A Land Use Planning Literature Review: Literature Path, Planning Contexts, Optimization Methods, and Bibliometric Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments:

Overall, the paper provides a comprehensive review of the literature on land use planning. The authors effectively summarize the key developments in the field and identify gaps and research frontiers. The use of bibliometric methods adds value to the review by providing statistical summaries and mapping of research trends. However, there are some areas where the paper can be improved. Detailed comments for each section are provided below.

 

1. Introduction:

The introduction provides a clear overview of the purpose and scope of the review. However, it would be helpful to provide more background information on the importance of land use planning and its relevance in the context of sustainable development. Additionally, the introduction could benefit from a more concise and focused statement of the research objectives.

 

2. Materials and Methods:

The section adequately describes the methodology used for the literature review, including the selection criteria for articles and the use of bibliometric analysis. However, it would be beneficial to provide more details on the specific databases and search terms used for article retrieval. Additionally, the section could be enhanced by including a flowchart or diagram to visually represent the research process.

 

3. Results:

The results section effectively presents the findings of the bibliometric analysis and the qualitative investigation. The use of tables and figures helps to organize and present the data. However, the section could be improved by providing more detailed explanations of the key findings and their implications. Additionally, it would be helpful to include specific examples or case studies to illustrate the trends and developments identified in the literature.

 

4. Discussion:

The discussion section provides a thorough analysis of the literature path building and the development of land use planning methods. The authors effectively identify gaps and research frontiers in the field. However, the section could benefit from a more critical analysis of the strengths and limitations of the existing literature. Additionally, it would be valuable to provide recommendations for future research directions based on the identified gaps and frontiers.

 

5. Conclusion:

The conclusion provides a concise summary of the main findings and implications of the review. However, it would be beneficial to include a brief discussion on the practical implications of the research, such as the potential impact on land use planning practices and policies.

 

Overall, the paper has the potential to be a strong and impactful review in the field of land use planning. With the suggested revisions and improvements, the paper will provide valuable insights and contribute to the existing literature.

The overall writing style is clear and concise, making the paper easy to read. The structure of the paper is logical and well-organized. However, there are some instances where the language could be improved for clarity and precision. 

Author Response

Dear, Professor (reviewer), 

Attached below is a brief reflection on your valuable comments/suggestions for improvement. However, being a junior in the research practice, my short statements may be less informative. I apologize in advance in case I should have written all that I already included in the main manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The current manuscript entitled “Land use planning literature review: literature path, planning context, optimization methods, and bibliometric method” is a great effort to highlight the importance of optimization methods in the literature for land use planning regardless of the scale used as rural or urban. The relevant authors also conducted a comprehensive literature review using an appropriate sample size of 339 full articles.

However, as a reviewer of this manuscript, I found several weak points/aspects which should be addressed. These aspects not only enhance the quality of the manuscript but also entertain a large audience. The following comments, suggestions, and recommendations should be addressed before the final submission of the manuscript for publication.

1.      The abstract lacks the major findings, statistics, conclusive remarks, and possible recommendations or policy implementation.

2.      The introduction section lacks a strong case building, like why, whom, and how this study addresses the research gap, main objectives, and possible outcomes. Because the relevant authors only argue and highlight the importance of the optimization method. Also, the Introduction section lacks the policy implications.

3.      The material and methods section (2) is poorly constructed. It lacks the current research work's basic method concepts, importance, and relevance.  

4.      Figure 1. The artistic touch is poorly handled. I strongly recommend reconstructing the flowchart with proper design because the text is missing, blurred, and haphazard.  

5.      All the figures' caption is unclear and misses the in-text citation. Because most of the figures are in 2 parts. I strongly recommend rewriting the captions with proper relevance and explanation. They should be self-explanatory.

6.      The figure resolution and size are hard to read and understand the basic information.

7.      The tables also need proper captions. Also, confirm the position of the caption (above or below the table)

8.      Most importantly, your research work is based on the literature review, and also you have claimed the critique of the cited papers. But every section lacks the proper discussion with a correlation of agree/disagree statements. I strongly recommend adding the critique argument(s) at the end of each section with respect to your current scope and objective of the work.

 

9.      The conclusion section also lacks the proper conclusive remarks with implications, recommendations, and way forward for upcoming studies.      

Need moderate attention

Author Response

Dear reviewer (professor), 

Thank you for the insightful comments you suggested to us on the manuscript. Attached below is a short reflection on the points of interest we also shared your views. However, I feel that I may not fully convey the message comprehensively regarding the address of the suggestions in this short brief. Please give the benefit of the doubt of a junior in research communication/correspondence. I believe you get more within the document than from the brief reflection.   

With Sincere regards, 

Corresponding author.  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks a lot. The authors have addressed all of my comments. The arcicle can be considered for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Hello. I am glad you have addressed all the recommended suggestions and comments. Till now, the quality of the manuscript enhanced manifold. I hope that the remaining recommendations as you promised will be addressed during the final proofreading (like the resolution and so on). According to the journal rule, all the reviewer's names and review comments will be published. Good luck and I am happy to accept your paper for publication.