Identification and Analysis of Problems in Selected European Historic Gardens during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic and the analysis of the paper are very relevant and of interest. The manuscript is already in a good shape; however, it needs some improvements before the publication. While acknowledging the stronger parts of this paper let me focus on the shortcomings and possible improvements:
Abstract:
I missed the main results of the research form the abstract. There is only the summary of the recommendations, without any new scientific results.
Introduction:
The Authors explain the effect of COVID on tourism, however, I believe the recreation (e.g. for the locals) could be also a relevant issue, and maybe it is effected by pandemic differently (line 63-68). I would suggest to clarify also the situation and relation of this topic to the COVID. Probably it would be necessary not only in the introduction, but it has to be reflected also in the discussion chapter.
Line 78-83: missing references
Study area and objectives:
Please, justify in the paper why did you exclude many relevant European countries from the research (e.g. France, Southern-Eastern-Europe)!
Line 143-145: I think, it is too late to describe this issue here. I would suggest to move it earlier and also justify it with references.
The aim paragraph at the moment a bit messy. I found some sentences which do not relate to the aim, rather the methods (e.g. line 151-152).
A table (maybe as appendix) would be helpful, in which the Authors can summarize the basic data, information of the involved gardens.
Methodology:
It would be necessary to explain more in detailed how many questionnaires had been sent out (and to which countries, e.g. have you sent also another countries, from which you did not get any response), and how was the percentage of the responses.
Results:
Figures 3-4 should be improved, since they are not readable at the moment.
In general, I would suggest to highlight more the geographical context of the results (similarly, what has been done in line 275-279).
Discussion:
Following the same line, it would be also interesting to compare the results more to the applied restrictions of the different involved countries. Have the different COVID-strategies of the countries had any effect on your results or not? I believe, this issue would have an additional value of the research.
Conclusions:
I do appreciate the list of recommendation; however, I would suggest to highlight and stronger the real research results as well.
In general, the English should be checked and improved.
Author Response
Dear Sir or Madam,
first of all, thank you very much for your valuable comments which helped us to improve the quality of the paper. We did our best to include all the requests with respect to the recommendations of reviewers. The specific identification of the changes made in the paper are written below each bullet of your review (red colour) - Please see the attachment.
Kind regards
Authors
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Abstract: I missed the main results of the research form the abstract. There is only the summary of the recommendations, without any new scientific results.
Response 1: Following this useful suggestion, we have added the text to the Abstract (line 22-30)
Point 2: Introduction: The Authors explain the effect of COVID on tourism, however, I believe the recreation (e.g. for the locals) could be also a relevant issue, and maybe it is effected by pandemic differently (line 63-68). I would suggest to clarify also the situation and relation of this topic to the COVID. Probably it would be necessary not only in the introduction, but it has to be reflected also in the discussion chapter.
Response 2: Thank you for your constructive review. We have implemented the suggestions and marked them in the text. (line 102-103, 492-495, 505-508)
Point 3: Line 78-83: missing references
Response 3: According to this useful suggestion, we have added the following references:
Point 4: Study area and objectives: Please, justify in the paper why did you exclude many relevant European countries from the research (e.g. France, Southern-Eastern-Europe)!
And
Methodology: It would be necessary to explain more in detailed how many questionnaires had been sent out (and to which countries, e.g. have you sent also another countries, from which you did not get any response), and how was the percentage of the responses.
Response 4: The response is given in Study area and objectives (line 134-143)
Point 5: Line 143–145: I think, it is too late to describe this issue here. I would suggest to move it earlier and also justify it with references.
Response 5: The Reviewer's comments have been taken into consideration. We have moved this line to the Introduction and added references (line 77-80)
Point 6: The aim paragraph at the moment a bit messy. I found some sentences which do not relate to the aim, rather the methods (e.g. line 151-152).
Response 6: Following this useful suggestion, we have changed the text in all chapter.
Point 7: A table (maybe as appendix) would be helpful, in which the Authors can summarize the basic data, information of the involved gardens.
Response 7: Please find a table with responses from each garden attached. As the data in the table are very detailed, we decided not to publish them with the paper. The results will be sent to the respondents in the first place (individually).
It was added the list of gardens together with answers (for internal use of reviewer).
Point 8: Results: Figures 3-4 should be improved, since they are not readable at the moment.
Response 8: This remark is similar to the one by Reviewer 2. Figures have been improved and attached to the text (line 317, 318)
Point 9: In general, I would suggest to highlight more the geographical context of the results (similarly, what has been done in line 275-279).
Response 9: Despite numerous requests to historic gardens in Central and Eastern Europe to fill in the questionnaire, we regretfully received responses only from Poland. It would be rather interesting to see the results divided into Western and Central-Eastern Europe, but it seems difficult to conduct an aggregate analysis under the current circumstances. Moreover, there seem to be little differences in management today. The pandemic shows similar problems at all sites that are linked to the local management rather than location-specific. We plan further studies on a universal management model, including research on facilities from countries that have not been investigated in this study.
Point 10: Discussion: Following the same line, it would be also interesting to compare the results more to the applied restrictions of the different involved countries. Have the different COVID-strategies of the countries had any effect on your results or not? I believe, this issue would have an additional value of the research.
Response 10: The presented COVID-strategies are not specific to historic gardens, their exceptional values, methods of maintenance or treatments. Rather than that, they respond to the public's needs regarding public green areas in urban settings.
Point 11: Conclusions: I do appreciate the list of recommendation; however, I would suggest to highlight and stronger the real research results as well.
Response 11: Thank you very much for the advice to emphasise results. It has been described in line: 558-567, 574-579, 606-613.
Point 12: In general, the English should be checked and improved.
Response 12: The manuscript has been improved by a language editor. The paper has been sent back to a professional proof-reader, so we hope that most of the mistakes in English were detected and eliminated.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I think that the paper sent is only a draft: in the Conclusions, key actions 1 and 2 are identical. The same happens for 6 and 7.
The proposal is interesting in general and for some specific suggestions, but limited in introduction and conclusions.
To suppose that the proposed model is "universal" (in abstract) is too strong, due the limitations of survey and due the very different conditions, dimension, status and management inside the selected gardens and countries.
The introduction should be more extended with respect to the state of the art on the theme of historical gardens, their conservation, their value, not only with official documents but with the extensive international scientific literature on the subject. It would be also interesting, even without further analysis, to reflect on the applicability of this model to other gardens, such as botanical gardens, which are also considered museums.
The idea of equipping gardens with emergency plans is interesting. It's also interesting reflection of 'positive' effects of covid on biodiversity of gardens.
The Discussion should be enriched with reflection on results, not only with indications from other institutions. Conclusions appear weak, especially in first periods.
Suggestions:
-Lists of gardens in the text is too long. I would suggest leaving them in the tables
-Texts included in figures are too small
Author Response
Dear Sir or Madam,
first of all, thank you very much for your valuable comments which helped us to improve the quality of the paper. We did our best to include all the requests with respect to the recommendations of reviewers. The specific identification of the changes made in the paper are written below each bullet of your review (red colour) - Please see the attachment.
Kind regards
Authors
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: I think that the paper sent is only a draft: in the Conclusions, key actions 1 and 2 are identical. The same happens for 6 and 7.
Response 1: As suggested, we have revised the paper once more and removed redundant sentences. Thank you for the valuable comment. Sections 1 and 2 and sections 6 and 7 have been revised and merged. The Conclusions now include research conclusions (line: 574-579) and (line: 606-613)
Point 2: The proposal is interesting in general and for some specific suggestions, but limited in introduction and conclusions.
Response 2: Conclusions have been expanded (line: 558-567).
Point 3: To suppose that the proposed model is "universal" (in abstract) is too strong, due the limitations of survey and due the very different conditions, dimension, status and management inside the selected gardens and countries.
Response 3: We have revised the abstract and strove to reflect on matters related to the universal model.
The described study is the first stage. The future research direction will be a proposal of a complete universal model. The present research is intended to support local facilities and help them make difficult decisions during a crisis.
With the first stage completed, it is clear that a holistic approach to historic garden management is necessary. Plans include consultations with the aid of ERGH and development of a universal model.
Point 4: The introduction should be more extended with respect to the state of the art on the theme of historical gardens, their conservation, their value, not only with official documents but with the extensive international scientific literature on the subject. It would be also interesting, even without further analysis, to reflect on the applicability of this model to other gardens, such as botanical gardens, which are also considered museums.
Response 4: As suggested by the Reviewer, we have expanded the Introduction with information on historic garden conservation (text below and in red in the paper). Considering the proposition to reflect on the applicability of this model to other types of gardens, such as botanical gardens, which are also considered museums, we do not believe to be competent to offer such an assessment as the authors of the paper because they were not studied here. Moreover, botanical gardens were subjected to completely different organisational principles because historic gardens are usually managed by cultural institutions, while botanical gardens are managed by scientific organisations. (line 59-64, 81-98)
Point 5: The Discussion should be enriched with reflection on results, not only with indications from other institutions. Conclusions appear weak, especially in first periods.
Response 5: As suggested by the Reviewer, we have expanded the reflection on results in the Discussion and Conclusions. (line 537-555, 558-567)
Point 6: Suggestions: -Lists of gardens in the text is too long. I would suggest leaving them in the tables; -Texts included in figures are too small
Response 6: The list of gardens has been moved to Table 1. The texts in the figures (3 and 4) have been enlarged.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for the corrections. I believe, the paper has been improved a lot. I agree with the modifications, and also your refelections to my comments.
I would suggest the manuscript for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been implemented, although I think there are still few relevant references, such as M. Rohde.
Compared to the similarities with botanical gardens, obviously they have different management, but they have a very similar type of use, they are a place of tourism and often the botanical gardens are also historical gardens. Obviously the suggestion was for a brief sentence and not an extended discussion. But this could be useful for the next steps, particularly if this research has broader goals.
Be careful: some reference are duplicated (31-31) or used in a way different from the rules of the journal (6-16) which require each reference to be used only once, or always using the same number in the text.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The paper has been implemented, although I think there are still few relevant references, such as M. Rohde
Response 1: As suggested by the Reviewer, we have expanded the Introduction with information on historic garden conservation (text below and in blue in the paper). [17,18,19]
- Rohde M., 2020, Historische Gärten Als Kulturaufgabe [in:] Historische Gärten und Klimawandel, ED Reinhard F. Hüttl, Karen David, and Bernd Uwe Schneider, pp. 31-51.
- Marion Harney (Editor), 2014, Gardens & Landscapes in Historic Building Conservation
- Mazin Qumsiyeh,Elias Handal,Jessie Chang,Khawla Abualia,Mohammad Najajreh &Mohammed AbusarhanRole of museums and botanical gardens in ecosystem services in developing countries: case study and outlook, International Journal of Environmental Studies Volume 74, 2017 - Issue 2, Pages 340-350.
Point 2: Compared to the similarities with botanical gardens, obviously they have different management, but they have a very similar type of use, they are a place of tourism and often the botanical gardens are also historical gardens. Obviously the suggestion was for a brief sentence and not an extended discussion. But this could be useful for the next steps, particularly if this research has broader goals.
Response 2: As suggested by the Reviewer, we have added the following line: 91-92, 97-99, 495-499
Point 3: Be careful: some reference are duplicated (31-31) or used in a way different from the rules of the journal (6-16) which require each reference to be used only once, or always using the same number in the text.
Response 3: Requested corrections has been applied.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
