Urban Infill Development: A Strategy for Saving Peri-Urban Areas in Developing Countries (the Case Study of Ardabil, Iran)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study applies mixed-methods to examine the map and assess land use change, and examine the urban infill development potential in Ardabil, Iran. However, in its present form, the paper has some serious shortcomings that must be amended before I can recommend publication.

 

1. In the abstract, the author should indicate clearly the purpose of the study and the reference to practice.

 

2. The introduction section needs to be reorganized. (1) Although the author provided an overview of the reason why infill development is an effective approach to develop sustainable cities, they need to add some necessary parts to better position their work within the introduction section. For example, what are the methods and results of relevant studies especially in peri-urban areas? Why this study uses these methods rather than other methods to show land use change and predict land use change? It is worth noting that the authors need to summarize the research gaps in the existing research literature to support the study's contribution. (2) There are elements from the study area section (Lines:83-95).

 

3. The literature review section needs to be reorganized. Authors also need to add international and rural references, rather than just citing studies on Iranian cities. Many studies have revealed the uncontrolled expansion of land in rural areas.

 

4. Figure 1 is not the conceptual framework of the paper. I could not find a clear relationship between the research objectives (lines: 106-110) and Figure 1.

 

5. The methodology section need to provide more details. (1) The land use mapping and accuracy assessment, change analysis and land use change prediction should be included within the methodology section. (2) Please add introduction of CA-Markov model. (3) The authors should clearly indicate the advantages of the methods in the methodology section. (4) The authors should connect the methods to infill development and explain how they can be used to calculate the area of infill development

 

6. In the section 3.3 (Land use/cover change prediction), please show the calculation process and results of the CA-Markov model in detail. In the discussion section, the results of this study should be compared with similar research.

 

7. In conclusions, please clarify the findings, limitation and future studies. For example, what are the land use changes and predictions for the study area? How much land is potential for infill development? What are the disadvantages and uncertainties of this study? How authors should conduct future research?

 

8. I also suggested that in the discussion of infill development (lines: 341-252) should compare with other land development policies. Several studies have already studied such policy.

 

9. There are several grammar errors in the paper. Please improve the language.

 

Author Response

 4 MAR. 2022

Dear Reviewer 

The journal of Land

 

Subject: Submission of revised paper ID land-1598836 entitled" Urban Infill development: a strategy for save peri-urban areas in developing countries (A case ‎study: Ardabil city, Iran)"

 

Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to revise our paper on ‘Journal of Land.’ The suggestions offered by the reviewer have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your insightful comments on revising the paper. I have included the reviewer comments immediately after this letter and responded to them individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all five authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The changes are marked in blue on the paper.

 

Here is a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns.

 

This study applies mixed-methods to examine the map and assess land use change, and examine the urban infill development potential in Ardabil, Iran. However, in its present form, the paper has some serious shortcomings that must be amended before I can recommend publication.

 

1. In the abstract, the author should indicate clearly the purpose of the study and the reference to practice.

Author response: Thank you for your valuable time in reviewing our paper and appreciate your detailed feedback. We have revised the abstract according to your suggestion.

 

2. The introduction section needs to be reorganized. (1) Although the author provided an overview of the reason why infill development is an effective approach to develop sustainable cities, they need to add some necessary parts to better position their work within the introduction section. For example, what are the methods and results of relevant studies especially in peri-urban areas? Why this study uses these methods rather than other methods to show land use change and predict land use change? It is worth noting that the authors need to summarize the research gaps in the existing research literature to support the study's contribution.

Author response: Thank you for your comment. Required information were added.

 

3. (2) There are elements from the study area section (Lines:83-95).

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out, we removed them from this section.

 

4. The literature review section needs to be reorganized. Authors also need to add international and rural references, rather than just citing studies on Iranian cities. Many studies have revealed the uncontrolled expansion of land in rural areas.

Author response: Noted and the literature review section was modified.

 

5. Figure 1 is not the conceptual framework of the paper. I could not find a clear relationship between the research objectives (lines: 106-110) and Figure 1.

Author response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We changed it to “Infill development strategy conceptual framework”

 

6. The methodology section need to provide more details. (1) The land use mapping and accuracy assessment, change analysis and land use change prediction should be included within the methodology section. (2) Please add introduction of CA-Markov model. (3) The authors should clearly indicate the advantages of the methods in the methodology section. (4) The authors should connect the methods to infill development and explain how they can be used to calculate the area of infill development

Author response: We have added the required information for the mentioned sections.

 

7. In the section 3.3 (Land use/cover change prediction), please show the calculation process and results of the CA-Markov model in detail. In the discussion section, the results of this study should be compared with similar research.

Author response: We appreciated your comment, this part was amended in the main text.

 

8. In conclusions, please clarify the findings, limitation and future studies. For example, what are the land use changes and predictions for the study area? How much land is potential for infill development? What are the disadvantages and uncertainties of this study? How authors should conduct future research?

Author response: We have added the required information for the conclusions sections

 

9. I also suggested that in the discussion of infill development (lines: 341-252) should compare with other land development policies. Several studies have already studied such policy.

Author response: We have added the required information

 

10. There are several grammar errors in the paper. Please improve the language.

Author response: Grammar and spelling of the text were checked.

 

Sincerely,

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

A potentially interesting paper although it needs considerable improvement to English expression, precision of meaning, consistency and clarity.  I hope you will do this.

I do think (a) you could link the spatial and land-use patterns to existing work on urban growth patterns eg MRG Conzen's urban fringe belt theory; (b) introduction of the city and its growth data needs bringing together and simplifying; (c) the discussion needs a clearer exploration of your patterns to city planning policy, and you need to examine that policy to see how far growth was being encouraged (dangerous to look back at previous decisions using today's values, as a "bad thing").

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

4 MAR. 2021

Dear Reviewer 

The journal of Land

 

Subject: Submission of revised paper ID land-1598836 entitled" Urban Infill development: a strategy for save peri-urban areas in developing countries (A case ‎study: Ardabil city, Iran)"

 

Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to revise our paper on ‘Journal of Land.’ The suggestions offered by the reviewer have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your insightful comments on revising the paper. I have included the reviewer comments immediately after this letter and responded to them individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all five authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The changes are marked in blue on the paper.

 

Here is a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns.

 

1. potentially interesting paper although it needs considerable improvement to English expression, precision of meaning, consistency and clarity.  I hope you will do this. I do think (a) you could link the spatial and land-use patterns to existing work on urban growth patterns e.g. MRG Conzen's urban fringe belt theory; (b) introduction of the city and its growth data needs bringing together and simplifying; (c) the discussion needs a clearer exploration of your patterns to city planning policy, and you need to examine that policy to see how far growth was being encouraged (dangerous to look back at previous decisions using today's values, as a "bad thing").

Author response: Thank you for your valuable time in reviewing our paper and we appreciate the detailed feedback. Thank you also for your suggestion (MRG Conzen's urban fringe belt theory), which sounds interesting, but unfortunately in Iran, as in other countries of the global south, the lack of data is a major challenge to the application of such theories. We have considered your other comments in the main manuscript.

 

2. How is urbanization defined/measured here: % of population?

 Author response: Yes, Abedini and Khalili (2019) in their research measured urbanization based on urban population.

 

3. is this the same as Kappa indices??

Author response: No, Kappa indices‎ used for evaluating model accuracy to simulate future changes, while Kappa coefficient used for accuracy assessment of the classified Landsat images. Kappa coefficient essentially evaluates how well the classification performed as compared to just randomly assigning values, i.e. did the classification do better than random.

 

4. is 75% an acceptable threshold - if so, why?

Author response: Yes, this threshold acceptable. Values close to 100% indicates that the classification is significantly better than random.

 

5. why is this a miscalculation? You haven't told us what actually happened 1991-2004.

Author response: Thank you very much for that reference. The big problem with the master plan is the miscalculation of land needs for future urban development, as it is in Ardabil.

6. but this is 2000-2020: what policies were in effect then?

Author response: Thank you for your comment. In this section, we have tried to clarify that the projected area in the master plan was too large, resulting in the wrong use of this land and urban sprawl.  

 

7. Is there a 2020-2030 master plan?‎

Author response: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. No, the last updated plan is from 2016 and there is no forecast for future urban development in that plan, although there was a large area predicted for future development in 1991.

 

8. is the right-hand map relevant? It seems to be a different scale‎

Author response: Thank you for your consideration. We revised it.

 

9. why italic‎

Author response: Thank you for your consideration for all the references. All references were revised and adjusted based on journal description.

 

 

Sincerely,

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors present an interesting studying regarding future urban development and urban infill in Ardabil city. They applied a methodology frequently used before but applied in Iran.

I consider that some points of the paper must be improved.

First of all, English must be revised. Second and very important, how did the authors define peri-urban? This is necessary in order to understand the analysis, results and discussion and conclusions.

On the other hand, it is not clear why the authors advocate an infill development rather than a trend scenario result. They should explain in more detail the implications of a trend urban development and what benefits would be obtained from an urban infill scenario.

To be improved in the Introduction section:

A broader explanation of the importance of LULC studies, their development and their implications, but also regarding LULC scenarios should be carried out. Authors can focus also on other studies related with urban growth and their implications in peri-urban areas also in environment issues (e.g. natural protected areas, wildfire occurrence, etc.)

Some concepts in the introduction section should be defined: peri-urbanization, WWII (is better to write World War II), urban infill, destroyed land, sustainable urban development, worn tissue.

In line 36 it is said "reactions to the uncontrolled growth of cities began". Have been these reactions useful? 

In line 41 "the movements represented a variety of development". I don't understand the sentence. Which movements?

Sentence in line 47 "in other words, the approach of infilling land within..." needs at least one reference. Then it is said, "this goal", which is the goal the authors talking about?

Sentence in line 53-55: "although planners have realized in recent years... vehicle dependence", at least one reference is needed.

In lines 62-65, authors talk about year 2015 but then about 2016. In this paragraph authors should explain these problems using examples.

Sentence in line 66-68 needs at least one reference.

In the Study site paragraph, line 133 to 142 is a repetition of the introduction. It is better to keep it in this section and to remove it from the introduction.

Methodology:

There is no qualitative research. It is quantitative research, using spatial and statistic data. 

Explain the Inventory of 2018.

Explain what land uses are included in "green lands".

How did authors define the peri-urban area in their study? And urban infill?

Results section

Accuracy results (table 3) should be presented before figure 5 and table 2.

In figure 6 there are losses in built-up areas. Authors should explain why as it is rare that built-up areas degrowth.

In line 247-248 authors talk about the activities around this area, but this can't be explained with the analysis they have made.

In developing the scenarios, authors should explain if they have used any kind of restrictions or driving factors (why or why not). What about the scenario calibration / validation? Please, see Death of Kappa article of Millones and Pontius.

In the 3.4 section, authors should define the 4 types of land uses used here and how did they mapped this uses.  On the other hand, can military uses be changed to urban uses? Is it feasible? What about warehouses? How? by renovating, demolishing, re-building? 
The authors should explain in a broad way the benefits of this infill scenario compared to a trend scenario. Some expected urban growth areas are the same in both of them. 

In line 375 it is said table 5 and should be referred to table 6.

Discussion section:

The authors should explain the importance of peri-urban areas that they have to be conserved. 
The results between the 1991 master plan and its projected year 2004 cannot be compared with the research findings of 2020 and projected year 2030. If there is a 2010 master plan, why is not compared with this one?
A discussion with other results from other papers is missing: other places with similar dynamics or in Iran about urban growth in peri-urban areas and especially urban infill development, in relation also to densification.

In the conclusions, authors should explain why and how "this strategic can be used to protect peri-urban areas in Ardabil" 

Authors can explain what differences can be expected with a tend scenario or an urban infill scenario are fulfilled?

They talk about "protecting the integrity of cultivable land in these cities" but they haven't talk about this issue before.

Regarding maps:

Figure 2. Please, add a thematic legend. We don't know what the colors mean.

Figure 5: There is a buffer here, but authors haven't explained the size of the buffer and why they have selected this size and no other. Remove the "class_name" text.

Figure 7: it would be more interesting to focus on land uses that are converted to built-up. Why did the authors focused on cropland? explain why these trends are important. Also, there is a text in the figures that is illegible

Figure 8: here there is a text in the figures that is illegible, too.

Figure 9: there is no spatial scale and again illegible text.

Figure 10. explain in more detail the figure

 

Author Response

10 Sept. 2021

Dear Reviewer 

The journal of Land

 

Subject: Submission of revised paper ID land-1598836 entitled" Urban Infill development: a strategy for save peri-urban areas in developing countries (A case ‎study: Ardabil city, Iran)"

 

Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to revise our paper on ‘Journal of Land.’ The suggestions offered by the reviewer have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your insightful comments on revising the paper. I have included the reviewer comments immediately after this letter and responded to them individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all five authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The changes are marked in blue on the paper.

 

Here is a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns.

 

 

The authors present an interesting studying regarding future urban development and urban infill in Ardabil city. They applied a methodology frequently used before but applied in Iran.

I consider that some points of the paper must be improved.

1. First of all, English must be revised. Second and very important, how did the authors define peri-urban? This is necessary in order to understand the analysis, results and discussion and conclusions.

  Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We revised both.

 

2. On the other hand, it is not clear why the authors advocate an infill development rather than a trend scenario result. They should explain in more detail the implications of a trend urban development and what benefits would be obtained from an urban infill scenario.

   Author response: We appreciated your comment, we modified the text and added the required details to the main text.

To be improved in the Introduction section:

3. A broader explanation of the importance of LULC studies, their development and their implications, but also regarding LULC scenarios should be carried out. Authors can focus also on other studies related with urban growth and their implications in peri-urban areas also in environment issues (e.g. natural protected areas, wildfire occurrence, etc.)

   Author response: Noted and the text modified.

4. Some concepts in the introduction section should be defined: peri-urbanization, WWII (is better to write World War II), urban infill, destroyed land, sustainable urban development, worn tissue.

  Author response: Requested items added to the text.

5. In line 36 it is said "reactions to the uncontrolled growth of cities began". Have been these reactions useful? 

   Author response: As we added in the text, these reactions led to the emergence of movements such as smart ‎growth, new urbanism, compact city, etc. On a smaller scale, movements advocated a variety of developments, including transit-oriented development, mixed-use, ‎and infill development.‎

6. In line 41 "the movements represented a variety of development". I don't understand the sentence. Which movements?

  Author response: Thank you for your comment. "The movements" refers to Smart Growth, New Urbanism, Compact City, etc. We have revised it.

7. Sentence in line 47 "in other words, the approach of infilling land within..." needs at least one reference. Then it is said, "this goal", which is the goal the authors talking about?

  Author response: Thank you for your comments, we add reference and rewrite it.

8. Sentence in line 53-55: "although planners have realized in recent years... vehicle dependence", at least one reference is needed.

  Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We add the reference.

9. In lines 62-65, authors talk about year 2015 but then about 2016. In this paragraph authors should explain these problems using examples.

 Author response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised it

10. Sentence in line 66-68 needs at least one reference.

 Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We add the reference.

11. In the Study siteparagraph, line 133 to 142 is a repetition of the introduction. It is better to keep it in this section and to remove it from the introduction.

  Author response: Thank you very much for this reference. We have removed the mentioned text from the introduction and explain it in the cast study section.

Methodology:

12. There is no qualitative research. It is quantitative research, using spatial and statistic data. 

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We revised it.

13. Explain the Inventory of 2018.

Author response: For each of land use classes, we collected training data by field survey. For this purpose, we recorded the characteristics of each point (land use) during our inventory by a GPS device. Then, using visually interpreting the Landsat imagery and confirming each point’s land-use attribution whenever possible with high-resolution imagery in Google Earth, we classified our Landsat imagery using a nonparametric random forests classifier

14. Explain what land uses are included in "green lands".

Author response: Thank you for your comment. We define it in the methodology: green lands (All parks and green areas inside the city) 

15. How did authors define the peri-urban area in their study? And urban infill?

Author response:  thank you for pointing this out. We indicate it in fig. 1 and in introduction as well.

Results section

16. Accuracy results (table 3) should be presented before figure 5 and table 2.

Author response: We made the changes.

17. In figure 6 there are losses in built-up areas. Authors should explain why as it is rare that built-up areas de growth.

Author response: These reductions could be due to illegal construction or the conversion of residential areas to croplands. Also, the depopulation of single-family villages can also be another reason.

18. In line 247-248 authors talk about the activities around this area, but this can't be explained with the analysis they have made.

Author response: This explanation was made based on land-use changes, change maps, and personal observations.

19. In developing the scenarios, authors should explain if they have used any kind of restrictions or driving factors (why or why not). What about the scenario calibration / validation? Please, see Death of Kappa article of Millions and Pontius.

 Author response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised it

20. In the 3.4 section, authors should define the 4 types of land uses used here and how did they mapped this uses.  On the other hand, can military uses be changed to urban uses? Is it feasible? What about warehouses? How? by renovating, demolishing, re-building? The authors should explain in a broad way the benefits of this infill scenario compared to a trend scenario. Some expected urban growth areas are the same in both of them. 

 Author response: CA-Markov model ‎and empirical land-use change modeling uses land change analysis, the relationship between land use change, and past land use maps as the input layers (2000 and 2020 in this study). In fact, the obtained map will have the same land use classes with the inputs data.

Regarding military uses, yes, it is possible. Because in the past, these lands were inside urban lands. But today, these lands in Iran are transferred outside the cities.

21. In line 375 it is said table 5 and should be referred to table 6.

 Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We revised it

Discussion section:

22. The authors should explain the importance of peri-urban areas that they have to be conserved. The results between the 1991 master plan and its projected year 2004 cannot be compared with the research findings of 2020 and projected year 2030. If there is a 2010 master plan, why is not compared with this one?

 Author response: Thank you for your comment, we add the suggested information. Regarding to the master plan. Unfortunality No, the last updated plan is from 2016 and there is no forecast for future urban development in that plan, although there was a large area predicted for future development in 1991.

 

23. A discussion with other results from other papers is missing: other places with similar dynamics or in Iran about urban growth in peri-urban areas and especially urban infill development, in relation also to densification.

 Author response: Thank you for your comment. We have added the result from other papers.

24. In the conclusions, authors should explain why and how "this strategic can be used to protect peri-urban areas in Ardabil" 

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We revised the conclusion

25. Authors can explain what differences can be expected with a tend scenario or an urban infill scenario are fulfilled?

Author response: Thank you for your comment. The trend maps show the direction of earlier urban development where important lands are (Croplands).

26. They talk about "protecting the integrity of cultivable land in these cities" but they haven't talk about this issue before.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. In this research, we examined the Cropland in peri-urban areas more important than barren lands and that’s why we emphasize on it.

Regarding maps:

27. Figure 2. Please, add a thematic legend. We don't know what the colors mean.

Author response: Thank you for pointing out. We revised it.

28. Figure 5: There is a buffer here, but authors haven't explained the size of the buffer and why they have selected this size and no other. Remove the "class name" text.

Author response: we revised it. Thank you.

29. Figure 7: it would be more interesting to focus on land uses that are converted to built-up. Why did the authors focused on cropland? explain why these trends are important. Also, there is a text in the figures that is illegible

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out.  

30. Figure 8: here there is a text in the figures that is illegible, too.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out, its belongs to the base map. We revised it.

31. Figure 9: there is no spatial scale and again illegible text.

Author response: we revised it

32. Figure 10. explain in more detail the figure

Author response: we revised it

 

 

 

 

Sincerely,

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made considerable improvements followed up my comments. However, there are still a few paragraphs that could be improved.

 

1. The introduction section needs to be improved. Although the author provided an overview of the reason why they used GIS and remote sensing as methods. But the authors need to clearly present the use of GIS and remote sensing data and methods such as Land Change Modeler (LCM) and CA -Markov models. Methods used in other land use change studies also need to be briefly introduced in this section, such as Cegielska et al. (2018) Land use and land cover changes in post-socialist countries: Some observations from Hungary and Poland.

 

2. Please give more details about CA-Markov model and its advantages.

 

3. There are two section 4.1 in the article. In section 4. 1. Urban land development policies, I suggested that in the discussion of policies (lines: 406-415) should compare with international land development policies. Several studies have already studied such policy, see (1) Van der Krabben et al. (2013). Public land development as a strategic tool for redevelopment: Reflections on the Dutch experience. (2) Zhou et al. (2020). Actors and network in the marketization of rural collectively-owned commercial construction land (RCOCCL) in China: A pilot case of Langfa, Beijing.

 

4. There are several sections with wrong serial numbers, please check them.

Author Response

16 Mar. 2022

Dear Reviewer 

The journal of Land

 

Subject: Submission of revised paper ID land-1598836 entitled" Urban Infill development: a strategy for save peri-urban areas in developing countries (A case ‎study: Ardabil city, Iran)"

 

Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to revise our paper on ‘Journal of Land.

Here is a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns.

 

 The authors have made considerable improvements followed up my comments. However, there are still a few paragraphs that could be improved.

1. The introduction section needs to be improved. Although the author provided an overview of the reason why they used GIS and remote sensing as methods. But the authors need to clearly present the use of GIS and remote sensing data and methods such as Land Change Modeler (LCM) and CA -Markov models. Methods used in other land use change studies also need to be briefly introduced in this section, such as Cegielska et al. (2018) Land use and land cover changes in post-socialist countries: Some observations from Hungary and Poland.

Author response: Thank you for your valuable time in reviewing our paper. We appreciate your feedback. We revised the dissection section.

 

2. Please give more details about CA-Markov model and its advantages.

Author response: Thank you for your valuable time in reviewing our paper. We appreciate your feedback. The manuscript was revised by a native-speaking editor.

 

3. There are two section 4.1 in the article. In section 1. Urban land development policies, I suggested that in the discussion of policies (lines: 406-415) should compare with international land development policies. Several studies have already studied such policy, see (1) Van der Krabben et al. (2013). Public land development as a strategic tool for redevelopment: Reflections on the Dutch experience. (2) Zhou et al. (2020). Actors and network in the marketization of rural collectively-owned commercial construction land (RCOCCL) in China: A pilot case of Langfa, Beijing.

Author response: Thank you for your suggestion. We revised the dissection section.

 

4. There are several sections with wrong serial numbers, please check them.

Author response: Thank you for your suggestion. We revised all serial numbers.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

While I can see that welcome improvements have been made to this text, some - fairly minor - points still remain .  Clarifying these will help the reader:

p1 line 7 up "per urbanization" = "peri urbanization"

p2 para 2 "vacant land has" or "vacant sites have"

p2 para 2 "the regional smart growth strategy" implies that there is just 1 strategy: do you mean smart growth strategies in general?

p2 para 3 "urbanization has overtaken urbanity" - a nice phrase but "urbanity" needs definition

p2 para 4 line 1 "has" = "have"

p2 para 4 line 7 "an effective approach" - why? Because the uncontrolled expansion left much undeveloped land?

p2 line 4 up - makes no sense.  You seem to be defining dense areas as areas that are dense.

p3 line 5 - define leapfrogging

p3 line 6 delete first "the"

p3 para 2: how new, how innovative?  GIS has been used since 1960s.

p3 para 2 suggest delete mention of Land Change Modeler - this is an issue for the methodology section.  Unfortunately, in that section there is no rationale for use of this specific tool (p7).

pp 4 & 5 - there are still overlaps between statistics for population and urban growth, with slight differences in years and figures.  Just give the data once - no need for this near repetition.

p4 line 8 presumably this is an average figure

p5 lines 10-11 sense? Surely the formation of sub-cores is a change in spatial structure?

p11 s3.4 "As Ardabil ..." - this is not a sentence.  "evolving and changing" - tautology: use either evolving or changing not both.

p13 s4.1 line 12 "in peri urban" what? areas?

p14 the given scales for the 2 sections of Figure 10 do not look correct

p15 delete final sentence of acknowledgements

Author Response

16 Mrs. 2022

Dear Reviewer 

The journal of Land

 

Subject: Submission of revised paper ID land-1598836 entitled" Urban Infill development: a strategy for save peri-urban areas in developing countries (A case ‎study: Ardabil city, Iran)"

 

Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to revise our paper on ‘Journal of Land.

 

Here is a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns.

 

While I can see that welcome improvements have been made to this text, some - fairly minor - points still remain.  Clarifying these will help the reader:

1. p1 line 7 up "per urbanization" = "peri urbanization"

Author response: Thank you for your valuable time in reviewing our paper. We appreciate your feedback. We revised the mentioned words.

 

2. p2 para 2 "vacant land has" or "vacant sites have"

Author response: Thank you for your valuable time in reviewing our paper. We appreciate your feedback. We revised.

 

3. p2 para 2 "the regional smart growth strategy" implies that there is just 1 strategy: do you mean smart growth strategies in general?

Author response: We revised it.

.

 

4. p2 para 3 "urbanization has overtaken urbanity" - a nice phrase but "urbanity" needs definition

Author response: We revised it.

 

5. p2 para 4 line 1 "has" = "have"

Author response: Thank you for your valuable time in reviewing our paper. We appreciate your feedback. We revised.

Author response: We revised it

 

6. p2 para 4 line 7 "an effective approach" - why? Because the uncontrolled expansion left much undeveloped land?

Author response: We revised it

 

7. p2 line 4 up - makes no sense.  You seem to be defining dense areas as areas that are dense.

Author response: We revised it

8. p3 line 5 - define leapfrogging

Author response: We revised it

 

9. p3 line 6 delete first "the"

Author response: We revised it

 

10. p3 para 2: how new, how innovative?  GIS has been used since 1960s.

Author response: We revised it.

 

11. p3 para 2 suggest delete mention of Land Change Modeler - this is an issue for the methodology section.  Unfortunately, in that section there is no rationale for use of this specific tool (p7).

Author response: We revised it

 

12. pp 4 & 5 - there are still overlaps between statistics for population and urban growth, with slight differences in years and figures.  Just give the data once - no need for this near repetition.

Author response: We revised it

 

13. p4 line 8 presumably this is an average figure

Author response: We revised it

 

14. p5 lines 10-11 sense? Surely the formation of sub-cores is a change in spatial structure?

Author response: We revised it

 

15. p11 s3.4 "As Ardabil ..." - this is not a sentence.  "evolving and changing" - tautology: use either evolving or changing not both.

Author response: We revised it

 

16. p13 s4.1 line 12 "in peri urban" what? areas?

Author response: We revised it

 

17. p14 the given scales for the 2 sections of Figure 10 do not look correct

Author response: We revised it

18. p15 delete final sentence of acknowledgements

Author response: We revised it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sincerely,

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thee authors have made substantial improvements to the manuscript. However, small spelling errors such as "per urban" or "boon" should be checked before publication. Congratulations

Author Response

16 Mar. 2022

Dear Reviewer 

The journal of Land

 

Subject: Submission of revised paper ID land-1598836 entitled" Urban Infill development: a strategy for save peri-urban areas in developing countries (A case ‎study: Ardabil city, Iran)"

 

Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to revise our paper on ‘Journal of Land.’

 

Here is a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns.

 

1. The authors have made substantial improvements to the manuscript. However, small spelling errors such as "per urban" or "boon" should be checked before publication. Congratulations

Author response: Thank you for your valuable time in reviewing our paper. We appreciate your feedback. The manuscript was revised by a native-speaking editor.

 

 

 

 

 

Sincerely,

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf