Study on the Trade-Off Synergy Relationship of “Production-Living-Ecological” Functions in Chinese Counties: A Case Study of Chongqing Municipality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. In abstract acronym PLEFs be mentioned in full first. (Line 17)

2. humanity Degradation... not clear (Line 58)

3. Figure 2 Location map of the study area (Provide better resolution image. and an inset map with location in china)  

4. C indicates instead of Cindicates (Line 251)

5. Figure 5. Spatial autocorrelation clustering diagram of PLEFs area in Chongqing from 2000 to 2020 (Not clear without Legend)

6. Discussion section mainly needs attention e.g., the results were not compared with or discussed with context of the previous studies.

e.g., Line 732-33 says Compared to previous scholars, the classification of PLEFs from the perspective of land use types is more complete

This and all fore-coming discussion should be justified with proper references  

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

By constructing an index system of the PLEFs, this paper analyzes the evolution of PLEFs in Chongqing. And by elaborating on the trade-offs and synergies relation between different functions, the research conclusion has a certain reference for the urban planning and decision-making of similar areas. But, there are still some problems in the paper, and the author should carry out a series of revisions.

Line 135, Chongqing (28°10'N~32°13'N, 105°11'E~110°11'E), referred to as "Chongqing", why the Chongqing appears two times?

Line 144, punctuation before the word of The is Missing.

Figure 1, what's the meaning of UC, SE, and NE? Figures are a separate section of a journal paper, and I think these abbreviations should be interpreted appropriately.

Line 251, Cindicates the degree of coupling, the space after C is missing.

Table 2， two functions in the title should be the production-living, otherwise, the titles of Table 2 and Table 3 are similar.

In Figure 3, the technology roadmap should not include the chapter title of the paper, such as the literature review, conclusion, and discussion.

Line 331, this title has the same index number as Line 323, but, they are not at the same level.

Line 426, Table 2 should be Table 4, and in this figure, Z-Value or Z-Score? 

Line 443, there were 5 and 12 cold spots in the living function area?

Figure 5, this figure is not well designed, as well as Figure 7(Line 476).

Line 685, Gangbuk District has the strongest trade-off (-17.71). But in Figure 10 and Figure 2, the District does not exist.

Line 788 "production life", and Line 801 "production-living", Do the two present the same thing?

The Discussion Section, For the key issues of the paper, it is necessary for the author to compare with the latest relevant research to prove the advancement and rationality of the paper. For example, about the construction of PLEs indicators (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.109926), about The trade-offs and synergies (https://doi.org/10.3390/f14010088), it is not limited to the above Refs. Of course, these literature should ideally be included in the research review as well.

The Conclusion Section should be more generalized, the current version was too long-winded and does not highlight the core work of the paper.

In addition, it is recommended that the author check the writing of the manuscript carefully to eliminate some grammatical errors, and further refine some repetitive expressions.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a very interesting paper presenting methodical approach and results of research concerning spatial planning / land use and management in Chongqunig Municipality in China - with special regard to finding balance between various functions of areas, especially between producion, living and ecological functions. Such research and considerations / analysis are important to achieve / to get closer to sustainable development of rural and urban areas. So, the topic of research is very current: optimizaation of spatial pattern of land use in the aspect of the balance "man - nature".

The scope of research is very big: large study area and complex methodical plan of research.  Presented methodical approach can be partly considered as a new one (original), especially such elements, as: constructing of PLEFs ("Production - Living - Ecological" Functions) evaluation index system as well as proposed and used: the evaluation model and the coordination model of PLEFs. However, this methodical approach is not so easy to use, for example, by district authorities for needs of management and decision-making.

Figure 3 is very good for undestanding and appreciation of this not-easy plan of research (figure shows research roadmap).

Rich results of research are relatively clearly presented in numerous figures and tables, well illustrated.

Detailed notes:

Ad ABSTRACT and INTRODUCTION. The aim (aims) of research is not directly formulated. Please, try to formulate it directly.

Ad  subsection 3. ANALYSIS of the RESULTS. I suggest the change: Results and analysis.

Ad 4. DISCUSSION - the discussion is without references to other scientific results of other authors. Please, add some citations of the sources, discuse them. I suggest to add more about the usefulness of this not-easy methodical approach.

General estimation of the paper: interestig and current topic with worth seeing partly new methodical approach, of average scientific soundness, worth publishing after minor revisions

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author responded in detail to each question raised by the reviewers. The quality of the paper has improved a lot and I was able to accept the paper for publication in the Land journal. However, before publishing, it is recommended to check the grammar of the full text. For example, in the new technology roadmap, the spelling of spatial autocorrelation is wrong.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx