Luxury Effect, Heritage Effect, and Land Use Hypotheses Revealing Land Cover Distribution in Hainan Island, China
, Jianpeng Cui 1,2 and Huafeng Wang 1,2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsHistoric and socioeconomic factors influence the distribution and character of cities. This article employs various methods to analyse land use/land cover changes in Hainan Island, China. Three possible hypotheses can relate to these changes. They touch upon the relationships between socioeconomic factors, urban functional units and landscape patterns. The results support the luxury effect hypothesis. However, there is an inverse legacy effect hypothesis, highlighting the need for informed decision-making when it comes to (urban) planning.
The article has an appropriate IMRAD structure but does not follow the Sustainability JOURNAL GUIDELINES regarding citing and listing the literature.
The SOURCES are mostly (2/3) from the last five years and a broad range of international authors.
I list below some guidelines for text improvement:
- 28: Add the studied region and country to the keywords.
- 32: The definition of land use and land cover is not clear. Are the terms synonyms?
- 44: As a general rule – provide scientific sources for such claims.
- 46: source missing again.
- 64, 69: it is difficult for the reader to find the endnotes. I suggest adding all relevant parts to the text itself and sources to the reference list.
- Divide the Introduction into literature review, state of the art and hypotheses – create subchapters.
- 82: comma
- 88: add the main aim of the article here after writing the hypotheses
- 98: If the landscape pattern index is widely used, provide some references. One source is not enough.
- 103: Evidence? The description perhaps.
- 106: Few studies? Which ones?
- 116: considerable achievements in LULC research – really? International articles?
- 124: Recent work – you name only Chinese sources throughout this part of your article. Are these studies internationally relevant? I agree with what you say but provide sources.
- 147: put the aims after the hypotheses and reform the whole chapter accordingly in sensible parts.
- 165: Hei?
- Figure 1: the text is too small, and it is impossible to read it. Make it larger and write all the locations from the caption on the map.
- 186: Why are grid sizes different? I believe the results are incomparable with different grid sizes. Scientifically explain your decision and provide sources. How did you compare the results then?
- Separate 2.2 into paragraphs. Provide references for your decisions.
- 209-222: the text needs to be revised. How was accuracy calculated? The results should all go in the next chapter. When mentioning a table, put it immediately after the mention. Provide a work chart of your procedural steps.
- Figure 2: what does it represent, where is it described? The legends are too small, the north arrows differ in size. Revise the figure thoroughly and put it in the right place.
- 230: how did you determine the accuracy?
- 231: any sources supporting these criteria? I agree with what you say, but citations add credibility to all criteria.
- 235-250: graphically represent the text.
- 252-258: irrelevant repetition; all of this was stated before.
- Chapter 3 needs a thorough revision. The text is mainly a repetition of what is stated in the tables. There is no analysis of the results. If data is written in the table, it does not need to be repeated in the text so extensively. The main instruction is to present the results followed by a short explanation of the findings. Consult this webpage on how to do that: https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803&p=185931
- 429: sources?
- 433: a space too many in front of the dot.
- The Discussion section is well written. When referring to legislation or the government (e.g. line 520), provide sources to that legislation or bodies.
- A great way to improve the discussion is to add a model to your findings. Could you graphically represent the findings and their implications?
- 640: a space missing
- Conclusion is well prepared and succinct.
The things that need general improvement are cartography, justification on different grid sizes, and rewriting of the Results section. Whereas the Discussion and Conclusion are well-prepared and supported by existing literature.
The article covers important developmental processes. When it is revised, tailored to the journal guidelines and edited, it will bring huge attention both to itself and to the authors because it discusses an innovative topic.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language is appropriate, but the spacing and references need revision. Endnotes are discouraged because it is difficult to follow in that way.
Author Response
Response to reviewer comments
Reviewer 1:
1.28: Add the studied region and country to the keywords.
Response: We have rewritten them.
2.32: The definition of land use and land cover is not clear. Are the terms synonyms?
Response:It carries the same meaning, but for better clarity, I changed 'land use and land cover' to 'land cover' .
3.44: As a general rule – provide scientific sources for such claims.
Response: I have revised the statement and added the source. Please, seelines 43-44.
- 46: source missing again.
Response:The source has been added. Please, seelines 46-47
5.64, 69: it is difficult for the reader to find the endnotes. I suggest adding all relevant parts to the text itself and sources to the reference list.
Response:In the footnote, it refers to the websites where these software programs are obtained, so I have directly added the sources into the article.
6.Divide the Introduction into literature review, state of the art and hypotheses – create subchapters.
Response: Thank you for your feedback. We tried to create subchapters seriously, but we found that the hypothesis also involves the literature review part, and another reviewer asked me to add some previous research findings in the hypothesis. Therefore, each paragraph in the introduction is closely related and involves some previous research, so the subchapters could not be created.
If there are any inappropriate places, please correct us. We will further modify and optimize the article structure based on your suggestions. If you have any other specific suggestions or opinions, please feel free to let us know. Thank you for your valuable time and guidance!
7.82: comma
Response:Have been modified
- 88: add the main aim of the article here after writing the hypotheses
Response:The main objectives have been added; please see lines 89-92.
9.98: If the landscape pattern index is widely used, provide some references. One source is not enough.
Response: The relevant references have been added; please see line 94-95.
- 103: Evidence? The descriptionperhaps.
Response: I have changed 'Evidence' to 'description'; please see line 108.
10.Few studies? Which ones?
Response: The reference has been cited in the article; please see lines 112-113.
11.116: considerable achievements in LULC research – really? International articles?
Response: I have modified the corresponding expression; please see lines 120-122.
- 124: Recent work – you name only Chinese sources throughout this part of your article. Are these studies internationally relevant? I agree with what you say but provide sources.
Response: I have cited some studies in other countries; please see lines 132.
- 147: put the aims after the hypotheses and reform the whole chapter accordingly in sensible parts.
Response:I have made the changes accordingly; please see lines 153-154.
- 165: Hei?
Response:I have changed the format accordingly; please see line 171.
- Figure 1: the text is too small, and it is impossible to read it. Make it larger and write all the locations from the caption on the map.
Response:I have enlarged the picture, please see Figure 1
- 186: Why are grid sizes different? I believe the results are incomparable with different grid sizes. Scientifically explain your decision and provide sources. How did you compare the results then?
Response: In order to ensure the reasonable distribution of the selected UFU in the 18 counties and cities, the grid was divided according to the actual area of the main urban area of each county and city and the distribution of UFU development, so that the selected UFUs could reflect its diverse urban landscape in each city; please see lines 196-198.
16.Separate 2.2 into paragraphs. Provide references for your decisions.
Response: I have divided the paragraphs and provided the relevant references.
17.209-222: the text needs to be revised. How was accuracy calculated? The results should all go in the next chapter. When mentioning a table, put it immediately after the mention. Provide a work chart of your procedural steps.
Response:I have added the chart of the results and calculation program steps to the article.
- 18. Figure 2: what does it represent, where is it described? The legends are too small, the north arrows differ in size. Revise the figure thoroughly and put it in the right place.
Response: Thank you for your advice. I have redrawn and modified the needle as much as possible. Figure 3 (original Figure 2) represents the land cover distribution of the sample points of each city. Due to the different area and size of each city, the legend is as close as possible when drawing, but it is difficult to keep consistent.
19.230: how did you determine the accuracy?
Response: We have checked a large number of references, and there have been previous studies on LC through housing price, completion period and population density. We also agree with previous views that housing prices can represent the economic development level of urbanization in a certain area; the completion period is related to the urbanization stage and the number of habitat years; (4) LC is vulnerable in areas with high population density. Relevant references have already been added; please see lines 258-269.
- 231: any sources supporting these criteria? I agree with what you say, but citations add credibility to all criteria.
Response: Relevant references have been added; please see lines 258-269.
21.235-250: graphically represent the text.
Response: I have represented the text in the technology roadmap; please see Figure 4.
22.252-258: irrelevant repetition; all of this was stated before.
Response: I have deleted and redescribed this section; please see lines 274-279.
- Chapter 3 needs a thorough revision. The text is mainly a repetition of what is stated in the tables. There is no analysis of the results. If data is written in the table, it does not need to be repeated in the text so extensively. The main instruction is to present the results followed by a short explanation of the findings. Consult this webpage on how to do that: https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803&p=185931
Response: Thanks for your advice, the results section has been redescribed
24.429: sources?
Response: Relevant references have been added; please see line 390
25.433: a space too many in front of the dot.
Response: Redundant blanks has been removed
26.The Discussion section is well written. When referring to legislation or the government (e.g. line 520), provide sources to that legislation or bodies.
Response: I have quoted the source in the article; please see line 490.
- A great way to improve the discussion is to add a model to your findings. Could you graphically represent the findings and their implications?
Response: Technical route analysis diagram has been added in the article, please see Figure 5.
- 640: a space missing
Response: Has been added in the corresponding section.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript "Luxury Effect, Heritage Effect, and Land Use Hypothesis Revealing Land Use and Land Cover Distribution on Hainan Island" (sustainability-3112654). The manuscript presents an interesting investigation into the driving factors of land use/land cover change on Hainan Island. However, to further enhance the manuscript's impact, I recommend the following major revisions:
Abstract: Please restructure the abstract to adhere to standard scientific format, clearly outlining the research problem, methods, key findings, and conclusions.
Introduction: Provide a clear research gap and highlight the significance of your study.
Results and Discussion: Incorporate additional figures or graphs to visualize relationships between driving factors and LULC change. Consider moving less critical figures to the supplementary material.
Figure Quality: Enhance the resolution of Figure 2 and enlarge the subfigures in Figure 1 for improved readability.
I have attached a detailed comment file with specific suggestions for improvement.
Sincerely,
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear,
sir/madam
Thank you for your comments, the revised response has been made in the PDF, if there is any problem, or have other specific suggestions or opinions, please feel free to inform. Thank you for your time and guidance!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is valuable that the authors pay attention to land use and present results useful for the authorities. Space is a limited resource – this should be clearly emphasized in the introductory part of the article. (Seemingly everyone is aware of this fact, but often planning decisions contradict this obvious knowledge).
The hypotheses posed by the researchers are very important for both theory and practice. The results of the work are very useful. The authors rightly emphasize the complexity of the issue under study. It might be worth considering ways to popularize knowledge about space management among citizens. After all, it is the residents who elect the authorities, and the authorities then make decisions. It may be worth including this fact in the article to increase the usefulness of the results.
Data collection and the research method are clearly described.
Suggestions:
Would the authors be willing to add a paragraph about the wealth of the residents of the studied areas? To link changes in land use with changes in the wealth of the local society?
Around line 509 – since buildings are empty and unused, and therefore the space loses users, are there any tax incentives to change this situation?
In the 35th position of the bibliography, the surname is written as "hei" – it should be "Hei."
There is an error in lines 783-784.
After making the changes, I recommend the article for publication.
Author Response
Response to reviewer comments
Reviewer 3:
1.Would the authors be willing to add a paragraph about the wealth of the residents of the studied areas? To link changes in land use with changes in the wealth of the local society?
Response: I have added relevant; please see lines 399-405.
2.Around line 509 – since buildings are empty and unused, and therefore the space loses users, are there any tax incentives to change this situation?
Response: After searching relevant policies, we found that since 2016 (Government 2016), Hainan Province has carried out land recovery and utilization for the situation of vacant and idle buildings, but there is still the phenomenon of idle land (Yuan 2022). These has been added to the article; please see lines 478-480.
3.In the 35th position of the bibliography, the surname is written as "hei" – it should be "Hei."
Response:Corresponding modifications have been made; please see line 171.
4.There is an error in lines 783-784.
Response: The references have been modified accordingly.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReferee report on "Luxury effect, heritage effect, and land use hypothesis revealing land use and land cover distribution on Hainan Island”
The authors study an interesting topic. The paper is well structured and executed. Overall, I’m sympathetic regarding the paper, although I have a number of suggestions that will improve the paper’s quality and exposition. My comments are below.
1. In line 44 (page 1) you state that “As a general rule, rapid urbanization has promoted marked economic development.” In fact, the relationship between urbanization and development is not as clear as you claim. The rapid urbanization in Africa, India and Brazil that came without gains in development even gave rise to the recent literature on “urbanization without growth”. Adjust your argument accordingly.
2. When you talk about the differences between the business districts and residential areas in the cities (third paragraph on page 2) to the end of the paragraph (line 85), add that:
“However, excessive population density usually negatively affects both business districts and residential areas through an increase in congestion diseconomies (Azarnert, 2019; 2023).”
3. When you start speaking about the Study area (page 4), add a special section to provide a description of the socio-economic characteristics of this province, such as, for example, population, regional GDP as percent of the country’s GDP and in per-capita terms as compared to the country’s figures and other such indicators.
4. Also make it clear what is your period of study.
5. Results
As I understand, in the sub-section 3.1 you refer to Table 2. Don’t force the reader to make investigations of what table you are talking about. It should be clear from the very beginning, and not mentioned in the very end.
The same is about all your further tables.
6. Go over your reference list and add the names of the journals. Currently, for most references we do not see the names of the journals.
References
Azarnert, L.V. (2019) Migration, congestion and growth. Macroeconomic Dynamics 23(8), 3035–3064
Azarnert, L.V. (2023) Population sorting and human capital accumulation. Oxford Economic Papers 75(3), 780–801
Comments on the Quality of English Languageminor editing
Author Response
Response to reviewer comments
Reviewer 4:
1.In line 44 (page 1) you state that “As a general rule, rapid urbanization has promoted marked economic development.” In fact, the relationship between urbanization and development is not as clear as you claim. The rapid urbanization in Africa, India and Brazil that came without gains in development even gave rise to the recent literature on “urbanization without growth”. Adjust your argument accordingly.
Response: I have made changes to it; please see line 43-44.
- When you talk about the differences between the business districts and residential areas in the cities (third paragraph on page 2) to the end of the paragraph (line 85), add that:
“However, excessive population density usually negatively affects both business districts and residential areas through an increase in congestion diseconomies (Azarnert, 2019; 2023).”
Response: Thanks for your advice, I have added the content to the article; please see lines 84-85.
2.When you start speaking about the Study area (page 4), add a special section to provide a description of the socio-economic characteristics of this province, such as, for example, population, regional GDP as percent of the country’s GDP and in per-capita terms as compared to the country’s figures and other such indicators.
Response: Have been added in the corresponding section; please see lines 171-177
3.Also make it clear what is your period of study.
Response: Thank you for your comments. I have modified the error section accordingly.
- Results
As I understand, in the sub-section 3.1 you refer to Table 2. Don’t force the reader to make investigations of what table you are talking about. It should be clear from the very beginning, and not mentioned in the very end.
The same is about all your further tables.
Response: I have already rewritten the results section.
- Go over your reference list and add the names of the journals. Currently, for most references we do not see the names of the journals.
Response: Thank you for your comments, I have revised the corresponding references.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors reviewed the article: they followed the majority of my advice and replied thoroughly where they kept their original ideas. Thank you. I realize that the authors have to follow several reviewers who might differ in their suggestions, which is why it is acceptable to negotiate and combine the changes.
I have three suggestions for the article to be further improved:
- The methods and tools in the abstract shouldn't be at the same level (This study combines Landsat 5 images, GIS, Fragstats (A software for calculating landscape patterns), socio-economic surveys). It is not necessary to describe the tools in the abstract.
- The citing needs to be edited and tailored to the journal instructions.
- Grid cell size remains an open issue. There are no sources provided that state, that the results of different grid cell sizes are comparable. I understand the objective behind your explanation but provide a concrete scientific source that allows you to compare the results of different grid sizes. Alternatively, provide three sources (not only Chinese) that applied the same method. In that way, the integrity of your paper will be preserved in this part. If you do not improve this part, your experiment might be challenged in the future by other authors who will point to this lack of clarity and argument soundness.
- Figure 3 is not legible: the legends are too small and it is impossible to compare the cities in detail. Before the publication, this issue needs to be resolved. Cartographical revision is necessary here.
I believe the paper will bring great attention to both the journal and to the authors.
Author Response
Response to reviewer comments：
- The methods and tools in the abstract shouldn't be at the same level (This study combines Landsat images, GIS, Fragstats (A software for calculating landscape patterns), socio-economic surveys). It is not necessary to describe the tools in the abstract.
Response: Thanks for your comments, I have deleted this content.
- The citing needs to be edited and tailored to the journal instructions.
Response: Thank you for your response. The references have been edited and customized according to the journal's guidelines.
- Grid cell size remains an open issue. There are no sources provided that state, that the results of different grid cell sizes are comparable. I understand the objective behind your explanation but provide a concrete scientific source that allows you to compare the results of different grid sizes. Alternatively, provide three sources (not only Chinese) that applied the same method. In that way, the integrity of your paper will be preserved in this part. If you do not improve this part, your experiment might be challenged in the future by other authors who will point to this lack of clarity and argument soundness.
Response: Thank you for your feedback. I have included references in the text using the same method. According to the studies by Guo and Cui, it is effectively demonstrated that results from different grid cell sizes are comparable. This is explained by considering the unique characteristics of each city, such as urban density, land use distribution, and urban morphology, allowing the grid size to vary according to the dimensions of each city's study area while ensuring that the results are statistically significant and that each city includes at least 80 urban functional units.
- Figure 3 is not legible: the legends are too small and it is impossible to compare the cities in detail. Before the publication, this issue needs to be resolved. Cartographical revision is necessary here.
Response: I have enlarged the picture, but because of the actual size of each city is different, I cannot guarantee to keep the same and clear legend in the case of different picture size, so I summarized the legend of 18 cities in a legend, please look at Figure 5.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear all Authors.
Thanks for your hard work in addressing all of my concerns.
This paper must be published because it is very well-written and structured. I am going to accept the manuscript in its present form.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your recognition of our paper, and for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work. Wishing you all the best!
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNow I'm saticefied and recommend acceptance.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing
Author Response
Thank you very much for your recognition of our paper, and for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work. Wishing you all the best!
