Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General:

In their relevant work titled “Urban sprawl inside and outside Natura 2000 sites (SPAs) in Mediterranean EU states: The case of Cyprus”, the authors tackle a critical spatial phenomenon that resonates deeply with the European Mediterranean planning experience: the institutionalized “leakage” of urban form into protected ruralities.

The study of Cyprus provides a robust, building-level quantification of sprawl that transcends the limitations of typical EU datasets. 

From my perspective, the paper’s strength lies in its exposure of “silent” urbanization occurring within Natura 2000 sites. The fivefold increase in isolated housing outside development zones reflects a failure of spatial governance that is often socially motivated but ecologically catastrophic. 

Specific comments for minor corrections:

In the Introduction section, authors mention the “memonomeni katoikia” policy as a tool for the less privileged. I suggest a brief expansion on whether and how this social intent transitioned into a mechanism for ‘tourism-driven growth’ or a ‘second-home demand’. This transition, possibly supported by additional referencing, is crucial for understanding the socio-spatial shift from necessity to luxury sprawl. 

Table 2 effectively compares Mediterranean framings. However, the conclusion would benefit from a more explicit look at how repeated legalization or amnesty schemes in Cyprus might parallel other practices in the Mediterranean states mentioned. 

Please ensure that Figure 2 is clearly legible to demonstrate the “incremental” nature of the encroachment mentioned. 

Overall, the manuscript is technically sound and offers a sobering look at the structural implementation gaps in Mediterranean spatial planning. With proposed minor contextual additions, it will be a valuable contribution to the field.

Author Response

REVIEWER 1 
General: 
In their relevant work titled “Urban sprawl inside and outside Natura 2000 sites (SPAs) in 
Mediterranean EU states: The case of Cyprus”, the authors tackle a critical spatial phenomenon 
that resonates deeply with the European Mediterranean planning experience: the 
institutionalized “leakage” of urban form into protected ruralities. The study of Cyprus provides a 
robust, building-level quantification of sprawl that transcends the limitations of typical EU 
datasets.  From my perspective, the paper’s strength lies in its exposure of “silent” urbanization 
occurring within Natura 2000 sites. The fivefold increase in isolated housing outside development 
zones reflects a failure of spatial governance that is often socially motivated but ecologically 
catastrophic.  
Specific comments for minor corrections: 
In the Introduction section, authors mention the “memonomeni katoikia” policy as a tool for the 
less privileged. I suggest a brief expansion on whether and how this social intent transitioned into 
a mechanism for ‘tourism-driven growth’ or a ‘second-home demand’. This transition, possibly 
supported by additional referencing, is crucial for understanding the socio-spatial shift from 
necessity to luxury sprawl.  
Reply: A short description has been added. 
Table 2 effectively compares Mediterranean framings. However, the conclusion would benefit 
from a more explicit look at how repeated legalization or amnesty schemes in Cyprus might 
parallel other practices in the Mediterranean states mentioned.  
Reply: We have added a new paragraph in the Introduction section (following Table 2) that 
explicitly links the Cypriot experience with the broader Mediterranean phenomenon of "ex-post" 
legalization. We now discuss how the misuse of specific permits and the "memonomeni katoikia" 
policy in Cyprus parallel the amnesty cycles seen in Greece, Italy, and Spain. This addition 
clarifies that the observed sprawl is not an isolated failure of oversight, but part of a wider 
Southern European institutional culture that often prioritizes immediate socio-economic 
pressures over long-term conservation mandates. 
Please ensure that Figure 2 is clearly legible to demonstrate the “incremental” nature of the 
encroachment mentioned.  
Reply: We have replaced all black-and-white figures with color versions to ensure maximum 
legibility. 
Overall, the manuscript is technically sound and offers a sobering look at the structural 
implementation gaps in Mediterranean spatial planning. With proposed minor contextual 
additions, it will be a valuable contribution to the field.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript addresses a relevant topic within the scope of Land and provides valuable empirical evidence on urban sprawl within and outside Natura 2000 SPAs in Cyprus.

The study is generally well structured and methodologically consistent. The suggested revisions concern minor improvements in methodological clarification, reduction of redundancy in the presentation of numerical results, and a clearer structuring of the conclusion to better highlight the main findings and contributions.

These adjustments will further enhance the clarity and overall quality of the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 2 
Dear Authors, 
The manuscript addresses a relevant topic within the scope of Land and provides valuable 
empirical evidence on urban sprawl within and outside Natura 2000 SPAs in Cyprus. The study is 
generally well structured and methodologically consistent.  The suggested revisions concern 
minor improvements in methodological clarification, reduction of redundancy in the 
presentation of numerical results, and a clearer structuring of the conclusion to better highlight 
the main findings and contributions. 
These adjustments will further enhance the clarity and overall quality of the manuscript.  
Comments in text 
1. It is suggested to insert, before this paragraph (Introduction p.8), a brief explanation of what 
the Natura 2000 Network is, contextualizing its purpose, legal framework, and importance for 
biodiversity conservation in the European Union, in order to facilitate understanding for 
readers who may not be familiar with the topic. 
Reply: We have added a new paragraph at the beginning of the Introduction to provide the 
necessary context for the Natura 2000 Network.  
2. It is suggested that the authors clearly specify which satellites and sensors were used in the 
study, indicating their respective periods of operation, in order to ensure greater 
methodological rigor and transparency in the temporal analysis. (Materials and methods 
p.1) 
Reply: We agree with the reviewer that transparency regarding data sources is vital for 
reproducibility. We have updated the section with information about the data.  
3. It is suggested that the authors clarify on what criteria and evidence they base the statement 
that all houses were mapped, detailing the data sources used, the spatial resolution of the 
images, the validation procedures adopted, and the possible limitations of the mapping 
process, in order to ensure greater methodological transparency and robustness of the 
results presented. (Materials and methods p.6) 
Reply: All building premises including houses were manually marked and recorded.  When this 
rigorous work was completed, a second round of manual check was undertaken in order to 
ensure no buildings were left behind. The limitation occurred was the possibility of omissions 
during recording, due to the fact that thousands building structures were recorded manually.  
This limitation was reduced by the fact that as a second round of manual check was undertaken 
for the whole area, thus to a large degree limiting the possibility of errors.   
4. It is suggested not to repeat the p-values in the text, as they are already presented in Table 7, 
since this may improve the flow of the writing and avoid unnecessary redundancy. 
Reply: We have revised the text by removing the specific p-values from the narrative. These values 
remain clearly detailed in Table 7 for direct reference. This change has improved the flow of the 
writing and reduced redundancy as suggested. 
5. It is suggested to correct the term “kal 2022” in the figure title to “and 2022” in order to avoid 
a typographical error. (Figure 1) 
Reply: The figure title has been corrected. 
6. It is suggested to avoid the detailed description of values and percentages already presented 
in the graph, as this may lead to redundancy. It is recommended that the text emphasize only 
the main trends, relevant comparisons, and interpretations of the results, leaving the specific 
values for direct reference in the figure, in order to make the writing more concise and 
analytical. 
Reply: We have revised the Results section to remove redundant numerical data and percentages 
that are already clearly presented in the figures and tables. 
7. It is suggested to reduce the repetition of arguments regarding the unsustainability of urban 
expansion and to synthesize the sections addressing the inefficiency of legal instruments, 
making the conclusion more direct. It is recommended to more clearly state the main 
methodological contribution of the study and how it advances beyond previous research. The 
text may be reorganized by more objectively separating: (i) main findings, (ii) planning 
implications, and (iii) future recommendations. The section discussing data source and 
spatial resolution limitations could be condensed. Finally, it is suggested that the concluding 
paragraph present a more emphatic statement on the relevance of the study for the 
management of Natura 2000 areas in the Mediterranean context. 
Reply: We have completely revised the Conclusion section to align with the reviewer’s thoughtful 
suggestions for clarity and impact. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

请参阅PDF文件。

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 3 
Review Comments 
This paper is well-written. It is a rare and groundbreaking empirical study in recent years, with 
breakthroughs in data accuracy and method innovation, and has the potential for publication. 
The research data is detailed, the methods  , the analysis is rigorous, the results are astonishing, 
and the policy implications are clear. However, if it could conduct in-depth discussions on the 
following issues, it would be an even better article. 
1. The opening part of the article begins with the policy background and problem description, 
lacking a clear theoretical framework to define the research question. You need to explain 
why "building-level quantification" is crucial for understanding urban sprawl. How does 
this method challenge or complement existing theories? My suggestion is to clearly state the 
research orientation at the end of the introduction, indicating how the research integrates 
"urban sprawl theory", "efficacy assessment theory of protection", and "policy 
implementation theory". What is the contribution of building-level quantification to these 
theories? And propose the core theoretical proposition of this study.  
Reply:  We have significantly revised the end of the Introduction to explicitly state our research 
orientation and the core theoretical proposition of the study. The paragraph " Theoretical 
Framework and Research Contribution" explains how "building-level quantification" serves as a 
critical bridge between urban sprawl theory, efficacy assessment theory, and policy 
implementation theory. By focusing on individual building footprints, our research challenges the 
limitations of macro-scale monitoring and demonstrates how "legalized encroachment" 
functions as a driver of sprawl. This theoretical framework now provides a foundation for the 
empirical results that follow. 
2. I noticed that the article repeatedly emphasized "a 356% increase within the protected area 
compared to a 418% increase outside the area", in order to argue that "the establishment of the 
protected area has played a certain role in slowing down the process". My questions are: ① 
Protected areas are mostly located in remote, high-altitude, and low-pressure areas for 
development. The "natural growth rate" is likely to be lower than that outside the area. If these 
confounding variables are not controlled, directly comparing the growth rates may lead to 
"overestimation of the protection effect". ② Most SPAs were established between 2004 and 2010, 
while the study starts in 1993. Incorporating the data before the establishment into the statistics 
of "within the protected area" may dilute the assessment of the protection effect. ③ Even if the 
growth within the protected area is slower, it may be because these areas have low development 
attractiveness rather than because the protection policy is effective. My suggestion is to Add a 
paragraph on "Causal Inference of Protection Effect" in Section 3.1, or clearly acknowledge the 
limitations of the current comparison in the discussion and recommend that future research 
adopt more rigorous causal inference methods. 
Reply:  The points raised here are to some extent fair statements.   But the basic findings even 
with some limitations are apparent.  This can be may be seen more clearly in table 8 (which 
maybe was not included much in the discussion), which covers building premises within the SPA 
sites. Here, the increase for the total number of premises from 1993-2008 (in the years mainly 
before N2K sites were designated) was 198%, while for the same areas, the respective increase 
for the years 2008-2022 (after the sites were designated), was 28%.  It's obvious that increases 
are still observed, but to a much lower rate.     
3. Sections 4 and 5 present a series of policy recommendations. Have you noticed that these 
recommendations do not have a sufficiently tight logical connection with the empirical results? I 
noticed that the basis for the suggestion of "strengthening planning implementation" is "there is 
still development within the protected area", but it does not clarify whether it is due to "lack of 
planning" or "ineffective implementation". Also, the basis for the suggestion of "introducing 
compensation mechanisms" is "farmers resist due to restrictions imposed by the protection 
policy", but your research did not collect relevant qualitative data. This suggestion seems abrupt. 
Therefore, the recommendations you made lack specific institutional design, implementation 
entities, timeframes, and cost estimations. My suggestion is: Each recommendation in Section 5 
must be linked to specific empirical findings, explaining what problems these findings reveal. 
How can they be targetedly addressed? And how the expected effects can be verified. 
Reply:  We have completely restructured Section 5 to ensure a "tight logical connection" between 
our data and our suggestions.  
4. Then let's move on to the references. It is recommended to reorganize the citation logic of the 
introduction and discussion, shifting from a "listing" style to a "dialogue" style. In the 
introduction, highlight the research gaps through a literature comparison. In the discussion, use 
literature comparison to validate or question the findings of this study.  
Reply: We have reorganized parts of the Introduction and Discussion sections. 
5. In terms of language, professional editing is recommended. 
Reply:  The paper has went through a second language editing during the revision stage. 
Overall, the article presents detailed research data, innovative methods, and verifiable results. It 
is one of the most accurate and rigorous achievements in the field of urban sprawl and protected 
area interaction research in recent years. With minor revisions, it can be published. Best of luck!

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic discussed is extremely interesting and, at the same time, highly important in all its facets. The phenomenon of silent urbanization can be extended to many very different contexts, and it is not always easy to define, let alone monitor, especially when dealing with highly precise data. I found the discussion regarding exemptions particularly important and interesting, however the case study is unclear as to the motivations and more importantly, the legal justifications put forward at the local level for these developments. It would be very interesting to see how these interventions physically impact the local area and for what specific reasons. Masterful attention has been paid to quantifying the number of buildings, but at the same time the impact on biodiversity has perhaps been overlooked, treated in overly general terms. In this sense there shoud be greater synergy between building data and biological indicators, seeking to investigate cause-effect relationships with even greater detail and rigour.

Author Response

REVIEWER 4 
The topic discussed is extremely interesting and, at the same time, highly important in all its 
facets. The phenomenon of silent urbanization can be extended to many very different contexts, 
and it is not always easy to define, let alone monitor, especially when dealing with highly precise 
data. I found the discussion regarding exemptions particularly important and interesting, 
however the case study is unclear as to the motivations and more importantly, the legal 
justifications put forward at the local level for these developments. It would be very interesting to 
see how these interventions physically impact the local area and for what specific reasons. 
Masterful attention has been paid to quantifying the number of buildings, but at the same time 
the impact on biodiversity has perhaps been overlooked, treated in overly general terms. In this 
sense there shoud be greater synergy between building data and biological indicators, seeking to 
investigate cause-effect relationships with even greater detail and rigour. 
Reply:  This is a fair and valid statement with respect to the synergies, the cause-effect 
relationships and the need to look into more detail for specific biodiversity impacts.  In this paper 
we have presented different level of results at the general-country level.  The specific biodiversity 
impacts are meant to be dealt in a specialized paper which will analyze that will give special focus 
on direct impacts at the site level of Natura 2000 sites, which sites are facing the most challenges 
and which ones are in better position comparing to others.  This specialized analysis is necessary 
so us to be able to look deeper both in terms of direct impacts as well as the reasons behind the 
situation, which may well be different among different sites.  In order to be able to do this detailed 
work, various available information sources will have to be utilized and analysed.  This is 
something which needs be addressed in a separate paper, and this is something which we are 
aiming to do in the upcoming months.  In this respect, this will be addressed and stressed clearly 
in the Discussion and Conclusion.  
Phrase to be included in the Discussion: 
“A more detailed and specific analysis at the site level of Natura 2000 sites needs to be 
undertaken so as to determine among other which sites are facing the most challenges, which 
are in better position and the reasons behind this, as well as direct biodiversity impacts and 
cause-effect relationships at the site level”.