Regional Variations of Land-Use Development and Land-Use/Cover Change Dynamics: A Case Study of Turkey
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
MAJOR
The manuscript was well written however, it very long such that the reader could lose interest at some point.
The main drawback is that the discussion of the paper is so centred on Turkey. Some comparison has to be made with other countries of the world or planning systems.
What lessons have been learnt in the case of Turkey in relation to other countries?
Include a paragraph or two explaining these.
MINOR
Reward lines38-39 about global urban growth, If possible spilt sentence.
Line 42-insert the conjunction 'and' between resides and central.
Line 43 is not clear, do you mean how to tackle the numerous challenges.....?
Line 73-74 What do you mean by physical urbanisation? Do you mean urban expansion is less studied than factors leading up to it? - Not clear.
Line 133-Give some examples or mention some of the cities already studied in Turkey.
Lines 156-157 "More than 30% of the population" should be in parentheses
Section 2.3 Text is too dense for the purpose of this section. The paper is very long. Instead a diagram to illustrate the Turkish planning system.
The caption of Fig 5. is displaced.
Line 340 the preposition "by" is missing.
For Fig.6 and other Figures, notes should be placed under or in line with the caption.
Line 493, not clear. Do you mean High-tech firms like being located in large metropolitan regions? If so the word being is missing.
Line 530-531 regression coefficient text not showing properly
All equation numbers should be properly aligned
Equation 3 is distorted
Line 684-write the LUD acronym in word in the preceding paragraph.
Push Table 13 down.
The discussion section was well written, however, it is too centred on LULC dynamics in Turkey. What lessons have been learnt in the case of Turkey in relation to other countries?
Include a paragraph or two explaining this.
Author Response
The manuscript was well written however, it very long such that the reader could lose interest at some point.
The length of the article was shortened through removal of some text in the introduction part and the section on future land-use projections was completely removed from the manuscript.
The main drawback is that the discussion of the paper is so centred on Turkey. Some comparison has to be made with other countries of the world or planning systems. What lessons have been learnt in the case of Turkey in relation to other countries? Include a paragraph or two explaining these.
Following the recommendations, the conclusion and discussion section was revised (see section 5)
Reward lines38-39 about global urban growth, If possible spilt sentence.
Following the second reviewer’s comments, this text was completely removed from the manuscript.
Line 42-insert the conjunction 'and' between resides and central.
Following the second reviewer’s comments, this text was completely removed from the manuscript.
Line 43 is not clear, do you mean how to tackle the numerous challenges.....?
Following the second reviewer’s comments, this text was completely removed from the manuscript.
Line 73-74 What do you mean by physical urbanisation? Do you mean urban expansion is less studied than factors leading up to it? - Not clear.
Following the second reviewer’s comments, this text was completely removed from the manuscript.
Line 133-Give some examples or mention some of the cities already studied in Turkey.
This information was added to the text (see line no. 99-100)
“…either focusing on various cities or regions at the local level including Adana, Samsun, Kemer and Istanbul…”
Lines 156-157 "More than 30% of the population" should be in parentheses
It was put into the parenthesis
Section 2.3 Text is too dense for the purpose of this section. The paper is very long. Instead a diagram to illustrate the Turkish planning system.
Some text explaining the Turkish planning system was removed and instead a new figure representing the planning system was added (see Figure 3).
The caption of Fig 5. is displaced.
It is corrected
Line 340 the preposition "by" is missing.
It is added
For Fig.6 and other Figures, notes should be placed under or in line with the caption.
Notes were replaced under the figure caption (see Figures 5, 7, 8 and A1)
Line 493, not clear. Do you mean High-tech firms like being located in large metropolitan regions? If so the word being is missing.
Yes it is true, the word ‘being’ was added to the text
Line 530-531 regression coefficient text not showing properly
All equation numbers should be properly aligned
They were aligned equally
Equation 3 is distorted
Equation 3 was removed completely from the text as the manuscript does not cover future land use projections anymore
Line 684-write the LUD acronym in word in the preceding paragraph.
That part was completely removed from the text
Push Table 13 down.
That part was completely removed from the text
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of the paper is an interesting one, as the changes in land use and cover represent a pivotal aspect in evaluating environmental transformations and assessing the dimension of human impact. However, the manuscript needs to be significantly improved to better respond to the requirements of Remote Sensing Journal but also be more scientifically sound and appeal to a broader audience. Also, the authors should streamline the article a bit, as both length of text and number of tables and maps are to large and can make it difficult to follow the main ideas.
The Introduction is not very straightforward. It is not clear why the authors put so much emphasis on urban environments and the urbanization process (Ln 34-47, Ln. 52-62). The relation between urban and rural level should be also clarified in the objectives of the paper. Having four such large objectives seems like a difficult task to handle in a single paper. There is some information about Turkey in the introduction which would better fit in the case study description.
Methodology (or Data and analysis in the paper). For an article published in 2019 I would suggest it also includes the CLC from 2018, as the last one used in the article (2012) is not that actual anymore. The relation to the regional level of analysis the title would suggest is not that clearly explained in lines (78-95). Figure 5 is included two times in the manuscript. The methodology also includes some of already results (like Table 1 and analysis) which is better suited in other places.
Regional differences (I guess correspond to the results section) and possible driver sections need to be streamlined a bit as they contain to much information and not presented in a sound way. Table 7 per example shows a descriptive statistic of variables of around 25 variables used by the authors, then comes a section which is definitely methodology and data analysis, and the results of the regression and a large body of discussion about it. Also, for the change prediction section it begins with methodological section. At this point I would suggest the authors to elaborate a scheme of the workflow of the manuscript, describing both the main data sources, the methods and techniques used and the obtained results. That put in the Data and analysis section would help the reader understand a bit their work.
Discussion and conclusion sections should be strengthened and also better related with the objectives of the paper. Furthermore, results should be critically compared to results of similar studies (in Turkey or other countries). Limitations of the study should be clearly stated, and also directions on which such analysis could be strengthened.
A bit too much annex for a single study, and annex should include information which are indispensable to the study but wouldn’t fit in the main body of the paper, however a collate of different changes could be included as a single image.
The references list will be also streamlined as the manuscript is reduced in size, and also relate some references to the discussion part.
The article would be greatly improved by an English proofreading.
Author Response
The topic of the paper is an interesting one, as the changes in land use and cover represent a pivotal aspect in evaluating environmental transformations and assessing the dimension of human impact. However, the manuscript needs to be significantly improved to better respond to the requirements of Remote Sensing Journal but also be more scientifically sound and appeal to a broader audience. Also, the authors should streamline the article a bit, as both length of text and number of tables and maps are to large and can make it difficult to follow the main ideas.
Some tables and figures were either joined together or completely removed from the manuscript. The details are provided below.
The Introduction is not very straightforward. It is not clear why the authors put so much emphasis on urban environments and the urbanization process (Ln 34-47, Ln. 52-62). The relation between urban and rural level should be also clarified in the objectives of the paper.
The introduction was revised according to the suggestions: the text describing urban environments and urbanization process was completely removed. The introduction is starting as follows (line no. 33-44)
“Land-use/land cover (LULC) change has become a central component in the literature comprising the topics of global/regional change and sustainable development issues (OECD, 2018). There is vast literature covering the issues of spatio-temporal dynamics and driving forces of land-use change worldwide (García-Romero, 2007; Pang et al., 2010; Zachary, 2013; Liu et al., 2015; Yan et al., 2017; Betru et al., 2019). Anthropogenic factors comprising demographic, socio-economic and political processes (Figure 1) are the main forces leading to land-use change at the global scale (Long et al., 2007; Blumenthal et al., 2009; Seto et al., 2011). However, regional inequalities exist and have been increasing due to increasing socio-economic growth and urbanisation process (Liu et al., 2015). Regional comparative studies covering land-use change and pattern, driving forces, and consequences of land-use change would contribute to international literature on spatio-temporal evolution of land uses (Liu et al., 2015).”
The relationship between urban and rural level is explained in detail in the second paragraph (line no. 53-68).
Having four such large objectives seems like a difficult task to handle in a single paper.
The fourth objective i.e. future land-use projections was completely removed from the manuscript and therefore, the paper length was shortened and the objectives of the paper have become more concise (line no. 112-116).
There is some information about Turkey in the introduction which would better fit in the case study description.
The subject description in the introduction section was removed to the case study section. The subject paragraph in introduction now starts as follows (line no. 87):
“Over the past several decades, Turkey has experienced considerable population growth, as well as rapid economic development, and along with its continuous urbanisation and population increase, Turkey has been undergoing an increasingly significant LULC change….”
Methodology (or Data and analysis in the paper). For an article published in 2019 I would suggest it also includes the CLC from 2018, as the last one used in the article (2012) is not that actual anymore.
Although the CLC spatial data for the year 2018 for all the European countries is provided by the European Environment Agency, the subject data for Turkey has not been developed yet. The data development is currently under progress. For this reason we couldn’t include the 2018 data in our analysis. But we explained the data availability issues in the last paragraph of the introduction section as (line no. 108-111):
“…We note that European Environment Agency (EEA, 2018) has recently released CLC data of 2018 covering all European countries. However, CLC 2018 data for Turkey has not developed and included in the EEA (2018) database yet; and for this reason, we did not conduct analysis for 2018 due to data availability issues...”
The relation to the regional level of analysis the title would suggest is not that clearly explained in lines (78-95).
That paragraph was completely removed from the introduction section.
Figure 5 is included two times in the manuscript.
This was corrected in the text.
The methodology also includes some of already results (like Table 1 and analysis) which is better suited in other places.Regional differences (I guess correspond to the results section) and possible driver sections need to be streamlined a bit as they contain to much information and not presented in a sound way. Table 7 per example shows a descriptive statistic of variables of around 25 variables used by the authors, then comes a section which is definitely methodology and data analysis, and the results of the regression and a large body of discussion about it. Also, for the change prediction section it begins with methodological section. At this point I would suggest the authors to elaborate a scheme of the workflow of the manuscript, describing both the main data sources, the methods and techniques used and the obtained results. That put in the Data and analysis section would help the reader understand a bit their work.
The paper was completely re-structured and a new section on Data and Methodology was introduced. The methodology and the results were separated and explained in different sections (see line no. 232 and 280 and 426).
Discussion and conclusion sections should be strengthened and also better related with the objectives of the paper. Furthermore, results should be critically compared to results of similar studies (in Turkey or other countries). Limitations of the study should be clearly stated, and also directions on which such analysis could be strengthened.
Following the recommendations, the conclusion and discussion section was revised (see section 5)
A bit too much annex for a single study, and annex should include information which are indispensable to the study but wouldn’t fit in the main body of the paper, however a collate of different changes could be included as a single image
The figures starting from Fig. A2 to A7 were joined together and presented as a single figure i.e. Fig.2 (see Fig.2 in the Appendix)
The references list will be also streamlined as the manuscript is reduced in size, and also relate some references to the discussion part.
Some references were completely removed from the references section as the size of the text is shortened. As suggested, some related references were included in the discussion section.
The article would be greatly improved by an English proofreading
The text is double-checked and revised in the sections where it is necessary to correct the grammar
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I suggest publication.
