Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article presents an interesting case of application of a "perfect village" model. Although it is very clear in its exposition and results, the following aspects could be improved:

During the introduction, it would be convenient to include photos and examples of other "perfect villages".

At the end of the introduction, it would be convenient to clearly list the objectives and summarize the method.

In Figure 1, a more detailed map of the area including its most important components could be included.

L183-255: The list should be included as an annex and perhaps tabulated. As it is, it interrupts the reading of the paper.

Item 3 should include an introduction to the method describing step by step what is to be done (perhaps also include an explanatory diagram).

 

I hope these changes will help to improve the articles.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Changes in the space used for different types of economy are very important for the sustainable development of settlements. Creative ideas that can lead to such development are proposed in this paper. The ideas do not rely too much on previous experiences and examples from the world, which is why the Literature review chapter is missing. In addition, the presented concept of "perfect village" does not include demographic indicators as an important factor in the growth and development of a rural settlement. The emphasis is on vegetation and recultivation, which is fine. However, when making projections of changes in land cover until 2050, there must also be population projections.

Detailed comments are given in the text. In general, the problems in this paper exist in the following chapters:

Introduction: logical errors in the text, literature review that should have a separate chapter, additional explanations are missing

Study area: types of economics are not adequately presented, bad English, parts of the text should be transferred to methodology,

Results: logic errors, missing population data

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The "Perfect Village" Model as a Result of Research on 2 Transformation of Plant Cover. Case Study of the Puchaczów Commune. Barwicka S., Milecka M.

 

 

Presented manuscript is describing i.e. “prefect village" model. Authors carried out the evaluation and then forecasting of spatial land cover changes over time in the Puchaczow commune. Forecasting changes they based on the analysis of phytosciological releves, which are not the best methodology to follow vegetation trajectories over times as the spatial size of the releves is not define (no measure of plant species-richness measuring), also the Braun-Blanquet coefficients (from 1 to 5) is not precise enough too for measuring structural vegetation changes (e.g. plant population recovery and spatial distribution); if the land cover is related to the Corine system?

The manuscript itself also contains a number of weaknesses. For publication the authors must strongly revise the manuscript and paying more careful attention to the concepts they are trying to describe. This regards the background, knowledge gaps and hypotheses, what are actually being analyzed and why, as well as how their conclusions are based on their data and how they can be generalized, because a large part of the presented and discussed results are rather local.

The structure of the manuscript also needs to be corrected. It is unclear why the description of study area is included in the section Introduction and not in the material and methods. The description of the current and potential vegetation of the studied area should also be included in the results section, and an overview of the actual plant communities of the studied area should be included in the supplementary materials.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have done efforts to make this paper far better that it was before. I recommend it for publication.