Future Land Use and Habitat Quality Dynamics: Spatio-Temporal Analysis and Simulation in the Taihu Lake Basin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this manuscript is well-written, suitable for this journal, and significantly contributes to the field. The study is well-conducted, and the findings are clearly presented. However, the manuscript would benefit from minor refinements:

1) The abstract provides a concise summary of the study, but it could benefit from a brief mention of the key implications of the findings for regional planning.

2) The results are clearly presented with well-structured tables and figures; however, the discussion could be more integrated with the visuals.

3) A more explicit connection between the findings and their practical applications would strengthen the manuscript. Consider expanding on the implications of the results for policy and management. 

With the minor revisions suggested above, I believe this manuscript is suitable for publication in this journal.

 

 

Author Response

1）The abstract provides a concise summary of the study, but it could benefit from a brief mention of the key implications of the findings for regional planning

Response: Thanks for the reviewer's suggestions. We have endeavored to incorporate the implications of the findings of this study for regional planning into the abstract. The specific revised content is shown in lines 21—25, page 1.

2) The results are clearly presented with well-structured tables and figures; however, the discussion could be more integrated with the visuals.

Response: Thank you very much for your advice. Your suggestion is undoubtedly very useful to improve the visual effect of the paper. We have enhanced the visual effects of the discussion section according to your suggestions. The specific revised content is shown in lines 421—422, page 16.

3)A more explicit connection between the findings and their practical applications would strengthen the manuscript. Consider expanding on the implications of the results for policy and management. 

Thank you for your detailed review of our manuscript and valuable suggestions. We take note of your reference to the lack of a clear link between research findings and practical applications and fully understand the importance of this in enhancing the persuasiveness of the article. To this end, we have made the following revisions and additions: Based on our findings, particularly on the negative impact of construction land expansion on habitat quality, we recommend the development of stricter land-use planning policies, especially in high-density urban areas, to prevent arbitrary development of high-quality habitats and prioritize the protection of key ecological areas, such as forests and grasslands.

-  Ecological restoration: Combined with the declining trend of habitat quality found in the study, we propose to remediate old polluting enterprises and prioritize the restoration and protection of ecological land in future urban development to maintain the health of the ecosystem.

 Regional Planning Recommendations: Based on the results of our predictive models, we propose to integrate ecological planning into regional development strategies to ensure that adequate ecological land and green infrastructure are preserved during rapid urbanization to promote sustainable development. The specific revised content is shown in lines 472—489, page 17—18. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your paper is certainly useful for analyzing the ecological state and development prospects in the Taihu Lake Basin land use. However, there are two main questions for the authors.

1. Why do you use only / just models InVEST and PLUS in your work? There is no explanation for this choice in the paper, except for the words "we consider them the most appropriate." This is very controversial, because there are many econometric approaches to such forecasting. Up to the use of Boosted regression trees. In this regard, I would like to see a clear justification for the use of the models InVEST and PLUS chosen by the authors.

2. Similarly, the choice of natural, locational, and socio-economic factors as driving variables for the models is not explained in any way. Result that we get depends on the choice of factors. For example, the soil type factor can strongly influence land use development or land abandonment. But the authors did not consider this factor. But we understand that in the study region there cannot be the same type of soil everywhere. And this is just one example. Therefore, it is necessary to add a clear and reasonable explanation of the choice of factors for the model to the paper.

 

Author Response

1）Why do you use only / just models InVEST and PLUS in your work? There is no explanation for this choice in the paper, except for the words "we consider them the most appropriate." This is very controversial, because there are many econometric approaches to such forecasting. Up to the use of Boosted regression trees. In this regard, I would like to see a clear justification for the use of the models InVEST and PLUS chosen by the authors.

Response: Thanks to reviewer for pointing out the problems in this manuscript. Due to the unclear content caused by our unreasonable layout, we modified the framework of the article according to your suggestion and added and highlighted the reasons for choosing PLUS model and InVEST model. The specific revised content is shown in lines 49—50, 53—56，65—69 page 2; lines 88—95, 101—104 page 3.

2） Similarly, the choice of natural, locational, and socio-economic factors as driving variables for the models is not explained in any way. Result that we get depends on the choice of factors. For example, the soil type factor can strongly influence land use development or land abandonment. But the authors did not consider this factor. But we understand that in the study region there cannot be the same type of soil everywhere. And this is just one example. Therefore, it is necessary to add a clear and reasonable explanation of the choice of factors for the model to the paper.

Response: Thanks to reviewer for pointing out the problems in this manuscript. We are very sorry for the negligence in the reasons for the driver selection. Based on your feedback, we have further explained and revised the following points

Selection of drivers: We selected natural and socioeconomic factors as driving variables for the model, including mean annual temperature, precipitation, elevation, slope, soil type, distance from railways, towns, national highways and rivers, population density and GDP. These factors were selected because they have been shown in previous studies to have a significant impact on land use change and are highly correlated to the specific conditions in our study area. The specific revised content is shown in lines 149—158, page 4. The following are the supporting data for driver selection.

References：

Gao, L.A.; Tao, F.; Liu, R.R.; Wang, Z.L.; Leng, H.J.; Zhou, T. Multi-Scenario Simulation and Ecological Risk Analysis of Land Use Based on the Plus Model: A Case Study of Nanjing. Sustain Cities Soc. 2022, 85, 104055.

Li, X.; Liu, Z.S.; Li, SJ; Li, Y.X. Multi-Scenario Simulation Analysis of Land Use Impacts on Habitat Quality in Tianjin Based on the Plus Model Coupled with the Invest Model. Sustainability-Basel. 2022, 14, 6923.

Li, X.; Fu, J.Y.; Jiang, D.; Lin, G.; Cao, C.L. Land use optimization in Ningbo City with a coupled GA and PLUS model. J CLEAN PROD. 2022, 375, 134004.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx