Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the summary section of the article, the analyses made between 1980 and 2020 are mentioned. According to these analyses, it is stated that while a net decrease of 648 square kilometres is observed in the arable land area, an increase of 1062 square kilometres is observed in the built structures. And it was also stated that the amount of lost or decreasing arable land could not be met from another functional area in the region. From this point of view, it is concluded that the policy regarding the protection of arable lands is not sufficient. The situation determinations made above are very well conveyed in the summary section of the study. However, the problem situation expected to be in the summary part of the study and the summary of the study were not clearly expressed. The abstract of the article must be a small body of all article. Please revise it.

 

The types of land described in lines 48 and 49 on the second page, land use and its complexity should be further deepened.

"Determining the property ownership on cadastral works in Turkey"

Considering the types of land registration and use expressed in this study published in Web of Science, I would like you to create a figure similar to the land registration and types in your own study area (figure 4) in the related article.

 

Second page 52 53 I would like you to expand a little more on the sustainable development of land resources and their use in Kesh rural development balance, which is stated in lines 54.

In fact, the article also comes to the forefront that the land use, which was taken into account in the background but not mentioned much, should be constructed by taking into account the existing land structure. That is, if a land is suitable for wet farming and has a flat structure, it should be planned and used in accordance with the characteristics of its creation when using this land. Construction on this type of land should not be allowed. Or similarly, if there is a natural asset with a protected status, this area should not be opened for construction and even screening should not be exceeded. Considering this article on this subject, I suggest you download it related to your own work. "Protected area geographical management model from design to implementation for specially protected environment area" published in web of science Considering the article "Registration of agricultural areas towards the development of a future Turkish cadastral system" in the web of science, compare with what is stated in line 80-81-82 on page 2.

 

It is suggested that the formulas in the article be presented more clearly. Explanations such as what is intended to be given with this formula, what are the presuppositions in this formula should also be included. In addition, formulas should be explained with small examples. It should be simplified with 3-5 different land types and a few years of land use change.

 

Expand the purpose of the study, expressed in 106-107-108 on page 3, by making a separate subheading.

 

2.2 on page 4. There are corporate web pages given under the heading Data Source and Processing. I could not access these pages.

Add these pages to the Resources section as an internet resource. Remove (www.... ) phrase from within the article. Instead, edit the internet resources as (URL-5, 2022), and add them in reference as URL-5, 2022. www......, Accessed date: 11.11.2022.

 

Although you mentioned “…land use types are constantly changing and built land has encroached on a considerable amount of cultivated land…” in the discussion section in the first paragraph, the formulas used in the article did not mention the changes in land use during a year. In such cases, how much do you think your formulas and the approach we put forward reflect the real situation, please examine this issue in detail in the first paragraph of the discussion section.

 

Discussion On page 11, line 397, a more efficient and different spatial planning approach of land resources is suggested. It would be useful to give sample references from similar studies of developed or developing countries in the related literature. For example, by looking at the planning hierarchy and plan stratification in the article “Zoning plan-based legal confiscation without expropriation in Turkey in light of ECHR decisions” published in the web of science, comparisons with the situation in China can be compared and some new ideas can be obtained.

 

All the sources I have given above should be discussed in the discussion section and compared with those obtained from the article (similarities and differences). Apart from the sources I have presented, other sources should also be considered and taken into account by the author. These candidate references must be from non-Chinese researchers. Discussing all these new sources together will improve the quality of the article, because the articles published by Chinese scientists that dominate the article are highly referenced. Adding these suggested changes, along with new resources, to the discussion section will remove this weakness.

 

The article is an article that contains original data and is worth publishing. However, it will become much better quality with the reconsideration of the conclusion part. Because the current state of the conclusion part reminds of a paper presentation. It provides local results. It presents results that address only one country and a part of that country. However, what is expected from a research article is that it produces results and suggestions that will inspire other researchers and scientists, along with more general results. For this purpose, all revisions expressed and revisions expressed in the discussion section should be made. Then the results of the article should be considered to be presented in a way that guides practices in countries where ownership, planning and land ownership processes are similar to China.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors use land use data to explored the land use changes in CZX from 1980 to 2020 under the background of cultivated land protection policy. The manuscript is valid and innovative. However, there also have some problems need to be revised.

1. In introduction, there are too many background(line37-47,line 72-84,). It is lack of the literature review. The authors should introduce the relevant references of land use . For example:

Simulating Intraurban Land Use Dynamics under Multiple Scenarios Based on Fuzzy Cellular Automata: A Case Study of Jinzhou District, Dalian.Complexity,2018,Article ID 7202985,17 pages. doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7202985.

Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of urban land area and PM_2.5 concentration in China. Urban Climate,2022,45:101268. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101268.

2.The authors should emphasize the special of the study area. The basic information of CZT region is not related to the subject. I think some sentences(line 100-109) could move to 2.1 study area.

3.In 2.3 research methods, the introduction of method is not clear enough. The title of 2.3.1 should be revised to specific method. Each of elements in formulas should be introduced respectively.

4.In line 239, the authors thinks there are four time periods in figure 2. However, I only find two time periods in figure 2.(1980-2000,2000-2020)

5. The English is a little poor. I suggest the author find a professional instituition to re-edit the English. Such as line 269-275, and abstract.

6.It is lack of spatial characteristic of land use change in CZX. It can rich the research.

7.Section 4.1 and section 4.3 could integrated into one part.

8.The human activities can not only change the climate fluctuations,carbon cycle,but also influence the human settlement climate comfort in line 42-43.. please refer to

Spatiotemporal relationship characteristic of climate comfort of urban human settlement environment and population density in China. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution,2022,10:953725.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting paper quantifying land use change in a CZT region of Hunan province.  It demonstrates that well-intended policies need the force of (enforcement) action to be successful. 

I had some questions going through the paper and some areas that I felt needed clarifications. Those are noted on the marked copy of the paper included with these review notes. For the most part, they involve on providing some additional explanation on several points because they could be misinterpreted or were not clear unless you had additional contextual information.

Please review and address these comments. Once that has been done, I feel the paper is ready to progress to the next stage of consideration.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript carefully. Most of problems have addressed. However, there also exist some problems as follow.

1. The [5-6] should be revised to [5,6].

2.I suggest the authors find a professional instituition to polish the English. Because there also have many grammar errors in this text, such as line 638-639 and line 305.

3.In line 294-295, the authors think CZT Region area is an important hub connecting the west and the coast, the north and the south of China. The authors should introduced the advantage of location and traffic in CZT.

4.Why the authors deleted the website of data source in line 455-460. I think it is necessary.

5.In 3.1 spatial distribution characteristics section, the content of this section is too short compared with others sections. Futhermore this part is far from the figure 1. I suggest the authors divide figure 1 into two figures. The land use figure move to section 3.1.  In addtion, the authors analyse the spatial characteristic of land use in 2020 firstly, then analyze the spatio-temporal evolution of land use from 1980 to 2020. The specific years should be supplied in figure. The authors can refer to the manuscript as follow, especially section 3.2.1 seasonal evolution characteristics of climate comfort of human-settlement environments.

Spatio-temporal evolution and factors of climate comfort for urban human settlements in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area.2022,10:1001064.Front.Environ.Sci.doi:10.3389/fenvs.2022.1001064.

6.Maybe there have a space in average in line 768.

7.In line 888-889, the thanks you for my constructive comments is not neccessary in the text. The authors should read the manuscript carefully. Please notice the detailed problems.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The additional information and clarifications make this a strong paper and a candidate for publication. 

I still have two suggestions, left my initial review. 

The first is that I suggest moving the note about the CZT being in the lower reaches of the Yangtze River closer the statement about developing the middle reaches and preserving the countryside for the sake of clarity.

The second is that I suggest adding a note on in the legend of Figure 1 regarding the small maps of the CZT (which are explained in the text).

These can be taken under advisement. Neither is impactful enough to prevent the paper from moving forward -- though I think they would be improvements. 

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx