A Spatiotemporal Pattern Analysis of High-Frequency Land-Use Changes in the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area, from 1990 to 2018

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is looking at the land use change processes from the dynamic perspective in China (Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area), covering a long time period. It is a very interesting topic and research however, it needs some significant improvement.

First, the theoretical background is missing (it could be e.g. sustainable land-use concept or sustainable development in general), while the literature review is limited to two short paragraphs presenting the topics of a few previous studies rather than their results. The Authors should conduct a proper literature review, analysing (and not only describing) and critically synthesizing the results of previous research (also from other countries) and, as an effect of the literature review, defining the research gap they want to fill in.

I would also like to see a more explanatory rather than purely descriptive approach – in the interpretation of the results of the analysis as well as research aims (now missing, need to be added) and research questions (now only one is focused on explanation, rather than description).

I also have serious concerns about putting into one category urban and rural as well as industrial areas. If the authors want to keep it this way, I would like to see a proper explanation and description of the limitations resulting from such an approach.

Figure 3, esp. for areas like Hong Kong or Zhuhai, is very difficult to read. I think that an easy solution to increase the readability of the graph is to remove border lines (now they are thick and black).

Figure 5 is also difficult to read since there are many categories presented on a relatively small graph. I would suggest the Authors to redesign this graph (or maybe replace it with a series of maps?).

The map in Fig 7.: it is very risky to use 3D pie charts since the reader reads the map based on the surface of the graphs and when we manipulate the graph we introduce a bias into this process. It is much safer to use simple, 2D charts.

All tables should have the same logic of the order of the data e.g. decreasing/increasing values. Now each table presents data using different logic.

The discussion section is interesting but lacks references/comparisons/discussion with the previous studies, a description of the limitations of the presented analysis and possible future research directions.

The recommendations provided by the authors are correct in terms of the main direction, but extremely difficult (if even possible) to implement e.g. further improving land-use efficiency, and ecological land damage and over-occupation of sea space should be avoided with maintaining economic growth. The authors should present more practical recommendations rather than a “wishful thinking list”.

Language needs some editing and proofreading  (e.g. in the sentence “Nearly 80% of the land has been or will be transformed into ecological land in recent years.” We have future tens referred to “recent years”).

Author Response

Comment 1: First, the theoretical background is missing (it could be e.g. sustainable land-use concept or sustainable development in general), while the literature review is limited to two short paragraphs presenting the topics of a few previous studies rather than their results. The Authors should conduct a proper literature review, analysing (and not only describing) and critically synthesizing the results of previous research (also from other countries) and, as an effect of the literature review, defining the research gap they want to fill in.

Response 1: We appreciate it for this good suggestion, and we have done it according to your ideas. Firstly, the missing theoretical background was added from line 34-39 and Line 40-44, with the definition of land use and sustainable development based on the background in China. Secondly, the literature review of previous studies was enriched shown in line 58-64 and also their research gap was listed in line 107-111.

Comment 2: I would also like to see a more explanatory rather than purely descriptive approach – in the interpretation of the results of the analysis as well as research aims (now missing, need to be added) and research questions (now only one is focused on explanation, rather than description).

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion, and we have done it according to your ideas. The explanatory results were listed in Part 3.1.1 (line 258-262) and 3.2.3 (line 447- 449). The explanatory interpretation of research aim and question are majorly discussed in the Discussion and Conclusion, please check in the mentioned parts.

Comment 3: I also have serious concerns about putting into one category urban and rural as well as industrial areas. If the authors want to keep it this way, I would like to see a proper explanation and description of the limitations resulting from such an approach.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion, and we have done it according to your ideas. The Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) discussed in this article is a combination of various administrative regions, which include the urban, rural and industrial areas. Thus, it is reasonable to put these elements into one category. And the limitations of our method is presented the Part 4.4 Limitation (line 516-524).

Comment 4: Figure 3, esp. for areas like Hong Kong or Zhuhai, is very difficult to read. I think that an easy solution to increase the readability of the graph is to remove border lines (now they are thick and black).

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion, and we have done it according to your ideas. We have removed its border lines to increase its readability.

Comment 5: Figure 5 is also difficult to read since there are many categories presented on a relatively small graph. I would suggest the Authors to redesign this graph (or maybe replace it with a series of maps?).

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion, and we have modified our work based on it. We have redesigned it with separate scale and annotated portion on the graph.

Comment 6: The map in Fig 7.: it is very risky to use 3D pie charts since the reader reads the map based on the surface of the graphs and when we manipulate the graph we introduce a bias into this process. It is much safer to use simple, 2D charts.

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion, and we have changed it to 2D charts to avoid bias.

Comment 7: All tables should have the same logic of the order of the data e.g. decreasing/increasing values. Now each table presents data using different logic.

Response 7: Thank you for your suggestion, and we have sorted the logic of data in each table and ensure they are all in same logic.

Comment 8: The discussion section is interesting but lacks references/comparisons/discussion with the previous studies, a description of the limitations of the presented analysis and possible future research directions.

Response 8: Thank you for your suggestion, and we have added the limitation of our method in line 516-524, and future research directions in line 456-458 and 461-463. The comparisons with previous study were presented in the literature review, as mention in Response 1.  

Comment 9: The recommendations provided by the authors are correct in terms of the main direction, but extremely difficult (if even possible) to implement e.g. further improving land-use efficiency, and ecological land damage and over-occupation of sea space should be avoided with maintaining economic growth. The authors should present more practical recommendations rather than a “wishful thinking list”.

Response 9: Thank you for your suggestion, and we have added some practical recommendations in line 543-547, line 551-555, line 561-563, and line 566-577.

Comment 10: Language needs some editing and proofreading  (e.g. in the sentence “Nearly 80% of the land has been or will be transformed into ecological land in recent years.” We have future tens referred to “recent years”).

Response 10: We apologize for the poor language of our manuscript. We worked on the manuscript for a long time and the repeated addition and removal of sentences and sections obviously led to poor readability. We have now worked on both language and readability and have also involved native English speakers for language corrections. We really hope that the flow and language level have been substantially improved.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

Here is the general comments for your paper:

1. Methods section.

Please add short information about source of remote sensing data, the software and tools used in the analysis where it is useful to understand the method of the analysis.

Details comments are in the paper

2. Conclusion section

Add brief explanation to answer the research question no 1. Details comments are in the paper

I also provide details minor corrections that need to be revised in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: “This list should remove the redundant number”on page 3

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion, and we have removed the redundant numbers.

Comment 2: Please state clearly the source of remote sensing data used for the analysis such as Landsat, etc or please state clearly what kind of the database author mentioned in the paper.

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion, and we have added the source in Part 2.2.2.

Comment 3: Please state clearly platform used such as ArcGIS or QGIS, etc also briefly mentioned tool analysis used in the analysis.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion, and we have added the software and tools used in our study, as shown in Part 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, and 2.2.5.

Comment 4: (2.2.4 High-frequency change plot analysis) similar to previous comments, please briefly explained what software and tool used in this analysis or author can add equations if applicable.

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion, and we have add the interpretation on software and tools used in Part 2.2.4.

Comment 5: (2.2.5  Analysis of high-frequency areas of change) similar comments with sub chapter 2.2.4.

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion, and we have added the interpretation on software and tools used in Part 2.2.5.

Comment 6:(3.1.1) something missed in the bracket.

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion, and we have filled in the bracket.

Comment 7:(Table 3) this table can used smaller font size so become tidier and easier to read

Response 7: Thank you for your suggestion, and we lower the font size as asked.

Comment 8: put correct reference.(page 14)

Response 8: Thank you for your suggestion, and we have put the correct in-text reference.

Comment 9:to answer the research question no 1, I recommend the author to add more information related to what cities had the more land transformation into construction area and also in which period of time the transformation trend happens.(page 18)

Response 9: Thank you for your suggestion, and we have added more information about cities and occurrence time in line 529-532.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the Authors for revising the article and including all my comments. I also appreciate improvements in language and style. I think that now the article can be published.