An Analysis of Land-Use Conflict Potential Based on the Perspective of Production–Living–Ecological Function

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Summary: Based on the production-living-ecological function perspective on multifunctionality of land use and land use function conflicts (LUCs), the authors adopt a land use function evaluation and intensity diagnosis model and established indicators, and apply multi-criteria evaluation, cold and hot spot and neighborhood analysis to the study of the Western Jilin Province in China to propose governance strategies for addressing the different challenges identified by the research.

General comments: The authors are addressing a highly critical challenge of LUCs facing sustainable development, which is acknowledged as a strategic priority by the Chinese government. Built on the established and previously tested methods, the authors focus on the study of the western Jilin Province, which they had previously explored using a different methodology, and offer governance strategies for the 8 LUFCs zones relevant for the conflict stages highlighted by the research results. 

While the methodological rigour is present throughout and choice relevant for the questions at hand, perhaps the article could have benefitted from comparisons with other similar approaches (e.g., integrated landscape approach), adopting a more critical take on the applied methods, indicator choice etc. pointing at the strengths and weaknesses by outlining open questions for future research, and giving examples from policy and governance strategies applied elsewhere to tackle similar problems and bring about new opportunities. 

Overall, the authors did a thorough mapping of the field, underlying the main points of reference that are relevant and appropriate for the theme. However, I am missing a clear statement about how far the method follows the one constructed by (Zou et al 2021 - An analysis of land use conflict potentials based on ecological-production-living function in the southeast coastal area of China) and why, and the particular contributions gained from the authors' application of the (same/similar/adapted) methodology (if so) and lessons learned, new insights gained (if any). In my view, this could be expressed also in the title of the article. Another critical explanation, would be to include a paragraph on the authors' past experience by referring to their earlier work carried out on the Jilin province (Wei et al 2021 - Spatiotemporal evolution patterns of "production-living-ecological" spaces and the coordination level and optimization of the functions in Jilin Province).

Specific comments: Line 41| . . . LUCs can reflect the interaction and impact between human and land (more directly?). Line 79| . . . ecosystem function based on the relationship between ecosystem and human (health?). Line 82| should the original source be cited? (de Groot et al 2002 - A typology for the classification description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services). Line 145| Reference for the classification of land use types used can be given here. The images and tables are readable and appropriate for supporting the text. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have modeled land-use conflicts and intensity of use in NE China. The concept is a realistic one that reflects human population concentrations and habitat modifications for anthropogenic needs.  The design is well-thought-out, the statistics applied reliable, and the flow is quite nice. However, the language is flawed and the paper must be edited by a native English speaker or a professional scientific edit to ease out the linguistic creases.

Example Page 1, line 41 …… more directly view […….. should be …… and land in a more directly view

At the end of the Introduction, the objectives (not objects) are presented very awkwardly. Rewrite as a paragraph.

This is essentially a good paper but the language is rough and interferes with the smooth reading of the paper and the presentation of the findings in a cohesive manner. The whole paragraph 4.2 in the discussion (lines 422-430) should be rewritten with proper usage of the terminology.

The Discussion is extremely short for such an extensive analysis and long paper. Also, there are no comparisons to similar studies at the national or international levels. A pity. The discussion is where the authors need to present how their different approaches to analyzing LUCs will help future research and policymakers. And how it improves upon previous studies and enhances human and ecological well-being.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

This manuscript provides a perspective for the land use function conflict (LUFCs) study, through a MCE application/ case study for a province in Northern China. It is well-written and the sections follow clearly. All references are used in a proper way. All tables and figures that accompany the manuscript are of high quality and help to clarify the information visually and graphically. Methodological framework is rational.

Finally, its objective and the methods used in this research work are within the scope of the journal, thus I provide the following suggestions to make it worthy of publication.

Lines 111-116 – authors are advised to modify the sentences.

Lines 135-136 – datasets should be described in detail. The content of Table 1 should be improved (e.g. rephrase sentence “…30m, using ArcGIS10.6 calculate the slope and aspect.”). Insert the table in the text in a way to avoid breaking across two pages.

Fix spacing between headings and main text according to the journal’s guidelines/template (e.g. in 3.1.1&2) – Note that the manuscript will be potentially published on the format you submit.

Check the font size in the references list and the text format in Authors contribution paragraph.

Line 326 (capitalize the first character, as Table 4) – generally, figures and tables in the text should be written as ‘Figure 1’, ‘Table 1’; the format: table, fig., etc. is not accepted.

Figure 2 – you also used the cell size of 30m for the analysis provided through these results? Give details on that. Additionally, it could be of interest to give the locations of water bodies, settlements, etc. (e.g. in Fig.1).

In the final section (Conclusions), it would be of value to add any suggestions for future work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors

I have read the An analysis of land use conflict potential based on the perspective of production-living-ecological function  send to Sustainability . The article is interesting. The subject is very interesting. I have some suggestions to consider before final publication. In the introduction, the Authors did not specify the purpose of the research. What is the utilitarian aspect of research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have corrected their manuscript to my satisfaction and recommend accepting for publication.