The Farahzad Neighbourhood of Tehran: Land Use Transition in the City Periphery

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made more comprehensive and in-depth modifications based on the review comments, which has improved the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

3517652 Article Farahzad 

Competent submission, well structured, good methodology, substantial references. Value of urban fabric concept and approach is well justified, also good use of images. I understand submission has already been  revised (green and red text in my version). Recommend publication but some suggestions for further improvement below:

Weakness is based on only six interviews (each 1-2 hours), so methodology a bit underpowered. Also interviews all in some official position (or NGO), so hardly surprising that main findings show a need for more planning by officials! authorities.  

Farahzad case study deserves more justification as as case study, and more general background, especially how it relates to wider metropolitan area.  Why should it matter to a global journal readership? (not too hard to justify).

 

Author Response

Please see uploaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Peer Review - v1

This manuscript examines how the urban landscape has evolved, how the resident population has grown, and the nature of the social and economic issues that persist today. This study combines an analysis of extant literature and local authority documentation, images developed from GIS data, and first-hand interviews with local practitioners. The findings suggest that land use zoning has played little part in guiding or controlling urban development in Farahzad, and that identifying urban fabrics may prove a useful way of assessing socio-economic and physical development needs in such circumstances. Although findings in the manuscript are interesting, it still needs major revision and check before formal publication. Here are some specific suggestions for the authors:

1. In the Figure 1. There is no scale bar, north arrow and grid. it was difficult to see for readers in the Legend of the map. Also what does the BLUE represent for in the Figure 1?
2. In the Figure 2. Which year the map is about? It is important for authors to lable the Alborz Mountains, Yadegar-e Emam Expressway and Farahzad River so that readers can understand the contents between the Line 237 to Line 241. And the numbers on scale bar might be adjusted to a larger gaps between the numbers because they are too close to identify.
3. Line 349-355 and Figure 4. Emamzadeh Davood street and Yadegar-e Emam Expressway are not labelled in the Figure 4, so readers can not understand the meaning because they do not know where they are. Similarly, Farahzad Square, Pachenar, Golepaad and Khordad are not labelled in the Figure 4. Also the the numbers on scale bar is not clear because they are too small to see. Perhaps it is the most important map element when legibility is considered.
4. It is recommended that the authors put the Table 2 into the Research Method Section rather than in the Result Section. Or Table 2 could be with the Line 110-111 together.
5. It is recommended that the authors could combine the Figure 5 and Figure 6 into only one map, in which it can reveal how the land use change and how the urban expand in different colors. In the composite map with two different time point 2000 and 2023, some important mountains, rivers, streets and towns or villages should be drawn in the map with the spline text tool due to their curved lines. The reason is that some names of the mountains, rivers, streets and towns often appear in the manuscript, but we do not know their locations.
6. Line 400-406 and Table 3. In the Line 111, authors wrote as follows. “There are four main land use classifications: residential, commercial/business activity, mixed, and protected areas. Each of these classifications has its own characteristics and uses.” In the Table 2, authors give a land use zones and codes. While in the Table 3, authors produce a new inconsistent land use classification chart, which could make the readers confused. So, what is relationship among the three land use classification systems? These classification might create conflict with each other. For example, we have a question for authors: Which land use class is agrculture land or Vacant land belonged to the four main land use classifications: residential, commercial/business activity, mixed, and protected areas? What is definition about these different land use? This is a question.
7. For the Figure 7. We do not know where is the “Farahzadi street”(Line412-413) and “Abu Taleb and Saleh” (Line414) located? We also can not find the central Farahzadi Street axis (Line 431) in the Figure 7. It needs to be marked in the Figure 7.
8. Questionnaire through face-to-face interviews with officials is suggested to be in the appendix in the end of the manuscript.
9. Line 227, Line 358 and Line 373. The numbers on the scale bar in Figure 2, Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 overlap and they are not clear.
10. Line 448 and Figure 8. The scale bar of Figure 8 is integrated with the map background color behind it. Please modify it. In particular, it seems that the “Natural & Green Urban Fabric” on the Legend of the Figure 8 is not in accordance with that in the Body of the map. The gap between the diagonal lines for the “Natural & Green Urban Fabric” in the Legend is not the same length with that in the Body of the map.
11. Authors might add some quantitative methods and models to describe the land use change and development problems faced by this community. For example, many times authors wrote the “land use transition” in the manuscript. However, we can not see a table or diagram about the transition matrix, which could be produced by land use between different time points.
12. In Line 432. In words “period 2020 - 23”, there seems to be two digits missing here. It should be “2020 - 2023”.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good

Author Response

Please see uploaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Basically authors revised according to my advices or give a explainattion. I agree it.

I still think that the numbers on scale bar of all maps in this manuscript is still smaller. 

So my suggestion is that authors could change the divisions from four to two in the GIS software such as ArcGIS, meanwhile increase the font numbers on the scale bar.

 

Author Response

 Comment: I still think that the numbers on scale bar of all maps in this manuscript is still smaller. 

So my suggestion is that authors could change the divisions from four to two in the GIS software such as ArcGIS, meanwhile increase the font numbers on the scale bar.

Response: Thank you - yes - we have revised the scale bars so they are now more visinble and have also been corrected and standardised.

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 Authors

Please see the attached report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see upoaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article examines how the urban landscape has evolved, how the resident population has grown, and the nature of the social and economic issues that persist today. The article makes a small contribution to our understanding of the change dynamics in a peripheral neighbourhood of a major city in the developing world.

1. It is recommended that the overview of the study area should not be placed in the introduction, but rather be added between parts 2 and3 of the manuscript.

2. The two research questions raised in the manuscript should be linked to the land use transition mentioned in the title;

3. The research objective suggested in lines 179-180 should be moved to the introduction;

4.  It is recommended to add quantitative research methods and supplement the methods for determining land use transition;

5. The urban landscape in Farahzad today reflects the urban change dynamics in Tehran as a whole over the past 25 years, but lacks comparison;

6. There is much content in the conclusion that is discussion, and it is suggested to add a discussion section; it is recommended that the authors some targeted suggestions based on the research results.

Author Response

Please see uploaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “The Farahzad neighbourhood of Tehran: land use transition in the city periphery” is an interesting case study, but it lacks the structure of a scientific article. Authors wishing to publish in “Urban Science” should try to improve it.

Comments:

1. The article's abstract should include, in addition to the aim of the work and the results obtained, a short description of the research method used. The authors should care about this because a good abstract determines the citation of the article and it is worth improving it.

2. In the Introduction section, there should be a description of the research problem. This is missing and therefore it is not known what the authors are looking for…? The research problem should be presented with justification – why did the authors deal with it? What trends and results would be interesting for them? This section should also include a current review of research, i.e. who has previously dealt with this problem and what were the results? This should be supplemented.

3. The research questions are laconic (lines 80-84), making it impossible to provide a clear answer. What does the Authors mean: "(...) in recent decades"? - i.e. when?; "(...) now prevail"? - imprecise definition, "(...) key problems"? - i.e. what?; "(...) what role?" Such imprecise questions make it impossible to select research methods that will facilitate solving the problem.

4. Section "2. Relevant Literature and the Planning and Development Context" should be divided. The literature review should end with defining the boundaries of the research gap filled by this article and a part concerning the case study.

5. The description of "the Planning and Development Context" should enable readers from other countries and planning conditions to understand the text. I don't know what this means, e.g.: (lines 94 - 106 ) "(...) including residential buildings, schools and accompanying infrastructure. Commercial/business zones (red) are intended for such uses as offices, shops, and factories (...)." Maybe some indicators can characterize the described functions?

6. In section "3. Research Method” the authors write (lines 197-201): “Various academic databases, including Science Direct, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar were used to search for relevant sources, and the master plan for Tehran and associated documents were assessed”. What criteria did the authors adopt to assess the documents? What is the result of this assessment?

7. Section 4. Results do not provide an exhaustive answer to the questions asked in the introduction. Question: RQ1. How has Farahzad developed in recent decades and what types of urban fabric now prevail? – remains without a specific answer. By how much has the density increased? How many hectares of land have changed their use? What percentage is this? These questions can be answered specifically – using numbers and indicators adopted in spatial planning. The research results should be described in a way that is understandable to readers from other parts of the world, using language that is understandable to spatial planners.

8. Conclusions should be generalized research results. They should contain specific recommendations and suggestions supported by research. Currently, they are so general that they can be formulated without conducting research. This should be changed.

9. Conclusions in the conclusions section should not contain literature references. They should present the authors' contribution. 

10. Limitations of the study should be moved from the conclusions section to the Discussion section.

11. English should be proofread by a native speaker

Author Response

Please see uploaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Generally speaking, it is a very special case study on measuring the land use transition in Tehran as a developing country. However, I still have some questions and suggestions on improvement：

1  For the two research questions， it might be more focus on what is the unique driving force of land use structure change in developing countries. 

2 The methodology of analysis land use change cloud be future improved by more qualitative analysis. For example GIS supported analysis. 

3 In the results, for part 4.2, it might provide some framework to evaluate the role of planning. A semi-structured interview would be applied to capture the key driving forces of land use change.

4 It needs to point out the theoretical contribution of this case study, especially for other developing countries. 

Author Response

Please see uploaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all of my commnets

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did not improve the structure of the article. They did not address the reviewer's comments regarding the substantive issues of the article. I believe that the conclusions section should not contain references because it fills a research gap and should bring new content and discoveries. It is a pity that the authors do not understand this. Unfortunately, I believe that the article is not suitable for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This version has been significantly improved based on the latest comments and suggestion by adding more details to support the argument. However, it could still be improved in the following aspects:

1 Dialogue with previous studies, compare with other similar studies to illustrate the theoretical contribution from a global view.

2 Strengthen the theoretical framework. For example, more descriptive analysis could applied the urban form or urban sprawl often used method and index.

3 Beyond the case, in terms of planning regulation in the urban boundary for Islam cities, Is there any experience could be applied other Islam cites?

4 After discussion part, the conclusion should be more back to relate to the existing literature, to further the dialogue, in order to enrich the current transitional theory or urban planning in periphery area.