Do Land Use and Land Cover Scenarios Support More Integrated Land Use Management?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The paper has been revised according to the suggestion done.
Author Response
The review one do not suggest any change
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
I think it's an interesting study. But it should be revised before publication.
1. This article contains the subjective judgment of the researcher, so I suggest adding some objective descriptions.
2. Whether the conclusion of the article can be applied to other areas is an important sign to judge the scientific significance of the article.
3. The author needs to add scale to the map.
Author Response
- This article contains the subjective judgment of the researcher, so I suggest adding some objective descriptions.
Thank you for your comment. Nevertheless, we were not able to identify the elements that should contain more objective descriptions. From our point of view the textual citations of interviews and lexicometric analysis support objective uses of scenarios.
- Whether the conclusion of the article can be applied to other areas is an important sign to judge the scientific significance of the article.
We do agree with this comment. Indeed, in line 559 we briefly discuss the applicability of results to other contexts.
- The author needs to add scale to the map.
Thank you for your comment. The map has been constructed in order to overlap different institutional boundaries and to do so we had to flip the map. As a result, it doesn’t have a unique scale. Nevertheless, we added the area of the Couesnon river catchment in the map’s caption.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
This manuscript tried to assess the outcomes of LUCC scenarios based on a case study. The dual role of the scenarios was confirmed by the form of interviews. However, some revisions are still needed:
(1) Paragraphs 7 to 11 of the Introduction could be combined into one paragraph. These summaries of studies are reduced to a single paragraph, which are the key points when evaluating the outcomes.
(2) Adjust the descriptions of LUCC scenarios to Context and Materials. Present the adopted assumption for each of the five scenarios.
(3) Divide the Methods into two sections. The research methods should be divided into 3.1 interviews and 3.2 Lexicometric analysis, and it is better to supply a picture of research framework.
(4) Lack of the statistic table of the mentioned words of interviewees in Part 4.2. This Part mentions the frequency of used words by interviewees, without providing relevant evidence.
(5) Change the title and content of Part 5.1. This part mainly discusses the impacts of scenarios on integrated management, the title could be changed to the mechanisms of impacts of scenarios on integrated management. The Part 5.1 should mainly discuss the scenarios to strengthen organizational collaboration and promote integrated management by revealing existing organizational limitations and raising people’s awareness.
Author Response
- Paragraphs 7 to 11 of the Introduction could be combined into one paragraph. These summaries of studies are reduced to a single paragraph, which are the key points when evaluating the outcomes.
Thank you for this comment, we now combined the paragraphs into a single one.
- Adjust the descriptions of LUCC scenarios to Context and Materials. Present the adopted assumption for each of the five scenarios.
We now added the required information at lines 153-172. We also added table 1 to synthesise the assumptions.
- Divide the Methods into two sections. The research methods should be divided into 3.1 interviews and 3.2 Lexicometric analysis, and it is better to supply a picture of research framework.
We now divided the Methods into section 3.1 (‘’Interviews’’) and section 3.2 (‘’ Data analysis: thematic and lexicometric analysis’’). We also added Figure 2 that synthetise the overall workflow followed to develop the Couesnon scenarios and to assess their outcomes.
- Lack of the statistic table of the mentioned words of interviewees in Part 4.2. This Part mentions the frequency of used words by interviewees, without providing relevant evidence.
We added Table 2 that reports the most recurrent words of the semi-structured section of the interviews and their frequency. They are not the same words of the dendrogram in figure 4 as the words that were used indifferently in the four semantic blocks are not reported in the dendrogram.
- Change the title and content of Part 5.1. This part mainly discusses the impacts of scenarios on integrated management, the title could be changed to the mechanisms of impacts of scenarios on integrated management. The Part 5.1 should mainly discuss the scenarios to strengthen organizational collaboration and promote integrated management by revealing existing organizational limitations and raising people’s awareness.
Thank you for this suggestion. We now change the title of section 5.1 (“The impacts of scenarios on integrated management”)
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I believe that results of this based on the analysis of a local case study have to improve by GIS instruments. To assess the outcomes of scenarios, I believe scholars can be improve their scenario models with adding physical elements within research area. It is allot better discover links of local actors and regional environment.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comment.
Following your suggestion and the ones of the other reviewers, we asked a native English speaker to edit the manuscript. Moreover, we modified some parts (now highlighted in red) and moved some others (now highlighted in blue) in order to improve the manuscript.
Your comment was mainly addressed by introducing supplementary material. Indeed, in this article, we evaluate the outcomes of producing and diffusing LUCC scenarios to a vast audience. The outputs of the models used in the scenarios are presented in ref 19 (T. Houet et al., “Land Use Policy European blue and green infrastructure network strategy vs. the common agricultural policy. Insights from an integrated case study,” Land use policy, vol. 120, p. 106277, 2022.). Nevertheless, we added supplementary material to show how GIS were used in the scenario making.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The reviewed article deals with the application of scenarios in land management. The authors' proposal and the tools presented and their application is worth considering. The article is written correctly and the authors' proposals are presented in a clear manner. However, I found Figure 2 to be unreadable - the excessive graphics introduce unnecessary clutter. It should be completely redrawn.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comment.
Following your suggestion and the ones of the other reviewers we asked a native English speaker to edit the manuscript. Moreover, we modified some parts (now highlighted in red) and moved some others (now highlighted in blue) in order to improve the manuscript.
To address your suggestion, we removed one of the three graphics that did not apport additional information. We also translate the words in English (Fig 3, a) and renamed the variables of Fig 3 (b) in order to be consistent with Table 1. The description of the figure should now give all the necessary information to read the figure easily.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The research aim is not clear. Therefore, the entire structure of the document is very hard to understand and assess in terms of scientific quality.
Some suggestion have been added in the file attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comment. Following your suggestion we asked a native English speaker to edit the manuscript. Moreover, we modified some parts (now highlighted in red in the manuscript) and moved some others (now highlighted in blue in the manuscript) in order to answer your comments.
Please see the attachment for the answers for a point-by-point response to your comments and suggestions and the modified version of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
