Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found this a very interesting article even though at some times I strongly had the impression too much was put together for a simple article. However the topic itself and its presentation made it a worthwhile read. The overall inforrmation seems adequate to me, however when it comes to the individual predictive model I have rather the impression was condensed too much and additional information and assessment would have been helpful. I would consider too improve the article in this regard.

Otherwise, however, I have only minor comments:

line 184: «during the last 70 years» instead of «during the 70 years” ?

Line 258-260ff: The description of the Intensity Analysis I find is lacking. At least the landscape layer needs a clarification to separate there difference to relative and absolute landtype change.

Line 393-403 and Fig 3.: The results here are not easy to read. It look like Fig. 3 has not been mentioned in the methods before. Neither have been the terms “land type diversity” and “edge type diversity” or how the indicators have been assessed. This should be clear from the article itself and I think needs clarification.

Line 416: Do you mean “relative increase”

Fig 4. : I think the figure legend for B and C can be described in a clearer way so that it becomes easier readable.

Figure 5: Even though it is mention in the figure caption, as those are quite low one has to read very carefully that this are annual changes. I would add this information to the axis title

Fig 6. Dito

Line 475: It sounds a little bit odd to state that 1945 changed earlier. Doesn´t it? I would rephrase this sentence slightly.

Figure 7, 8 and Material and Methods: The figure now starts to introduce predictors. As the paper is quite long and complex I would strongly suggest to first reference the individual figures 2-7 already in the material and methods part so that the different parts of the story are easier to locate. In case of the figure caption for figure 7 and 8. I would also think it would be helpful to rephrase the final sentence on the different values in time. Here it was from the figure not fully clear for me what was meant. I think this should be clarified. Also the vertical marks and the thick lines are two very different styles of representation in the plot. I would slightly increase the marks in size and reduce the line thickness slightly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to initially thank you for the important comments. We have identified and tagged your comments in curly brackets, e.g. "{C1.1}" is the first comment. Our response to this comment is coded as "R1.1". References to lines in the new manuscript are coded with a leading "n", e.g. "nL125-128" points to lines 128 to 128 in the revised manuscript.

The authors,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reviewer 1

Date of this review

08 Feb 2022 15:45:19

I found this a very interesting article even though at some times I strongly had the impression too much was put together for a simple article. However the topic itself and its presentation made it a worthwhile read. The overall inforrmation seems adequate to me, however when it comes to the individual predictive model I have rather the impression was condensed too much and additional information and assessment would have been helpful. I would consider too improve the article in this regard {C1.1}.

R1.1: We have now enriched the description of the Results for the three models (nL419-450 for Figures 8 and 9).

Otherwise, however, I have only minor comments:

line 184: «during the last 70 years» instead of «during the 70 years” ? {C1.2}

R1.2: Done (nL142).

Line 258-260ff: The description of the Intensity Analysis I find is lacking. At least the landscape layer needs a clarification to separate there difference to relative and absolute landtype change. {C1.3}

R1.3: Done (nL247-250)

Line 393-403 and Fig 3.: The results here are not easy to read. It look like Fig. 3 has not been mentioned in the methods before. Neither have been the terms “land type diversity” and “edge type diversity” or how the indicators have been assessed. This should be clear from the article itself and I think needs clarification. {C1.4}

R1.4: We have now added this information, to make this point clearer with a bulleted list, plus by adding Table 1 (nL218-242).

Line 416: Do you mean “relative increase” {C1.5}

R1.5: Yes, you are right, thank you! Done in nL390-394, also for "relative decrease".

Fig 4. : I think the figure legend for B and C can be described in a clearer way so that it becomes easier readable. {C1.6}

R1.6: We have edited the caption accordingly (as Figure 5 now).

Figure 5: Even though it is mention in the figure caption, as those are quite low one has to read very carefully that this are annual changes. I would add this information to the axis title {C1.7}

R1.7: The information already existed in the axis titles as well. It's the yr^-1.

Fig 6. Dito

Line 475: It sounds a little bit odd to state that 1945 changed earlier. Doesn´t it? I would rephrase this sentence slightly. {C1.8}

R1.8: We rephrased it (nL436), and also for grassland (nL442).

Figure 7, 8 and Material and Methods: The figure now starts to introduce predictors. As the paper is quite long and complex I would strongly suggest to first reference the individual figures 2-7 already in the material and methods part so that the different parts of the story are easier to locate {C1.9}. In case of the figure caption for figure 7 and 8. I would also think it would be helpful to rephrase the final sentence on the different values in time. Here it was from the figure not fully clear for me what was meant. I think this should be clarified {C1.10}. Also the vertical marks and the thick lines are two very different styles of representation in the plot. I would slightly increase the marks in size and reduce the line thickness slightly {C1.11}.

R1.9: We have now added the citations of the Figures in the Materials and Methods (nL152,178,212,246,289,319).

R1.10: Done, for the now numbered Figures 8 and 9.

R1.11: Done, for the now numbered Figures 8 and 9.

Reviewer 2 Report

The present paper proves to be a valuable study and I think that it can be published after some minor modifications are made:

The idea of the paper is good and it represents a trend in some parts of Europe. The Land abandonment has some negative outputs upon the traditional habitats and species that lives there, but also a positive output on other species that migrate into the new teritorie. for example the abandonment of agricultural land, especially of that land situated in most remote areas in eastern Europe is favourable for bears, wild boar, squirreled, due to the fact that around that secondary small houses there were very small orchards, and those fruits are a valuable diet for the wild animal. For your study areas, are there any available studies of this kind, so you can add on your paper, a relation with the wild fauna?

In the study area, do you have any Natura2000 sites? If so, can you emphasize what kind of protected habitats are affected, if any?

Please explain why did you choose the test areas, circles, and not administrative units. The administrative units offered you good population and livestock data.

I think that you have to write some more in the conclusions, for such a good study you can add a paragraph.

Overall, I like the idea, the work, and the graphs, Congrats!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you, first of all, for the helpful comments!  We have identified and tagged your comments in curly brackets, e.g. "{C2.1}" is the first comment. Our response to this comment is coded as "R2.1". References to lines in the new manuscript are coded with a leading "n", e.g. "nL125-128" points to lines 128 to 128 in the revised manuscript.

The authors,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reviewer 2

Date of this review

10 Feb 2022 12:11:52

The present paper proves to be a valuable study and I think that it can be published after some minor modifications are made:

The idea of the paper is good and it represents a trend in some parts of Europe. The Land abandonment has some negative outputs upon the traditional habitats and species that lives there, but also a positive output on other species that migrate into the new teritorie. for example the abandonment of agricultural land, especially of that land situated in most remote areas in eastern Europe is favourable for bears, wild boar, squirreled, due to the fact that around that secondary small houses there were very small orchards, and those fruits are a valuable diet for the wild animal. For your study areas, are there any available studies of this kind, so you can add on your paper, a relation with the wild fauna? {C2.1}

R2.1: We have now added a passage in the Introduction, with an example study on birds in an adjacent study area (nL47-51).

In the study area, do you have any Natura2000 sites? If so, can you emphasize what kind of protected habitats are affected, if any? {C2.2}

R2.2: No, we don't have any Naturea 2000 sites in the study area...

Please explain why did you choose the test areas, circles, and not administrative units. The administrative units offered you good population and livestock data. {C2.3}

I think that you have to write some more in the conclusions, for such a good study you can add a paragraph. {C2.4}

R2.4: Thank you for the good words! We have now prepended a paragraph with our key findings in the Conclusions (nL649-669).

Overall, I like the idea, the work, and the graphs, Congrats!

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer

MDPI - Land

Manuscript Number: ID 1597138

Title: Acceleration and relocation of abandonment in a Mediterranean mountainous landscape: drivers, consequences and management implications

As requested, I have reviewed the above-titled paper for potential publication in the Land - MDPI Journal. I divided my comments in the sections presented as follows.

Contribution

This paper examines the 1945-2015 time span (70 years) to produce land use and land cover  maps  and a change detection mapping related to identify spatiotemporal patterns with respect to rural abandonment in southern European Mountains, notably to evaluate the succession related to farmlands and grasslands.

Five land types have been considered: farmland, grassland, open-scrub, closed-scrub and forest.  Five sites of 6-km diameter in northwestern Greece have been studied more closely. Four different metrics have been used and applied to the datasets the authors have presented along the manuscript: (i) relative entropy; (ii) largest patch index; (iii) interspersion and juxtaposition index; (iv) relative mutual information. Equations for the aforementioned metrics have not been presented even though references and discussion of the corresponding range of values have been provided. Moreover, different predictor variables have been used, intensity analysis was conducted and random forest modeling approach has been used for classification purposes. Afforestation has been noticed along the time period 1945-2015.

Those results contrast with previous results found in the literature regarding northern Europe, in which different patterns of succession related to farmlands and grasslands have been detected. In Greece, for instance, agriculture has not achieved a complete transition to the so-called productivist era.  The authors introduced a  relatively in-depth and interesting discussion of such different types of succession alternatives with respect to proposals of development and sociopolitical policies that should take into account such different types of landscape evolution in Europe. Naturally, such type of discussion can be further elaborated as the authors recognize and discuss some of the limitations of the work developed.

The manuscript is well written and methodology is well presented in the text. However, a detailed workflow could have been presented integrating all the procedures used. Figures and Tables are well prepared and allow the reader to follow properly the manuscript. The authors claim that the proposed methodology allowed to adequately identify the occupation patterns in the studied region. In fact, results and complementary results provide basis for the conclusions presented.

In summary, I found the manuscript has an interesting goal to be pursued and presents the conditions to be published in the Land  MDPI  Journal. The text is well organized and well written with ideas, concepts and assumptions in general clearly presented along the manuscript.

Therefore, the more specific comments and questions regarding the manuscript paper are going to be presented jointly with the evaluation of the contribution of the manuscript. They are provided below with more details with respect to the methodological approach. I think it would be interesting to have some feedback from the authors t in order to better refer to the points I will raise in the next paragraphs. That might also lead to explore or reflect about different scenarios still not well and thoroughly explored by the authors in the proposed paper but that deserves attention.

Please, see further comments in the attached file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would first like to thank you for the detailed and helpful comments. Indeed, the reflection upon them we believe helped to improve the manuscript. We have identified and tagged your comments in curly brackets, e.g. "{C3.1}" is the first comment. Our response to this comment is coded as "R3.1". References to lines in the new manuscript are coded with a leading "n", e.g. "nL125-128" points to lines 128 to 128 in the revised manuscript.

The authors,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reviewer 3

Date of this review

07 Feb 2022 11:55:28

Contribution

This paper examines the 1945-2015 time span (70 years) to produce land use and land cover  maps  and a change detection mapping related to identify spatiotemporal patterns with respect to rural abandonment in southern European Mountains, notably to evaluate the succession related to farmlands and grasslands.

Five land types have been considered: farmland, grassland, open-scrub, closed-scrub and forest.  Five sites of 6-km diameter in northwestern Greece have been studied more closely. Four different metrics have been used and applied to the datasets the authors have presented along the manuscript: (i) relative entropy; (ii) largest patch index; (iii) interspersion and juxtaposition index; (iv) relative mutual information. Equations for the aforementioned metrics have not been presented even though references and discussion of the corresponding range of values have been provided {C3.1}. Moreover, different predictor variables have been used, intensity analysis was conducted and random forest modeling approach has been used for classification purposes. Afforestation has been noticed along the time period 1945-2015.

R3.1: We have now added the Table 1 with the equations you've asked. We didn't initially want to load the manuscript with maths, but that was a very good point from your side, we can now tell!

Those results contrast with previous results found in the literature regarding northern Europe, in which different patterns of succession related to farmlands and grasslands have been detected. In Greece, for instance, agriculture has not achieved a complete transition to the so-called productivist era.  The authors introduced a  relatively in-depth and interesting discussion of such different types of succession alternatives with respect to proposals of development and sociopolitical policies that should take into account such different types of landscape evolution in Europe. Naturally, such type of discussion can be further elaborated as the authors recognize and discuss some of the limitations of the work developed. {C3.2}

R3.2: We have now added a whole new paragraph, to enrich the Discussion towards the interesting direction you pointed out (nL580-598). Thank you!

The manuscript is well written and methodology is well presented in the text. However, a detailed workflow could have been presented integrating all the procedures used. Figures and Tables are well prepared and allow the reader to follow properly the manuscript. The authors claim that the proposed methodology allowed to adequately identify the occupation patterns in the studied region. In fact, results and complementary results provide basis for the conclusions presented.

In summary, I found the manuscript has an interesting goal to be pursued and presents the conditions to be published in the Land  MDPI  Journal. The text is well organized and well written with ideas, concepts and assumptions in general clearly presented along the manuscript.

Therefore, the more specific comments and questions regarding the manuscript paper are going to be presented jointly with the evaluation of the contribution of the manuscript. They are provided below with more details with respect to the methodological approach. I think it would be interesting to have some feedback from the authors t in order to better refer to the points I will raise in the next paragraphs. That might also lead to explore or reflect about different scenarios still not well and thoroughly explored by the authors in the proposed paper but that deserves attention.

Please, see further comments in the attached file.

Attached file:

1. Technical soundness

Initially, I should say the paper is well written and presents a good set of references, figures and tables. Maybe, a workflow could have been inserted to integrate the different procedures and datasets used along the manuscript. {C3.3}

R3.3: That was another great point! We have now added a new Figure 2 with such a workflow.

I would like to recommend the authors to revise the sentence at the end of the introductory section: “We mapped are related in a fine spatiotemporal resolution the land cover and the environmental conditions (socioeconomic and biophysical) of a submountainous area for a period of 70 years, starting from the end of World War II”. {C3.4}

R3.4: Done, it was a typo (nL102).

Complementarily, it is noteworthy to mention that the authors chose some options for the methodological approach. We noticed that the methodological approach of the paper is quite demanding in terms of spatiotemporal data to effectively produce well and adequately assessment of accuracies and uncertainties, which is a challenging topic.

More than that, as the authors reported, it important to clearly state and pay attention to the spatial and temporal resolutions for all the data sets used (in this case, 25-m spatial resolution and annual basis have been adopted, including ancillary data) {C3.5}. In addition, there are some requirements on scientific background discussion on how such different spatial and temporal scales (upscaling and downscaling procedures) affect the modeling approach to properly address the behavior of different parameters, regression equations and classification procedures {C3.6}.

R3.5: We tried to bring up and highlight the use of 25 m rasters, and hence moved this sentence early to the Methods in the new and relevant section named "Data" (nL152-153). This new section "Data" was created upon the request of Reviewer 4.

R3.6: We have now enriched our Discussion accordingly regarding effects of the spatiotemporal resolution (nL623-647).

More specifically, the authors used maximum value per pixel to establish different thresholds accordingly to discriminate physical behavior of different classes. How such choice for the used statistical metrics might be sensitive to the results provided {C3.7}? If, for example, median values have been used, would the results be much more different? The authors have not used remotely sensed images as presently available - for instance, Sentinel-1 (radar images) and Sentinel-2 (optical images) – 10-m spatial resolution - in the analysis {C3.8}. The authors have not used spectral indices such as NDVI (normalized difference vegetation index) {C3.9}. How do the authors envisage the use of more data that is available by means of remote sensing taking into account the proposed methodology to assess landscape evolution {C3.10}?

R3.7: We have now tried to clarify our methodology on mapping via visual interpretation, to show that we just used threshold values of cover (nL176-196).

R3.8: We couldn't use satellite images because they aren't available for 1940s. We hence preferred to use aerial photos throughout for uniformity.

R3.9: We had already many predictors, many of which were excluded due to high intercorrelations. This is the reason we did not employ more predictors such as NDVI.

R3.10: It is for the same reason as in our response R3.8.

Another comment I would like to address is with respect to the alternatives to explore persistency in the analysis as proposed by Lanfredi et al. (2004) the annual basis - LANFREDI, M., SIMONIELLO, T., MACCHIATO, M., Temporal persistence in vegetation cover changes observed from satellite: Development of an estimation procedure in the test site of the Mediterranean Italy, Remote Sensing of Environment, v. 93, n. 4, pp. 565–576, 2004.As I have not seen such reference in the manuscript, I would like to know if they are aware of such methodological alternative in order to contrast pros and cons if we wish to integrate both approaches. {C3.11}

R3.11: This is a very interesting study, and thank you for providing it. For the same reason as in R3.8, we preferred to use non-satellite products, i.e. due to non-availability in earlier years.

In the proposed approach, the classification procedure considers the independence of each pixel. But what would be the impact of spatial correlation that we are aware that it is present in this type of study? The difficulty in this case is sometimes to define the semivariograms and covariograms. Does this characteristic of the presence of spatial relationship among pixels might pose a problem to the methodological approach and estimation of uncertainties? {C3.12}

R3.12: Since we used random forest which is a machine learning model, there is no need for semivariograms and covariograms (). For addressing spatial autocorrelation in a random forest, authors have suggested to add spatial predictors such as longitude and latitude. After your valuable comments about spatial autocorrelation, we have now re-ran the models by adding longitude and latitude as extra predictors. These two predictors had a small effect on the results. He have updated the relevant Figures accordingly, both in the main text and in the supplementary (new Figures 8 and 9 in the main text did not change almost at all).

And what about the impacts of landscape evolution for estimating corresponding stationarity properties and uncertainties and trends along the time span (70 years). The authors commented briefly in the manuscript about the stationarity along the time span (70 years) {C3.13}. Complementarily, the use of wavelet and multifractal analysis is also increasingly been used for exploring spatiotemporal datasets with respect to different scales and also to support issues related to stationarity and non-stationarity assumptions for estimation and interpolation {C3.14}. Could the authors further elaborate on such issue in the sense how that affect the results?

R3.13: As you mention, Intensity Analysis covers the topic of stationarity. Following your comments on that, we have now tried to namely highlight stationarity both in the Methods (nL267-277) and in the Results (nL407).

R3.14: These are two excellent suggestions, but we did not wish to load more an already overloaded manuscript (as other Reviewers have noted).

 In addition, are there any thoughts with respect to hydrometeorological variables (e.g., rainfall, evaporation, soil moisture) and corresponding measurements (in situ observational network and satellite products) be inserted somehow to improve the methodology? We noticed that the authors also briefly touched on the soil moisture behavior. Could the authors further discuss on this point and how that could improve the methodological approach? {C3.15}

Therefore, in general, the recommendation is to reflect about the points raised and provide arguments to further defend and justify the approach taken and/or recommending future research work along such topics.

2. Prior publication

None known.

3. Organization and style

The paper is well written and organized. Figures and tables are fine and well prepared to adequately follow the paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper analysed the Spatio-temporal change of rural abandonment in a Mediterranean mountainous landscape. It also relates the changes to socioeconomic and biophysical drivers. The paper is well structured. The paper can be accepted for publication after minor correction. The followings are my specific comments.

Section 2.1:  There is some description that is not related to the subsection. Some description of data has been added here (for example lines 141-147, 157-164, 173-181). I recommend limiting the description to the subsection and please add another subsection in name of ‘Data’ under section 2. “The bioclimatic variables were calculated with the……” this kind of description may be added in the ‘data’ subsection.

Section 2.2: The authors used visual interpretation for mapping the land cover. Why the automatic classification like supervised/unsupervised classification was not used. Could you please provide justification? Line 213: Please provide a reference. The description regarding the methods of mapping of landcover should be improved.

Section 2.3: Description of the spatial matrix should be extended with equation and reference because these matrices are an important element for your study.

Section 2.4: Please add the equation of Intensity Analysis with reference

Figure 2. please add north sign and scale

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Initially, we would like to thank you for the valuable comments. We have identified and tagged your comments in curly brackets, e.g. "{C4.1}" is the first comment. Our response to this comment is coded as "R4.1". References to lines in the new manuscript are coded with a leading "n", e.g. "nL125-128" points to lines 128 to 128 in the revised manuscript.

The authors,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reviewer 4

Date of this review

03 Feb 2022 15:51:19

This paper analysed the Spatio-temporal change of rural abandonment in a Mediterranean mountainous landscape. It also relates the changes to socioeconomic and biophysical drivers. The paper is well structured. The paper can be accepted for publication after minor correction. The followings are my specific comments.

Section 2.1:  There is some description that is not related to the subsection. Some description of data has been added here (for example lines 141-147, 157-164, 173-181). I recommend limiting the description to the subsection and please add another subsection in name of ‘Data’ under section 2. “The bioclimatic variables were calculated with the……” this kind of description may be added in the ‘data’ subsection. {C4.1}

R4.1: We have now separated the relevant passages you indicated in new subsection called "Data" (nL150-174).

Section 2.2: The authors used visual interpretation for mapping the land cover. Why the automatic classification like supervised/unsupervised classification was not used {C4.2}. Could you please provide justification? Line 213: Please provide a reference {C4.3}. The description regarding the methods of mapping of landcover should be improved {C4.4}.

R4.2: We have now added a justification (nL183-188).

R4.3: Done, thank you (nL196)!

R4.4: We have now attempted to enrich the description (nL174-197).

Section 2.3: Description of the spatial matrix should be extended with equation and reference because these matrices are an important element for your study. {C4.5}

R4.5: We have now added a new Table 1 with the equations.

Section 2.4: Please add the equation of Intensity Analysis with reference {C4.6}

R4.6: We have now added a new Table 2 with the equations.

Figure 2. please add north sign and scale {C4.7}

R4.7: Done (it is now Figure 3).

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer

MDPI - Land

Manuscript Number: ID 1597138-V2

Title: Acceleration and relocation of abandonment in a Mediterranean mountainous landscape: drivers, consequences and management implications

As requested, I have reviewed the revised version of the above-titled manuscript for potential publication in the Land - MDPI Journal. I divided my comments in the sections presented as follows.

Contribution

This paper examines the 1945-2015 time span (70 years) to produce land use and land cover  maps  and a change detection mapping related to identify spatiotemporal patterns with respect to rural abandonment in southern European Mountains, notably to evaluate the succession related to farmlands and grasslands.

Five land types have been considered: farmland, grassland, open-scrub, closed-scrub and forest.  Five sites of 6-km diameter in northwestern Greece have been studied more closely. Four different metrics have been used and applied to the datasets the authors have presented along the manuscript: (i) relative entropy; (ii) largest patch index; (iii) interspersion and juxtaposition index; (iv) relative mutual information. Equations for the aforementioned metrics have been added to the revised version of the manuscript  Moreover, different predictor variables have been used (latitude and longitude have also been included in the revised version of the manuscript), intensity analysis was conducted and random forest modeling approach has been used for classification purposes. Afforestation has been noticed along the time period 1945-2015.

Those results contrast with previous results found in the literature regarding northern Europe, in which different patterns of succession related to farmlands and grasslands have been detected. In Greece, for instance, agriculture has not achieved a complete transition to the so-called productivist era.  The authors introduced an   interesting discussion of such different types of succession alternatives with respect to proposals of development and sociopolitical policies that should take into account such different types of landscape evolution in Europe.  The discussion has been further elaborated in the revised version of the text.

The manuscript is well written and methodology is well presented in the text. In addition, the authors created a section Data (2.2), including a detailed workflow as recommended in the first review making an integrated presentation of  all the procedures used. The authors claim that the proposed methodology allowed to adequately identify the occupation patterns in the studied region. In fact, results and complementary results provide basis for the conclusions presented.

I found the manuscript has an interesting goal to be pursued and presents the conditions to be published in the Land  MDPI  Journal. The text is well organized and well written with ideas, concepts and assumptions in general clearly presented along the manuscript. Figures and Tables are well prepared and allow the reader to follow properly the manuscript.

Please, see further comments in the attached file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you again for the time and detailed consideration of our manuscript. We believe that it improved a lot due to your constructive feedback, and we are very grateful about it!

We have now revised the manuscript according to the two points you raised. First, as you sensibly pointed, we have now moved Figure 1 after its first citation in the main text. Second, we have now tried to improve Table 2, especially because it indeed had some issues due to automatic wrapping.

Thank you again,
the authors