Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Landscape Notions among Greek Engineering Students: Exploring Landscape Perceptions, Knowledge and Participation

Land 2019, 8(5), 83; https://doi.org/10.3390/land8050083

by Theano S. Terkenli^1,*, Tryfon Daras² and Efpraxia-Aithra Maria²

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Reviewer 4: Anonymous

Reviewer 5: Anonymous

Land 2019, 8(5), 83; https://doi.org/10.3390/land8050083

Submission received: 14 March 2019 / Revised: 1 May 2019 / Accepted: 16 May 2019 / Published: 20 May 2019

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Even if the research addresses an interesting topic, there are several issues that need to be strengthened/corrected, namely.

Introduction and literature review though vey informative miss several seminal works both on Landscape Architecture and Landscape Perception. Read for example (Burley et. al., or Meireles and Loures regarding this subject).

The material and methods chapter is hard to read, though the research steps are briefly described, I recommend the authors to rewrite this part of the paper and to introduce a phased methodological diagram (image).

Still in this aspect, the use of such a diverse universe, creates in my opinion a significant biases in terms of results to be generalised among the engineering class..

The conclusions chapter as it is highlights the main/major limitations of the research. Conclusions should be as specific as possible and avoid the use of generalities...

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

Even if the research addresses an interesting topic, there are several issues that need to be strengthened/corrected, namely.

THANK YOU. UNFORTUNATELY, WE WERE UNABLE TO LOCATE ANY PERTINENT PUBLICATIONS OF MEIRELES AND LOURES (WHAT WE FOUND WAS IN PORTUGUESE AND WE COULD NOT ACCESS IT). WE HAD ALREADY ADDED A SUGGESTED SOURCE BY BURLEY (LINE 110-111) AND ONE MORE BY PRATIWI ET AL (LINE 155), OF A VERY EXPLORATORY STUDY (A CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON OF STUDENTS’ FOREST LANDSCAPE PERCEPTIONS).

WE ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE AS BEST WE COULD IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF OUR INTRODUCTION. WE BELIEVE THAT THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS ARE CLEARLY LAID OUT AT THE OUTSET OF THE METHODS SECTION (PLEASE, SEE PAGE 5).

Still in this aspect, the use of such a diverse universe, creates in my opinion a significant biases in terms of results to be generalised among the engineering class..

We do not understand this comment. If diversity is meant to indicate the fact that our sample included students from all the engineering departments, we think that this is a strength of our research, because such diversity is essential in all matters concerning the landscape (which is such an overarching concept and construct). In any case, any possible differences between the departments are certainly revealed, in the results of our data analysis. Furthermore, we believe that diverse data allow for more generalization, generally speaking, though we were careful in all our generalizations: both emphasizing the exploratory character of our study and providing appropriate bibliographical references, when drawing on secondary sources.

The conclusions chapter as it is highlights the main/major limitations of the research. Conclusions should be as specific as possible and avoid the use of generalities...

As has been mentioned, at the outset of the paper, our study is exploratory in character (line 93), thus we need to highlight the main/major limitations of our research. We have presented the specific findings of our conclusions in the Discussion section, most analytically; in the Conclusions we mainly try to connect our results with general bibliography and with the relevance of this study to ELC implementation in Greece.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this article, the authors investigate a stratified sample (engineering) students’ perceptions, an understanding of the notion of “landscape.” Their study surveys over 600 students during two different semesters six years apart (2011 and 2017) and it measures the idea of and interest in “landscapes” across a variety of scales, including the country level to the campus level. This research is, in part, to ground landscape theory in the lived experiences of Greek students (primarily from urban regions) on the island of Crete, but also to measure the impact of Greece’s joining of the European Landscape Convention in the early 2000s. It concludes that, though many have not had formal educational experience with landscape studies at the university level, responses to the questions demonstrate an awareness of the significance of the term and its many spatial variations.

This study is an interesting, grounded approach to the understanding of landscape, both natural and cultural. The article has strong theoretical foundation as evidenced by the literature review in the introduction and theoretical background sections. One addition to the literature/theory discussion would be to include the 2014 work by Roe and Melnick (New Cultural Landscapes) as it, especially in the final chapter by Roe, discusses modern and future directions of landscape analysis—including a discussion of “everyday” landscapes that is directly relevant to the discussion of the perceptions of the campus landscape. This source will be a valuable addition for this study. Another positive is the describing and situating of the survey and its results in the general context of the ELC; it helps strengthen the significance of this article and giving the findings/conclusions a substantive direction to affect potential policy shifts at the national and local levels of the Greek government.

The survey methods are sound and the questions asked do capture the nuances of the term landscape. The results, while not groundbreaking or far beyond the margins of expected results, do show consistent results in landscape perception over the 6 year period. The descriptive statistical discussion of the survey results was sound, and, in general, the results and conclusions do logically correspond to the survey process.

While the article is good, there are a few issues that detract from the overall readability of the text. First, there are a number of grammatical mistakes—mostly the overuse of commas—that create many arbitrarily split up sentences and ideas, as well as some run-on sentences. Another issue that needs to be more fully articulated is the discussion of how students’ perceptions of landscape have slightly changed between the two survey periods, due, in part, to the increase in the development of lay environmental consciousness in Greece during the past few years. It would be good to have some supporting materials for this, such as active governmental policies, education campaigns, a shift in primary education curricula, and so on. This awakening of environmental consciousness seems to be in line with the ELC goals and the results of the survey support that this development direction is actualizing real results whereas the university course offerings, or lack thereof, do not seem to have as much of an effect (something that the article does identify as a need in the conclusions).

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

THANK YOU. We have revised the article, eliminating some commas and run-on sentences, thus making it easier to read. We added the suggested (excellent) reference, which we assume you meant to be in the 2014 book edited by Roe and Taylor “New Cultural Landscapes”, on p. 114.

Although we may not be absolutely sure, we postulate that the students’ landscape perceptions have slightly changed between the 2 survey periods, due to a more subtle and diffuse increase in the development of lay environmental consciousness in Greece during the past few years. However, we cannot precisely place and justify this change. No large-scale and overarching lay education campaigns took place, in Greece, during that time. No interventions vis-à-vis the landscape have taken place in the Greek educational curricula (either primary or secondary education) since 2003—we added this information in the text (lines 330-332). Government policies have been wanting in terms of landscape management and planning, nor have any aspects or directives of the ELC been implemented, since its ratification.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The title of the study corresponds to its content. The total value of work is a valuable contribution. The bibliography its very good. These detailed surveys concern mainly the landscape notions among Greek engineering students, therefore it is proposed to include is "more details considering the fundamentals of the survey methodology, especially a discussion of distributed surveys and response rates and well as a discussion in the statistical confidence of the results".
It should be noted that the whole of the study is cognitive and contains important scientific elements. The article was written at a good academic level. In relation to the above, I express the opinion that the work submitted for review should be published in its entirety after taking into account the comments of the reviewer and does not require a review again.

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

Thank you. We added the requested, more detailed, information on our sampling method in the Methods Section, pp 265-271, and consulted a statistician as to the adequacy of our provided information, concerning the statistical confidence of the results.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear author/s,

After I read your paper I have a few recommendations:

Please present the structure of your sample

please mention how you select the respondents and how representative are your results.

please mention the measure unit for each of the tables.

i was expecting a deeper analysis of the data (at least the means of the itemes evalaute on scale, and test the differences between the two groups)

mention the contribution of your research to the literature

which are the future research directions and limitations of your study?

Author Response

REVIEWER 4

Dear author/s,

After I read your paper I have a few recommendations:

Please present the structure of your sample. Please mention how you select the respondents and how representative are your results.

THANK YOU. WE BELIEVE WE HAVE DONE SO, MUCH BETTER NOW—PLEASE SEE METHODS SECTION (LINES 265-271).

please mention the measure unit for each of the tables.

NOT SURE WE UNDERSTAND THIS COMMENT: THE UNIT OF MEASUREMENT FOR ALL THE TABLES IS THE INDIVIDUAL STUDENT (THE TABLES SHOW STUDENT PERCENTAGES).

i was expecting a deeper analysis of the data (at least the means of the itemes evalaute on scale, and test the differences between the two groups)

WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE COMMENT

mention the contribution of your research to the literature

WE HAVE TRIED TO DO THIS EXPLICITLY IN THE CONCLUSIONS SECTION (1^ST PARAGRAPH).

which are the future research directions and limitations of your study?

ALSO DID SO IN THE CONCLUSIONS SECTION (LINES 682-690 AND 639-640) AND IN THE INTRODUCTION (LINES 93-94).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The paper is very well developed and balanced in its various sections. I suggest the authors to reinforce the conclusions, emphasizing the relationship between "Landascape perceptios, knowledge and Participation” and sustainable landscape management. Above all the authors should better clarify how their results can help to better implement the European Landscape Convention and to better address the problems highlighted in paragraph 2.2 (Greece and the landscape).

Author Response

REVIEWER 5

Thank you. We did so: lines 690-696

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduced corrections contributed to increase the quality of the paper.

A final grammar review is recommend

Author Response

Thank you. We have done one more grammar, as well as spelling, check.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear author/s,

Thank you for the improved version of your manuscript.

There are some minnor aspects, that I recommend you to revise:

From my point of view, the limitations of your study should not be mentioned in the introduction. In the introduction part is important to empahsize the originality of your research and mention the objectives.

the title of your figures should be more specific, please review them. I recommend you to rephrase them.

Good luck!

Author Response

Thank you. We have removed the limitations of the study from the introduction to the appropriate place in the Conclusions (lines 685-686) and have rephrased all our table and figure captions to be more inclusive and informative.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper, well organized and structured, can be accepted only after some revisions.

1. In the "Literature Review" section no reference is made to the Italian school (Emilio Sereni, Gambi, Tempesta, etc.) and some other fundamental studies are not taken into consideration [for example: Turner, M. G., O'Neill, R. V., Gardner, R. H., & Milne, B. T. (1989). Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape ecology, 3(3-4), 153-162; Jongman, E., & Jongman, S. R. R. (1995). Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Cambridge university press; Schama, S., & . Landscape and memory; Tilley, C. Y. (1994). A phenomenology of landscape: places, paths, and monuments (Vol. 10). Oxford: Berg].

2. It is necessary to underline that, due to the methodology used, it is an exploratory survey, since it is limited to a statistical analysis mainly of a descriptive type

3. Nothing is specified with regard to the stratified sampling methodology used (stratification variables, stratum amplitude, ...)

4. The survey questionnaire is not attached, therefore the actual methodology of detection is not clear. It is assumed that some questions must be of the "open-ended" type, but nothing is indicated on the encoding and post-coding operations.

5. In order to allow an easier reading, it would be necessary to introduce other further tables.

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

The paper, well organized and structured, can be accepted only after some revisions.

OUR LITERATURE REVIEW DOES NOT PURPORT TO COVER AN EXTENSIVE OVERVIEW OF THE THEORY OF LANDSCAPE, AS THIS IS NOT ONE OF THE MAIN GOALS OF OUR STUDY, AND HAS AMPLY BEEN FULFILLED ELSEWHERE.

INSTEAD, IN THE INTEREST OF OUR MAIN RESEARCH GOALS, WE IMMEDIATELY FOCUS ON OUR MAIN VARIABLES, WHICH HAVE TO DO WITH LANDSCAPE PERCEPTIONS, PREFERENCES, ETC, WITH A BRIEF (BUT WE BELIEVE, RELEVANT) INTRODUCTION, AT THE TOP OF PAGE 3, AND TURN RIGHT AWAY TO THE ISSUE OF ‘LANDSCAPE PUBLICS’, CENTRAL TO OUR ANALYSIS

2. It is necessary to underline that, due to the methodology used, it is an exploratory survey, since it is limited to a statistical analysis mainly of a descriptive type

AMMENDED (LINES 89-90): INDEED, THE SURVEY IS AN EXPLORATORY ONE, BUT THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS IS NOT ONLY (IT IS MAINLY SO) OF THE DESCRIPTIVE TYPE, E.G. THERE ARE NUMEROUS CHI-SQUARE TESTS PERFORMED, WHICH BELONG TO INFERENTIAL STATISTICS.

3. Nothing is specified with regard to the stratified sampling methodology used (stratification variables, stratum amplitude, ...)

THE ANSWER IS PROVIDED ALREADY (BUT WAS A BIT IMPROVED) ON PAGES 6-7 OF THE ARTICLE “THE SAMPLE STRATA WERE THE SCHOOL’S DEPARTMENTS; THE DATA WERE CALIBRATED FOR SCHOOL-YEAR AND DEPARTMENT POPULATION’.

ONLY ONE ‘OPEN-ENDED’ QUESTION WAS INCLUDED IN OUR ANALYSIS, THE FINAL QUESTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ASKING THE RESPONDENTS WHETHER THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE THEY WISHED TO ADD, AS IS CUSTOMARY IN MOST SOCIAL-SCIENTIFIC SURVEYS. WE ONLY USE THE ANSWERS OF THIS QUESTION TO FRAME BETTER OUR ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE MAIN QUESTIONS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE—WHICH ARE THE ONES DESIGNED TO TEST OUR RESEARCH QUESTIONS.

OTHERWISE, ALL OUR QUESTIONS ARE BEING REPORTED AND STATISTICALLY CHECKED. THE ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE WAS UNDERTAKEN WITH THE AID OF SPSS AND WE THINK THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DESCRIBE ENCODING AND POST-CODING OPERATIONS HERE. WE ALSO THINK THAT ADDING THE QUESTIONAIRE WOULD MAKE THE PAPER MUCH TOO AND UNNECESSARILY LONGER.

5. In order to allow an easier reading, it would be necessary to introduce other further tables.

WE HAVE GIVEN THIS MATTER A LOT OF THOUGHT, SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS AND INCLUDED THOSE TABLES THAT ARE MOST PERTINENT TO OUR MAIN RESEARCH QUESTIONS, WITHOUTH ‘BURDENING’ THE PAPER WITH TOO MANY FINDINGS OF SECONDARY SIGNIFICANCE. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL IF THE REVIEWERS HAD SPECIFIED THE KIND OF TABLES THEY BELIEVED WOULD HAVE BEEN AN IMPROVEMENT.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents very interesting subject, specially for landscape architects, and other specialists working with and in the landscape, thus it presents some issues that should be reviewed prior to publication, namely:

- Introduction, though complete, misses some seminal works on perception on landscape architecture - practices and notions (see for example Meireles 2018, or Burley 2016, 2017);

- Methodology is very interesting but the way it is presented make it a little fuzzy. I would recommend the introduction of a methodological diagram.

- Results are clear a well presented;

- Conclusions should be reinforced and strengthened, crossing the obtained results with similar research not only regarding landscape, but other associated issues.

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

- Introduction, though complete, misses some seminal works on perception on landscape architecture - practices and notions (see for example Meireles 2018, or Burley 2016, 2017);

UNFORTUNATELY, WE WERE UNABLE TO LOCATE ANY PERTINENT 2018 PUBLICATIONS OF MEIRELES (WHAT WE FOUND WERE MUCH EARLIER PUBLICATIONS IN NON-REFEREED CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS, ON PERCEPTION OF USES OF URBAN PARKS, NOT SO RELEVANT TO OUR STUDY). WE ADDED A SUGGESTED SOURCE BY BURLEY (LINE 107) AND ONE MORE BY PRATIWI ET AL (LINE 151), OF A VERY EXPLORATORY STUDY (A CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON OF STUDENTS’ FOREST LANDSCAPE PERCEPTIONS).

- Methodology is very interesting but the way it is presented make it a little fuzzy. I would recommend the introduction of a methodological diagram.

WE ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE SOMEWHAT IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF OUR INTRODUCTION. WE BELIEVE THAT THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS ARE CLEARLY LAID OUT AT THE OUTSET OF THE METHODS SECTION (PLEASE, SEE PAGE 5)

- Results are clear a well presented;

- Conclusions should be reinforced and strengthened, crossing the obtained results with similar research not only regarding landscape, but other associated issues.

APPROPRIATE BIBLIOGRAPHY WAS ADDED TO THE CONCLUSIONS

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript presents an analysis about landscape perceptions. Although this manuscript may contain some information of interest, the research suffers from several major conceptual and methodological weaknesses.

I think that this current version of the manuscript could be really improved. Mainly in relation with how it was written and structured. I found that its current structure is very hard for potential readers of this journal. Overall, the manuscript does not show the originality of the method and would benefit if the authors present a strong rationale for the research. In my opinion it deserves a second chance if a major revision is made that includes the comments given below.

Comments:

- The intention is laudable and substantial amount of work has been invested in this research. However, the paper is inappropriately organized. Introduction seems to be partly a review of the literature, it goes in many directions without a clear lead. The structure of the paper is not presented. It is not clear what exactly it is the author wants to discuss in the paper.

- The introduction lacks focus. There is no clear problem statement, neither are there any clear research objectives and questions i.e. the 'how', 'what', 'why', 'when' question(s) are all missing.

- Highlight the aspects in which your research departs from the existing literature, and what are its innovative contributions to science.

- The authors throw in different concepts/theories, thus, making the story-line difficult to follow/read. I suggest the authors rewrite the whole introduction paragraph, making it explicit and clearer to read/understand.

- There is no indication about the nature of the research that was conducted through the selected global approach. The use of quantitative data seems to indicate a deductive approach but there is no hypothesis to be tested and no theoretical/conceptual background.

- While I understand that this is beyond the scope of this paper, I would encourage the authors to directly compare this method with other common methods as this would be very useful to the broad community.

- I am not sure whether all the information in the materials and methods section are relevant and applicable inter alia influencing the data collection for the results. For example are the tables and figures all relevant? The authors should consider whether all these information addresses the 'problem statement' (which is missing from the introduction).

- I am sceptical about the significance of the survey. Authors utilize data from the survey as it could offer an exhaustive representation of the reality. What is the margin error and confidence interval?

- Regarding the surveys, the authors should mention the use (or not) of “Informed Consent Forms”, which are usually demanded in this kind of approach.

- Results section should be rewrite. I found it hard and it is not easy to find the specific results obtained in your analysis. Most of the part of results section are too much general, but not always related with findings obtained.

- I will suggest having the survey questions in an Appendix.

- Please revise the citations. There are plenty of inconsistencies.

- The conclusion is fairly written, but I will suggest honing in on 'how the methods and outcome could be applicable elsewhere'. This will help boost the potential international readership of the manuscript.

Recommended readings to structure manuscript

Bonsu, N.O., Ní Dhubháin, Á. and O'Connor, D., 2017. Evaluating the use of integrated land-use planning approach in addressing forest ecosystem services conflicting demands. Experience within an Irish forest landscape. Futures 86: 1-17.

Gomes, Eduardo, Abrantes, Patrícia, Banos, Arnaud, Rocha, Jorge, Buxton, Michael (2019) Future agricultural land use change based on farmers' intentions. Applied Geography. 102: 58-70.

Sheppard, S. R., Meitner, M. J., Harshaw, H. W., Wilson, N., Pearce, C., et al. (2006). Arrow IFPA Series: Note 3 of 8: Public processes in sustainable forest management for the Arrow Forest District. Journal of Ecosystems and Management, 7(1).

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

WE TOOK THESE COMMENTS IN CONSIDERATION AND BELIEVE WE HAVE DONE THE BEST IN OUR CAPACITY TO RESPOND TO THEM.

Comments:

WE TOOK A CLOSE LOOK TO THE INTRODUCTION, AGAIN, AND AMMENDED THE LAST PARAGRAPH, IN LINE WITH THE REVIEWER’S COMMENTS, WHERE THERE SEEMED TO BE SUCH A NEED.

- The introduction lacks focus. There is no clear problem statement, neither are there any clear research objectives and questions i.e. the 'how', 'what', 'why', 'when' question(s) are all missing.

WE DID SO (LAST PARAGRAPH OF OUR INTRODUCTION (PLEASE, SEE ANSWER ABOVE). OUR INTRODUCTION AIMS TO SET OUT THE GROUND FOR ALL ISSUES INCLUDED IN OUR STUDY. WE BELIEVE THAT THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS ARE CLEARLY LAID OUT AT THE OUTSET OF THE METHODS SECTION (PLEASE, SEE PAGE 5)

- Highlight the aspects in which your research departs from the existing literature, and what are its innovative contributions to science.

WE DID THAT (LAST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 2.1, PAGE 4, MARKED IN YELLOW).

WE TOOK A VERY CRITICAL LOOK AT OUR INTRODUCTION AND MADE THOSE INTERVENTIONS NECESSARY, IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE REVIEWER’S REQUESTS.

WE DISAGREE, WE BELIEVE THAT THE THEORETICAL/ CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF OUR STUDY IS AMPLY LAID OUT IN THE FIRST PART OF THE PAPER (SECTIONS 1 AND 2).

WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE ALREADY DONE THE BEST THAT COULD BE DONE, WITH REGARD TO THIS REQUEST OF THE REVIEWER.

YES, OF COURSE, WE DEEM THAT ALL THE MATERIAL IS RELEVANT AND ADDRESSES THE PROBLEM STATEMENT.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SURVEY IS SHOWN THROUGHOUT THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. THIS IS THE ROLE OF STATISTICS: SURVEYING AND ESTIMATION OF CERTAIN FACTS OF REALITY (ESTIMATION=BEST POSSIBLE REPRESENTATION OF CERTAIN ASPECTS OF REALITY). WITHOUT THE SURVEY, POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS WOULD BE JUST SPECULATIONS. WE APOLOGISE FOR THIS VERY ANALYTICAL RESPONSE, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY AND QUALIFY OUR RESPONSE, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

THE CONFIDENCE INTERVAL (MARGIN ERROR) CAN BE COMPUTED FOR EACH ONE OF THE NUMEROUS PERCENTAGES ESTIMATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PAPER. WE THINK THAT THE COMPUTATION OF SUCH INTERVALS DOES NOT OFFER ANY ADDITIONAL INSIGHTS OR INFORMATION ABOUT OUR STUDY.

- Regarding the surveys, the authors should mention the use (or not) of “Informed Consent Forms”, which are usually demanded in this kind of approach.

THESE ARE NOT REQUIRED IN THE COUNTRY WHERE THIS RESEARCH TOOK PLACE (GREECE), NOT BY ANY POSSIBLE EU REGULATIONS, AT THE TIMES OF THE SURVEY. FURTHERMORE, THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE WAS COMPLETED ANONYMOUSLY BY THE SAMPLE INTERVIEWEES, WHILE IT WAS DISTRIBUTED USING STRATIFIED STATISTICALLY RANDOM SAMPLING. THE COMPUTED DATA AND ANALYSIS RESULTS (PERCENTAGES, MEAN VALUES, CHI-SQUARE TESTS) SHOW NO CONNECTION BETWEEN OBTAINED RESULTS AND SPECIFIC SAMPLE INTERVIEWEES.

WE HAVE ALREADY DONE THE BEST WE COULD, UNDER THE CONSTRAINTS OF SUCH A SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE’S LENGTH LIMITATIONS. WE BELIEVE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF THE RESULTS SECTION IS CLEAR AND STRAIGHTFORWARD: THE QUESTIONS ARE PRESENTED FIRST, FOLLOWED BY TABLES WITH ESTIMATES REFERRING TO THE RESPECTIVE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS. FINALLY, THE CHI-SQUARE TESTS FOR THE POSSIBLE DEPENDENCE OF ANSWERS TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON VARIABLES/FACTORS SUCH AS DEPARTMENT, YEAR OF STUDY, GENDER, INCOME, ETC. ARE SHOWN.

- I will suggest having the survey questions in an Appendix.

ALL OUR QUESTIONS ARE BEING REPORTED ON AND STATISTICALLY CHECKED. THE ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE WAS UNDERTAKEN WITH THE AID OF SPSS AND WE BELIEVE THAT ADDING THE SURVEY QUESTIONS, AGAIN, IN ANY FORM, WOULD BE REDUNDANT.

- Please revise the citations. There are plenty of inconsistencies.

WE DO NOT BELIEVE WE HAD ANY, BUT STILL CHECKED THEM ONE MORE TIME.

WE BELIEVE WE HAVE ALREADY DONE THAT TO THE BEST OF OUR CAPACITY AND PRACTICAL PAPER CONSTRAINTS.

Recommended readings to structure manuscript

Gomes, Eduardo, Abrantes, Patrícia, Banos, Arnaud, Rocha, Jorge, Buxton, Michael (2019) Future agricultural land use change based on farmers' intentions. Applied Geography. 102: 58-70.

WITH REGARD TO THESE READINGS, WE HAVE TAKEN THEM IN CONSIDERATION, BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THE TYPE OF METHODOLOGICAL FLOWCHART THAT THE REVIEWER IS SUGGESTING IS REDUNDANT TO OUR WORK, SINCE THE TWO STEPS OF OUR SURVEY ARE VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD (THE SAME QUESTIONNAIRE WAS IMPLEMENTED TO THE SAME POPULATION TWICE, AT TWO DIFFERENT TIMES).

Reviewer 4 Report

In this article, the authors investigate student perceptions, terminological knowledge, and participation interest in the real and perceived notion of “landscape.” Their study surveys over 600 engineering students during two different semesters six years apart (2011 and 2017) and it measures the idea of and interest in “landscapes” across a variety of scales, including the country level to the campus level. This research is, in part, to ground landscape theory in the lived experiences of Greek students on the island of Crete, but also to measure the impact of Greece’s joining of the European Landscape Convention in the early 2000s. It concludes that, though many have not had formal educational experience with landscape studies at the university level, responses to the questions demonstrate an awareness of the significance of the term and its many spatial variations, as well as an interest (mainly female students) in participating in landscape planning and preservation projects, especially at the campus scale.

This study is an interesting study that has a strong literature and theoretical foundation. The background thematic research is sound and thorough, though there is an omission of Carl Sauer’s name in the list of sources pertaining to the origin of the cultural landscape. Situating of the survey and its results in the general context of the ELC helps strengthen the significance of this article. The survey methods are sound and the questions asked do capture the nuances of the term landscape, and the results, while not groundbreaking or far beyond the margins of expected results, do show consistent results in landscape perception over the 6 year period. In general, the results and conclusions do logically correspond to the survey process.

Two issues that arise in this article, outside the stated issues of subjectivity in the results because of the inclusion of personal perceptions, surround the population of the survey and the limited content analysis of the qualitative response section of the survey. The first issue, related to the survey’s population, surround the stratified, albeit random-stratified, nature of the survey. The two surveys were administered to engineering students (including architectural and environmental engineers) who inherently have a vested interest in the built and/or natural environment and landscape, therefore the high percentages related to the questions concerning perceptions and interest in working on landscape related projects probably skew the results of the survey to trend toward a much larger appreciation and awareness of landscape than, say, the general campus population. A valuable contribution to this research article would be to calibrate its results with another survey of the general student body to see if the results of vested engineering students (though not all have had formal class experience in landscape analysis) are statistically and substantially different from the general student population’s perceptions (which may allow for more substantive results in the context of the strengths and weaknesses of Greece’s participation in the ELC). The second issue is that there is very limited and overly generalized analysis of the qualitative responses. A more robust content analysis (with some coding for frequency analysis of terms used in the responses) would be beneficial for this analysis.

Another issue that somehow needs to be addressed is the overt issue of the Classical monuments/heritage ubiquitous in Greece. Because of the Hellenic tradition and the European/western focus of the cultural heritage (mostly classical period), it could be assumed that every Greek is acutely aware of the cultural ties to the landscape as well as the tourist potential of the rural and urban areas. It seems impossible to retroactively separate perceptions of recent history/ modern landscape significance from that of the perceived cultural and economic value of the Greco-Roman material cultural peppering the Greek landscape. I honestly do not know how this would be addressed, but the ancient-modern landscape dynamic seems to warrant some discussion in this article.

Author Response

REVIEWER 4

REFERENCE TO THE WORK OF CARL SAUER HAS BEEN ADDED (LINE 97). UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY TO REPLICATE THE SAME STUDY, WITH A CONTROL POPULATION (FOR ONE, THE WHOLE STUDENT POPULATION OF THE TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF CHANIA CAMPUS WAS INCLUDED IN OUR SURVEY) AS THE STUDY ALREADY TOOK PLACE IN THE PAST. FURTHERMORE, WE WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE (AS WE DID IN ANOTHER RESPONSE ABOVE) THAT ONLY ONE ‘OPEN-ENDED’ QUESTION WAS INCLUDED IN OUR ANALYSIS, THE FINAL ONE, ASKING THE RESPONDENTS WHETHER THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE THEY WISHED TO ADD, AS IS CUSTOMARY IN MOST SOCIAL-SCIENTIFIC SURVEYS. FINALLY, AS REGARDS THE CLASSICAL DIMENSION OF THE GREEK LANDSCAPE, WE INSERTED A REFERENCE TO THAT IN OUR TEXT (LINES 518-526, IN YELLOW), SO THAT IT IS MORE INCLUSIVE, IN THE WAY THE REVIEWER INSTRUCTS US TO DO. WE MUST MENTION, HOWEVER, THAT UNFORTUNATELY (AS MIGHT BE EXPECTED) ‘NOT EVERY GREEK IS ACUTELY AWARE OF…THE TOURIST POTENTIAL OF THE RURAL AND URBAN AREAS’, BUT YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT THE DIFFICULTY OF RETROACTIVELY SEPARATING ‘perceptions of recent history/ modern landscape significance from that of the perceived cultural and economic value of the Greco-Roman material cultural peppering the Greek landscape’. THANK YOU.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper can be accepted in present form.

Attention to line 117

Reviewer 3 Report

Since some questions were not clearly answered, I cannot recommend acceptance.

Reviewer 4 Report

The changes made to this paper do help give a certain amount of clarity that was not in the initial version. The article is interesting and does provide a good synthesis of landscape literature and linking of results to the macro-level significance of the ELC. The changes suggested in the initial review were difficult to include in this article, but a more could have been done in considering the overwhelming presence of the ancient world in the social psychology and physical space of Greeks across the age spectrum. This ever-presence does potentially skew how students consider the significance of landscapes (historical and present, rural and urban) in favor of a more acute awareness of its significance, or in the fact that it is so overwhelming that it gives a sense of dilution of significance or expendability of non-flagship regions/remains. Either way, the awareness, positive or negative, does introduce bias in the results that need to be further addressed beyond a partial sentence.

One aspect that would be good to include is more details considering the fundamentals of the survey methodology, especially a discussion of distributed surveys and response rates (a possible proxy determinant of interest by the student body concerning the issue that needs to be discussed) and well as a discussion in the statistical confidence of the results.

Article Menu

Landscape Notions among Greek Engineering Students: Exploring Landscape Perceptions, Knowledge and Participation

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI