Legal Easements as Enablers of Sustainable Land Use and Infrastructure Development in Smart Cities
Cǎtǎlin Silviu Cǎtǎlin Silviu
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article meets the publication requirements.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you very much for your positive comment appreciating our research work.
Best regards author
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors propose an interesting study on legal easements and their role in the context of sustainable land use and infrastructure development in smart cities, applied to the case of the Slovak Republic.
The paper identifies some critical organisational issues that need to be addressed.
The authors propose a literature review on easements and smart cities, however, they have not integrated a structured scheme of the literature review that could support the reconstruction of the review based on the identified methods, i.e. legal analysis, comparative method, historical interpretation and various other approaches.
It is suggested to integrate a structure of the literature review with reference to the data sources for each field of analysis.
n the material and methods section, there is no mention of an approach to the in-depth analysis of smart cities and related policies that will be relevant in the context of the analysis to be undertaken.
The period from line 227 to line 244 should be revised, perhaps it should be brought forward, in fact the authors introduce the different sections, including the material and methods section, but they do so in the same section.
The Results section does not show the results for the different analytical methods used and reported in the Materials and Methods section. There is no direct link to the analytical methods used in this section. The topic of smart cities is introduced in this section, but the approach to be taken has not been previously stated or described.
It is suggested that the Results section be revised once the Materials and Methods section has been integrated. The results section should be better organised in order to highlight the key issues arising from the easement analysis and those relating to smart cities and how they relate to each other. It is suggested to use a more schematic and less discursive approach, which could improve the ability to communicate the results of this research.
The question of how easements could help to promote the efficient use of sustainable land use and infrastructure development in smart cities, which is currently only hinted at and supported by a long list of issues, should be further discussed.
It is suggested that the Discussion section should precede the Conclusion section, see Land template. It is suggested to add to the Discussion section, which currently seems to be a second Conclusion section. This section should present comparisons of the authors' findings with those found in the literature and in contexts other than Slovakia. Expand the literature to include international cases, at least for comparisons in the discussion section.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you very much for your time and willingness to review our manuscript, which attempts to address two seemingly different topics.
We have read your substantive and constructive comments very carefully. We have incorporated the changes in the manuscript into the change tracking system to make it easier for you to navigate the text.
1
Especially based on your comments, we have supplemented the Introduction with a review of the literature on the use of easements in other countries, so that this section can be used in the final discussion.
2. We have comprehensively revised the methodology according to your recommendations, including text modifications in lines 227-241.
3. As for the organization of the third chapter "Results", this organization/systematics of the manuscript was carried out based on the recommendations of previous reviewers. It is not entirely clear to us how this systematics could have been done better.
4. We apologize in advance for the chaotic labeling of the final part of the version of the manuscript that you reviewed. You are right, the labeling was unintentionally incorrect. The discussion part has been expanded by several paragraphs, so that the meaning of the scientific study is mainly fulfilled. Also, as we have already mentioned, we have supplemented the literature with additional sources dealing with the issue of easements in other countries.
Dear reviewer, we hope that we have met your expectations by editing the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article submitted for peer review is focused on a partial and little-discussed topic across the entire scientific and lay public. It is the topic of statutory easements and their important role in the development of smart cities. The authors analyze the legislative framework and the possibilities of using these legal instruments to support sustainable land use and infrastructure. They dynamically point out the fact that effectively implemented easements can significantly contribute to resolving conflicts between private property and public interest. The scientific study is methodologically well-managed, using mainly legal analysis, comparative methods and the historical method, which expresses the genesis of the importance of the chosen topic. The main contribution is the identification of the potential of easements in optimizing urban space and regulating access to public services. I appreciate the analytical depth of the scientific study, the connection of theory with practice and the clear interpretation of legal norms in the area under study. The benefit of the scientific study is to pave the way for initiating legislative amendments that can reflect the needs of smart cities in the context of sustainable development. I see potential in the future to expand this topic and supplement it with best practices from other countries, which would further highlight the need to address this issue. This is a recommendation for authors pro futuro. Nevertheless, the article is a valuable scientific contribution and brings original perspectives on the use of easements in smart cities. It can serve as a starting point for future research in the development of smart cities.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you very much for your positive comment appreciating our research work as well as suggesting other possible focuses of the researched issue.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors revised their paper on the basis of the suggestions. The revision of their paper was somewhat chaotic.
The meaning of Figure 1 is unclear; it shows the structure of the paper, not that of a literature review.
The whole new section from line 201 to 217, in which the authors introduce the different sections of the paper, should be added at the end of the Introduction section.
The following sentence is ambiguous ‘For easier orientation in this scientific study, we also include a structured literature review with respect to their relevance to the key research methods applied in this study’. The authors had stated that the approaches used in the review of the extensive literature on the subject would be 'legal analysis, comparative method, historical interpretation, policy and governance analysis and case studies'. In this latest version, the authors propose more detail and have included Figure 2 to support this. This integration is fine, but it should be clear to all that this is the approach to analysing the subject of their paper. The authors did not integrate the results section as suggested. To support the revision of this section, once the methodological approach has been defined, the results section usually highlights the results of the analysis, so in this case the results of the legal analysis, the comparative method, the historical interpretation, the policy and governance analysis, the case studies and the interaction of legal easements with the broader regulatory and policy framework of smart cities should be highlighted. It would therefore be sufficient to reorganise the results section on the basis of the different steps presented in the methods section to ensure the logical coherence of the paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript revisions in light of your comments and those of other reviewers.
Based on your current observations and suggestions, we have revised the manuscript and incorporated your comments to the best of our ability.
As we stated in our previous response to your comments, the structure of the manuscript has been revised based on the instructions of other authors.
We greatly appreciate your opinion. Despite our best efforts, we do not understand how the structure of the manuscript should be revised. We believe that the manuscript represents a homogeneous whole, with the individual chapters/subchapters logically following each other.
We hope that we have met your requirements.
With deep respect and gratitude Authors
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsYour article successfully addresses a complex topic in a balanced and well-documented manner. The connection between legal easements and the development of sustainable infrastructure in smart cities is not only original but also exceptionally well-argued. I particularly appreciated the integration of legal aspects with the technological dimension, as well as the references to sustainability, which is a critical element in today’s context. I recommend expanding the section on emerging technologies, such as the use of blockchain for easement management, to further strengthen the practical relevance of your analysis. Additionally, the case studies are well-chosen and provide increased applicability; however, including an example from a less explored jurisdiction could broaden the research's impact. This work has significant potential to become a benchmark in the field. Please reformulate this content insert in p. 8: „Legal easements can also play a key role in infrastructure development and sustain- 370 able land use in smart cities. As mentioned above, their main function is to allow limited 371 use of real estate by non-owners. In the context of smart cities, easements can also be used 372
in the following ways. 373
1. Support for infrastructure development: legal easements allow access to land needed 374
for the construction and maintenance of key infrastructure such as energy networks 375
(e.g. smart grids), renewable energy networks, data connectivity cables and sensor 376
networks. This approach is essential for the functioning of the digital infrastructure 377
that underpins the smart city. 378
2. Improving mobility and accessibility: easements allow the creation of access routes 379
for public and green transport, such as cycle paths, pedestrian zones or charging sta- 380
tions for electric vehicles. These access points promote sustainable mobility that re- 381
duces traffic congestion and emissions in cities, an important aspect of a smart city. 382
3. Promoting green and blue infrastructure: easements can be established to protect and 383
maintain green belts, water corridors or local ecosystems that contribute to resilience 384
to climate change. These easements can include access for ecological care and man- 385
agement of natural resources in the city, thereby promoting the ecological sustaina- 386
bility of the urban environment. 387
4. Community and government involvement: Smart cities emphasise collaboration be- 388
tween public administrations, communities and the private sector. Easements can 389
foster such forms of cooperation by allowing more flexible use of land for public pro- 390
jects. In this way, residents can be involved in the planning and management process, 391
thereby supporting the bottom-up approach to decision-making that is characteristic 392
of smart governance. 393
5. Resolving conflicts between private property and the public interest: easements serve 394
as a legal tool to balance individual property rights and the needs of society, which 395
is crucial in the development of smart infrastructure. They allow the deployment of 396
technological and environmental projects without the need for a complete transfer of 397
ownership, thus minimising conflicts between the public and private sectors. [19]” Please take into consideration multidisciplinary papers as:
Thank you.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe introduction is clear and provides the relevance of the research.
Line 74: The main objective of this thesis is….: I wonder if this is a thesis or manuscript!!
There are critical issues in the research approaches: How the case study analysis was done? How the review of regulations or laws was undertaken? How the reviewed documents were selected? How the comparison was undertaken? Which aspects or parameters were taken into account? How the collected data were analyzed? etc.
The authors do not show how they selected the key informants. Actors in land administration and management were not included in the research, while the issue of easement is very relevant to individual land rights. There is no inclusion of landowners in the survey, while their experience, opinions and insights on easement and its benefits are very important in this research.
It is not explained why the authors put emphasis on energy related regulations (Energy Act) while the easement can apply in land acquisition for any infrastructure provision. It is also questionable if the use eminent domain is not applicable in the case study. The authors are silent about this. Generally, public projects require the application of compulsory land acquisition, rather than easement.
The authors tend to argue that the easement contributes to sustainable land use and smart cities development, without any evidence. In addition, the concept sustainable land use imbues different aspects so that it is very hard to state that easements contribute to achievement of sustainability in land use.
If the study was undertaken in Slovak Republic, I wonder why the authors have relied on other countries situations as key elements of findings !!
The contents of sections 3.3 up to 3.11.4 are barely the provisions of some regulations and authors arguments, and do not reflect any research finding !! Example: The content of lines 956 up to 971 are general texts which were compile from the general literature and do not portray the study results. Generally, there is no any content that shows the outcomes or benefits of applying the easement in country of study. Part of results section is extracted from US data, while no findings for the case study are presented.
The conclusion does not provide the key message from the research or its scientific relevance or policy implication.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Brief overview:
Thank you for allowing me to peer review this interesting article which I read with attention. The article aism at discussing the importance of legal easements for smart cities and their role in promotinhg infrastructures development.
In setting out the objectives of the article, the abstract states that it aims at discussing the role of legal easements to promote infrastructure development and sustainable land use in smart cities by enabling integration of renewable energy.
General comments:
Strengths:
The topic treated is ao utmost interest and it could pave the way for discussion on the role of legal easements in the context of climate change in many jurisdictions. The topic is really interesting and the abstract is very captivating.
Weaknesses:
Also the author has kept some of the language of their doctoral thesis. There are several inaccuracies both in the legal description of easement and in some technical observations (line 782).
There is a general lack of citations and of use of references relevant to give authority to the paper.
The methodology is not clear (see comments on methodology), the discussion does not delve into specific aspects of the research and on future applications of the research, and the conclusion is too brief.
The use of words is not accurate and some terms and expressions are without providing a context or a valid definition (see detailed comments). Some concepts are introduced but not explained there is some confusion on the use of some legal terms (see details) and lack of clarity in the text and poor English construction. For example the explanation of what an easements is is not clear (line 320). The term "owner" is used without specifying if it related to the senient/burdened land or to the dominant/benefitting land.
Furthermore there is an inconsistent use of quotation marks and a very poor use of citation (lit rev needs to improve).
Abstract
It sets out the topic discussed in the article very well and generates curiosity in the reader, who is keen to go through the article to learn more about the findings and the author's views. Unfortunately after reading the article the reader realises that the article does not deliver on the promises. For example the abstract states that the article employs the comparative legal method. In subsequent parts the article highlights that it will compare EU law. The article only mentions Slovakian law and it provide comparison with USA law.
The introduction does not provide enough evidence for the article. A literature review would have helped identifying gaps in lit (e.g. on legal easement's impact on smart cities). For example the author does not explain what a smart city is. Maybe it would have been worth to have some lit. review on smart cities and/or to provide a definition and indicate that. the study will focus on (smart cities in Slovakia for example).
Materials and methods.
This section should specify what legal how was found, search strategy, how many laws and cases where found and how were these analysed. A lot of different research methods are described (legal analysis, comparative and case study analysis), but there is no evidence of their use in the discussion.
Detailed comments:
17-20: Maybe it is better to use Italic
41-42 "As it is not possible... scope. This sentence is not clear It is better. for-the author to simply state that the study will focus on Slovakian En-Aer.
44-45: It is not clear what the authors intents to demonstrate should re-phrase (need English rev.)
46 - Need to re -phrase/review.
49-52: This is not clear- The sentence is too long and too many concepts are introduced in one sentence.
59: No need of using both terms legal and legislative- Legislative is enough
59-61 Needs citation
65-67: Needs citation
67- 70: Needs citation
65-70: not clear if the author is talking about the global phenomenon or if it is looking at Slovakia
74-76 Somehow repeats what was said above the use of the term "thesis" is incorrectvery poor lit. rev.
97: need to explain "several others'
100-110: It would be worth to add the search strategy for the legal databases as well as the search string
129: "apply an analogous application" unclear expression. Needs to specify
155:: "our territory" does it mean Europe, Slovakia or?
158- 159: Not clear what this means The author distinguishes a "basis" and a "complete basis' "for easements' regulation in the Slovakian legal system. The author should specify what they mean by this.
192-195: The transition from Roman law to the Slovakian context is not smooth. The author should specify the period or the date until which easements were regulated by customary law.
196: Does this refer to Slovakia?
200: citation needed
246-249: This is unclear please revise/ review and specify what is meant by" special regulation"
249: not specified what the abbreviation “COLL” stands for
254-257: This is unclear. There is a sentence which is interrupted abruptly. It is not clear why and on which basics the economic Code did not meet the needs of ordinary people. This should be explained.
Section 3.2 easment general should come before section 3.1 legal easement Historical development (i.e. 3.1-Easements 3.2-legal easements 3.2.1 legal easements, historical development)
312:" Lien" the word is introduced without explaining the concept
320: Flow - the definition of easement contains the term defined.
335: unclear
374-398: interesting points, but the lack of citations affects the quality of the points expressed.
403-426: there was no mention of a comparison with the USA. The intro discussed a comparison woth the EU legislation, but not with the USA. This seems to be out of scope.
784-786 : The statement on the battery energy storage systems (BESS) that can store electricity in summer for use in winter is not correct. Normally these batteries store electricity in daytime for use in night time.. At the moment there are no batteries that can store electricity generated through renewable energy over a long period of time. This is not a red nose for the argument discussed in these lines, although the sentiment. Hear the is a need of a physical location for a BESS is valid.
Further Suggestions
There is a lot of interesting material and the article could really bring a contribution to the field if the authors claroify its methodology and scope (e.g. Slovakian Law or EU law or USA), identify standards for comparison of different systems (and then using a table to visually represent such comparison) and provide reccomendation on best practices.
The article needs to be re-organised, re-written and supported by relevant citations. The methodology needs to be re-considered and strengthened. The overall impression is that the author over promises and under delivers. The English needs to be substantially revised and more appropriate legal team have to be used.
The geographical focus of the article and its case studies should be made clear at the onset.
Needs more lit rev. on Smart cities, Legal easements, easements and climate change (if any)
Comments on the Quality of English Language
A substantial revision of the English is required. Long sentences become often unclear. Moreover use of appropriate easements related terminology is needed.
