Decision-Making Approach for Land Use in Urban Industrial Area Redevelopment Projects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsInitial general comments:
Relevant manuscript. The Authors begin the manuscript by suggesting that Industrial development is one of the topical issues of urban policy in many cities and that the urbanization process provides the necessity of industrial area new built-up design in strong correlation with urban spatial planning issues. Without making the objective of the research clear, the Authors describe the research-question: determines the need to study the choice of alternative options for their future land use, considering the idea of ​​sustainable development of a city, which includes consideration of social, economic, and environmental aspects to choose a design land use solution for redevelopment. The authors opt for a research methodology emphasizing the multicriteria decision-making method and describe the results in two stages where the case study was conducted for three different industrial zones to dismantle the proposed operation. They end the manuscript with the research result suggesting implementing sustainable land-use solutions to improve the urban environmental quality as well as the quality of the population's life.
In general, the following positive points stand out: the research problem is interesting because industrial areas generate several problems that impede sustainable development in cities; the research objective (although not formally written) is coherent with the research-question; the research methodology is well described; and the research results are based on multiple criteria analysis which provide scientific evidence to consider the proposed model.
However, some initial negative points can be described: the model of the present research lacks a clearer description of what it is, and the part of the functioning of the model would come after clearly describing the construct, subconstruct and variables; the discussion only relates limitations related to the proposed model with other models, indicators/parameters, and the lack of interest in the application of this model due to the high costs, complexity, and lack of interest of the developers (however, authors who have proposed this model in similar contexts are not cited, because it would be interesting to consider this criterion so that the discussion of the research is more interesting). Please note this and other details described below.
Detailed Comments on Manuscript Sections (emphasizing the “scientificity” of an international article).
Title: DECISION-MAKING APPROACH FOR LAND USE ALTERNATIVES DEFINITION IN URBAN INDUSTRIAL AREAS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Consistent and adequate.
Suggestion: could include “subtitle” to facilitate reader understanding, highlighting the research locations.
Abstract:
Good and adequate.
Satisfactory contextualization/presentation of the topic(s) or theme(s).
Suggestions (emphasizing the scientific approach to a Q1 article): reiteration of the research objective (making the objective “clear”); and use the words: research methodology; results achieved or previous results obtained; research conclusion.
keywords: industrial area redevelopment, land use, 15-minute catchment zone, multicriteria decision-making analysis, GIS spatial analysis, urban sustainability.
Consistent and adequate. Suggestion: link to the research objective.
Introduction:
Not enough, unsatisfactory from a scientific methodological point of view: lack of contextualization/presentation of the topic(s) or theme(s); lack of reiterating research problems; lack of reiteration of manuscript objective (making the research objective “clear”).
Adequate: research question-problem (1.1. Research problem)
This subsection is very interesting: 1.2. Sustainability principles for industrial redevelopment (provides an overview of the current challenge facing cities).
It is still important in the Introduction: reiteration of research justifications (or relevance).
Some paragraphs were “broken” (without links / concatenations / connections between them).
Strong suggestion: revise the entire Introduction with the above observations and rewrite parts of the texts with a more scientific connotation.
Literature Review: Despite this subsection: 1.2. Sustainability principles for industrial redevelopment (and 1.3. World experience in industruial redevelopment), the manuscript leaves much to be desired in terms of Literature Review.
This text (1.4. World experience in research approaches in industrial redevelopment) could also be considered part of the Literature Review.
The Literature Review is fragile and “not” coherent with Keywords.
Also challenge: few authors (no relevant national references and no international references). It was not possible to relate the Literature Review themes with the research objective (for example: 2.1. Theme 1; 2.2. Theme 2 (according to title and research objective).
Remember: Literature Review demands/requires: concepts, descriptions, types, classifications, and approaches (without it: no is Literature Review)
Strong suggestion: Create and deepen/rewrite/implement the Literature Review with more authors related to the research objective and respective keywords.
Research Methodology: 2. Research materials (This section is the most appropriate part of the manuscript (here I congratulate the authors).
Even so, I make a list of items that are relevant in a Research Methodology for the authors to make (as a suggestion) a scientific review and expansion of the manuscript: reiterate Research Method; Research Techniques; Research Phases; Research Scope (what is the Research Coverage); Observation Unit (documents or projects or websites or interviews or ...); Research Sample characterization (research location); also reiterate “methodological procedures” and/or Research Protocol (or research criteria) and respective research variables. One more suggestion: reiterate Research Period (time used for research).
For section 3. Research model and methodology, I ask the authors to consider the above suggestions.
While respecting the methodological writing style of the Authors, please consider reorganizing Sections 2 and 3 (numbered 2 and 3 by the authors). I reiterate that these Sections are very well written and detailed, especially the proposed model and its respective tables with the results obtained.
4. Results
This section is very well organized, making clear the results obtained, which are expressed by figures, tables and graphs, also considering the problem-question and the respective evaluation criteria described in Sections 2 and 3.
Please note this suggestion: the manuscript has interesting information, but it is not discussed or concluded well in the study context “alternative decision method to relocate the industrial sector in cities”, and external things such as the SDG 11 goals are debated.
5. Discussion
Section 5. Discussion summarizes the main findings of the research and is appropriate with the problem question and methodological aspects defined by the authors.
The sustainability criteria defined by the authors are adequately described. However, once again, I reiterate the importance of making clear in the Summary and Introduction the "objective of the research".
Suggestion: could reiterate summary of Research Results.
Conclusion:
Could be the Conclusion in the singular, like as in the Introduction.
Please, scientifically I do not suggest using "main idea of ​​the study" but rather "research objective".
Other scientific suggestions (as if it were a review list): review the writing, as many paragraphs are "broken" and not connected; lack of reiterate “contextualization with Section 1. Introduction; lack of “close with research objectives” (“rescue or closing with research objectives”); reiterate summary of results obtained; and lack of reiterate of the research limitations (scientific limitations).
Scientifically, the contributions left something to be desired, here are some suggestions: reiterate contributions for research location (city, prefecture, or organizations); to the management of (city, prefecture, or organizations); to academia or to relevant studies or science; contributions to the research topic (or line of research), also, and reiterate contributions to citizens (society) and urban managers or public or private managers.
Considerations of Conclusion: needs to be rewritten with a scientific connotation, including the connection with the Introduction.
References: Suggestions: few references to a scientific document; “old” References or outdated references to a scientific document. Consider References to this Journal, as well as to this Publisher.
Final considerations: The manuscript is relevant to the Sustainability Area.
In summary, the content of the Research Methodology and Results sections is in-depth and adequate, but the Introduction and Conclusion sections need to be rewritten, and the Literature Review Section needs to be created.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Some paragraphs were “broken” (without links / concatenations / connections between them).
Suggestion: review English from the perspective of scientific writing.
Author Response
Comment - Initial general comments:
- The model of the present research lacks a clearer description of what it is, and the part of the functioning of the model would come after clearly describing the construct, subconstruct and variables
Response: The description of the research model is presented in detail in Chapter 2. The design is presented graphically as an object of research in Figure 2. It shows the main parts of the considered territory of the industrial zone and its interception zone. Its components are described in detail in the text description. When making the correction, it was clarified for a better understanding. Our logic of constructing the text of the article is first a description of the object of research and then the methodology for solving the research task. Also, to improve the understanding of the model and the methodology of its research, we have added a more detailed description of the Research Method and Research Techniques to Chapter 3.2.
Comment The discussion only relates limitations related to the proposed model with other models, indicators/parameters, and the lack of interest in the application of this model due to the high costs, complexity, and lack of interest of the developers (however, authors who have proposed this model in similar contexts are not cited, because it would be interesting to consider this criterion so that the discussion of the research is more interesting).
Response: We have made edits to the discussion and introduction section to solve the identified problem. The connection of the research results with existing authors and contexts has been added. The results of our research on the main goal coincide with world experience, but we offer an author's approach that has novelty.
Detailed Comments on Manuscript Sections
Comment - Title: DECISION-MAKING APPROACH FOR LAND USE ALTERNATIVES DEFINITION IN URBAN INDUSTRIAL AREAS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Consistent and adequate. Suggestion: could include “subtitle” to facilitate reader understanding, highlighting the research locations.
Response: We respect the author's opinion, but we want to emphasize our focus on developing a methodology that will be universal for industrial zones located in cities. That's why we don't want to include the location in the title of the article. The selected city of Rostov-on-Don and three industrial zones are presented as a point of application of the methodology to show the process of its work. The case studies presented in the article were selected among more than 10 objects under consideration. The methodology is not focused on solving the problem of Rostov-on-Don and has a wider scope of application. We ask the reviewer to allow us not to include the location in the title, so as not to change the logic of the author's research.
Comment - Abstract:
Suggestions (emphasizing the scientific approach to a Q1 article): reiteration of the research objective (making the objective “clear”) and use the words: research methodology; results achieved or previous results obtained; research conclusion.
Suggestion: link to the research objective.
Response: All edits have been made according to the reviewer's comment. We have reviewed the content of the abstract and clarified the purpose of the study, the main ideas and the connection of keywords with this goal.
Comment - Introduction
Not enough, unsatisfactory from a scientific methodological point of view: lack of contextualization/presentation of the topic(s) or theme(s); lack of reiterating research problems; lack of reiteration of manuscript objective (making the research objective “clear”). It is still important in the Introduction: reiteration of research justifications (or relevance). Some paragraphs were “broken” (without links / concatenations / connections between them).
Response: According to the reviewer's comments, we have revised the content of the Introduction chapter and clarified the weaknesses. The logic of the section structure was built so that each of the sub-chapters covers an aspect of the research problem and provides an initial premise and boundary for the author's research.
Comment - Literature Review
Despite this subsection: 1.2. Sustainability principles for industrial redevelopment (and 1.3. World experience in industruial redevelopment), the manuscript leaves much to be desired in terms of Literature Review.
This text (1.4. World experience in research approaches in industrial redevelopment) could also be considered part of the Literature Review. The Literature Review is fragile and “not” coherent with Keywords. Also challenge: few authors (no relevant national references and no international references). It was not possible to relate the Literature Review themes with the research objective (for example: 2.1. Theme 1; 2.2. Theme 2 (according to title and research objective). Remember: Literature Review demands/requires: concepts, descriptions, types, classifications, and approaches (without it: no is Literature Review)
Strong suggestion: Create and deepen/rewrite/implement the Literature Review with more authors related to the research objective and respective keywords.
Response: We have made all the edits based on the comments.
40 literature sources were used for the study, and we added 6 more to strengthen the section.
To improve the quality of the section, we have added a sub-chapter 1.4 Industrial areas redevelopment concepts and approaches. We have identified a correlation between the existing experience of international research and the goals of the author's research
We have adjusted the names of the sub-chapters of section 2 for correlation with the purpose of the study.
Comment - Research Methodology
Research materials (This section is the most appropriate part of the manuscript (here I congratulate the authors). Even so, I make a list of items that are relevant in a Research Methodology for the authors to make (as a suggestion) a scientific review and expansion of the manuscript: reiterate Research Method; Research Techniques; Research Phases; Research Scope (what is the Research Coverage); Observation Unit (documents or projects or websites or interviews or ...); Research Sample characterization (research location); also reiterate “methodological procedures” and/or Research Protocol (or research criteria) and respective research variables. One more suggestion: reiterate Research Period (time used for research).
Response: We have made all the edits to the text of sub-chapter 3.2. to improve the understanding of the material.
We have divided the research materials into two chapters. Chapter 2 provides a description of the materials and methods of the study, as well as a description of the studied elements and the background of the study.
Chapter 3 provides a detailed description of the methodology, research techniques, approaches, and criteria.
Comment - For section 3. Research model and methodology, I ask the authors to consider the above suggestions.
While respecting the methodological writing style of the Authors, please consider reorganizing Sections 2 and 3 (numbered 2 and 3 by the authors). I reiterate that these Sections are very well written and detailed, especially the proposed model and its respective tables with the results obtained.
Response: We are pleased to appreciate the content of chapters 2 and 3 and respect the author's opinion on their structure. However, we believe that the issue of reorganizing sections 2 and 3 is debatable. When we wrote the article, we had in mind the author's structure of the logic of the material, which meets the requirements of IMRAD. We believe that the existing organization of sections 2 and 3 best reflects the research process that we have conducted. We ask the reviewer to understand and accept the author's style of presentation of the research sequence. At the same time, we emphasize that we have provided all the necessary information according to the reviewer's comments to improve the understanding of the article.
Comment - Results
This section is very well organized, making clear the results obtained, which are expressed by figures, tables and graphs, also considering the problem-question and the respective evaluation criteria described in Sections 2 and 3. Please note this suggestion: the manuscript has interesting information, but it is not discussed or concluded well in the study context “alternative decision method to relocate the industrial sector in cities”, and external things such as the SDG 11 goals are debated.
Response: We thank the reviewer for appreciating the content of the chapter. This remark concerns more the Discussion chapter and we tried to take it into account when making adjustments.
Comment - Discussion
Section 5. Discussion summarizes the main findings of the research and is appropriate with the problem question and methodological aspects defined by the authors.
The sustainability criteria defined by the authors are adequately described. However, once again, I reiterate the importance of making clear in the Summary and Introduction the "objective of the research". Suggestion: could reiterate summary of Research Results.
Response: We have expanded the Discussion section and clarified the correlation with the research results and the objectives of the Introduction chapter, taking into account the scientific subtext, including the connection with the Introduction.
Comment - Conclusion:
Could be the Conclusion in the singular, like as in the Introduction. Please, scientifically I do not suggest using "main idea of ​​the study" but rather "research objective".
Other scientific suggestions (as if it were a review list):
- review the writing, as many paragraphs are "broken" and not connected;
- lack of reiterate “contextualization with Section 1. Introduction;
- lack of “close with research objectives” (“rescue or closing with research objectives”);
- reiterate summary of results obtained;
- and lack of reiterate of the research limitations (scientific limitations).
Scientifically, the contributions left something to be desired, here are some suggestions: reiterate contributions for research location (city, prefecture, or organizations); to the management of (city, prefecture, or organizations); to academia or to relevant studies or science; contributions to the research topic (or line of research), also, and reiterate contributions to citizens (society) and urban managers or public or private managers.
Considerations of Conclusion: needs to be rewritten with a scientific connotation, including the connection with the Introduction.
Response: We have expanded the Conclusion section and clarified the correlation with the results of the study.
Comment - References
Suggestions: few references to a scientific document; “old” References or outdated references to a scientific document. Consider References to this Journal, as well as to this Publisher.
Response: 40 sources were used to write the article. Only 7 of them were over 10 years old. The logic of compiling the list included the selection of sources on two scales: (1) on the topic of goals, concepts, approaches to the redevelopment of industrial zones, (2) on current trends in urban sustainability and concepts of spatial urban development. To satisfy the reviewer's comment, we have expanded the list of references and added 6 articles no older than 5 years. They were used to expand the introduction section and add a new sub-chapter 1.4., as well as to improve the connection of the study with international experience.
The authors have also studied the domestic experience in full, but the publications of Russian journals are not included in international citation databases and are not confirmed sources for international articles. This is the reason for their absence from the list of references.
Comment - Final considerations: The manuscript is relevant to the Sustainability Area
In summary, the content of the Research Methodology and Results sections is in-depth and adequate, but the Introduction and Conclusion sections need to be rewritten, and the Literature Review Section needs to be created.
Responce: We have tried to make all the edits based on the reviewer's comments to improve the structure of the article, its scientific sound and better understanding.
All edits have been made to the text and highlighted in purple along with the comments of other reviewers.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The research model diagram is difficult to understand clearly. Why are the arrows included, and what do they represent?
- The value evaluation scale seems arbitrary. On what basis was this ratio established? Was it grounded in previous studies?
- There are several instances where units are incorrectly labeled.
- A thorough check for typos is necessary, such as fixing instances where lowercase letters are used at the beginning of sentences that should be capitalized.
- The project's economic feasibility is a crucial aspect, so why was it not addressed in this study? It seems necessary to conduct a scenario analysis based on actual redevelopment project cases to roughly assess cost-effectiveness.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Comment - The research model diagram is difficult to understand clearly. Why are the arrows included, and what do they represent?
Response: We have redesigned the research model diagram to make it easier to understand. We have also added symbols description to make it easier to understand. The updated Figure 2 can be found in the article on page 9.
Comment - The value evaluation scale seems arbitrary. On what basis was this ratio established? Was it grounded in previous studies?
Response: We agree with the observation. Indeed, the text of the paper does not provide explanatory information on the rationale for the scale. We have added it to the relevant sections 3.3. and 3.4.
The information wasn`t included because the process of developing this scale was a complex and long process over a period of 3 months. This study is being developed at the request of the city authorities and the evaluation system was created with the involvement of experts from developers and representatives of city planners. Three sessions of the expert commission were held, each of which decided on the evaluation methodology itself, the evaluation scale and its clarity for practical application and evaluation of the results.
Comment - There are several instances where units are incorrectly labeled.
Response: We've made all the revisions.
Comment - A thorough check for typos is necessary, such as fixing instances where lowercase letters are used at the beginning of sentences that should be capitalized.
Response: We've made all the revisions.
Comment - The project's economic feasibility is a crucial aspect, so why was it not addressed in this study? It seems necessary to conduct a scenario analysis based on actual redevelopment project cases to roughly assess cost-effectiveness.
Response: Preparing this article, we had a big discussion on the inclusion of economic valuation of land use options in the text of the article. The reason is that this topic is a separate study, has its special methodology and approach and description. It is an independent research topic. However, after your comments, it became clear that if this aspect is included in the methodology of this study, it cannot be ignored. As a compromise solution, we included only the results of the economic evaluation of the options for each case study in the text of Chapter 4 and wrote in the discussion and emphasized in the results that this topic is the limit of this study and the next topic to be developed.
Our position is still that the cost calculations of the options themselves do not carry scientific novelty or result. The selection of the project in terms of cost is made directly by the developer based on monetary policy and possibilities. What is most important is that the developer selects a project solution from the options that provide the main objective of the study - sustainable development of the city.
Comment - comments on the Quality of English Language. Minor editing of English language required.
Response: We've made all the revisions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReading the article, I find it interesting and compelling, but also fairly confusing.
The title sounds like it is about a decision-making approach for making the definitions of alternatives in redevelopment projects in industrial areas. If I understand correctly, I think the article is defining a decision-making approach for selecting alternatives among redevelopment projects in urban industrial areas. If so, Defining a Decision-Making Approach for Selecting Alternatives among Redevelopment Projects in Urban Industrial Areas or something similar would better capture the sense of the article’s actual contents.
Reading through the paper the first time, I was confused by the title, but thought I would read the abstract to get the intent, but was confused by the first line, so moved to the text of the article and was confused by the first line of it as well. A lot of the text is very dense with what looks like translated English where the English does not have a meaning that is clear from context. In other places, the meaning can be discerned but it looks like it was translated from academic language that looked good in the parent language into language that takes away from the English.
As I mentioned above, the topic is interesting, but there is a serious imbalance between the explanation of the process the paper is promoting, which feels thorough and set up well, and the case being explained, which lacks context to the extent that I am not sure how anyone not already intimately familiar with Rostov Na Donu has any basis for judging between the sites or considering the validity of the method.
I am recommending
I. A thorough proofreading of the English is necessary, preferably by someone fluent in both English and Russian.
A. This includes a need for attention to errors such as line 153 where “date” is used in the place of “data.”
B. This also includes clarity. The first sentence of the abstract (line 8) should read “Industrial development is a topical urban development issue in many cities.”
C. There are often issues with tense. Line 32 means “Modern cities face the problem of sustainable development.”
D. Stylistically, there is excessive use of first-person plural (we), creating an overly casual tone, like in a presentation that takes away from the credibility of the article and furthermore jars with the very formal and academic sound of the paper otherwise.
E. The title should be reconsidered.
II. A decision needs to be made as to the focus of the paper, either the new process or the application of the process to the Rostov Na Donu.
A. If the purpose is the former, then, the example needs to be reworked to be better explained and more generic to illustrate the method.
B. If the purpose is the latter, then there needs to be much more contextualization of the case so that the reader knows the meaning of the sites and the differentiation made in the choices made by the new method. The explanation of the method could be streamlined as well.
C. My sense is that that paper is trying to do too many things at once and would benefit from reconceptualizing with a more narrow focus.
III. The discussion is inadequate. A discussion section should situate the research findings in the context of the academic literature to draw implications. While the general topics raised in the section are appropriate, there is no reference made to specific literature matched with specific findings, issues, or lack of findings.
IV. The first half of the Conclusion section feels overly generic and the latter half feels as though it would benefit from a more specific explanation of the case as I requested above.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reading the article, I find it interesting and compelling, but also fairly confusing.
The title sounds like it is about a decision-making approach for making the definitions of alternatives in redevelopment projects in industrial areas. If I understand correctly, I think the article is defining a decision-making approach for selecting alternatives among redevelopment projects in urban industrial areas. If so, Defining a Decision-Making Approach for Selecting Alternatives among Redevelopment Projects in Urban Industrial Areas or something similar would better capture the sense of the article’s actual contents.
Reading through the paper the first time, I was confused by the title, but thought I would read the abstract to get the intent, but was confused by the first line, so moved to the text of the article and was confused by the first line of it as well. A lot of the text is very dense with what looks like translated English where the English does not have a meaning that is clear from context. In other places, the meaning can be discerned but it looks like it was translated from academic language that looked good in the parent language into language that takes away from the English.
A thorough proofreading of the English is necessary, preferably by someone fluent in both English and Russian. This includes a need for attention to errors such as line 153 where “date” is used in the place of “data.” This also includes clarity. The first sentence of the abstract (line 8) should read “Industrial development is a topical urban development issue in many cities.” There are often issues with tense. Line 32 means “Modern cities face the problem of sustainable development.” Stylistically, there is excessive use of first-person plural (we), creating an overly casual tone, like in a presentation that takes away from the credibility of the article and furthermore jars with the very formal and academic sound of the paper otherwise. The title should be reconsidered.
Author Response
Comment - A thorough proofreading of the English is necessary, preferably by someone fluent in both English and Russian.
Response: We've made all the revisions. The text has been revised by a professional translator
Comment - This includes a need for attention to errors such as line 153 where “date” is used in the place of “data.”
Response: We've made all the revisions.
Comment - This also includes clarity. The first sentence of the abstract (line 8) should read “Industrial development is a topical urban development issue in many cities.”
Response: We've made all the revisions.
Comment - There are often issues with tense. Line 32 means “Modern cities face the problem of sustainable development.”
Response: We've made all the revisions.
Comment - Stylistically, there is excessive use of first-person plural (we), creating an overly casual tone, like in a presentation that takes away from the credibility of the article and furthermore jars with the very formal and academic sound of the paper otherwise.
Response: We've made all the revisions.
Comment - The title should be reconsidered
Response: The title sounds like it is about a decision-making approach for making the definitions of alternatives in redevelopment projects in industrial areas. If I understand correctly, I think the article is defining a decision-making approach for selecting alternatives among redevelopment projects in urban industrial areas. If so, Defining a Decision-Making Approach for Selecting Alternatives among Redevelopment Projects in Urban Industrial Areas or something similar would better capture the sense of the article’s actual contents.
- A decision needs to be made as to the focus of the paper, either the new process or the application of the process to the Rostov Na Donu.
- If the purpose is the former, then, the example needs to be reworked to be better explained and more generic to illustrate the method
- If the purpose is the latter, then there needs to be much more contextualization of the case so that the reader knows the meaning of the sites and the differentiation made in the choices made by the new method. The explanation of the method could be streamlined as well.
Response: These three comments are combined in one group because they relate to the same topic.
Reading your comment, we realized that the title of the article was overloaded and needed clarification.
The purpose of the article was to develop a land use project in industrial redevelopment zones. To this end, an informed decision making approach was proposed. Thus, the title was clarified: DECISION-MAKING APPROACH FOR LAND USE IN URBAN INDUSTRIAL AREAS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The main objective of the study was to develop a decision-making approach for land use. The case studies presented on the example of one of the Russian cities - Rostov on Don. It represents only examples of the methodology implementation. They are intended to prove that the methodology works.
The methodology itself is developed for the specifics of large Russian cities, which face similar problems of urbanization and abandoned industrial zones. Also, the goal of achieving sustainable development is common. In this respect, Rostov on Don corresponds to all the prerequisites outlined in subchapters 2.1 and 2.2 of the paper.
According to the submitted comment, a description of the context of the research materials has been added to the text - a description of the city, its problems and the location of the industrial zones under consideration. We hope that this will allow a better understanding of the research context.
Comment - My sense is that that paper is trying to do too many things at once and would benefit from reconceptualizing with a more narrow focus.
Response: We respect the Reviewer's opinion. Indeed, this article presents the results of a large research work on the development of an integrated approach to the reorganization of industrial zones. One of the tasks of this work is to find optimal solutions for the content of the land use project agreed with the city authorities and developers. Such a request is now relevant for Russian cities to find compromise solutions for sustainable urban development. This topic is broad and interdisciplinary and represents a basis for further detailed development of each of its aspects. We want to emphasize the scientific value of the developed approach, which provides a broad vision of the participants of the redevelopment process, from the interests and evaluation criteria for finding sustainable development solutions. We ask to accept the author's position on this comment.
Comment - The discussion is inadequate. A discussion section should situate the research findings in the context of the academic literature to draw implications. While the general topics raised in the section are appropriate, there is no reference made to specific literature matched with specific findings, issues, or lack of findings.
Response: The discussion section has been revised. Literature references are included and the scientific limits of the study are outlined.
Comment - The first half of the Conclusion section feels overly generic and the latter half feels as though it would benefit from a more specific explanation of the case as I requested
Response: The conclusion has been revised. We have clarified the specific results of the work and emphasized the role of the case study on the example of Rostov-on-Don city -
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is much improved in the second version, but there are still issues.
Title: The title is improved but should read “Decision-Making Approach for Land Use in Urban Industrial Area Redevelopment Projects” as “Area” is being used here as an adjective and not a noun.
English: The English has been improved, but issues remain.
Abstract:
“The urbanization process provides the necessity of industrial area new built-up design in strong correlation with urban spatial planning issues.” -> The urbanization process requires new built-up industrial area design in strong correlation with urban spatial planning issues.
“The research question of the article determines the need to study the choice of alternative options for future land use.” The research question determines…? What is the research question?
“Research result has provided the proposed methodology for definition of the priority land use solution for a specific industrial area at the point of its specific location.” -> The research provides a proposed methodology for defining the priority land use solution for a specific industrial area in a specific location.
“A case study was conducted for three different industrial zones to dismantle the operation of the developed methodology.” ?
“The research conclusion provides implementing sustainable land-use solutions to improve the urban environment quality as well as the quality of the population's life.” -> The research conclusion provides suggestions for implementing sustainable land-use solutions for improving urban environmental quality as well as quality of life for the population.
Section 1:
“Modern cities constantly faceцу…” -> “face”
“The major causes of this process are inefficient use and of urban territory, social exclusion of the inhabitants, high anthropogenic impact on the environment [3, 4].” -> The major causes of this process are inefficient use of urban territory, social exclusion of the inhabitants, high anthropogenic impact on the environment [3, 4].
“Actually, many structures and sites of traditional until the last decades of the past century manufactures are abandoned, or used for uncontrolled purposes, or serve gathering place for marginalized people [5, 6].” -> Actually, many structures and sites of traditional ?????? until the last decades of the past century manufactures are abandoned, or used for uncontrolled purposes, or serve gathering place for marginalized people [5, 6]. ????
“Thus, ex-industrial areas redevelopment projects aimed to include the actually decaying city places into modern city life become extremely relevant to sustainable future functioning of the city and urban planning approaches and solutions [7, 8].” -> Thus, redevelopment projects in former industrial areas aimed at integrating actually decaying city places into modern city life have become extremely relevant to the sustainable future functioning of the city as well as to urban planning approaches and solutions [7, 8].
I got burned out trying to go through the first section, and would highly recommend further editing of the English by a fresh set of eyes who can catch mistakes missed before, which are dense at the opening of Section 1 and still sprinkled through the rest.
Section 1: Apart from the readability issues, Section 1 remains my favorite part of the paper.
Section 2: I am satisfied with the alterations to Section 2, which seems substantially improved.
Section 3: In Section 3, Table 3 appears to be repeated. Otherwise, the section appears sufficient.
Section 4: Section 4 opens with mention of Rostov as the center of the region, but does not specify the region, which was the sort of thing I thought would be fixed with added details for the case study.
The descriptors in Table 11 are unclear between IA-1 and IA-2. City Center is clear, but City Middle Area is not clear and sounds like it may be in the center. Maybe some other term like intermediate instead of middle could be used to clarify.
Table 18 would read clearer with IA-2 as Public cultural and recreation center and IA-3 as Mixed-use residential neighborhood.
Section 5: Section 5 is significantly improved. I would prefer more specific discussion in the context of presented literature and concepts from earlier in the paper, but this approach is likely adequate, adds references, and is a major improvement over the initial submission.
“At the same time, doing research we faced the problem of a large amount of work on the detail research of socio-economic, environmental, investment or stakeholder engagement aspects [1,4,10,33].” -> At the same time, the research faced the problem of detailed socio-economic, environmental, investment, and stakeholder engagement aspects [1,4,10,33].
Section 6: Section 6 is also improved. I would suggest adding points of emphasis for applying the new method outside of Russia, though it may be adequate as is.
“The implementation of the developed methodology and the results of spatial planning are presented on the example of three case studies of industrial areas in Rostov-on Don city.” -> The implementation of the developed methodology and the results of spatial planning are presented on the example of three cases of industrial areas in Rostov-on Don.
In sum:
I. Another proofreading should be done in order to clear up remaining comprehension issues.
II. Section 1 is very hard to read. Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 have some less frequent errors and are generally more readable.
III. The title should be corrected to “Decision-Making Approach for Land Use in Urban Industrial Area Redevelopment Projects”
IV. Resolve the repeat of Table 3.
V. Clarify the region at the opening of Section 4, as well as the title language in Table 11 and Table 18.
VI. Consider eliminating superfluous mentions of “discussion” in Section 5, and adding more specific references to findings related to issues raised in Section 1 and Section 2.
VII. Consider adding more specific considerations in Section 6 to applying the new method outside of Russia where the considerations may be different in a broader impact.
VIII. Review and consider the various suggested edits in the text above.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English has been improved, but issues remain. Another proofreading should be done in order to clear up remaining comprehension issues. I would recommend having someone new take a look in order to catch things that may have been missed previously.
Author Response
Comment 1
Another proofreading should be done in order to clear up remaining comprehension issues.
Response: The professional reading of the text was repeated with the involvement of a professional translator qualified in the field of scientific research of articles. All comments in the text above have been taken into account. We are sure that from the point of view of grammar, all errors in the text have been corrected. Syntactic and lexical errors have been corrected in accordance with the reviewer's comments. We ask the dear reviewer to make a relaxation in the assessment of the English language for non-native speakers.
Comment 2
- Section 1 is very hard to read. Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 have some less frequent errors and are generally more readable.
Response: The text was re-read by a professional editor. We hope that we have managed to correct all the inaccuracies.
Comment 3
- The title should be corrected to “Decision-Making Approach for Land Use in Urban Industrial Area Redevelopment Projects”
Response: The name has been corrected.
Comment 4
- Resolve the repeat of Table 3.
Response: Thank you for your attention. Table 3 has been replaced by table 4
Comment 5
- Clarify the region at the opening of Section 4, as well as the title language in Table 11 and Table 18.
The descriptors in Table 11 are unclear between IA-1 and IA-2. City Center is clear, but City Middle Area is not clear and sounds like it may be in the center. Maybe some other term like intermediate instead of middle could be used to clarify.
Response:
1 - The additional info about region at the opening of Section 4 is clarified.
2 - Title language in Table 11 and Table 18 are corrected
2.1. - Table 11. We made an edit and replaced «intermediate» instead of «middle». The use of the term average is due to the translation of the generally accepted designation of the city zone in Russian. The city is divided into 3 parts:
(1) the central - the historical part with a multifunctional land use (this can be seen in red on the land use plan in Table 11),
(2) - the middle (intermediate), located in a mixed development outside the city center (on the land use plan in table 11 there is more yellow (residential area) rather than red (multifunctional),
(3) – a peripheral zone of predominantly residential development (predominance of yellow on the land use plan in Table 11)
2.2. - Table 18. We make corrections in Table 18 - IA-2 as Public cultural and recreation center and IA-3 as Mixed-use residential neighborhood.
Comment 6
- Consider eliminating superfluous mentions of “discussion” in Section 5, and adding more specific references to findings related to issues raised in Section 1 and Section 2.
“At the same time, doing research we faced the problem of a large amount of work on the detail research of socio-economic, environmental, investment or stakeholder engagement aspects [1,4,10,33].” -> At the same time, the research faced the problem of detailed socio-economic, environmental, investment, and stakeholder engagement aspects [1,4,10,33].
Response:
1 – If we understood the comments correctly, then we have removed unnecessary references to the discussion issues in the text of section 5.
2 - To correct the remark, we did not add new sources to the work, since the list of references is comprehensive. We have identified the closest studies to the goal for us and added information about comparing the results. Additional text is highlighted in orange.
3 - The text is corrected
Comment 7
Consider adding more specific considerations in Section 6 to applying the new method outside of Russia where the considerations may be different in a broader impact.
The implementation of the developed methodology and the results of spatial planning are presented on the example of three case studies of industrial areas in Rostov-on Don city.” -> The implementation of the developed methodology and the results of spatial planning are presented on the example of three cases of industrial areas in Rostov-on Don.
Response:
1 – We added our opinion on points of emphasis for applying the new method outside of Russia in the Section 6. Additional text is highlighted in orange.
2 - The text is corrected
Comment 8
VIII. Review and consider the various suggested edits in the text above.
Response: All corrections are made.
Comment 9
Comments on the Quality of English Language: The English has been improved, but issues remain. Another proofreading should be done in order to clear up remaining comprehension issues. I would recommend having someone new take a look in order to catch things that may have been missed previously.
Response: We showed the text to the proofreader. We have made all the grammar, syntax and vocabulary edits that we found
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
