3. Commemorative Gardens as Living Archives and Sustainable Heritage Spaces, 4. Classical Literature and Arboreal Symbolism: Cultural Roots of Contemporary Memorial Landscapes, and 5. The Saint-Cloud Decree and the Secularization of Memory should follow the introductory part, as they primarily address the research problem rather than the specific sites under investigation. Within the methodology, it is necessary to include a brief description of each site, accompanied by a sketch or layout of each cemetery, so that readers who have not visited Florence can understand the differences between the locations. Please also provide a short description of the design of each site, highlighting key areas within them. The methodology relies solely on symbolic and interpretive analysis, without incorporating qualitative data from interviews, surveys, or participant observation. This omits the perceptions of visitors and the local community. The analysis is entirely qualitative, which makes verification of findings more difficult and limits comparisons with studies that use objectively measurable indicators (e.g., visitor numbers, frequency of space use). Reliance on “structured interpretive analysis” and symbolic landscape reading carries the risk of excessive influence from the researcher’s perspective, particularly without data triangulation or peer verification by other experts. It would be helpful to clarify how many researchers were involved in the analysis, whether each conducted their assessments independently, whether a set of analytical criteria was established, and how results were compared within the research team. In the table Analytical Framework: The Three Reading Categories, consider defining additional criteria that would provide an evaluative measure for each category, either numerical or descriptive (e.g., “satisfactory,” “partially satisfactory,” “unsatisfactory”). Site visits took place in a relatively short period (March–July 2025), which does not account for seasonal changes in vegetation, visitation patterns, or symbolic perception of the spaces. The methodology does not include concrete ecological indicators (e.g., condition and abundance of vegetation, biodiversity, resistance to local conditions), leaving the ecological dimension at a conceptual level. Add Latin names alongside English species names so that non-English speakers can follow the paper more easily. The main outcome of the research is Section 6 – Florence as a Living Archive: Evergreen Trees and the Politics of Memory, which should be significantly expanded with results obtained after improving the methodology.

Best regards

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have greatly contributed to strengthening the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of the work. Below we address each of the points raised, explaining the revisions that have been made in the new version of the paper.

1. Structure of the manuscript
   We agree that Sections 3–5 in the original version (Commemorative Gardens as Living Archives, Classical Literature and Arboreal Symbolism, and The Saint-Cloud Decree) functioned as extended introductory material. In the revised version, these sections have been repositioned immediately after the introduction, so that they serve as the conceptual and historical background to the case studies. This restructuring clarifies the progression from theoretical framing to empirical site analysis, improving readability and alignment with the Reviewer’s suggestion.
2. Site descriptions and layouts
   Following the Reviewer’s advice, the Materials and Methodssection now includes concise descriptions of each site (Santa Croce, the English Cemetery, and the Florence American Cemetery). Each description outlines the historical background, commemorative intent, spatial design, and symbolic vegetation. Furthermore, schematic layouts (Figures 1–5) have been added to visually illustrate the main features of each site. These diagrams and photographs, sourced from publicly available, copyright-free repositories or official brochures, make the manuscript accessible to readers unfamiliar with Florence.
3. Methodology: qualitative and interpretive approach
   We acknowledge the Reviewer’s concern regarding the qualitative and symbolic orientation of the analysis. While the study deliberately privileges symbolic and interpretive methods, we have strengthened methodological transparency in several ways:

• We clarified that the analysis was conducted by a single researcher, ensuring consistency in the application of analytical criteria and coherence in interpretation.
• We emphasized that three explicit analytical categories (botanical symbolism, commemorative function, spatial-aesthetic design) were systematically and transparently applied across all sites.
• We added an evaluative descriptive scale (e.g., “strong presence,” “partial presence,” “weak presence”) to the Analytical Framework table, thus providing a semi-structured assessment that mitigates subjectivity while maintaining interpretive depth.
• An example of application (the English Cemetery) was included to demonstrate how the scale was concretely used in practice.

4. Absence of visitor surveys and community data
   While we acknowledge that the study does not include interviews, surveys, or ethnographic methods, we explicitly framed this as a methodological choice. The research is designed as a symbolic and semiotic reading of commemorative landscapes, focusing on vegetal symbolism, spatial design, and cultural narratives. This orientation privileges depth of interpretive analysis over breadth of participatory data. Nevertheless, the revised text acknowledges this limitation and suggests that future research could profitably integrate ethnographic approaches to capture visitor perception and community engagement.
5. Seasonal limitations of site visits
   The Reviewer is correct that fieldwork was conducted between March and July 2025, which constrains the observation of seasonal variations. To address this, we added a methodological note explaining that archival photographs, historical iconography, and landscape management documents were consulted to mitigate this limitation. Moreover, the three key species under analysis—cypress (Cupressus sempervirens), laurel (Laurus nobilis), and holm oak (Quercus ilex)—are evergreens, ensuring symbolic and perceptual continuity across seasons.
6. Ecological indicators
   Although the study does not employ quantitative ecological metrics (e.g., biodiversity indices, growth rates), we integrated qualitative observations on the general ecological condition of the sites, such as tree vitality, canopy coverage, and natural regeneration. This addition reinforces the ecological dimension while remaining consistent with the symbolic and interpretive scope of the paper. The limitations of this approach are acknowledged, and the potential for future integration of systematic ecological indicators is explicitly discussed.
7. Use of Latin binomials
   As suggested, Latin names of species have been systematically added alongside English names (e.g., Cupressus sempervirens, Laurus nobilis, Quercus ilex), ensuring accessibility for non-English readers and scientific clarity.
8. Expansion of Section 6 – Florence as a Living Archive
   The main outcome section has been substantially expanded and restructured. It now emphasizes how the three memorial sites (Santa Croce, the English Cemetery, and the Florence American Cemetery) embody different paradigms of commemoration—national, cosmopolitan, and transnational—while collectively forming a “living archive” that bridges memory, ecology, and civic identity. We introduced a new interpretive framework (Memory – Ecology – Experience), which positions commemorative landscapes as regenerative infrastructures for sustainable tourism. This expansion responds directly to the Reviewer’s concern by linking the symbolic readings to planning implications and broader debates in urban landscape management.

In summary, we believe the revisions have substantially strengthened the manuscript by clarifying structure, adding site-specific descriptions and layouts, introducing evaluative measures, addressing ecological and seasonal dimensions, and expanding the outcome section with clearer planning implications. While the study remains qualitative and interpretive in orientation, the revised methodology now ensures transparency, replicability, and a stronger contribution to the interdisciplinary study of commemorative landscapes.

We are deeply grateful to the Reviewer for the insightful feedback, which has guided significant improvements in both form and content.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks the authors for their replies to the comments, as well as for the significant improvements made in the revised manuscript. All the concerns raised—ranging from structural re-organization, clarification of the research question, stronger case study justification, and methodological transparency, to the inclusion of comparative reflections, expanded analysis, and strengthened conclusions—have been carefully addressed and incorporated. The revisions have considerably enhanced the clarity, coherence, and scholarly contribution of the paper.

On this basis,  the manuscript has satisfactorily integrated all requested modifications and is acceptable for publication in its present form.

Author Response

I sincerely thank you for your careful evaluation and for acknowledging the improvements made in the revised version of my manuscript. I'm truly grateful for your constructive comments, which have significantly contributed to refining the clarity, coherence, and scholarly depth of my work.

I'm pleased that the paper is now considered suitable for publication, and I deeply appreciate the time and expertise you have dedicated to this review process.

With kind regards,

Marianna Olivadese

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the author for a very constructive collaboration. I am glad that they found my remarks useful. I particularly appreciate the revisions they delivered, especially the strengthened literature background in the introduction and the improved articulation of the conclusions.

I also value the enhancements made to the introductory section through the clarification of the research question, as well as the improvements in the methodological part, including the verification of analytical categories and the more detailed description of the study sites.
I consider the revised version of the article suitable for publication in the special issue.

Additionally, I would like to thank the author for giving me the opportunity to read this article from a more personal and nostalgic perspective. I had the chance to visit two of the cemeteries analyzed in the study, and this paper allowed me to revisit those memories in a more reflective and meaningful way.

Author Response

I am truly grateful for your generous and thoughtful feedback. It is a privilege to know that my revisions have met your expectations and that the strengthened background, methodological clarifications, and expanded conclusions have contributed to making the manuscript clearer and more rigorous.

I am particularly touched by your personal note regarding the cemeteries analyzed in the study. Knowing that my paper resonated with your own experiences, allowing you to revisit those places from a reflective perspective, is a meaningful acknowledgment that goes beyond scholarly evaluation.

I deeply appreciate the time, care, and insight you have devoted to this review, which has greatly enriched my work.

With sincere thanks and kind regards,

Marianna Olivadese

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been significantly improved. It can be published in the present version.

Author Response

I sincerely thank you for your positive evaluation and for acknowledging the improvements made. I am very grateful for your feedback and support throughout the review process.

With best regards,

Marianna Olivadese

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the previous comments and for revising the manuscript accordingly. I want to point out that the figures presented are not of sufficient quality. There are differences in the way they are presented, which makes comparison more difficult and reduces the overall clarity of the work. It would be highly beneficial to harmonize the figures technically, that is, to create a uniform and consistent layout for each cemetery. This remark particularly refers to Figures 2 to 4, which currently appear rather heterogeneous and require further technical refinement.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English can be improved. Some sections in the revised version seem to be written in a different style compared to the rest of the text, which makes the manuscript less coherent. I recommend that the authors carefully harmonize the language and style throughout the paper and consider professional language editing before final acceptance.

Author Response

I sincerely thank you for your valuable remarks. Following your suggestions, we have carefully revised the manuscript: the English language and style have been fully harmonized through a professional editing service, and all figures (particularly Figures 2–4) have been refined to ensure uniform quality and clarity. We are grateful for your insightful feedback, which has significantly improved the overall presentation of the paper.

With best regards,

Marianna Olivadese