Shrinkage Does Not Follow Population Decline on a Regional Scale: Planning and Reality of Residential Area in Japan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I appreciate the interest for this topic and I believe that it can be a great resource for further studies that analyses also the morphological changes of the residential units and the demand for updated/upgraded ones. From my point of view the article is very well documented and the data used is well supported by references and other data bases. I liked the wide angle off approach used in the first part, that builds context at a global scale and then moves towards Japan but still uses references of particular elements from other countries.
Although the paper does not follow the usual structure with introduction, methodology, results, discussions and conclusions, I don’t think this is an issue because the information is well structured and there is a clear red line that can be easily followed by the reader and maybe it makes more sense to be organized like this. I believe that the discussions section could have been a bit more into speculating on the cause of this relations between household, residential units, population and maybe the profile of the population and other elements that are influencing them (industry, job profile, amenities, services, culture, and so on), but that might be a good subject for another research.
The conclusions are very clear and well presented, and now I am curious to see a future article focused on the new NLUP-NP and NLUP-PP and their approach on this topic.
Congratulations and good luck with your future research!
Author Response
Thank you very much for your precious peer review. I have made the following corrections and add my comments inline below.
comment 1: I believe that the discussions section could have been a bit more into speculating on the cause of this relations between household, residential units, population and maybe the profile of the population and other elements that are influencing them (industry, job profile, amenities, services, culture, and so on), but that might be a good subject for another research.
Response 1: Following to the comment, a phrase to mention the influence of other factors to be studied in the future was added in line 569 to 571 on the page 17.
I appreciate your precious comments. Following your comments and suggestions, I will improve my own study in the future.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript offers a valuable analysis of changes in residential areas in Japan, focusing on the interplay between population decline and land use planning. The observation that residential areas continue to expand despite a shrinking population provides important insights into regional planning. To enhance the quality and impact of this work, deeper discussion and careful proofreading are recommended.
While the manuscript effectively addresses the role of the National Land Use Planning (NLUP) system, the discussion could be enriched by examining additional factors influencing residential land use, such as socio-economic changes, urbanization trends, or policies beyond NLUP. This broader exploration would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors driving residential expansion and strengthen the study’s arguments. Additionally, a thorough review of the manuscript to eliminate typographical errors, inconsistencies, and issues with the organization of headings will help maintain clarity and professionalism.
For example, in Line 82, Page 2, “2.1. Research Trends on Land Uuse Planning Systems and Regional Land Use Planning” should be revised as “2.1. Research Trends on Land Use Planning Systems and Regional Land Use Planning”; the subtitles of “3.1. Data on Residential Area” and “3.2. Data on Residential Area” are the same; the subtitles of “4.1. Enactment of NLUP-PPs and changes in population and households” and “4.2. Enactment of NLUP-PPs and changes in population and households” are the same.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI recommend the authors conduct a thorough review of the manuscript to ensure that there are no typographical errors, inconsistencies in the text, or issues with the organization of headings.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your peer review. I have made the following corrections and add my comments inline below.
Comment 1: To enhance the quality and impact of this work, deeper discussion and careful proofreading are recommended.
Response 1: Following to your comment, I added additional discussion including limitations which will be considered for the future study (ex. in line 548 to 552 on the page 16 to 17 and proofread again to refine the manuscript as shown highlighted.
Comment 2: While the manuscript effectively addresses the role of the National Land Use Planning (NLUP) system, the discussion could be enriched by examining additional factors influencing residential land use, such as socio-economic changes, urbanization trends, or policies beyond NLUP. This broader exploration would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors driving residential expansion and strengthen the study’s arguments.
Response 2: Following to the comment, a phrase to mention the influence of other factors to be studied in the future was added in line 569 to 571 on the page 17.
Comment 3: Additionally, a thorough review of the manuscript to eliminate typographical errors, inconsistencies, and issues with the organization of headings will help maintain clarity and professionalism. For example, in Line 82, Page 2, “2.1. Research Trends on Land Uuse Planning Systems and Regional Land Use Planning” should be revised as “2.1. Research Trends on Land Use Planning Systems and Regional Land Use Planning”; the subtitles of “3.1. Data on Residential Area” and “3.2. Data on Residential Area” are the same; the subtitles of “4.1. Enactment of NLUP-PPs and changes in population and households” and “4.2. Enactment of NLUP-PPs and changes in population and households” are the same.
Response 3: Following to the comment, I reviewed the manuscript and corrected some words and phrases. And I corrected 2.1., 3.2. and 4.2. in order to fit the contents in each section.
I appreciate your precious comments. Following your comments and suggestions, I will improve my own study in the future.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe overall topic of the paper tackles a currently significant topic in urbanism since the concept of shrinking cities is present, especially in Europe according to the population decline, mostly in rural areas.
However, a strong connection with the sustainability concept should be made in section 1.
Proposed changes in the title: Shrinkage Doesn't Follow Population Decline on a Regional Scale: Planning and Actual Conditions of Residential Areas in Japan. Consider changing the word actual in the title.
The scientific methodology used should be mentioned in the abstract, also, the results are not clearly stated in the abstract.
In section one, references to existing and previous studies are not presented in the reference list. Also, in this section, the clear aims and research problems that initiated the study should be mentioned.
The main issue is that the manuscript lacks a section on methods and materials that thoroughly describe the scientific methodology and phases of the research. Furthermore, it is a bit unclear which presented part of the research and tables/graphics is part of the original research and which part is (only) based on the primary resources.
Also, in the discussion section, the clear implications with the previous similar studies should be emphasized, followed by an explanation of the possible limitations of this particular research.
Please follow the journal template and detailed instructions for writers.
The English language needs proofreading.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language especially in the headlines.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your peer review. I have made the following corrections and add my comments inline below.
Comment 1: a strong connection with the sustainability concept should be made in section 1.
Response 1: Following to the comment, a statement related to sustainability of urban areas was added in line 60 on page 2.
Comment 2: Proposed changes in the title: Shrinkage Doesn't Follow Population Decline on a Regional Scale: Planning and Actual Conditions of Residential Areas in Japan. Consider changing the word actual in the title.
Response 2: Following to the comment, the word of the title and the chapter 4 “actual conditions” were changed to “reality”
Comment 3: The scientific methodology used should be mentioned in the abstract, also, the results are not clearly stated in the abstract.
Response 3: Following to the comment, respective new sentences to state the methodology and the main clear conclusion were added to the abstract.
Comment 4: In section one, references to existing and previous studies are not presented in the reference list.
Response 4: Following to the comment, a sentence to explain the detail by some references to existing and previous studies on shrinking cities was added to the chapter one. (line 32 to 33 on the page 1)
Comment 5: Also, in this section, the clear aims and research problems that initiated the study should be mentioned.
Response 5: Following to the comment, a sentence to express concisely the main aim and research problems initiated the study was added to the chapter one. (line 70 to 71 on the page 2)
Comment 6: The main issue is that the manuscript lacks a section on methods and materials that thoroughly describe the scientific methodology and phases of the research.
Response 6: Following to the comment, the first chapter was divided into three sections and a section to explain the detailed methodologies and phases of the research were added.
Comment 7: Furthermore, it is a bit unclear which presented part of the research and tables/graphics is part of the original research and which part is (only) based on the primary resources.
Response 7: Following to the comment, a sentence or a phrase to explain how to make Figure 1 and Figure 4 were added respectively (line 220 o 222 on the page 5 and line 356 on the page 9). For the other figures and tables, it seems to be clear that the author made them since the statements to explain methodologies clearly describes how to collect the data by the author.
Comment 8: Also, in the discussion section, the clear implications with the previous similar studies should be emphasized, followed by an explanation of the possible limitations of this particular research.
Response 8: Following to the comment, a new paragraph to explain the main implication and limitation was added to the end the chapter 5 (line 548 to 553 on the page 16 to 17).
Comment 9: The English language needs proofreading.
Response 9: Following to your comment, I proofread again and refined the manuscript as highlighted in the paper.
Comment 10: Minor editing of English language especially in the headlines.
Response 10: Following to the comment, I reviewed the manuscript and corrected some words and phrases. And I corrected 2.1., 3.2. and 4.2. in order to fit the contents in each section.
Thank you very much for your peer review. I have made the following corrections and add my comments inline below.
