Spatiotemporal Pattern and Driving Mechanism of Cultivated Land Use Transition in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper analyzes spatiotemporal differentiation and driving factors of cultivated land use transition in China. Overall, the paper is under the scope and interest of the journal. The manuscript is well structured, and the results are creative, proving a new view for understanding cultivated land use transition. However, suggestions in the following aspects can be further modified and improved.
1. In Introduction section, the shortcomings of the existing research are suggested to be highlighted and the significance of this study should be further clarified.
2. Conclusions should be more concise and condensed. The three paragraphs are equivalent to enumerating the results again. Some of the content is even similar to the content in Abstract. And I suggest that if the author summarize the laws and enlightenment behind it based on the research results.
3. Transition indexes of subsystems are very important for characterizing CLUT. The authors need to further explain the reasons for selecting these indexes.
4. “3.4. Drivers and spatial differentiation of the CLUT ” is spatial differentiation of the CLUT or spatial differentiation of drivers?
5. There are also some syntax errors in the paper, please double check your English writing.
There are also some syntax errors in the paper, please double check your English writing.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestion, which is very important for us to improve this paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article ‘Spatiotemporal pattern and driving mechanism of cultivated land use transition in China’ explores the spatiotemporal evolution characteristics of the cultivated land use transition (CLUT) at a national scale and analyzes the main drivers and spatial differentiation rules of the transition based on relevant data of provincial units in Chinese mainland from 2000 to 2019. After reviewing it, I have comments and suggestions as follows.
1). The authors explored spatiotemporal patterns from 2000 to 2019 with a reason that over the past 20 years, with the rapid advancement of industrialization and urbanization in China, occupying a large amount of farmland for non-agricultural construction has become a common phenomenon in developed regions. I suggest adding citations for this statement in order to make the selected 20-year timeframe more logical.
2). Toward structuring a research framework, authors need to have a comprehensive review before getting into a concluded framework that is appropriate/scientific sound. In the current version, the authors jumped into a research framework directly without a good review; it is not scientifically sound. Figure 1 is also not clear.
3). Similarly, in order to develop/form an index or select indicators for use, it is needed a comprehensive review or decision support tool. However, the authors wrote about this in only just 5 lines and then indicated to read Table 1, while we don’t know how they obtained those indicators and why they are important to be used—this is not scientifically sound. To improve on this aspect, I suggest the following articles for your reference on how to review, select indicators and develop/form an index for use/application:
- Thailand Pongruengkiat, W; Tippayawong, KY. Applying Delphi method to develop sustainable city indicators: A case study of Chiang Mai, 2023. https://doi.org/10.6093/1970-9870/9813 - Chan, P.; Gulbaram, K.; Schuetze, T. Assessing Urban Sustainability and the Potential to Improve the Quality of Education and Gender Equality in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8828. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118828 - Nam, K.; Cho, M.-J.; Lee, M.-H. An Analysis of the Importance of Local Support Factors of the Development of Integrated Resorts. Sustainability 2020, 12, 633. https://doi.org/10.3390/su120206334). Furthermore, how to calculate the indicator weight is not clear. I suggest explaining in more detail; firstly, why that method was applied, while AHP or ANP is more popular for indicator weighting/prioritization. And did you analyze the weight by yourself or by survey?
5). Most of the figures in the results were not clear, seems not your own figure. Again, your results were significantly based on indicator weight; therefore, I suggest more elaboration on how you calculate the weight, and why it is important (why it is needed to be applied).
6). In section, 3.4.3, you denoted to see Table 6 and Table 7, but these tables were on the next two pages. I suggest restricting this. Also, I see section ‘3.4.4. Analysis of driving factors for CLUT’ twice and some paragraphs are also the same (copy-paste).
7). I suggest discussing more (in-depth) of your results and findings in the discussion sections rather than presenting the significance and/or limitations of the research here. I suggest restructuring and moving the limitations of your research in the conclusion sections, and based on these limitations, indicating the possible future research to be conducted.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestion, which is very important for us to improve this paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Even though the authors have revised their paper, still some major concerns have not yet been addressed:
Point 2: Toward structuring a research framework, authors need to have a comprehensive review before getting into a concluded framework that is appropriate/scientific sound. In the current version, the authors jumped into a research framework directly without a good review; it is not scientifically sound.
à I reviewed the revised version: The authors provided a lot of information/statements (nearly one page) but with very few citations. In this case, it is very disconnected from the literature; especially, it is not easy for readers to understand what is really going on in the field which leads the authors to develop this framework. I suggest further improving by reflecting more on the literature in the fields. Especially, try to generate a concluding summary of the literature to confirm your framework is significant.
Point 3: Similarly, in order to develop/form an index or select indicators for use, it is needed a comprehensive review or decision support tool. However, the authors wrote about this in only just 5 lines and then indicated to read Table 1, while we don’t know how they obtained those indicators and why they are important to be used—this is not scientifically sound. To improve on this aspect, I suggest the following articles for your reference on how to review, select indicators and develop/form an index for use/application:
- Pongruengkiat, W; Tippayawong, KY. Applying Delphi method to develop sustainable city indicators: A case study of Chiang Mai, 2023. https://doi.org/10.6093/1970-9870/9813
- Chan, P.; Gulbaram, K.; Schuetze, T. Assessing Urban Sustainability and the Potential to Improve the Quality of Education and Gender Equality in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8828. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118828
Point 4: Furthermore, how to calculate the indicator weight is not clear. I suggest explaining in more detail, why that method was applied.
à I reviewed the revised version: The revision is not acceptable. The authors just stated that “According to the connotation of the CLUT, combined with relevant research results [18,30,31] and characteristics of cultivated land resource”, then, their study constructed a set of index system for evaluating CLUT, which consists of 7 sets of factors and 13 indicators. This is very unclear. I suggest elaborating on how you combined relevant research results [18,30,31] and characteristics of cultivated land resources to get 7 sets of factors and 13 indicators.
Again, I still suggest the two articles for your reference on how to select the indicators or develop a set of indicators, including how to analyze the indicator weights. In scientific research, you have to present why you selected that method instead of others; explaining just one method and then choosing it to apply is not enough in terms of scientific sound.
Point 7: I suggest discussing more (in-depth) of your results and findings in the discussion sections rather than presenting the significance and/or limitations of the research here. I suggest restructuring and moving the limitations of your research in the conclusion sections, and based on these limitations, indicating the possible future research to be conducted.
à I reviewed the revised version: This point was not addressed yet.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions. We have made clear modifications, please refer to the attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Please describe the characteristics of the surveyed experts, such as experiences and expertise for the following surveys:
- 15 experts engaged in Delphi research on cultivated land protection from Chinese universities were selected for consultation (Delphi experts)
- This paper combined AHP and entropy weight methods (AHP experts)
Author Response
Thank you very much for your detailed modification suggestions. We have made clear modifications, please refer to the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
