Deliberative Democracy and Making Sustainable and Legitimate Development Plans: The Case of the Antalya Kırcami Agrihood

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The transformation of land use from agriculture to urban areas is a trend in spatial development and a key part of land use planning. The author conducted a case study on region Antalya Kırcami Agrihood using interview methods, which has important value. However, this paper also has some areas that need improvement, with detailed comments as follows:

First, the abstract needs improvement. The introduction of research background, objectives, and methods needs to be simplified, and the analysis results and key conclusions need to be highlighted.

Second, the labeling method of references completely does not comply with academic conventions and land requirements. Continuous annotation of multiple references is very unpleasant and completely incomprehensible to readers. Therefore, the author needs to modify the annotations according to the needs of the sentence.

Third, the introduction is too long, and the author needs to simplify it and highlight key points.

Fourth, is the serial number of "2.2.1.1. The Qualities of a True Instrument of Deliberative Democracy" incorrect?

Fifth, the author needs to provide the location map of the study area in Türkiye. This is important for international readers to better understand the paper.

Sixth, lines 917-970 should belong to discussion rather than conclusion.

Seventh, the author needs to clearly explain the marginal contribution of this study.

 

Eighth, the author needs to explain the shortcomings of this paper and provide suggestions for future research.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

Please see our responses attached.

Sincerely,

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Recommendations to authors

The manuscript presents an interesting approach to gather the perceptions of residents in the Kircami Region via interviews. My main concern is the very low number of interviews that were under consideration. Given that the population of Kırcami Region (located in the Antalya Province of Turkey) in 2023 is 27,000 (line 978 in the manuscript) the estimation of the sample size for the minimum number of interviews that they had to be acquired based on the Cochrans’ formula is 384 interviews (even after the small sample correction the minimum number of interviews needed can be considered as 323) instead of the only 20 interviews that this study examines.

I am afraid that the low number of interviews cannot provide safe conclusions and any findings can be considered as unsafe or even misleading. I suggest that the authors should get at least the minimum number of questionnaires needed as sample size for the given population of the region (which is at least 384, instead of only 20). I strongly agree with the conclusion that public authorities in Turkey should revise legislation to incorporate deliberative democratic tools into the preparation of development plans, however this must be based on a larger number of questionnaires or interviews according to the minimum sample size needed.

In addition, I think that you might have to consider adding a table with the results of the interviews along with a grouping or your interpretation. In its current form it seems that only some of the answers were selected to be presented. I suggest you attempt a synthesis, if possible.

I must note that your study is a great approach of making more sustainable and legitimate development plans for the Kircami Region (Antalya Province of Turkey). Therefore, I would strongly suggest and encourage you to get more interviews – questionnaires according to the sample size needed and then resubmit your work for consideration.  

 

Detailed comments:

• In line 44, 58, 69: The way the references are given is not compatible with the guidelines given by the Journal.

• In 464: The index is not readable. Either provide an improved index or explain what the colors represent.

• In line 520-521: Make the correction “20000 m2” instead of “20000 m2”.

• In line 526: You must provide the questionnaires used in the interviews. I suggest you add a supplemental material file containing all the relative information.

• In line 533: You must describe the conditions under which the interviews were conducted (in a room or outdoors, with others or individually etc).

• In line 537: I am not sure if having together “results” and “discussion” is fruitful. Maybe you should first clearly provide a table with your results – findings grouped by the type of participants or clustered by any other criteria. I would also note that you obviously need more data to analyze to draw safe conclusions. Therefore, I think that both results and discussion must be rewritten. In particular, discussion must include some of the text provided in the conclusions section.

• In line 914: Please try to provide a synthesis/grouping of the approaches of the investors and the local experts. 

• In line 915: The section “conclusions” must be rewritten. Most part the text I believe must be transferred to a new “discussion” section. Please try to keep the conclusions shorter in length presenting only the final conclusions and move all the discussion you provide to the corresponding section.

• In line 1043: Please make the correction here “has been used (…)”.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

Please see our responses attached.

Sincerely,

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I observed some significant weaknesses in the manuscript as the followings: 

1. The manuscript relies mostly on theoretical and normative arguments about deliberative democracy and urban agriculture but does not provide any empirical data or evidence to support its claims or to illustrate its case study. It would be more convincing and informative if the manuscript included some quantitative or qualitative data, such as surveys, interviews, observations, or experiments, to show how deliberative democracy works or does not work in practice, and how it affects the sustainability and legitimacy of development plans.

2. The manuscript focuses on a single case study of the Kırcami agrihood in Antalya, Turkey, but does not compare it with other similar or different cases of urban agriculture and deliberative democracy in other contexts or countries. A comparative analysis could help to identify the generalizability, uniqueness, or specificity of the findings and arguments of the manuscript, and to draw some lessons or implications for other cases or situations.

3. The manuscript does not have a clear and coherent structure that guides the reader through its main arguments, findings, and conclusions. 

4. The manuscript jumps from one topic to another without providing clear transitions, summaries, or signposts. 

5. The manuscript also mixes different levels of analysis, such as literature review, case study, and data analysis, without distinguishing them clearly or integrating them logically. 

6. The manuscript could benefit from a more explicit and consistent outline, introduction, and conclusion that state the main research question, objectives, methods, results, and contributions of the manuscript.

 

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

Please see our responses attached.

Sincerely,

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The papers presents an interesting case of urban planning decisions and land use conflict in Turkey. In order to improve the paper, I think it is important to solve the following aspects:

1. It would be important to reduce the literature review on the political process/deliberative democracy. It is the focus of the paper, yes, but its reference should be balanced with the reference to urban planning and urba agriculture.

3. The method presents the case study; I think it would be preferable to present the case study in an autonomous topic.

4. It is important to present the questions integrated in the interviews made to the three types of actors (politicians, inhabitants/farmers, investors).

5. The conclusions refer the nature of the Turkish constitution regarding the urban planning decisions and the local context. If the Constitution does not allow, as you mention, the implementation of a full deliberative democracy at a local level, is it appropriate to analyse the process that is taking place in this territory within this normative framework, that is, as if the participation at a local level would be consequent? 

6. The paper is too long; it is important to give the voice to the authors, yes, but try to present the empirical data in a more concise form.

 

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

Please see our responses attached.

Sincerely,

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read “ Deliberative Democracy and Making Sustainable and Legitimate Development Plans: Antalya Kırcami Agrihood Case”. The topic is surely of interest to the readers of Land Journal. However, I have a hard time believing the results claimed by the authors. I have listed below some of the major problems the authors may want to consider during a revision.

 Abstract structure:

1.      The abstract could benefit from a more structured presentation. Consider dividing the abstract into clear sections: Background, Objective, Methods, Results, and Conclusion. This will help improve the readability and comprehension of the abstract for readers.

2.      The outcome of the paper is not revealed in the abstract!

 

Introduction:

1.    The author mentioned the number of references (i.e. [1], [2], [3], ……) in the introduction without sufficient discussion. The previous research in the introduction should be discussed scientifically.

 

2.    Clearly state the main objectives of the study and its unique contributions to the field. This could be included in a separate paragraph toward the end of the introduction, summarizing the research questions, methods, and expected outcomes.

 

3. Lines 113-138 should be summarized: at the end of the introduction breakdown of the article with an outline of the content of each chapter should be presented.

 Literature Review:

This section is too long! I think the paper would be greatly improved if the literature review section could focus more on the problem statement and possible solutions by proper published literature related to the topic of this paper.

Case Study Area:

1.    More details should be added to the study area section such as the coordinates of the study area.

2.    Figures 1 and 2 are not clear enough. They should be reproduced or replaced with clearer images or maps with grid, north direction and scale.

Conclusion:

1.    The conclusion section should provide a clear and concise summary of the main findings and their significance. Consider rephrasing some sentences for better clarity and emphasizing the key results and implications of your study.

2.    Briefly mention potential future research directions or applications that could build upon your work.

Language level and evaluation:

Based on the language level in the submitted manuscript, it appears that the article requires some improvements in terms of grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language required

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

Please see our responses attached.

Sincerely,

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text delves into the intricacies and obstacles associated with the transition of urban agricultural areas into planned urban zones, utilizing the Antalya Kırcami Agrihood in Turkey as a case study. The primary focus of the study revolves around the decision-making dynamics and the preferences of key local stakeholders, including residents, investors, and the local government, in molding the trajectory of urban agriculture in the Kırcami locality. The objective is to assess the democratic credibility of the development plan through the lens of deliberative democracy.

 

Employing a qualitative methodology, the research engages in in-depth interviews with 20 residents, 10 investor landowners, and two local government experts. The results expose the diverse range of perspectives and attitudes among participants regarding urban agriculture and the proposed development scheme. Residents voice apprehensions about the region's transformation, citing discontent with the agricultural sector, elevated input expenses, and the impact of intermediaries on income. Despite these challenges, some residents acknowledge the benefits of urban agriculture, such as proximity to the city center and access to wholesale markets.

 

The study further unveils residents' preferences for the region's future, with a majority expressing a preference for residential land use combined with green spaces. Nevertheless, there exists skepticism and a lack of trust in the development process, as residents feel detached from the planning and execution of the proposed alterations.

In essence, the document illuminates the intricate dynamics of decision-making and the aspirations of local stakeholders in shaping the destiny of urban agriculture in the Kırcami area. It emphasizes the significance of inclusive and deliberative decision-making processes to ensure the credibility and sustainability of urban development plans.

However, I believe that indiscriminately including all literary works in the bibliography is not appropriate, especially since some of the works may not be relevant or deemed necessary.
I suggest limiting the references to those mentioned in the subsequent chapters, especially since references 1-16 are exclusively listed in the introduction, altogether separated by commas, without any commentary.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

Please see our responses attached.

Sincerely,

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am very grateful for the efforts of the authors. They provided a good solution for the comments. I think there are still some minor improvements needed before the paper can be officially published.

Firstly, the literature review needs improvement. The annotations on lines 55-56, 79-80, and 93 need to be modified. These numbers should not be continuous. The author needs to label the literature in appropriate sentences or words based on the key conclusions or findings of these papers. The author can compare the similarities and differences of different students and point out their inspirations for this study. This can help readers better understand this research and gain insights into the contributions of other scholars.

Secondly, the clarity of Figures 2 and 3 is insufficient. It's too blurry, it's difficult to identify key information.

Thirdly, the author must revise the conclusion. On the one hand, it is too long, and the author only needs to provide the key results or findings of this paper. A detailed description, including numbers, interviews, analysis results, etc., is not necessary. The author only needs to describe your viewpoint in the simplest sentences. Usually, the conclusion section only requires 2-3 concise paragraphs. On the other hand, it is not advisable to include references in the conclusion, as the citation in lines 1168-1239 is confusing. They make these sentences and paragraphs appear more like discussions rather than conclusions.

Good luck to the authors.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

Please see our responses attached.

Sincerely,

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Recommendations to authors

The manuscript presents an interesting approach to gather the perceptions of residents in the Kircami Region via interviews. I am glad that some of the issues have been addressed but some new issues have arisen. Please find below my detailed recommendations. However, I must stress that as it is mentioned in the text, the interviews were conducted under different conditions which means that the results cannot be comparable, and no safe conclusions can be drawn based on this sample. Also, English in several parts of the text must be improved. 

 

General comments:

It is well known that the objective of a qualitative study is to have a large enough sample size to expose a diversity of opinions while limiting the sample size at the point of saturation. In-depth interview studies should aim for sample sizes between 20-30, paying special attention to demographic and geographic profiles. However, in the current study, if I am not mistaken, in the current study only 9-10 of the 31 participants were involved. Therefore, the sample size in this qualitative research seems to be still lower than expected. I really appreciate your effort to improve the way development plans for urban agriculture are developed in Turkey, but I believe that a larger sample is needed to be used as representative of the given population.

The addition of Tables 2, 3, 4 was very useful, however, no citation is given in the text and no discussion is provided. There is no clear connection between the results and the conclusions. I suggest that you provide a table presenting a synthesis of the results to be used as evidence for the conclusions, otherwise it seems that the conclusions were drawn on a subjective basis. 

 

Detailed comments:

• In line 10, abstract: the length of the abstract is beyond the limit set by the journal (now over 350 words and according to the guidelines should be under 200 words). Please rewrite the abstract in a more concise way.

• In line 55, 79, 92, 239, 244, 249, 297: the way references are presented in the text is still not compatible with the template set by the Journal. For example, instead of “(see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]” it should be “(see [2 – 16])”. This is done automatically if you use citation manager software (i.e., Mendeley) and you have specified the Land Journal for the style of the references used in the text.

• In line 452, Figure 1: instead of the white arrow, I suggest you draw a rectangle with transparent fill and red outline around the Sircami region in the upper map. This is the most common way to show that the second map is an overview map and therefore it provides a more detailed view of the study area (the region inside the red rectangle). 

• In line 612: More information must be provided for the “Content Analysis” that you have conducted. Content analysis is a research tool used to determine the presence of certain words, themes, or concepts within the given qualitative data. Which “words, themes, or concepts” were identified in this case?

• In line 622: Why does this paragraph have italic font?

• In line 627: Avoid expressions like “following findings”. Instead use citations of the tables where the findings (evidence) are presented.

• In line 641, Table 2: Instead of “Opinions of all the three group of participants”, I suggest “Number of participants”. Also, remove “Number of” in column labels. This Table 2 has no citation in the text. You must add a citation for Table 2 and provide further explanations for the low participation percentage. According to your data in Table 2 only one third (33%) of the residents were involved in the process and almost half of the investors (43%). This raises two issues: (a) explain or comment on the low involvement of the participants; (b) provide reasoning to support the assumption that this low participation is adequate to draw conclusions for this qualitative research – content analysis.

• Lines 647 – 655: Please improve English.

• In line 720: Table 3 has no citation in the text. You must explain why the information presented in Table 3 is important (current land use types in the area and the type of land use the participants expect from the plan).

• In line 846: Table 4 has no citation in the text. Same comments as above for the tables added in the text.

 

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

Please see our responses attached.

Sincerely,

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Revised version seems good.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer III,

We are pleased that you found the amendments we have made appropriate and adequate. Thank you for all your valuable contributions, suggestions and your time. We in any case upload the new coverletter including revisions demanded by other reviewers.

Sincerely,

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.    The outcome of the research is still unclear or ambiguous in the abstract.

2.    There are still many references within the introduction referred to by numbers without fully discussing their content and explaining their usefulness for research, for example, lines 55-56, 79-80, and 93.

3.    In cover letter the author stated “We have revised the introduction and clearly stated the main objectives of the study and its unique contributions to the field in a separate paragraph according to your suggestions. Please see the Lines 41-175.”

The author mentioned to Lines 41-175! (All introduction)!!. However, what was required was a separate paragraph toward the end of the introduction, summarizing the research questions, methods, and expected outcomes.

4.    In cover letter the author stated “Response 2/3: Done, thank you for your comment and suggestion. Please see the Lines 150-175.”

In introduction, Lines 113-138 are not summarized!! at the end of the introduction, a breakdown of the article with an outline of the content of each chapter should be presented.

5.    The Literature Review has not been shortened!!

6.    The conclusion section should provide a clear and concise summary of the main findings and their significance. Rephrasing some sentences for better clarity and emphasizing the key results and implications of your study.

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language required

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

Please see our responses attached.

Sincerely,

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is ok for me

Author Response

Dear Reviewer VI,

We are pleased that you found the amendments we have made appropriate and adequate. Thank you for all your valuable contributions, suggestions and your time. We in any case upload the new coverletter including revisions demanded by other reviewers.

Sincerely,

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx