Urbanization and Decline of Old Growth Windbreak Trees on Private Homesteads: A Case Study in Ryukyu Island Villages, Japan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work tackles the issue of the decline of urban tress within residential area which is important given that they occur in private spaces where individual/household management priorities may come in conflict with city-wide priorities. The work uses a combination of photo-interpretation of images and field work to evaluate the current tree resources and the temporal changes in trees associated with homestead. An interesting context is presented in that, the trees were originally planted to serve as windbreaks. An underutilized angle for this work is the change in perceived functionality (trees as wind breaks) and how it may have led to tree decline in this system.
The lack of testable hypotheses and a clear theoretical aim undermines the significance of this work.
Strengths:
The visualization products used are a powerful tool to evaluate changes in tree cover and distribution.
The windbreak service is an interesting ecosystem service angle that is not often explored.
Weaknesses:
The introduction should be reorganized such that main contributions to science by this work are more explicit. There needs to be a focus on the theory and then on the specifics about the Okinawa system. The work seemed to use an social-ecological systems approach to evaluate the drivers of change of homestead trees that serve as windbreaks.
The most important problem is that there are are no clear hypothesis to anchor the work which leaves the reader wondering what is the information going to be used for. If hypotheses are the potential answers to the questions proposed, then they should be justified in the introduction. Some potential justifications can be drawn from the discussion section. An expanded literature search on the role of residential areas in the maintenance and management of ecosystem services would have been appropriate for this work.
The lack of hypotheses makes it hard to judge whether or not methods are adequate.
The are a few descriptive statistics but in general the work could include more complex statistical analyses which should be driven by specific hypotheses. Some could be use to test changes in tree cover connectivity, expansion of built space as a factor influencing probability of tree loss, differences between the observed frequency distribution of tree directions vs an expected distribution etc.).
The discussion is not as cohesive as it should be and it is hard to come up with a main takeaway from the work. It needs to have a better roadmap in the introduction.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
General comment
First, considerable work needs to be done to improve the English, including sentence structure, grammar and word usage throughout the paper. The paper needs to be read critically by someone with a good working knowledge of English, appropriate for an academic publication. In the worse examples it appears that no proof reading was done. I give some examples of these problems below.
Abstract
An abstract is a stand-alone summary of the paper. I would expect it to include the name and location of the study area, i.e., villages on the Ryukyu Archipelago.
The term “homestead” needs to be explained. In the English language it relates to a large land area. In American early history a homestead was an area of rural land of 160 acres given to people, as the country was opened up to European settlement. In Australia the term typically refers to a very much larger land area, which included domestic dwellings, a range of out-buildings (sheds, stables and other structures) to support agricultural and pastoral activities. The Australian homesteads are measured in the tens or hundreds of square kilometres. This term seems not to match the scale of the undertakings on the small islands described in the paper. These “homesteads” seem more like town allotments as the dimensions of the spatial distribution map (Figure 4) are measured in meters. Were the trees originally planted around larger land holdings, but now only found in urban areas? I can see that the author and her collaborators have already used the term “homestead” in several published papers. She needs to clarify this point, particularly if the definition of homestead has changed over time.
Introduction
Referring still to the need to clarify the use of term “homesteads”, the author could expand here on the history of the settlements, size of properties, and the use of windbreaks.
The map (Figure 1) should be replaced with one that shows the islands and the text more clearly. Something like the map with insert in the author’s Forests paper (Chen & Wang 2020, Volume 11) is clearer. General rule: if there is too much empty space, then the map is too small.
The Introduction should be structured something like this:
- Statement of the problem, including why it is important, its history
- Aim of study / field work
- Method used
The author describes the history in various parts of the paper, but I suggest an expanded section that describes more fully the history of these trees / role in protection of property
L 35, 38, WWII should be written in full – World War II
L 149 Correct term is United States Army, not American Army
L 190 What is the significance of cardinal directions? Why is it important?
The following are examples of the kinds of problem with English that the author needs to address. There are many more instances in the paper.
Uncertainty when a plural noun is required. For example, in the Keywords all these words should be plural (not just some) – coastal forests; heritage trees; private residential parcels; urban trees
A plural subject requires a plural verb, and a singular subject requires a singular verb.
L 21, 171, 228 Trees older >200 years old – should read either “trees older than 200 years”, or “trees more than 200 years old”. Use the sign > in a mathematical context, not in prose.
L 41-43 Text reads: . . . which we define as the trees planted at the borderline/periphery of a private mansion and primarily function as windbreak in this article.
This should be re-written as something like: . . . which we define in this article as . . . (i.e., the windbreaks are not in the article!)
L 234-5 Text reads: From the positioning trees in different cardinal directions, the trees are considered to majorly function as windbreak.
This should be re-written as something like:
The position of trees in different cardinal directions supports the assumption that the trees were intended to function mainly as windbreaks.
By “positioning structure” does the author mean “location pattern”?
L 241 Text reads: In addition to salty sea water blowing in from the sea, tsunamis pose a great threat to people living on the coast.
This should be re-written as something like: People living on the coast are affected by ocean salt spray, and the even greater threat of tsunamis.
L 249 Text reads: . . the demand of settlement land dramatically increases due to the increase of population,
This should be re-written as something like: . . . the demand for settlement land dramatically increases with population growth, . . .
L 255 Text reads: From the fact of spatial distributions of the aerial photos, it could be assumed that people have not hardly plant resident trees in the past 100 years.
This should be re-written as something like:
The spatial distribution seen in the aerial photos indicates that people have hardly planted trees around residences in the past 100 years.
Conclusions
The aim of informing policy makers and urban planners should be in the Discussion, not raised in the Conclusion. The absence of tree conservation policies and programs is an important part of the problem, which should be introduced earlier in the paper.
L 275 Tree management program
L 287 no active public conservation program
Figures and tables
Table 2 – Age distribution of fuguki trees in Hirae and Maezato
Table 3 – fix the column width to prevent headings from breaking over the line
Suggest label – Loss of fuguki trees from 1945 to 2020
Figure 7 – fix spelling of “pupulation” on x-axis of the graph!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a much improved version of the manuscript. The revisions to the narrative and added context do help in the understanding of the system. I still think that the spatial data is underutilized if the purpose of the study is to why are trees changing. There are well done maps but there is limited narrative of the meaning of the spatial data (see methods below). If the spatial data will not be used to say more then at least, there should be a mentioned of what it could be used for in the future studies.
I have made several comments and suggestions throughout the manuscript (on the actual file) that I hope are useful.
Here I list major things to address by section:
Introduction:
Move the hypothesis statement to follow the questions. I have included a modify version to reorganize the original paragraph and include more specific phrases on the urbanization factors that are being addressed. Also, since this is a descriptive study one should avoid categorical statements about 'cause and effect'.
Methods
In the section: Spatial Distribution of Houses and Age Distribution
-When I look at Figure 5, visually it seems that there could have been more decline at the southside that at the northside. Yet, when I look at Table 2, the numbers would suggest that there are no significant differences. My question is: what are these "lines" listed in Table 2 which seem to be the units of observation? Are these decline % standardized by area sampled? Regardless, there is no reason why these data can't be analyzed statistically. Using a t-test or a non-parametric analogs to evaluate statistical differences between the north and south sides in tree decline should be done.
Discussion
ln294-303 - This paragraphs is being used to explain what other social factors may have led to the decline and to push for conservation measures. In that context, it would be useful to explain if a lack environmental legislation may be an issue for this site, bringing examples from the literature as to how that may or not work.
Conclusion
The wording of the last paragraph needs revision. Please see the file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response letter to Reviewer #1 2nd round comments
Geneneral comments 1.1: This is a much improved version of the manuscript. The revisions to the narrative and added context do help in the understanding of the system. I still think that the spatial data is underutilized if the purpose of the study is to why are trees changing. There are well done maps but there is limited narrative of the meaning of the spatial data (see methods below). If the spatial data will not be used to say more then at least, there should be a mentioned of what it could be used for in the future studies.
Response1.1: First, thank the reviewer very much for his recognition of our revision.
The spatial distribution map will be used to raising the local residents’ conservation awareness and basic information for landscape conservation master plan in the future.
General Comment 1.2: I have made several comments and suggestions throughout the manuscript (on the actual file) that I hope are useful.
Response 1.2: I greatly appreciate the reviewer’s comments in very details. I have made changes/revisions based on the reviewer’s suggestion.
Here I list major things to address by section:
Specific comment 2.1: Introduction:
Move the hypothesis statement to follow the questions. I have included a modify version to reorganize the original paragraph and include more specific phrases on the urbanization factors that are being addressed. Also, since this is a descriptive study one should avoid categorical statements about 'cause and effect'.
Response 2.1: Because has been changed to “after.” Thanks for this suggestion.
Comment 2.2: Methods
In the section: Spatial Distribution of Houses and Age Distribution
-When I look at Figure 5, visually it seems that there could have been more decline at the southside that at the northside. Yet, when I look at Table 2, the numbers would suggest that there are no significant differences. My question is: what are these "lines" listed in Table 2 which seem to be the units of observation? Are these decline % standardized by area sampled? Regardless, there is no reason why these data can't be analyzed statistically. Using a t-test or a non-parametric analogs to evaluate statistical differences between the north and south sides in tree decline should be done.
Response 2.2: I guessed the reviewer meant table 3 instead of table 2. At the heading, the north part means the homesteads in the north part of the map, not the tree lines located at the south side to the house. I have revised the first line table heading to avoid confusions. A t-test has been conducted for the survey data at the other sides, however, no significance was found. Hence, we did not conduct a t-test or a non-parametric analog analysis in this article. I will definitely apply a statistical test in the next survey sites to evaluate statistical differences.
Comment 2.3: Discussion
ln294-303 - This paragraphs is being used to explain what other social factors may have led to the decline and to push for conservation measures. In that context, it would be useful to explain if a lack environmental legislation may be an issue for this site, bringing examples from the literature as to how that may or not work.
Response 2.3: One citation was added as suggestion.
Comment 2.4: Conclusion
The wording of the last paragraph needs revision. Please see the file
Response 2.4 The part has been reorganized and rewritten.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
