Cultural Landscapes: Exploring the Imprint of the Roman Empire on Modern Identities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Appreciating that the paper is meant to be conceptual, the submission could be slightly more critical/analytical in its applicability to considering past societies’ engagements and understanding of landscape with modern notions of cultural landscapes. There is a large body of cultural landscape literature (particularly in the policy and management domains) which could usefully be considered in its own section - critiquing where the main thrust of cultural management landscape studies/research is, and why there is a potential gap to apply this form of consideration of comparative historical ecological knowledge/appreciation, and its utility in the present day.
Some further framing at the start of the paper of the largely descriptive sections which then follow would further help to build argumentation focused at the end in the Prospect section. Introduction of socio-ecological history / concepts could be introduced earlier.

Author Response

We value your feedback and have carefully considered your recommendations for refining the abstract to better reflect the core elements of our study.

Following your advice, we have revised the abstract to enhance clarity and succinctly encapsulate the main findings and significance of our research.

These modifications ensure that the abstract stands as an effective summary of the paper, capturing the essence of our analysis and its contribution to understanding the integration of historical insights into contemporary landscape preservation and urban design.

Thank you for your constructive feedback regarding the absence of a detailed Methodology section in our manuscript. Your comment is well-taken and underscores a crucial aspect of scholarly work. We agree that the Methodology section is fundamental for understanding the research approach and procedures undertaken, and its absence may hinder the reader’s comprehension of how the study’s outcomes were derived.

We have revised the manuscript to include the Methodology section that outlines the research design, data sources, analytical techniques, and the rationale behind the chosen methods. Our aim is to ensure that the research process is transparent and reproducible, thereby enhancing the manuscript’s academic rigor.

Thank you for your insightful comments and for highlighting the concerns regarding the inclusion of Section 2, “Roma Aeterna: A concise history of the Roman Empire’s rise and fall”. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the relevance and necessity of this section within the context of our study.

We believe that the section on the Roman Empire’s history is integral to our analysis for several reasons:

1. Foundational Context: The historical narrative of Rome’s rise and fall sets the stage for understanding the enduring influence of Roman architectural and cultural practices on modern landscapes and urban planning. It provides essential background that informs the reader about the origins of Roman innovations in urban design, public infrastructure, and landscape architecture, which are pivotal to our study’s focus.
2. Causal Linkages: This section helps establish a direct linkage between historical practices and their modern implications. By outlining the development and eventual decline of Roman urban planning and public spaces, we lay a foundational understanding that supports our analysis of Roman legacy in contemporary cultural and architectural practices. This historical perspective is crucial for appreciating how and why certain elements of Roman design have transcended centuries to influence modern standards and aesthetics.
3. Enhancing Reader Engagement: Providing a concise history of the Roman Empire helps engage readers who may not have a detailed understanding of Roman history. This background ensures that the subsequent sections discussing the influence of Roman culture on modern identities and landscapes are more accessible and impactful.

Justification for Contemporary Analysis: The historical overview serves as a basis for the comparative analysis undertaken in later sections of the paper. Understanding the historical breadth of Roman achievements allows for a more nuanced discussion of their relevance to modern challenges in urban development and cultural preservation

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

i think that the manuscript i very well organised, and the proposed approach is valuable. I think that there is nothing really to change and your consideration/approach can be useful and applied in a different place.

I just suggest to correct some english mistakes, that might appear.

The English i reather good. I just detected minor mistakes.

Author Response

Thank you for appreciating our manuscript, including the proposed approach. We feel honoured of your appreciation,

While revising the manuscript, also to address the other reviewrs' comments, we tried to check the minor language mistakes you noticed and we hope that it is now fine

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject matter of the submitted paper is intriguing, and I commend the authors for their approach to the topic. However, I must address the following deficiencies:

The abstract is excessively lengthy and fails to elucidate the research question, the methods employed in the study, and lacks a concise summary of results or findings. To align with standard practices of the journal, the abstract should not exceed 200 words.

Furthermore, the Methodology section is notably absent from the manuscript, which is essential for understanding the research approach and procedures undertaken.

I find that Section 2, titled "Roma Aeterna: A concise history of the Roman Empire’s rise and fall," is not essential for the study.

More examples of Roman baths (line 296) and gardens (lines 319-320) in Chapter 6, "Ancient Landscapes, Modern Identities: The Roman Legacy in Contemporary Culture," would be appropriate.

The authors drew from 137 sources in compiling this study. However, only a few of these were published in the last three years. Could you also provide opinions from scholars on the topic from the period of 2022-2024? Please ensure that the literature sources are formatted according to the standards of the journal.

Author Response

We value your feedback and have carefully considered your recommendations for refining the abstract to better reflect the core elements of our study.

Following your advice, we have revised the abstract to enhance clarity and succinctly encapsulate the main findings and significance of our research.

These modifications ensure that the abstract stands as an effective summary of the paper, capturing the essence of our analysis and its contribution to understanding the integration of historical insights into contemporary landscape preservation and urban design.

Thank you for your constructive feedback regarding the absence of a detailed Methodology section in our manuscript. Your comment is well-taken and underscores a crucial aspect of scholarly work. We agree that the Methodology section is fundamental for understanding the research approach and procedures undertaken, and its absence may hinder the reader’s comprehension of how the study’s outcomes were derived.

We have revised the manuscript to include the Methodology section that outlines the research design, data sources, analytical techniques, and the rationale behind the chosen methods. Our aim is to ensure that the research process is transparent and reproducible, thereby enhancing the manuscript’s academic rigor.

Thank you for your insightful comments and for highlighting the concerns regarding the inclusion of Section 2, “Roma Aeterna: A concise history of the Roman Empire’s rise and fall”. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the relevance and necessity of this section within the context of our study.

We believe that the section on the Roman Empire’s history is integral to our analysis for several reasons:

1. Foundational Context: The historical narrative of Rome’s rise and fall sets the stage for understanding the enduring influence of Roman architectural and cultural practices on modern landscapes and urban planning. It provides essential background that informs the reader about the origins of Roman innovations in urban design, public infrastructure, and landscape architecture, which are pivotal to our study’s focus.
2. Causal Linkages: This section helps establish a direct linkage between historical practices and their modern implications. By outlining the development and eventual decline of Roman urban planning and public spaces, we lay a foundational understanding that supports our analysis of Roman legacy in contemporary cultural and architectural practices. This historical perspective is crucial for appreciating how and why certain elements of Roman design have transcended centuries to influence modern standards and aesthetics.
3. Enhancing Reader Engagement: Providing a concise history of the Roman Empire helps engage readers who may not have a detailed understanding of Roman history. This background ensures that the subsequent sections discussing the influence of Roman culture on modern identities and landscapes are more accessible and impactful.
4. Justification for Contemporary Analysis: The historical overview serves as a basis for the comparative analysis undertaken in later sections of the paper. Understanding the historical breadth of Roman achievements allows for a more nuanced discussion of their relevance to modern challenges in urban development and cultural preservation.

Considering these points, we believe that the inclusion of this historical overview enriches the paper by providing necessary context, enhancing thematic coherence, and strengthening the arguments presented regarding the lasting impacts of Roman cultural practices. Removing this section would diminish the depth of analysis and the comprehensive understanding we aim to provide.

We hope this explanation addresses your concerns, and we are open to further suggestions.

We are grateful for your recommendation to enrich the section on Roman baths and gardens with additional examples. Your feedback has been instrumental in strengthening our discussion and enhancing the manuscript’s depth. We have incorporated more examples. We appreciate your guidance and support in refining our work and we hope that these enhancements have a positive impact on the readers’ understanding of the subject.

Thank you for your valuable feedback concerning the recency of sources cited in our manuscript. We recognize the importance of integrating the most current research to ensure that our study reflects the latest developments and scholarly opinions in the field of Roman architectural influence on modern urban planning.

Upon thorough review of recent literature from 2022 to 2024, we found a limited number of publications directly addressing this specific topic and we added them in the paper. This scarcity highlights a noticeable gap in contemporary scholarly discussions, underscoring an area ripe for further research and exploration. We believe this gap also emphasizes the enduring relevance and potential novelty of our study, which seeks to bridge historical perspectives with modern applications.

To address this, we have included a discussion on the need for ongoing research in this area, alongside our existing references, to underscore the significance and potential impact of updated scholarly work on this topic. This approach not only acknowledges the current state of research but also enhances the manuscript by framing our study as a foundational effort to invigorate interest and academic inquiry into the lasting influence of Roman architecture on contemporary urban planning.

We appreciate your guidance and believe that this revision will enrich the manuscript's contribution to the field.