Profiling Land Use Planning: Legislative Structures in Five European Nations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1: The order of the abstract should be the research background (including practical issue and urgency), research methods, research content, and research significance. There is a problem with the current logic, please adjust it.

Point 2: The introduction explains too many concepts, such as lines 48-55, and should avoid extensively citing a single reference, like [1], [2].

Point 3: The introduction describes too much about the impact on the landscape and soil carbon sequestration, which is not the focus of your paper. It just needs to be properly introduced. What does “Curriculum” in your title refer to? There is no introduction to the “Curriculum” background, it seems to be just land-based regulations. This word only appeared once in your title and has never appeared again.

Point 4: There is no literature review or commentary. It should summarize the research results of predecessors, explore their advantages and disadvantages, and what are the advantages of this article.

Point 5: The research method is actually literature analysis. The principles of collecting literature and the total amount of literature data collected should be explained. Why is the timeline from 2018 to present? Please explain why we haven't collected data from at least the past decade.

Point 6: The table name is placed above the table, and the figure name is placed below. Table 2 is too long and needs to be simplified. Currently, its readability is poor. Alternatively, you can move it to the supplementary materials.

Point 7: The results lack subheadings to summarize and the logic is too disorganized. You should summarize the theme of your content with subheadings.

Point 8: This seems to be a review paper, but a review paper also needs to have its own insights, such as presenting author independent questions and suggestions. At present, the author's own opinions are too limited, almost all of which are listing the land laws of various countries.

Point 9: The research objectives are to formulate terms, identify problems, and solve them, but no countermeasures or suggestions have been proposed.

Point10: The paper should have a conclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English of the manuscript should be revised and improved.

Author Response

We want to welcome all the valuable insights and comments of the esteemed Reviewer. Adhering to the comments and suggestions, we provide the following feedback:

• We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable recommendations on the abstract. Based on the feedback provided, the abstract has now been updated.
• Thank you for your feedback regarding the number of concepts described at the beginning of the introduction. However, based on extensive interconnectivity and multiple-level relations, an attempt is made to connect the concept of land-use change with environmental issues and pressures, biodiversity, food safety, and global climate change mitigation efforts.
• As per the Reviewer's suggestions, we, the authors, have adjusted and introduced a new title for the manuscript. The new title does not incorporate the idea of curriculum as the Reviewer has successfully pointed out, the article proficiently manages and analyzes frameworks pertaining to land-based legislation.
• We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. We have now included a focused literature review paragraph in the Introduction section. This new addition, highlights the lack of cross-country comparative legal analyses. We also clearly state how our study addresses this gap by providing a systematic comparison of five national legal frameworks, focusing on complexity, governance structures, and implementation challenges.
• The manuscript relied on national, governmental portals, and global libraries such as FAOLEX as the principal sources of information and data to compile the official land planning–management legislation of the countries under investigation. The literature review concerning similar studies and articles that supply relevant data and materials on the subject was restricted to the period from 2018 to 2025, allowing us to obtain the latest information and material, as reported already in the Methodology section of the manuscript.
• Tables and Figures’ names are placed based on the instructions of the official MDPI-Land template.
• In light of the readability of Table 2, the authors have opted to divide it into five sections, each pertaining to the examined specific country. We have reduced its dimensions by condensing it into two columns, thereby minimizing its size and enhancing its readability and analytical clarity.
• Following the Reviewer’s suggestion, we implemented subheadings related to the findings from each country within the Results Section to present our findings in a more coherent and structured format.
• Based on the Reviewer’s comment, it is important to clarify that the manuscript does not constitute a review article. It is essential to emphasise that the article encompasses and illustrates the pertinent regulatory framework of the 5 countries examined in the domain of land planning. This premise indicates that the article portrays the existing legislation, highlights its variances and discusses the various approaches and administrative levels present in each nation. This constitutes a fresh initiative aimed at deciphering the interpretation and applicable laws in 5 entirely different states, emphasizing on the decision-making towards the utilization and progression of land use. In the discussion section of the manuscript, the authors not only reference additional articles and studies pertinent to the topic but also outline various distinctions and objectives of the existing legislation.
• We have greatly appreciated the Reviewer’s comment, so in the updated manuscript we have included the next future research steps, including our suggestions (lines 498-506).
• As per the Reviewer’s recommendation, a Conclusion Section is included.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title addresses the topic in a general and vague manner. It proposes an analysis of land-use planning and management practices in the EU, but addresses the issue of net-zero land use as a development goal by 2050, using five countries as case studies. I recommend adjusting the scope of the title to the work developed.
On the other hand, the article addresses current national and international regulations on land-use planning and management in the EU, using Greece, France, Italy, Poland, and Ukraine as case studies. However, the stated objective was to analyze the strategies, laws, and land-degradation neutrality targets to achieve net-zero land use by 2050 in these countries.

Abstract:
The abstract of the article is well-formulated and clear. The stated objective could be more precise; it is clear that the work is a normative study using five EU countries as case studies.

There is no convincing evidence of the expected impact of the article mentioned in the abstract.

Introduction:
The introduction is well-presented and uses key concepts that make the document easy to read. However, the study's objectives are inconsistent with those described in the abstract and, moreover, are ambitious in relation to the proposed methodology.

**This study seeks to clarify the conceptual distinctions between the various legal frameworks and land-use-related provisions in the five countries examined**

**The primary objective of this study is to describe the key provisions, highlight the distinctions between the various regulations, and identify any significant gaps or deficiencies.**

**In summary, this study seeks to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on how to improve legal provisions to effectively address the evolving challenges of land use in a rapidly evolving world.**

In this regard, no methodologies were identified that would allow for comparing key aspects of each regulation at a multi-level scale or in comparison with other countries.

No methodologies were identified for improving the legal frameworks, as proposed in the introduction to the paper.

Materials and Methods

The materials and methods section is considerably brief considering the objectives described in the introduction to the article. The article needs to address other methodologies to effectively address the stated objectives or reformulate the objectives of this article to align them with the methodology used.

Results:
In the results section, the authors describe the main EU legal tools that provide frameworks for territorial planning. They analyze the causes of land-use intensification and change, including urban land use. They use examples of urban expansion mechanisms, citing other work.
The development of the results concludes with a country-by-country characterization (five considered as case studies).
For some case studies, the authors of this article draw conclusions from other authors to characterize the state's profile (Greece) in terms of regional and urban territorial planning, describing few of their own results.
Overall, they attempt to outline aspects of each country's regulatory structure, although they make little use of the elements listed in the proposed table (they do so very briefly), so it is not possible to observe a clear development of the proposed methodology or the stated objectives. In some cases, an attempt is made to analyze the relationship between planning policy and regulations, revealing weaknesses in their structure. However, this is done briefly, without delving into the benefits or disadvantages of the concepts addressed as the central focus of the work or proposing specific tools to improve this situation. In other specific situations, this is not done.

Discussion
The discussion raises the need for adequate territorial planning, but does not clearly explain the reasons (obsolete, inadequate, nonexistent, erroneous) why it should be improved, nor does it present strategies to achieve this objective. Further methodological development is required to establish an assessment of the regulations and validate the proposals of the stakeholders involved.

What type of proposal is the integrated framework supposed to be, according to the authors: a manual of practices, a law, or another tool? On the other hand, considering the construction of each country's identity in the development of planning policies, do the authors not believe it is risky to generate general proposals for diverse and specific situations?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank the esteemed Reviewer for your constructive observations and valuable suggestions. Following the review points, we would like to comment on the following:

• As per the Reviewer’s recommendation, we altered the title of the manuscript to enhance its alignment and to attain a higher degree of relevance concerning the aims, objectives, and findings of the specific manuscript. The new title is “Profiling Land Use Planning: Legislative Structures in Five European Nations”.
• Thank you for your feedback. We have further enriched our results section according to your recommendations (L:412-431).
• We appreciate the Reviewer’s recommendation. We revised this claim, providing a clearer perspective on the impact of our study (L:34-36).
• We acknowledge the ambitious nature of the objectives and the importance of stakeholder inputs in the current study. However, due to scope and space constraints, this study focuses on institutional and legal analysis of the national frameworks. We explicitly recognize this limitation, among others, in Lines: 490-497, where a detailed description of all the limitations is presented.
• As per the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have improved the quality and readability of the graph and added extra information.
• We would like to thank you again for your detailed feedback. While we acknowledge the importance of stakeholder engagement and prioritization of regulatory tools, we primarily focused on a detailed and structured legislative review. However, we have included your recommendations in the future work section, and we identified the existing limitations of our study in the limitations paragraph.
• In our research, the methodology is based on a desk-based review and comparative legal analysis. While the methodological pipeline is considered rather simple, it is considered an effective approach for profiling land use planning in various European countries. As a result, a targeted literature and legal document review was conducted, focusing on national laws, spatial planning frameworks, land use strategies, and relevant regulatory instruments. The sources analyzed include:

- Official legislative databases (e.g., Eur-Lex, FAO-LEX, Normattiva)

- Government ministry portals and national legislative repositories

- The European Environment Agency (EEA)

- EU strategy documents (e.g., EU Soil Strategy 2030, LULUCF Regulation)

- Scholarly publications indexed in Google Scholar

All the aforementioned information is included in the methodology section.

• Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the format of Table 2. We opted to divide it into five sections according to the level of each country. We have reduced its dimensions by condensing it into two columns, thereby minimizing its size and enhancing its readability and analytical clarity. We believe the current table structure allows for easier identification and comparison of individual laws and their respective objectives. As we mentioned in previous comments, we fully acknowledge the importance of evaluating the approach beyond descriptive presentation. While the current study is limited to a qualitative review of legislative content, we have added (as mentioned in an earlier comment)  a narrative synthesis following the 5 tables, which discusses how each regulation relates to key land-use planning challenges such as land degradation neutrality, spatial coherence, and urban expansion control. Due to scope constraints and the lack of empirical engagement in this study, stakeholder validation was not performed. However, we now explicitly acknowledge this as a limitation and propose it as a priority for future research. In the Conclusion, we have added a recommendation to expand this work with participatory methodologies, such as expert interviews or stakeholder workshops, to assess the practical implementation and coherence of the regulatory frameworks.

• Thank you for the detailed recommendation. We included a detailed description of the results, located in L:412-431.
• Thank you for your constructive remarks. Like your previous comment, we have updated the results and discussion sections. We have also included a Conclusions Section to pinpoint the most significant outcomes of our study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

l. Page 3, Figure 1. Authors are encouraged to correct the sharpness of the image.
2. Page 3, line 102-103. When presenting comparative data on land use (for example, in Poland), the authors should be guided by sound numerical data, not by assumptions with reference to the literature.
3. The authors are recommended to update the list of references that are older than 10 years.

Author Response

We want to welcome all the valuable insights and comments of the esteemed Reviewer. Adhering to the comments and suggestions, we provide the following feedback:

• As per the Reviewer's suggestion, we have upgraded the quality and resolution of Figure 1, adding colours to create contrast and improve readability, as well as we have inserted a more precise description of the information provided.
• The latest version of the article file has been enhanced with the extra numerical data requested for manuscript lines 151-153.
• Following the recommendations provided by the Reviewer, we have incorporated several recent references into the manuscript, including Lee-Gammage and T. Garnett, 2018 / E. Marquard et al, 2020/ IPCC, “Chapter 2 : Land–Climate interactions — Special Report on Climate Change and Land, 2019/ S. Büchler and M. v. Ehrlich, 2023 / Leo Peskett et al., 2023/ Athena Yiannakou and George Zografos, 2025.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Definition of land use should be accompanied by a reference unless stated that this paper defines it as “…”

There are many statements and descriptions without adequate referencing.

Quality of Figure 1 can be improved. Also there is no reference to the figure in-text accompanied by an explanation/discussion

When giving the statistics of 2002 targets – supplement with more recent statistics to show whether these targets have been met or not. Otherwise there is not much context behind these policy targets – be more comprehensive in explaining these targets and how they are relevant today

“Poland's agricultural land conversion rates are currently among the highest in Europe” – add data that show this

The study area could be better explained to highlight the gaps/issues and opportunities.

The reason for this study, or why it is significant and what it aims to contribute needs to be emphasized more. The current trend in research is not comprehensive enough to illustrate the significance of this study.

The methodology is not really clear, it could be a bit more descriptive. What were the authors exactly trying to achieve with the search? How many documents were reviewed? Surely not all documents retrieved from the various databases mentioned were reviewed as not many are presented in the results? So explain better how documents were chosen, how many were included in the final search and what research design was followed.

2018 and the present – do not use “the present” give the date – otherwise when is regarded as present when other researchers read the study in the future?

Much of the theory in the first part of the results could be moved to the literature section

The discussion can be improved. What is most interesting/ significant? How does the findings link to other studies? What is interesting, what new contributions are made?

There is no conclusion? - Were the objectives achieved? List main findings, what was interesting, what contribution does this study make? What are the limitations? Areas for future research should be stated here. List recommendations, policy implications?

Author Response

We would like to express our thanks to the Reviewer for the constructive observations and valuable suggestions. Following your review points, we would like to comment on the following:

• As per the Reviewer's request, a reference was added regarding the term “land-use”.
• Supplementary references have been incorporated, particularly in the initial segments of the Introduction Section.
• As per the Reviewer's valuable suggestion, we have upgraded the quality and resolution of Figure 1, adding colours to create contrast and thus improve readability. Furthermore, we have inserted a more precise description of the information provided.
• Following the Reviewer’s request, we have revised the statistics to incorporate the latest legislation and strategies, providing a more comprehensive and current overview of the situation.
• We have added, as per the Reviewer’s recommendation, numerical data in the sentence “Poland’s agricultural land conversion….”.
• Thank you for the valuable recommendation. In response, we have expanded the explanation of the selected study area in the Materials and Methods section. We now clarify the rationale behind our choice of France, Greece, Italy, Poland, and Ukraine. Lines [194-210].
• Thank you for your comment. We have now addressed it throughout the entire Introduction. In particular, a new paragraph has been added, Lines:[169-179], and the concluding paragraph has been revised accordingly.
• In our study, the methodology is based on a desk-based review and comparative legal analysis. While the methodological pipeline is considered rather simple, it is considered an effective approach for profiling land use planning in various European countries. As a result, a targeted literature and legal document review was conducted, focusing on national laws, spatial planning frameworks, land use strategies, and relevant regulatory instruments. The sources analyzed include:

- Official legislative databases (e.g., Eur-Lex, FAO-LEX, Normattiva)

- Government ministry portals and national legislative repositories

- The European Environment Agency (EEA)

- EU strategy documents (e.g., EU Soil Strategy 2030, LULUCF Regulation)

- Scholarly publications indexed in Google Scholar

All the aforementioned information is included in the methodology section.

• Thank you for your comment! We have corrected and highlighted at the newly updated manuscript as per the Reviewer’s request.
• Based on the Reviewer's feedback, we have shifted significant aspects of the literature and theory from the Results Section to the Introduction Section, thus fostering a more unified, detailed, and extensive exploration of the subject discussed in the manuscript.
• Thank you for the detailed recommendation. We included an additional detailed description in the Results Section, which can be found in Lines:[373-392].
• Thank you for your comment. We have now addressed it throughout the entire document, and a new paragraph has also been added [Lines: 476–494].
• Thank you for your constructive remarks. We have included a Conclusions Section to pinpoint the most significant outcomes of our study. As per your recommendation, we have also included future work suggestions, and finally, we identified the existing limitations of our study.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Previous Point 2: No modifications, the first paragraph of the introduction explains too many concepts. The introduction is not about explaining concepts, it is sufficient to mention them appropriately. The important thing is to explore the research background, problems, and necessity of the study. Need to streamline and merge with the second paragraph.

Previous Point 3: The background of carbon emissions in the introduction still needs to be streamlined.

Previous Point 5: Are there any academic papers available? Is there no Web of Science? It is important to list all references in the supplementary materials.

Author Response

We want to welcome comments from the Reviewer. We would like to provide the following feedback:

• As per the Reviewer’s request, the first two paragraphs have been revised and merged, providing a more cohesive introduction to the article. The revised paragraph is a simplified version of the previous one, emphasizing the research context and the rationale of the study.
• Thank you for your recommendation. The specific paragraph has been streamlined, reducing the technical references to GHG emissions and legislative targets (lines 98-104).
• Thank you for highlighting the importance of academic sourcing. We can confirm that all our references included in this manuscript are peer-reviewed articles indexed in the Web of Science and/or Scopus. Additionally, our reference list includes all the essential official and legal documents, which are relevant to the legislative focus of the study. We have reviewed and ensured that our manuscript references are complete and correct.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Autores: La publicación ha mejorado considerablemente. Es de fácil lectura y permite comprender las diferencias en la planificación del uso del suelo entre países. Como recomendación general, les sugiero que consideren algún tipo de cuadro resumen que integre los conceptos de patrones, barreras y oportunidades, junto con las principales características analizadas para cada país, y que forme parte de la sección de resultados. Creo que este tipo de información será de gran ayuda para el lector.

Author Response

We thank the esteemed Reviewer for your constructive comments and valuable suggestions. We would like to comment on the following:

• As per the Reviewer’s recommendation, we fully agree that a summary table integrating patterns, barriers, and opportunities would significantly enhance the clarity and accessibility of the results. Subsequently, we added the proposed table to the results section.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the improvements requested by the reviewers and it seems ready for the next stage 

Author Response

We would like to express our appreciation to the Reviewer for his constructive support throughout the entire procedure.