Land Governance and Fragmentation Patterns of Agricultural Land Use in Southern Romania during 1990–2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines the patterns of land governance and fragmentation of agricultural land use in Southern Romania from 1990 to 2020. However, there are major problems with this study, and it is recommended to publish it in the Land once these issues are resolved.

1. The primary issue with this study is the predominance of qualitative research and the lack of quantitative analysis, particularly regarding the use of indicators to quantify land policies and link them quantitatively to agricultural land fragmentation.

2. The methodology employed in this study is overly simplistic, lacking in novelty and research depth.

3. Although the study covers the period from 1990 to 2020, the remote sensing data acquisition includes only one year, lacking a comprehensive time series analysis. The study predominantly presents qualitative analysis results without integrating remote sensing data for quantitative analysis. The primary advantage of remote sensing technology—long-term dynamic analysis—is not fully utilized. This study does not provide an in-depth analysis of the temporal evolution of land fragmentation and the impact of land policies. Consequently, the research results are primarily qualitative descriptions, lacking quantitative analysis, which reduces their credibility.

Author Response

Thank you for the constructive comments. Please find attached an explanation on addressing them.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A current, important and interesting research problem, corresponding to Land's profile, was addressed in the manuscript submitted for review. The methodological assumptions are beyond doubt.

However, in order for the manuscript to be published in the publishing house to which it was submitted, it requires corrections and additions:

1. The purpose of the undertaken research and analyzes must be highlighted, and then a reference to its achievement should be made in the Summary and conclusions.

2. Subchapter 2.2 was treated too briefly. Fragmentation of agriculture in Europe. A thorough review of the literature on the topic should be performed here. In the version submitted for review, the title of the subsection does not correspond to the content contained therein.

Author Response

Thank you for the constructive comments. Please find attached an explanation on addressing them.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Compared to the previous version, there has been significant improvement, but the quality of Figures 1, 4, and 5 is difficult to understand due to ambiguity and needs improvement.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for the valuable time and effort invested in reviewing our submission. We also thank for the valuable comments at all stages. Indeed, the PDF was at a small resolution, and the images in the PDF file looked worse than in the DOC file. We had improved both of them and include a high-resolution PDF at this stage. Thanking in advance for your consideration, we wish you all the very best in all your endeavors and remain, sincerely yours, the authors.