Environmental Impacts of Urbanization Encroachment in the Lowlands of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study examines the urbanization encroachment in Pakistan by having a mixed-method research. While the study offers some insights, there are key some key aspects to improve the quality of the paper.
The paper used another MDPI journal’ template and it should be fixed.
Abstract has some typos.
Abstract needs to give more clues on findings/the study efforts.
Intro: I am not sure migration is the main source of urbanization! If this is the case in Pakistan, it should be supported by the literature.
Second part of the section 1.2 is irrelevant.
Why did the study choose Town I-IV specifically?
While the study goes back to 2002/2007/2019 data, it also says that 1947/1982 etc in section 4.1. 1 and 2.
What does figure 6 mention?
Qualitative section of the study is almost non-existing or did not integrate with the other sections of the study. This is one of the major issues of the study.
Many of the conclusion/discussion were not supported by the study findings.
Author Response
Please check the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This study shows an interesting topic that uncover Dynamics between urbanization encroachment and environment. I have following minor comments that should be addressed before the consideration:- The manuscript is subject to the following revisions: 1. Abstract: The abstract should be written in the following context: Background, objective(s), methods, results, conclusions, policy recommendations. Further, the abstract lacks the findings of the study that is core of an abstract for any study. 2. How you can compare your results with other studies of same geographical regions. It is pivotal to tie your results with other relevant literature. Also, the empirical literature on sustainable urbanization is not present in the current version of the paper. 3. Discussion: The study discussion is fine but can be improved further. It is suggested to rearrange discussion based on study findings. 4. Conclusions: Conclusions are very weak and miss several important dimensions. To strengthen the contents and quality of the study, conclusions must be revised for more clarity and for the ease of normal readers. 5. Policy recommendations: Specific policy recommendations should be put forward according to the empirical findings. 6. Study limitations should be provided along with future research directions for prospective scholars interested in the similar works. 7. The author(s) should learn from some published studies that how to present the tables in a paper. 8. There is an intermingle of capital and small letters. Please avoid this practice in scientific writing. 9. Finally, the manuscript can be benefited if the authors thoroughly proofread it in terms of English language mistakes and syntax structure.Author Response
Please check the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for addressing all my comments.
