Spatiotemporal Dynamic Analysis and Simulation Prediction of Land Use and Landscape Patterns from the Perspective of Sustainable Development in Tourist Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. In the Abstract and Introduction, the innovation of this paper should be clearly stated.

2. It is necessary to add the detailed information of remote sensing image data of different years used in this study, the main steps and results of processing.

3. In Table 7, the impact of Policies/Regulations is ignored in the simulation, which we believe is not credible. Moreover, all the human factors are ignored. In fact, the development of regional tourism in a certain period of time is more influenced by human factors.

4. Figure.4 suitability Atlas. What kind of suitability does it mean?

5. By 2026, the trend of "returning farmland to forest" and "returning farmland to water" is in obvious contradiction with the current farmland protection policy in China. In your case study, how do you think this contradiction should be addressed?

6. What are the implications of this study for the larger area of related research?

7. The limitations of this study should be pointed out.

 Moderate editing of English language required。

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to previous manuscripts and highlighted them at their corresponding positions, the detailed corrections are listed below.

1. We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We have checked the literature carefully and added more reference literature and the article innovation point..
2. We have added details of remote sensing images in different years in 2.1, as well as a table 1 for illustration, and rearranged the main steps and results in 2.2.1.
3. Thank you very much for your comments, and we have thought about this question seriously. As you said, the impact of the policies / regulations in Table 7 should not be ignored. However, as the policies and regulations are more subjective and qualitative content, quantitative data is needed to build the model for the simulation and prediction part in 3.2. In the process of modification, we collected relevant information, but it was difficult to find an appropriate method to import the quantitative processing of the policies and regulations into IDRISI software in a short time, and ensure the accuracy of the quantification. Therefore, we adjusted the structure of 3.2 and added 3.2.1 separately to divide the driving factors analysis into subjective analysis and objective quantitative modeling, and investigated and analyzed all human factors, and revised and supplemented them.
4. According to your opinion, we have added supplements to explain the suitability atlas of Figure 4 in part 3.2.2 of the text.Each land-use type generates the MCE model image corresponding to it, which is the suitability image. The suitability atlas is a compilation of all MCE model images. The atlas depicts the future change suitability of various land use categories; the greater the value, the greater the probability of transferring to that type of land(Figure 4).
5. Thank you for pointing out that how to solve the obvious contradiction between the trend of returning farmland to forests and returning farmland to water and China's current farmland protection policy. We reorganized section 4.3 and added references. The strategy of 4.3.2 to solve land conflicts is improved.
6. We rearrange the conclusion section, to supplement the implications of this study for relevant research areas.
7. We highlight the limitations of this study in sections 4.1 and 4.2.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some language changes to the manuscript. We appreciate for Reviewers warm wonk and hope that the correction will meet with approval. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have had the opportunity to review your article titled "Spatiotemporal Dynamic Analysis and Simulation Prediction of Land Use and Landscape Pattern from the Perspective of Sustainable Development in Tourist Cities." While I appreciate your efforts in conducting this study, I believe there are several areas that require significant improvement to enhance the academic contribution and overall quality of the manuscript.

My comments and suggestions are as follows:

Abstract:

Avoid using abbreviations in the abstract as it can hinder the reader's understanding.

Introduction

The references to Choudhary et al. (2017) [20], LiH (2017) [21], and MinK (2021) [22] should be consistent in terms of citation format and style.

Correct the typographical errors in this section, such as "unjus-tified," which should be "unjustified."

Consider rewriting the entire introduction, adding more literature review content to support your problem statement. Improve the coherence between paragraphs for better flow and readability. Use clear and concise language instead of complex terminology.

 Clearly state the objectives of the study in the introduction to provide readers with a clear understanding of what the research aims to achieve.

Study Area and Data Sources and Methods

Improve the resolution of Figure 1 to ensure that it is clear and easy to read.

Provide a step-by-step explanation of the data sources and methods used in your study. Ensure that this section is organized logically to guide readers through your research process.

Explain what atmospheric calibration (QUAC) is, as it may not be familiar to all readers.

Clarify the source of Table 2, and consider whether it is essential for inclusion in the manuscript. If included, ensure that all content is clear and legible, as some parts may be blurred.

Review and revise the title of Table 3, as it currently appears confusing. Ensure that the title accurately reflects the table's content.

The methodology section requires more detail. Provide a comprehensive, step-by-step explanation of the research methods used, including data collection, analysis, and geospatial techniques employed.

Results

 Reorganize the results section so that it begins with text descriptions before presenting maps or figures. Ensure that the captions and titles of the maps are consistent and match the content.

Include an accuracy assessment of the supervised classification. Consider using techniques like a confusion matrix to assess the accuracy of different classes.

Clarify the term "construction class" and consider using a more universally understood term like "built-up area."

Enhance the resolution of all figures to improve their clarity and readability.

Make the results more specific and avoid providing general examples in this section.

Discussion

Discussion: In the discussion section, explain the reasons behind your findings and compare them with other relevant studies. Given that your research appears to be of a descriptive nature, this section becomes crucial in justifying your problem statement and methodology.

 Conclusion

 The conclusion section should emphasize the scientific contributions of your research rather than merely summarizing the results. Clearly state how your study advances the field and addresses the problem identified in the introduction.

 

In conclusion, while your study topic is important, the manuscript requires substantial revisions to improve its clarity, coherence, and academic contribution. Addressing these comments and suggestions will help you present your research in a more compelling and rigorous manner.

Address the numerous typographical and grammatical errors throughout the text. A thorough proofreading is necessary to enhance the manuscript's quality.

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to previous manuscripts and highlighted them at their corresponding positions, the detailed corrections are listed below.

Abstract:

We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We have checked the abstract carefully and modified the abbreviations.

Introduction:

Thank you for your comments, we modified and unified the reference format and style of the introduction and highlighted them.

We are very sorry for our careless mistakes. Thank you for your reminder. In our resubmitted manuscript, the nonstandard spelling was revised.

We rewrote most of the introduction and added more literature reviews to support our question statement. We try our best to modify and adjust the language and content to improve the coherence between paragraphs. The changes are highlighted.

In the last part of the introduction, we add the purpose and innovation points of the research.

Study Area and Data Sources and Methods

We modified Figure 1, and adjusted the resolution to 330ppi.

We have added details of remote sensing images in different years in 2.1, as well as a table 1 for illustration, and rearranged the main steps and results in 2.2.1.

We have added relevant explanations for the atmospheric calibration (QUAC) in 2.2.1.

In 2.2.2, Table 3 (Table 2 of the original manuscript) is revised and interpreted to ensure that the content is clear.

We revised the title of Table 4 (Table 3 of the original manuscript) to ensure that the title is expressed accurately.

2.3 Research methods section, we have modified and adjusted, provide more detailed application information, and the operational content of some data analysis.

Results

We reorganized the results section and adjusted the order of 3.1 pictures and text to ensure that it began with text. At the same time, we have modified the picture title to make it match with the content.

 Regarding the accuracy assessment of supervised classification, we think your opinion is very important. However, due to the short revision time of the manuscript and the mastery of new technical methods, there are some difficulties in adding new technical methods to the manuscript. Nevertheless, we will definitely further explore and apply your suggestions in the subsequent work to improve the accuracy of the study. Thank you very much for your advice.

 About your suggestion of the term "construction", through the literature reading and careful thinking, we think this is a very good suggestion. And change the term in the article to "build-up area".

We further improved the resolution of the graphics and the reproduction of some of the pictures, and modified some contents of the results to make them more specific.

Discussion

Following your professional advice, we explain the reasons behind the study findings in the discussion section. In addition, references were further added, and the research content and results were compared with other related studies to improve the final strategy.

Conclusion

We rearrange the conclusion section, to put forward the relevant solution strategy and supplement the implications of this study for relevant research areas.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some language changes to the manuscript. We appreciate for Reviewers warm wonk and hope that the correction will meet with approval. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article addresses the important problem of changing the function of the landscape area in terms of creating tourism functions. The methods used seem appropriate. The only reservation may be the fact that the values given in percentages are above '100%'. Perhaps it would be better to give an average value? I would also suggest referring to studies carried out not only in Western Europe but also in Eastern and Central Europe. It also raises the question whether the pattern of landscape type changes was the same everywhere in the region ? Notwithstanding these comments, I believe that the article deserves to be published.

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to previous manuscripts and highlighted them at their corresponding positions, the detailed corrections are listed below.

1. Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have added the part of the average value in Table 6, Table 7 and Table 9 to make it look more complete and clear. At the same time, after careful thinking, we consider that the sum of all probabilities should be used to express the transfer probability of each land use type, which is more than "100%" to show the growth of the land use type area in a certain period of time, so the part is also retained.
2. We think your second suggestion is very important. In fact, in the process of research, different towns in this region indeed showed different modes of change due to different tourism resources. To this end, we conducted a follow-up study and divided our whole region into five types according to different tourist landscape patterns. Pastoral wetland type, pastoral historical type, agricultural ecological type, agricultural commercial production type, modernization type. However, due to the influence of the length of this paper, it cannot accommodate too much content, so more detailed research and writing will be carried out in the subsequent studies. Thanks very much for your advice.

 

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some language changes to the manuscript. We appreciate for Reviewers warm wonk and hope that the correction will meet with approval. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors well outlined the research issues in the first chapter. The authors should add information about the purpose of the research.

 

It's good that the authors also illustrated the research area using graphics. The research methods were well described.

 

The authors could enlarge the graphics in "Figure 1" - "Fugure 9". This will make their perception easier.

 

Figure 6 - Figure 9: Value labels should appear on the charts, as well as unit information.

 

Chapter 3.3.4 – no interpretation of charts. There are only charts in the chapter.

 

The discussion lacks references to literature. There is only a discussion of the authors' results.

 

The authors cited the latest literature in the paper.

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to previous manuscripts and highlighted them at their corresponding positions, the detailed corrections are listed below.

1.We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. In the last part of the introduction, we add the purpose and innovation points of the research.

2.Following your suggestion, we enlarged "Figure 1" - "Figure 9" and adjusted the resolution of the picture to 330ppi. And further modify the “Figure 6” – “Figure 9”, where the value labels are placed at the top end of the chart. Then add the units to the side. However, some of the landscape pattern index has no units, so it is not marked.

3.Thank you very much for your advice, and we are sorry for our carelessness. We have added text to 3.3.4 to explain the chart content.

4.Following your professional advice, we explain the reasons behind the study findings in the discussion section. In addition, references were further added, and the research content and results were compared with other related studies to improve the final strategy.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some language changes to the manuscript. We appreciate for Reviewers warm wonk and hope that the correction will meet with approval. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Most of the problems have been solved. However, the limitations of this study are not mentioned.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your professional suggestion, we have added the study limitations to the 5 Conclusion section and highlighted them. We appreciate for your warm work. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for revising this manuscript. I am happy with the current changes but I suggest all figures and maps require enhancement to achieve higher resolution.

Minor editing of the English language required

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments. Following your suggestion, we adjusted the resolution of "Figure 1" - "Figure 9" to 300ppi and enlarged them, and some of the images were also modified to make them look clearer. However, the file size was increased from 10M to 30M, and there were some difficulties in uploading and downloading. So we converted it into a PDF for size compression, but the clarity is not impaired. We appreciate for your warm wonk and hope that the correction will meet with approval. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf