The Effect of Land Consolidation Projects on Carbon Footprint

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

 

Dear Author,

The reviewed publication contains very interesting research. It raises very important issues regarding land consolidation.

1.      The title of the study “The Effect of Land Consolidation Projects on Carbon Footprint” corresponds to its content. Keywords: carbon footprint; land consolidation; ecological effect; land management; network analysis are correct.

2.      The total value of work is a valuable contribution but references take only 59 publications are cited in the entire article. Literature research well started, but not enough publications. It is proposed to add the following articles that contain new research in the land consolidation area, for example:

·         Balawejder M., Noga K. 2016. The influence of the highway route on the development of patchwork of plots. Journal of Water and Land Development. No. 30 p. 3–11. DOI: 10.1515/jwld-2016-0015

·         Stręk, Ż.; Noga, K. 2019. Method of delimiting the spatial structure of villages for the purposes of land consolidation and exchange. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1268. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11111268

·         Cienciała, A.; Sobura, S.; Sobolewska-Mikulska, K. Optimising Land Consolidation by Implementing UAV Technology. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4412. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084412

3.      Similarly, the discussion or conclusion should refer to research conducted in this field in other countries and cited in this publication. Please complete this and the article will be a valuable scientific contribution.

4.      There is a discussion section in this study, please complete it. Support the obtained results with research from other countries. Complete the citations - there are very few of them in this work. This will bring valuable scientific input to this article.

5.     Maybe it's worth entering % in table 1. I think that converting the numerical data into % will be more legible/reliable.

6.      In Figure 2. Changes in the transportation network before and after LC translate the headlines into English. Please correct it.

7.       Figure 7. Changes in carbon footprint according to enterprise areas before and after LC (Fatih Neighborhood), not very legible. It may be worth to enlarge the area (zoom) from 0.00-10.00 farm area (ha). Please correct it.

8.      The same in Figure 8. Changes in carbon footprint according to enterprise areas before and after LC (Selimiye 257 Neighborhood). It may be worth to enlarge the area (zoom) from 0.00-5.00 farm area (ha). Please correct it.

 

It should be noted that the whole of the study is cognitive and contains important scientific elements. The article was written at a very good academic level. In relation to the above, I express the opinion that the work submitted for review should be published in its entirety after taking into account the comments of the reviewer and does not require a review again.

Good luck!

 

Author Response

Answer:

Thank you very much for your comments.

2- Your recommended articles have been added.

3- Similar studies are cited in the discussion section.

4- In the discussion section, which we mentioned in the previous article, it was supported by research conducted with other countries.

5- In Table 1, the project information of the study areas is explained. Only the consolidation ratio is a value that can be expressed as a percentage (%) and has been. That's why I didn't make any changes.

6- In Figure 2, headlines (Selimiye, Fatih) is the proper name. Village names. I just corrected the figure description in figure 2.

7- In figure 7, the carbon footprint changes of the enterprises between 0.00-10.00 farm area (ha) are zoomed.

8-In figure 8, the carbon footprint changes of the enterprises between 0.00-5.00 farm area (ha) are zoomed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

 

the present article is found to be interesting and enough novelties to be considered for publication, but after minor corrections. kindly see my suggestions as attached to improve the manuscript. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Answer:  Thank you for all of your comments. The corrections you marked on the article have been made.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 

 

REVIEWER COMMENTS

 

This manuscript is a good one with an interesting analysis based on a new method in spatial analysis

The article covers the topics included in the main subjects of Land Journal and I recommend to be considered for the publication.

 

TITLE

The article’s title is suitable with the content of the paper, the title of the paper:

The Effect of Land Consolidation Projects on Carbon Footprint

 

ABSTRACT

The abstract is well-designed and briefly express the present research thus being of interests and readable thus capturing the reader’s attention. It present in an appropriate manner the main research hypothesis, the problem statement, the methods and the main findings.

 

KEY WORDS

The key words are appropriate to the present research and are clearly stated.

 

ORIGINALITY

The article meets a high level of originality from my side argued by the main research theme and the research hypothesis. Furthermore, the originality of the paper is highlighted by the main results of the paper. The authors construct a well-designed theoretical background closely related to the current specialised literature in the field.

 

THE PAPER S STRUCTURE

The structure of the paper is correct in line with the journal standards and meet the publication requirements considering the paper logic. The objectives seem to be clear formulated as well as the investigation is drawn. The core argument of the paper illustrates the paper relevance and the research originality. The results are clearly express and well connected both to the theoretical framework and discussions.

 

THE METHODS

The methodological design is appropriate and the methods fit well to the present investigation.

 

THE MAIN ANALYSIS

The main research is well design and appropriate conducted in line with the main questions in spatial planning in the investigated areas. 

 

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions fit well summarising the main ideas of the present analysis but I would expand a little bit this section.

 

THE GRAPHICAL SUPPORT

The graphical support is well formatted, appropriate illustrating the text content.

 

THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

I think the English is ok as far as I could see but I am not a native speaker. I enjoyed to read this paper in English and the language seems well but I think that an opinion of a native English speaker is welcomed. In other words, if the authors used a specialised proofreading services and they could prove this aspect I trust the opinion and the work of this proofread service. On the other hand, I put my trust regarding the English language on the journal editors but I repeat the language seems well.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The paper can be published after expanding a little bit the conclusion section.

Thank you so very much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for all of your comments. The conclusion section has been expanded in line with your suggestion. I’m certain that it will conribute to the considerable improvement of the final version of the manuscript.   

Author Response File: Author Response.docx