Monitoring Net Land Take: Is Mainland Portugal on Track to Meet the 2050 Target?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a study on land use change associated with land occupation restoration and recycling of built-up areas. The aim of the study, as the authors write, is to draw the attention of policy makers and public authorities to the need to reduce, mitigate, or compensate for soil sealing (exclusion from production) in order to achieve a target of "no net land take" by 2050 and higher levels of renaturalization.  

The paper is written correctly in terms of the structure of a scientific article. The abstract is written briefly and fully reflects the content of the research described in the article.  The literature review is also positive, referring directly to the subject of the research and presenting mainly the current scientific achievements in this field. The methodology of the conducted research does not raise any objections. I suggest that figures 2,3,4,5 on pages 15, 18, 23 should be made in higher resolution as the present one is difficult to read. Figure 5 on page 20 in the description of land occupancy unit km2 overlaps the description.     

Summing up: The work is an advance in the current knowledge. It is written in a good, clear scientific language supported by figures and diagrams as well as tables with data, which readability should be improved as far as their quality is concerned. The aim of the work clearly defined and described both in the introduction, later developed in the study. The research element of the work is described in sufficient detail, which helps to interpret the results. In the reviewer's opinion the paper meets the requirements of the journal and may be published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We are very grateful for your comments, which have helped us improve the original manuscript. In response to your comments, we have reformatted all the tables in the manuscript and resized most of the figures to increase their readability.

As requested by the other reviewers, we rewrote the abstract and reorganized the introduction, materials and methods, discussion, and conclusions sections by adding or changing content.

Given the number of amendments, in addition to a manuscript marked with changes, we have also provided a clean manuscript.

We hope that our revised version delivers the desired outcome.

Rita Nicolau & Beatriz Condessa

Reviewer 2 Report

Land consumption is a challenge to be urgently faced in order to promote sustainability. This paper analyses the transformation of land using  with a critical approach the  net land take concept and parameter in the Portugal context. The article is  well written and the theoretical and methodological approaches are clearly exposed. Its contextual approach is also interesting. The result of analysis clearly show the enormous transformations of land determined by infrastructures and commercial settlements. However I found the normative conclusions discomforting in their being resigned to the overbuilding of cities. May we think considering cities as places to be reintegrated into nature?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 
Thank you for your question, which helped us to improve our conclusions. In response to the other reviewers, we rewrote the abstract and conclusions and reorganized the introduction, materials and methods, and discussion sections, adding or changing their content. In addition, we improved the formatting of all tables, increased the size of most figures, and checked the literature. Given the number of amendments, in addition to a manuscript marked with changes, we have also provided a clean manuscript. Therefore, we hope that our revised version delivers the desired outcome. 
Rita Nicolau & Beatriz Condessa

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments

The reviewed article is very interesting. I would like to point out several elements that should help the authors to improve the paper. 

In the reviewer's opinion, the presented article requires reorganization of both the abstract and the main content, which should provide more clarity.   

Please read the Instructions for Authors relating to the sections of the research manuscript, the order and titles of the included sections and follow them.

Please indicate more clearly the originality of the research presented. Do the results of the analysis provide an advance in current knowledge, and to what extent?   

The theoretical framework of the research process pursued would need to be indicated. The reviewer does not notice the literature review aspect

The formatting of the literature should be checked.

Abstract

The abstract should be structured, it should include 

1) The research problem (the topic of the paper mentioned in a general way), 

2) purpose of the paper (is the purpose also included in the paper?), 

3) method and research area, 

4) general description of research results (general conclusions without describing them, what is their contribution to business practice)

5) you can indicate what new contributions the paper makes to the economy and science 

There should be no literature references in the introduction ? [EU, 2011].

Introduction

It seems that the introduction should be cleaned up. In a general way, the authors lead the reader into the analyzed research problem (maybe it would be possible to extend it). 

The introduction should include the purpose of the study, time of the study, indication of the choice of research method (but we will not describe it) (should be more clearly indicated). Lack of research questions or research hypothesis makes it difficult to evaluate the article. 

It would be good to indicate legal aspects of the topic.

The Lirerature Review should be extracted from it and supplemented with 

Literature review (the reviewer does not find in the paper submitted for review)

The reviewer does not find separately this part. In all points of the study there are elements that can be attributed here.  

Method and material 

It seems to be correct. Without knowledge of aim, questions, possible research hypotheses it is difficult to assess its validity. 

It needs more organization. It would be good to indicate more clearly the purpose of the work and why the authors have chosen the indicated methods of analysis and what are their advantages and disadvantages.

Please state the softs and their variants used for statistical analysis.

The author indicates the change matrix, how it was constructed, what its value is for the topic addressed.

What are the stages of analysis, and can organize this part according to them.

Results 

Please note that the figures and tables included in this section are about 9 pages long. Is it not too much?

What elements (variables) determine the problem?

Discussion

What is the nature of the conducted research, national, local, regional? There should be a reference to the research results of other authors. What the reviewer does not notice in the reviewed material.

At the end of Discussion section please add strengths and limitations of this study 

Conclusions  

In addition to general conclusions, references to obtained results, indication of problems the authors had during the analysis, or who can use the study, In the conclusion section please indicate the originality of the presented research.  Do the results of the analysis provide an advance in current knowledge, and to what extent? Can the research be related to the international literature, and to what extent?

 References 

Please refer to the Instructions for Authors on MDPI reference writing style and application.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
We are very grateful for your comments, which have helped us improve the manuscript. As requested, we rewrote the abstract and conclusions and reorganized the introduction, materials and methods, and discussion sections, adding or changing their content. Furthermore, we improved the formatting of all tables, increased the size of most figures, and checked the literature, which now includes three additional references.
Given the number of amendments, in addition to a manuscript marked with changes, we have also provided a clean manuscript.
We hope that our revised version delivers the desired outcome. 
Rita Nicolau & Beatriz Condessa

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper is interesting, topical and addresses a relevant theme for practice. The paper quantifies the land cover/use changes related to land take, re-naturalization, and recycling of developed land in mainland Portugal between 2007 and 2018. The paper's topic and research question are relevant to land journal readers. The authors explain the research questions clearly and the research methodology is sound. However, I have some reservations. Most importantly, the definition of quantitative targets aimed at achieving national objectives, and monitoring of land transformation didn't explain it clearly. In particular, the authors need to deepen empirical support and policy enlightenment which has focussed on monitoring of land transformation and its mechanism. Specific recommendations are as follows.

1. The abstract needs to refine the research conclusions according to the research results and further refine the mechanism behind the phenomenon.

2. Table 1 and Table 2. definitely requires further development – the source is not clear. Please supply the documentary evidence of the calculation basis.

3. Line 392, 2.1Study area needs to be clear. It is suggested to add a figure .

4. Table 6. Indicators on the growth of resident population and artificial surface areas see my comment as in case of Table 1.

5. Figure 7. In case it is possible, it would be necessary to further adjust the chart label and font size.

6. The discussion needs to be divided into two points or more. Combined with the mechanism diagram, the thematic similarities between COS and CLC are based on different technical characteristics process explanation is given. Conclusion part requires further development especially according to recycling of developed land, land take and population growth and policy recommendations.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
We are very grateful for your comments, which have helped us improve the manuscript. As requested, we rewrote the abstract and conclusions and reorganized the introduction, materials and methods, and discussion sections, adding or changing their content. Furthermore, we improved the formatting of all tables, increased the size of most figures, and checked the literature, which now includes three additional references.
Given the number of amendments, in addition to a manuscript marked with changes, we have also provided a clean manuscript.
We hope that our revised version delivers the desired outcome. 
Rita Nicolau & Beatriz Condessa

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The author has revised as required, but the overall language needs to be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your comments. To address them, we have revised the results section and changed the observation regarding the Oeste region, which stems from the content presented in Table 6. We also sought to improve the English of the manuscript.

In addition to the previous manuscript marked with changes, we also provide a revised, clean version of it.

We hope that this second revised version will provide the desired outcome.

Best regards,

Rita Nicolau & Beatriz Condessa