Land Surveying and Squatting
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In general, the paper is interesting and relevant and easy to follow. I would view it as a minor contribution to the literature.
Some sentences are difficult to follow and are in need of language editing. There are also numerous typos. An example from page 2: "Suspicion and animosity towards the surveyor by native peoples and squatters has a long history (see for instance. [11] but the matter has not come to pass."
I have no objections to the Coasian analytical framework that the authors use to shed light on the interrelationships between squatting, surveying, and land titling. But there is one question that I think could be discussed in more detail. This is the contrast between the relatively efficient land use policy of adverse possession associated with mature common law jurisdictions, which enables the newly titled land owners (the former squatters) to use their land as collateral for loans, for example for entrepreneurial ventures. This seems to be in contrast with the "sloppy" approach that is alluded to in the examples from Ming/Qing China and the PRC. De facto squatting is simply a fact of life in the latter examples, and formalization seems of little interest to the legal system/authorities.
I would like to see a discussion of this, maybe along the lines of the reasoning of H. De Soto in "The Mystery of Capital" (a book that, by the way, Coase explicitly endorsed). The link between squatting, surveying, and titling on the one hand and economic development through bottom-up entrepreneurship would make the paper interesting (and perhaps more than a minor contribution to the literature).
Of the case studies, Kowloon Walled City seems especially interesting, since it is a somewhat unusual intermediate case. Most transactions were informally organized within the area, but then the legal system of HK decided to recognize these transactions ex post, even though the internal workings of the KWC seem more similar to what is typical in the shanty towns of the developing world.
So this case study, in particular, could be elaborated upon a bit more.
Author Response
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
This research paper describes the actual topic – Land Surveying & Squatting. In their article authors notice, that with regards to the economic gains and costs of allowing squatting, it can be argued that squatter policies which confer on squatters some entitlement are akin to the doctrine of adverse possession in equity through recognising the benefits of the long term possession of land. As well, authors point out, that surveying and mapping of squatted areas as a key tool in the regulation of squatters in this context may or may not be carried out, contrary to common belief.
And I would like to share with authors some doubts and remarks too: it seems important to notice, that it would be needed to concentrate on the abstract of the article, as more detailed description could make better article readability. As well it would be needed to concentrate on the discussion and conclusions of the study. Thus, it would be needed to include to the concluding ideas more future oriented theoretical implications, thus accessing deeper concluding insights.
Author Response
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Congratulations for your efforts to review the article. It's seems better now.
