A Study on the Spatial Change of Production–Living–Ecology in China in the Past Two Decades Based on Intensity Analysis in the Context of Arable Land Protection and Sustainable Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a methodology to track PLES in China for the periods 2000-2010 and 2010-2020. The methodology is described and the results obtained as well, still the later should be more explicitly presented.

The conclusions are presented, however it is not clear how this methodology might be applied, except from conducting ex post tracking, to indicate the policies to be endorsed in the context of safeguarding and administration of agricultural production and ecological area.

Production-living-ecology space  should be attributed to PLES in the beginning of the manuscript.

In line 197: The variable 𝐶_tij should be checked

 

Lines 628-629 the last sentence should be removed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor typos 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study mainly discusses the development and evolution process of China's production-living-ecological space in the past 20 years under the background of cultivated land protection and sustainable development. This is a very meaningful topic worthy of detailed and in-depth research and analysis. However, at present, this study needs further improvement and modification.

1 introduction: In the current version, the relevant background of this study is mainly explained. However, as a scientific research paper, it is necessary to further supplement the corresponding review and review of previous studies, and clearly and accurately put forward the corresponding research gaps. This is very important, and it is also an important legal basis for the follow-up of this study.

2 methods: This study mainly proposed the use of change component analysis and intensity analysis methods. Among them, the former is the characteristic description of the spatiotemporal evolution of the three-life space, but the proposed three changes, including quantity, exchange and transfer, have no corresponding inferences and references in their calculation equations, and lack scientific basis. As for the latter, why intensity analysis should be carried out and what scientific problems it is intended to solve are not well explained in the introduction section, so the proposed method is too abrupt.

3 methodology: This research lacks a corresponding research context or conceptual framework, resulting in the lack of clear textual logic. It is recommended to add a subsection.

4 results: Figure 2 shows the relationship between the three change compositions, but what is the relationship between the three? Complementing each other? Independence? The current writing makes it difficult for the reader to understand the relationship.

5 results: Figure 3 further shows the gains and losses of change components. But with respect to which standard baseline are the gains and losses?

6 results: Figure 4 shows the intensity analysis of the total spatial changes, but how was the uniform intensity (1.32%) determined here?

7 results: Similarly, how was the uniform intensity in Figure 5 obtained? At the same time, Section 3.3.3 is a further analysis of Agricultural Production Space, so why further analysis of agricultural production space, and the other two types of space?

8 discussion: It still mainly focuses on the presentation and description of the results, lacking the discussion and analysis of the internal mechanism. It is suggested to supplement the discussion and analysis of the influencing factors and mechanism.

9 On the whole, this study mainly focuses on the description of geographical space, and lacks exploration and analysis of internal mechanism, which is too shallow. It is suggested to supplement the corresponding mechanism exploration and analysis.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presented for review is an exciting study of the spatial changes in production-life-ecology in China over the past two decades. The use of an interesting method comparing spatial-temporal land cover data is valuable. The manuscript is written in clear language and has a proper structure and division of content. The abstract is informative and adequately summarizes the main elements of the study. I have no major comments on the manuscript. The only suggestion is about the not-very-fortuitous manner of adding the term "ecological" to the name of land use classes like grasslands, forests, etc. 

It seems that the article is eligible for publication without corrections and changes.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments were considered. No other recommendations to submit