Land Use Multi-Functionality and Zoning Governance Strategy of Densely Populated Areas in the Upper Reaches of the Yellow River: A Case Study of the Lanzhou–Xining Region, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript titled " Land Use Multi-functionality and Zoning Governance Strategy of Densely Populated Areas in the Upper Reaches of the Yellow River: A Case Study of the Lanzhou-Xining Region, China" intends to established a comprehensive evaluation indicator system for multifunctional evaluation of land use from the dimensions of status and trend, to reveal the functional level of land use and its spatial differentiation characteristics, identify the dominant functions of all counties (districts), perform coupling analysis of LUFs (land use functions) and propose land use functional schemes and corresponding governance strategies. The study area is the region of the Lanzhou-Xining (LXR) located on the upper reaches of the Yellow River. The LXR is on the
The research is original; it could be characterized as novel and in my opinion, important to the field, it also has almost the appropriate structure and language been used well. In the meanwhile, the manuscript has a nice extent (about 8,024 words) and it is comprehensive. The tables (4) and figures (11) make the paper reflect well to the reader. For this reason, paper has a "diversity look", not only tables, not only numbers, not only words. It is advised to revise figures, compare them, or use the appendix.
The title, I think, is all right. The abstract did not reflect well the findings of this study, and it was not the appropriate length. Please revise the abstract of the manuscript and do not forget abstract need to encourage readers to download the paper. The Abstract needs further work. It is not clear. Abstracts should indicate the research problem/purpose of the research, provide some indication of the design/methodology/approach taken, the findings of the research and its originality/value in terms of its contribution to the international literature. The abstract has a long length (about 253 words). Please, revise the abstract, it must be up to 200 words long, for this reason I would be good to reduce [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Submission Overview / Accepted File Formats - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions#submission or https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/land-template.dot)].
The introduction is effective, clear, and well organized; it really introduced and puts into perspective what research is negotiating but is short. Please revise the Introduction of the manuscript and include references which are already exist in bibliography (as you did). Moreover, it does not contain a clear formulation and description of the research problem. This makes it difficult for the reader to understand the argumentation. Please insert a clear description and justification of the problem the article deals with.
For the Methodology chapter, the research conduct has been tested in several areas of the world, with similar results and will probably be tested in others. Appropriate references to the methodology included in the already published bibliography. It is advised to revise the Discussion and Conclusion. Both sections should be consistent in terms of Proposal, Problem statement, Results, and of course, future work. Your conclusion section is too short and does not justice to your work. Make your key contributions, arguments, and findings clearer. You must refer to literatureand previous studies in your discussion and conclusion sections.
More discussion is needed, comparing the results of this work related to attributes with those of other studies. I believe that the conclusions section should also include the main limitations of this study and incorporate possible policy implications.
Please, revise the lines 199-200 and put a space before the numerical citation as you did in all manuscript.
Please, revise Table 1 and delete the alphabetic citation and keep the numerical {Liu et al., 2011）[57], (Xie et al., 2015)[59] and (Li et al.,2019)[60]}.
Please, revise the line 267 and write “characterises” or exactly what you want and no “charaterists”.
Please, revise the references 26, 29, 36 and 63. I think must be revised as:
26. Pérez-Soba, M.; Petit, S.; Jones, L.; Bertrand, N.; Briquel, V.; Omodei-Zorini, L.; Contini, C.; Helming, K.; Farrington, J.H.; Mossello, M.T.; et al. Land use functions — a multifunctionality approach to assess the impact of land use changes on land use sustainability BT - Sustainability Impact Assessment of Land Use Changes. In; Helming, K., Pérez-Soba, M., Tabbush, P., Eds.; Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008; pp. 375–404 ISBN 978-3-540-78648-1.
29. Helming, K. Impact Assessment for Multifunctional Land Use BT - Novel Measurement and Assessment Tools for Monitoring and Management of Land and Water Resources in Agricultural Landscapes of Central Asia. In; Mueller, L., Saparov, A., Lischeid, G., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2014; pp. 223–234 ISBN 978-3-319-01017-5.
36. de Groot, R.; Hein, L. Concept and valuation of landscape functions at different scales BT - Multifunctional Land Use: Meeting Future Demands for Landscape Goods and Services. In; Mander, Ü., Wiggering, H., Helming, K., Eds.; Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007; pp. 15–36 ISBN 978-3-540-36763-5
63. Li, Q.; Zhao, Y.; Li, S.; Zhang, L. Spatial-temporal characteristics of the coupling coordination of social security and economic development in China during 2002–2018. Reg. Sustain. 2021, 2, 116–129, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsus.2021.04.001.
References must have an appropriate style, for this reason I would be good to change [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Preparation / Back Matter / References: - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions or https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references)]. Do not forget, DOI numbers (Digital Object Identifier) are not mandatory but highly encouraged and make the review easier.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript deserves to be published. However, some minor changes need to be considered before:
- A paragraph of Discussion needs to be included, with the main findings and theoretical and practical implications of the research and the comparison with other similar studies.
- Justify the use of "governance zones" and the sense/meaning of "governance" in the research.
- The resolution of the map needs to be improved.
- The meaning and state of the art of multifunctionality land use.
- Define the concept of "densely populated areas".
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The reviewed article presents the results of research on the multifunctionality of land use, which, as a result, may constitute the basis for improving the efficiency of land use. A well-structured article may seem too long, especially at the discussion stage.
The second sentence of the abstract is vague and too long. Moreover, the whole abstract does not present what it should: clearly defined research objectives, description of the methodology used, key results and key conclusions. I suggest that you correct the content of the abstract.
Some of the "Keywords" used are very extensive: "land use functions (LUFs)", "the upper reaches of the Yellow River"
The introduction should start with a more general presentation of the problem, and not immediately focus on the research area (China) in the first sentence. The issues raised are universal, but of course the problem is presented taking into account Chinese conditions.
Please specify the concept of "ecological civilization"
Land is and has been an important factor in the development of ecological civilization, and is also an important factor in actions against the principles of ecology.
How is the concept of multi-functionality present elsewhere in the world?
Generally missing a point of view other than the Chinese, this is the biggest drawback of the introduction, and perhaps the discussion. The content is oriented towards the Chinese reader. Lack of information for readers from other parts of the world will help to understand the context of the research. How is the planning system in China structured? Are rural and urbanized areas subject to the same legal provisions? What possibilities does the state or local government have in the process of shaping the way of land use?
Is the "Urban Cluster Development Plan" a regional, local level of planning? Any details?
In the discussion, there are no references to the results of other studies from the topic of the article. This is just a discussion of the results with extensive references to Chinese conditioning, done very well. Do the obtained results broaden the validity of the adopted assumptions of Chinese rural (and not only rural) development programs? Are any changes suggested in this regard? Do the goals set in the long-term Chinese programs seem achievable? How do the long-term demographic trends in the analyzed area, or in China in general, relate to the content of the research and the results obtained?
Other remarks:
In one place, authors mix citation styles:
Liu et al. (2011) [57], Luo et al (2016) [58], Liu et al (2021) [7], Meng et al (2021) [8] and Long et al 199 (2022) [45 ],
Figure 5 - there is no information on the figure what is on it (axis descriptions), only the writing under the drawing is not enough.
Section 5.3 is followed by 6.4, the chapters must be renumbered.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors significantly improved the content of the article. In my opinion, it is suitable for publication in its present form
