A New Method for Assessing Land Consolidation Urgency, including Market Value

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. 1. What are the keywords of this research?
2. 2. The introduction lacks identification of research gaps, motivation, and significance. Please elaborate on both the actual situation and the research itself.
3. 3. Unfortunately, while this study presents a complete research process, it lacks research implications and theoretical foundations.
4. 4. What are the limitations and future recommendations of this research?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some grammatical issues need to be corrected

Author Response

Reviever’s suggestions	Authors’ response
1. What are the keywords of this research?	The keywords have been listed under the abstract.
2. The introduction lacks identification of research gaps, motivation, and significance. Please elaborate on both the actual situation and the research itself.	The introduction has been supplemented with the relevant information, in accordance with the Reviewer’s suggestion.
3. Unfortunately, while this study presents a complete research process, it lacks research implications and theoretical foundations.	The missing theoretical foundations of the research methods have been detailed in the subsections, describing the particular stages of the study in the Materials and Methods section. The research implications have been described in the Discussion section.
4. What are the limitations and future recommendations of this research?	The limitations and future recommendation have been already described in the Discussion section (e.g. lines 730-736 in the current, revised version of the manuscript).

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for addressing the interesting topic of land consolidation, market value and GIS aspects together.

Only some of the comments have been taken into account (7 out of 19). Please correct/improve the manuscript or justify your position in your response to the reviewer comments.

1. What is new and revelatory in this article, the authors' own contribution? please, point it out clearly

2. Abstract does not contain result (numbers) 

3. According to the description provided, the analyses in 2.2 were made on the Land and Property Register database only:

- what was assumed to be roads?

 - Has the consistency of the Land and Property Register database with the actual state in the field been checked? Nothing is written about this.

- What about access via roads not included in Land and Property Register database?

4. in the reviewer's opinion, the assumption from line 270-273 is an oversimplification - if the agricultural plot has dimensions of 300x10m and there is a farmstead centre on the other side of the road, according to these assumptions the distance is at least 160-170m, and yet after the width of the road (plus the distance from the garage) the farmer is already on the target plot. if the values calculated in this way were only for grouping according to formula (2), then they could be considered conditionally acceptable. however, giving the number from such calculations as the result on line 285 is, unauthorized

5. formula (2) is supposed to perform the task of a mathematical model - how were the values of the coefficients at D3, D2 and D and the free expression selected? where is the value of 1825 from? how was the model validated? what is the error of the model? the same type of remarks to formula (3)

6. equation 2 and 3 are the Authors' own work in this manuscript or are they derived from the research of other authors? please state this clearly in the text of the manuscript

7. line 193 - please describe how the conversion was done, add the schema, what data/formats on the input,  what data on the output, whether a topology check was done, how the information flow between the input and output data sets was checked and what was the level of completeness of the flow

8. line 174 - are dates with transaction prices maximum or somehow narrowed down

9. fig 2 could be more horizontal than vertical

10. it will be good to show PSI equation and describe the results - which values are good and which are bad in context of parcel shape - legend for fig.3

11. line 374 - how many values were used for interpolation by the Voronoi polygon method finally from 3800, what was the spatial distribution of the point value with selected transaction prices

12. figure 13 - the colors for groups A and C are almost identical in the figure, which makes it difficult to properly understand the grouping presented - please change it.

13. In the first version of the manuscript in the Author Contributions section almost everyone did everything. In the current version only one person for each task - why such a big difference?

 

Author Response

Reviever’s suggestions	Authors’ response
1. What is new and revelatory in this article, the authors' own contribution? please, point it out clearly	The information about the innovativeness of the reported research has been added in the Introduction section, according to the Reviewer’s suggestion.
2. Abstract does not contain result (numbers)	The additional statement about the result of the research has been added. However, the complete result of the analysis consists of some more sophisticated data, presented in the tables, charts and maps, and not available to be fully described in the Abstract.
3. According to the description provided, the analyses in 2.2 were made on the Land and Property Register database only:   - what was assumed to be roads?    - Has the consistency of the Land and Property Register database with the actual state in the field been checked? Nothing is written about this.   - What about access via roads not included in Land and Property Register database?	The explanation has been added in the Subsection 2.2, as suggested by the Reviewer. The ‘roads’ in the land consolidation context are only the public roads, registered in the cadastral database. All the informal roads or the easements are excluded from the analysis, because one pf the purposes of tle land consolidation is to eliminate the easements and provide a direct connection to a public road for each parcel (where it is technically possible). The cadastral database, particularly the data about the ownership and land use, is updated regularly after each modification, thus we can assume that it is up-to-date.
4. in the reviewer's opinion, the assumption from line 270-273 is an oversimplification - if the agricultural plot has dimensions of 300x10m and there is a farmstead centre on the other side of the road, according to these assumptions the distance is at least 160-170m, and yet after the width of the road (plus the distance from the garage) the farmer is already on the target plot. if the values calculated in this way were only for grouping according to formula (2), then they could be considered conditionally acceptable. however, giving the number from such calculations as the result on line 285 is, unauthorized	The statement with the calculated value has been removed. Instead of this, an information about the constraints of this method and an explanation about the reasons of using it, were provided in the relevant place.
5. formula (2) is supposed to perform the task of a mathematical model - how were the values of the coefficients at D3, D2 and D and the free expression selected? where is the value of 1825 from? how was the model validated? what is the error of the model? the same type of remarks to formula (3	The methodology of the Formula 2 (now: Formula 10) and Formula 3 (now: Formula 11) develompent has been added in the relevant subsections of the Material and Methods section. The empirical method, basing on the percentiles of the calculated values, has been used only for a reliable normalization of the values to make them comparable.
6. equation 2 and 3 are the Authors' own work in this manuscript or are they derived from the research of other authors? please state this clearly in the text of the manuscript	The equations present the authors’ own data normalization model. The relevant information has been added in the text, as it had been suggested by Reviewer.
7. line 193 - please describe how the conversion was done, add the schema, what data/formats on the input, what data on the output, whether a topology check was done, how the information flow between the input and output data sets was checked and what was the level of completeness of the flow	The detailed information, including the description of the data processing and a graphical scheme have been provided in the Material and Methods section.
8. line 174 - are dates with transaction prices maximum or somehow narrowed down	The period of the data obtained is the maximum available data for this case study. A relevant information has been added to the text.
9. fig 2 could be more horizontal than vertical	Redrawing the figure into a horizontal form would make it less clear because of the constrained space between the margins.
10. it will be good to show PSI equation and describe the results - which values are good and which are bad in context of parcel shape - legend for fig.3	The PSI equation has been placed into the text and explained in detail, including the information about the values interpretation.
11. line 374 - how many values were used for interpolation by the Voronoi polygon method finally from 3800, what was the spatial distribution of the point value with selected transaction prices	The information about the quantity of selected transactions (1408) has been already provided in Subsection 2.6. The spatial distribution has been illustrated by a newly added map (Fig. 9).
12. figure 13 - the colors for groups A and C are almost identical in the figure, which makes it difficult to properly understand the grouping presented - please change it	The colors of the figure have been changed to ensure that the visibility is sufficient.
13. In the first version of the manuscript in the Author Contributions section almost everyone did everything. In the current version only one person for each task - why such a big difference?	Unfortunately, there was a mistake in the new version. The previous one contained the correct contributions. The issue has been solved during the current revision.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. I suggest supplementing academic and practical implications.

2. Another question is whether the figures you've used are authorized for use. If permitted for use and publication in individual research, please provide authorization proof. Thank you.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some grammatical errors

Author Response

Reviever’s suggestions	Authors’ response
1. I suggest supplementing academic and practical implications.	The description of the academic and practical implications of the article has been extended in the “Discussion” section.
2. Another question is whether the figures you've used are authorized for use. If permitted for use and publication in individual research, please provide authorization proof. Thank you.	All the figures in the article have been created by the authors on their own. Thus, there is no permission needed.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for complying with the comments.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments and the information provided.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

English grammar and certain vocabulary details need improvement

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English grammar and certain vocabulary details need improvement

Author Response

Reviever’s suggestions	Authors’ response
1. English grammar and certain vocabulary details need improvement	The article has been checked in detail and corrected by another translator and proofread by a certified native speaker.

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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,              

you have written an interesting article according to my opinion and to my field of interest. The manuscript deals with the market value and spatial structure of land as determinants of the urgency of land consolidation works. The topic fits the scope of the journal and the case is relevant. The manuscript describes valuable applied research that has practical value, the results and methods used are clearly presented, references are current, and the experimental design is appropriate. The structure of the paper allows the reader to clearly understand the problem and access the analysis - this work is an excellent contribution to the existing knowledge.  Only one suggestion for improving this paper relates to the absence of the market price of real estate as a valuation factor in the conclusion. This is an important aspect of the research, and its absence may leave readers with an incomplete understanding of the analysis. I propose that this shortcoming be rectified, and a relevant discussion about the market price of real estate as a factor influencing the urgency of land consolidation should be included. With the proposed amendment I suggest that this paper should be accepted for publication in a scientific journal.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      Please simplify the abstract. The current presentation of the abstract appears to be more like an exposition rather than a summary.

2.      Were these figures drawn by the authors themselves? What does 'own elaboration' mean? If they were not self-drawn, please provide authorization proof for the use of these images.

3.      If this is an academic journal article, please consider supplementing the paper with a literature review that includes research background, motivations(gaps), land valuation, land spatial structure, land consolidation, sustainable development of rural areas, and related topics. While this may be a substantial undertaking for the author, it is highly necessary.

 

4.      The authors have dedicated a significant portion of the manuscript to research methods and analysis, but the discussion and conclusion sections appear to have limited direct relevance to the data analysis. Additionally, any research article should include sections on research limitations and future recommendations, but this study lacks these components.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language is required.

 

I believe that the authors have the ability to produce a more academically rigorous English research paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the interesting topic of land consolidation aspects. Issues are divided into GENERAL (GX) and specific DETAILS (DX) - more editorial/technical. Please, use line number to find place in the text.

GENERAL

G1. What is new and revelatory in this article, the authors' own contribution? please, point it out clearly

G2. Abstract does not contain a single figure, result or conclusion - it is a collection of general sentences not presenting results

G3. the title could have been better worded - low market value is not a reason for land consolidation, as the title implies. The low value is due, among other things, to the poor spatial structure.

G4. 43 references in a manuscript of 23 pages is not an overwhelming number

G5. According to the description provided, the analyses in 2.2 were made on the Land and Property Register database only:

- what was assumed to be roads?

 - Has the consistency of the Land and Property Register database with the actual state in the field been checked? Nothing is written about this.

- What about access via roads not included in Land and Property Register database?

G6. in the reviewer's opinion, the assumption from line 271-273 is an oversimplification - if the agricultural plot has dimensions of 300x10m and there is a farmstead centre on the other side of the road, according to these assumptions the distance is at least 160-170m, and yet after the width of the road (plus the distance from the garage) the farmer is already on the target plot. if the values calculated in this way were only for grouping according to formula (2), then they could be considered conditionally acceptable. however, giving the number from such calculations as the result on line 286 is, unauthorized

G7. formula (2) is supposed to perform the task of a mathematical model - how were the values of the coefficients at D3, D2 and D and the free expression selected? where is the value of 1825 from? how was the model validated? what is the error of the model? the same type of remarks to formula (3)

G8. line 196 - please describe how the conversion was done, add the schema, what data/formats on the input,  what data on the output, whether a topology check was done, how the information flow between the input and output data sets was checked and what was the level of completeness of the flow

 

DETAILS

D1. line 127 - names without reference digits, the same in 653

D2. line 174 - are dates with transaction prices maximum or somehow narrowed down

D3. fig 2 could be more horizontal than vertical

D4. line 207-212 - if it is bulleted and lowercase, there should be commas at the end of the lines

D5. it will be good to show PSI equation and describe the results - which values are good and which are bad in context of parcel shape

D6. line 231 - avg is not a sufficient measure - a dog with its owner at a walk has an average of 3 legs each

D7. line 234 - it would have been better for the article to cite the weak shape values for the study object and not for Poland - maybe a CPSI histogram?

D8. the sentence from line 229 is hardly engineering - "The obtained results show a significant predominance" - please convince with numbers

D9. line 253 - 41% of total number - what about area of unconnected parcels - it could be many number of parcels but only 5 or 10% of area - in that case it is not so important

D10. line 374 - how many values were used for interpolation by the Voronoi polygon method finally from 3800, what was the spatial distribution of the point value with selected transaction prices

D11. figure 13 - the colors for groups A and C are almost identical in the figure, which makes it difficult to properly understand the grouping presented