Evaluation of Positive Socio-Economic Phenomena in Territorial Systems of Ecological Stability (Case Study)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
On the whole, the authors have made good modifications to comments, but there are still some deficiencies. It is suggested to continue to improve it:
1. Although the title has been modified in this version, it is still not standard enough. It is necessary to continue to modify it.
2. The abstract part is not standard enough, generally, there is no need to split it into three paragraphs. And from the normative point of view, it is generally put the objective, requirement, and background of the manuscript at the beginning of the abstract, rather than at the end... It is suggested that the author make a good reference to some normative paper writing guide to modifying.
3. For the table part, table 1 from a to h, I see that the table headers are basically the same. Why not make just one table? Now it has been split into so many sub-tables, but I think it is not so easy to read.
4. For the part of theory and study Methods, I still haven't seen the specific introduction of the adopted methods. The paragraph (Line 200-204) added by the author in this version is far from making readers understand what the method is? Why do you choose this method? What are the advantages? And the second part syntheses, I still don't understand why it is necessary to introduce these variables, X1 minus X14? For what purpose? If it's just descriptive, then you don't have to do that, right?
5. Regarding Results, Discussion, and Conclusion, the author has indeed made considerable improvements.
6. The reference section is not standardized enough, so it is suggested to revise it according to the guide of this journal.
Author Response
We fully accept the comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General remarks of the reviewer
Title: The title of the article is accurate and directly relates to the purpose of the research.
Abstract: The abstract should be redrafted, there are too many repetitions, eg the phrase: "positive socio-economic" - four times (in the text of the entire article - 29 times). Finally, there is no synthetic overview of the research results.
Keywords: The keywords are specific to the topic under study.
Introduction: The literature review is subjective and local, there are no references to other studies, for example from the region of Central Europe. The introduction should be redrafted, the substantive scope was recalled twice to Act No. 543/2002 Coll.
Subchapters: 1.1.-1.4., describing the research area, I suggest transfer to chapter 2. Materials and Methods.
Theory and study methods: I suggest changing the chapter title to Materials and Methods and editing it as noted above.
Results – evaluation of landscape ecological significance: It should be edited, carefully analyzing the individual categories, I suggest taking into account the basic characteristics of descriptive statistics.
Discussion and Conclusions: The proportions were definitely upset and the content of both chapters was mixed up. They need to be redrafted. The discussion referred only to national publications, there is no confrontation with research in central Europe, for example. Conclusions, on the other hand, should be an essential summary of the results and their cognitive and utilitarian significance.
References: The literature on the subject is insufficient, especially publications from Central Europe are lacking. In a few cases, the text of the article is not referenced or cited incorrectly.
Technical Notes
The description of the literature item needs to be corrected as required by the publisher: articles, books and other sources - italics of journal titles, year in bold, correct pages of journals and the access link and date of access in English. According to MDPI standard.
Details in the attached manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We fully accept the comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for the author's modification of the manuscript and careful reply to the comments. From my point of view, there are no further comments on the current version.
Author Response
Thank you for your guidance.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors put a lot of work into re-editing the article and responded to almost all of my comments.Currently, the article has improved in quality.
When finalizing your manuscript consider the following:
1) change the title of subchapter 2.5.
from Materials and Methods (this is the title of chapter 2) to Methods (because this subchapter deals with this topic);
2) merge chapters 4 and 5 into one 4. Discussion and Conclusions, because in the present state the relations between the scope of discussions and conclusions (they should be essential) are definitely disturbed;
3) eliminate typos in literature items.
Recommends that the Land Editorial Board publish the article taking these changes into account.
Author Response
Thank you for your guidance.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
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
Attached to this message are overall comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, the authors claim that assessment of positive socio-economic elements for proposals for ecologically stable areas and measures to guarantee its correct functioning is essential. In order to maintain important ecological functions of the spatial system, it is necessary to scientifically identify the core social and economic elements, especially the positive ones. The combination of these elements is considered an important part of the ecological Stabilization Project (TSES) system. This is a very interesting topic, but there are still many imperfections in this manuscript that need further improvement and modification:
1. First of all, although there is an introduction at the beginning of the manuscript, there are no corresponding basic elements, such as research background, research questions, research objectives, and review of international research status. It is far from enough to present the case of the Slovak Republic.
2. From the first section of introduction to the fifth section, although the length is long and the content is very detailed, these are only the introduction of the social economy and resource endowment of the case area. As for a scientific paper, these are completely unnecessary and can be condensed into a section as the introduction of the social-economic background of the research area.
3 At the section of research theory and method, I didn't see the so-called theory is introduced, and the method section is not clear what is the method, the method of the origin, usage, how to use at the same time in this study, I also did not see in the later application of this method, does not seem to be the method can also get the following results?
4. As for the results, I didn't see the source of these results. How did I get these results through the above research methods? Highest, medium, and lowest are the three important categories, how did you get that? Is there any basis for it?
5. The discussion section seems not closely related to the results section above, and does not reflect the further discussion and analysis of the above results?
6. Overall, this manuscript is more like a report, rather than a scientific paper. Both the content and logic do not conform to the general style of a scientific paper.
7. There are also a large number of mistakes and omissions in the English expression of the article, such as spelling mistakes and unreasonable grammatical expressions. It is suggested to conduct a comprehensive sorting and find some native speakers for polishing and modification.
