The Cultural Landscape of Rural Cemeteries on the Polish–Czech Borderlands: Multi-Faceted Visual Analysis as an Element of Tourism Potential Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors could also have commented the inscriptions and symbols of some of the tombstones when analyzing the importance of cemeteries for sacred tourism.

They have performed good observations, but they could also have made some interviews with tourists and local people in the studied regions.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for your comments, which allow us to improve our paper.

Sincerely,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper aims to highlight the tourism potential of selected historical sacred sites along the Polish-Czech border, combining architectural and landscape evaluation.

While the manuscript's scope is generally clear and relevant to its specific aim, there are some scientific weak points that need attention. Notably, while the methodology of applying evaluation criteria to the selected sites is expressed clearly, the scientific background of these criteria is unclear. Without references to theoretical works supporting the criteria (e.g., Della Torre, M. 2002. "Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage. Research report. The Getty Conservation Institute"), the results appear subjective and scientific replicability is challenging. This lack of explicit theoretical foundations is evident in various instances where statements are made without references or theoretical support (e.g., 108: "this area is unusual in physiographic terms...", why?; 132-134: "a location on a hill indicated an emphasis on the religious context: a combination of earthly and divine", why? on which basis?; 136-138: "the avenue is a peculiar element in the landscape, it can be seen as a metaphor, an avenue as a way of transition from the old to the new, or mark the road leading to eternal life", why? how so?). Such statements require either references or strong supporting models. References should also be added in the short artistic/architectural descriptions within the results (e.g., 140-147 events and artistic style descriptions should be accompanied by references to relevant literature).

Lastly, the discussion is lacking, conclusions are absent, and no effort has been made to explicitly demonstrate how the research results effectively depict the tourism potential of the described sites or scientifically confirm the hypothesis. Overall, the paper appears subjective in nature.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for your comments, which allow us to improve our paper. Please find below the answers for your valuable comments:

We have improved our paper and added missing references in the fragments of the papar that have been mentioned in the review:

1. Knight, R.; Therivel, R. Landscape and visual. In Methods of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, 4th ed.; Morris, P., Therivel, R., Therivel, R., Wood, G., EDs.; Routledge: New York, USA, 2017; pp. 399-431.
2. Chisholm A.; Jesus, J. Cultural heritage. In Methods of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, 4th ed.; Morris, P., Therivel, R., Therivel, R., Wood, G., EDs.; Routledge: New York, USA, 2017; pp. 432-474.
3. Wilson S. Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 2nd ed.; Taylor & Francis: London, United Kingdom, 2002.
4. Krause Ch.L. Our visual landscape: managing the landscape under special consideration of visual aspects. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001, 54, 239-254.
5. Torre de la M. Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, 1st ed.; The J. Paul Getty Trust: Los Angeles, USA, 2002.
6. Kalivoda, O.; Vojar, J.; Skřivanová, Z.; Zahradník D. Consensus in landscape preference judgments: The effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondents' characteristics. Journal of Environmental Management 2014, 137, 36-44.
7. Kang, N.; Liu; Ch. Towards landscape Ronnberg, A.; Martin, K. The book of symbols: Reflections on archetypal images, 1st ed.; Taschen: Cologne, Germany, 2010.
8. Eliade, M. The sacred and the profane. The nature of religion, 2nd ed.; Harcourt Brace & Company: San Diego, USA, 1957.
9. Dee, C. Form and fabric in landscape architecture: A visual introduction, 1st ed.; Taylor & Francis Group: London, United Kingdom, 2001.
10. Sonntag, K.E., The Role of the Transcendent in Landscapes. All Graduate Theses and Dissertations, Utah State University: Logan, USA, 2014.
11. Krinke R. Contemporary landscapes of contemplation, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, United Kingom, 2005.
12. visual quality evaluation: methodologies, technologies, and recommendations. Ecological Indicators 2002, 142, 1-13.

 

According to your suggestions we have also added the discussion and conclusion part and have supplemented information related to the tourism potential of described sites.

Sincerely,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is an original research with relevant results for several scientific disciplines, including architecture, history of arts, economy (tourism), cultural anthropology, with specific relevance to subfield of conservation of cultural heritage.

The authors should, however, consider shifting some of the information from one part to the other. This mostly applies to overall introductory information on location, goals and theoretical framework which are dispersed throughout the paper but should be more clearly stated in the two first chapters. 

The analysis part can be divided into two subchapters, and there is no need to separate the geographical information from them, but insert it with historical - or, the authors might put geographical information into the introductory chapter. Analysis needs more theoretical support and clear references to relevant literature, or the authors can decide to put references to theoretical framework in the introductory part and the methods part, while in the analysis part provide only description of the analysed material and results without the repetition of the theoretical ideas.

The last chapter now called "Discussion" is actually a "Conclusion", and discussion of this paper is under the "Analysis" chapter, so this should be corrected also.

Consider also shortening the title.

All other comments are in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Some minor mistakes are in the text and the language needs to be more thoroughly checked before publishing.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer 3,

Thank you very much for your comments, which allow us to improve our paper. Please find below the answers for your valuable comments:

According to your suggestions we have also changed the order of the paper and have added the discussion and conclusion part and have supplemented information related to the tourism potential of described sites. Now, the analysis part is divided into two subchapters. We have improved our paper and added missing references in the fragments of the paper which have been mentioned in the review.:

1. Knight, R.; Therivel, R. Landscape and visual. In Methods of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, 4th ed.; Morris, P., Therivel, R., Therivel, R., Wood, G., EDs.; Routledge: New York, USA, 2017; pp. 399-431.
2. Chisholm A.; Jesus, J. Cultural heritage. In Methods of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, 4th ed.; Morris, P., Therivel, R., Therivel, R., Wood, G., EDs.; Routledge: New York, USA, 2017; pp. 432-474.
3. Wilson S. Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 2nd ed.; Taylor & Francis: London, United Kingdom, 2002.
4. Krause Ch.L. Our visual landscape: managing the landscape under special consideration of visual aspects. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001, 54, 239-254.
5. Torre de la M. Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, 1st ed.; The J. Paul Getty Trust: Los Angeles, USA, 2002.
6. Kalivoda, O.; Vojar, J.; Skřivanová, Z.; Zahradník D. Consensus in landscape preference judgments: The effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondents' characteristics. Journal of Environmental Management 2014, 137, 36-44.
7. Kang, N.; Liu; Ch. Towards landscape Ronnberg, A.; Martin, K. The book of symbols: Reflections on archetypal images, 1st ed.; Taschen: Cologne, Germany, 2010.
8. Eliade, M. The sacred and the profane. The nature of religion, 2nd ed.; Harcourt Brace & Company: San Diego, USA, 1957.
9. Dee, C. Form and fabric in landscape architecture: A visual introduction, 1st ed.; Taylor & Francis Group: London, United Kingdom, 2001.
10. Sonntag, K.E., The Role of the Transcendent in Landscapes. All Graduate Theses and Dissertations, Utah State University: Logan, USA, 2014.
11. Krinke R. Contemporary landscapes of contemplation, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, United Kingom, 2005.
12. visual quality evaluation: methodologies, technologies, and recommendations. Ecological Indicators 2002, 142, 1-13.

We have also improved all minor mistakes that were included included in the pdf Review file.

Sincerely

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revisions have elevated the quality of the paper, resulting in a more robust foundation for its theoretical underpinnings, which can now be traced and replicated. From my perspective, it would be prudent to move beyond a broad reference, such as "An assessment of landscape value was also carried out using existing approaches [42-48]," and instead explicitly outline the precise existing methods that were employed. Nevertheless, the overall refinement of the paper remains evident.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for your comments, which allow us to improve our paper. Please find below the answers for your valuable comments:

We have improved our paper and added missing references in the fragments of the papar that have been mentioned in the review:

1. Knight, R.; Therivel, R. Landscape and visual. In Methods of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, 4th ed.; Morris, P., Therivel, R., Therivel, R., Wood, G., EDs.; Routledge: New York, USA, 2017; pp. 399-431.
2. Chisholm A.; Jesus, J. Cultural heritage. In Methods of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, 4th ed.; Morris, P., Therivel, R., Therivel, R., Wood, G., EDs.; Routledge: New York, USA, 2017; pp. 432-474.
3. Wilson S. Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 2nd ed.; Taylor & Francis: London, United Kingdom, 2002.
4. Krause Ch.L. Our visual landscape: managing the landscape under special consideration of visual aspects. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001, 54, 239-254.
5. Torre de la M. Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, 1st ed.; The J. Paul Getty Trust: Los Angeles, USA, 2002.
6. Kalivoda, O.; Vojar, J.; Skřivanová, Z.; Zahradník D. Consensus in landscape preference judgments: The effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondents' characteristics. Journal of Environmental Management 2014, 137, 36-44.
7. Kang, N.; Liu; Ch. Towards landscape Ronnberg, A.; Martin, K. The book of symbols: Reflections on archetypal images, 1st ed.; Taschen: Cologne, Germany, 2010.
8. Eliade, M. The sacred and the profane. The nature of religion, 2nd ed.; Harcourt Brace & Company: San Diego, USA, 1957.
9. Dee, C. Form and fabric in landscape architecture: A visual introduction, 1st ed.; Taylor & Francis Group: London, United Kingdom, 2001.
10. Sonntag, K.E., The Role of the Transcendent in Landscapes. All Graduate Theses and Dissertations, Utah State University: Logan, USA, 2014.
11. Krinke R. Contemporary landscapes of contemplation, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, United Kingom, 2005.
12. visual quality evaluation: methodologies, technologies, and recommendations. Ecological Indicators 2002, 142, 1-13.

.

According to your suggestions we have also added the discussion and conclusion part and have supplemented information related to the tourism potential of described sites.

Sincerely,

Authors