Future Land Use Spatial Conflicts and Habitat Quality Impacts Based on SSPs-RCPs Scenarios—Qin-Ba Mountain City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for inviting me to review the paper "study on the effects of future land use spatial conflicts and habitat quality based on SSPs-RCPs scenarios - - A case study of Ankang city in the Qin-Ba Mountains".

The article examines future land use conflicts under different scenarios. 

The paper is interesting and suitable for publication of the authors can makes a few changes.

 

In the abstract on page 1 line 26, the authors stated "this study aims to objectively analyze". This leaves me wondering how objective the analysis is given that the authors raised a number of limitations in the conclusion. Why not allow the reader to decide how objective your analysis is? Thus, expunge.

Also, on the abstract, it there is space, the authors can consider stating briefly what their contribution to knowledge is besides that fact that there is likely to land use conflicts in the study area. 

On page 3 line 116-19, the author did well to situate their study in the existing literature showing what exactly they want to study. However, this context of scarcity of studies exploring the effects of land use on habitat quality in mountainous eco-cities needs to be mentioned in the abstract.

 

Finally, in the conclusion there needs to be a clear statement on the contribution to knowledge beyond the anticipated claim that of the importance of striking a balance between "socio-economic development and ecological protection". This conclusion is not novel. Try to highlight the novelty of your study which could be methodological, surprising finding, theoretical. 

Requires minimal language corrections. 

Author Response

We have written our response to the reviewer's suggestions in the attachment below and would be grateful if you could review it.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper analyzes the land use change of Ankang City in the Qin-Ba Mountains. It is very meaningful research. I am honored to see this paper. To improve the paper better, I make some suggestions.

1. Ankang City in the Qin-Ba Mountains is selected as a case study. What is the basis for the selection? How is it different from other regions? What are the innovations? These need to be clarified.

2. Page 2 line 91-92. CA, CLUE-S and FLUS are not defined above. State the word that the acronym stands for. And do so the first time each acronym is used throughout the manuscript.

3. Page 3 line 109. Please provide a definition of the InVEST acronym at the beginning of the model. Refer to Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP). In a sentence or two, tell the reader what the purpose of the model is and why it would be helpful to use it.

4. What is the basis for the categorization in Table 1? Why these three dimensions?

5. Figure 5, could be modified to be better. Currently, the part of the legend that describes the figure is not very clear.

6. Table 5 and Table 6, are they labeled in the text.

7. Some of the references are not very relevant to the paper. For example, 52 and 60. Check the reference format.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

We have written our response to the reviewer's suggestions in the attachment below and would be grateful if you could review it.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

SSPs-RCPs scenarios - a case study of Ankang City in the Qin-ba Mountains

Introduction page

- The title is too long and not catchy enough

- The information on the left-hand side is not filled in?

Summary

- Line 19: Says it's a challenge for all regions, then says conflicts mainly in peri-urban areas? So unnecessary sentence in line 19

- Line 23: Goes straight to the city. They could have started by talking in general terms about what we're really trying to understand, and then said that it's based on city X because it has characteristics X, Y and Z.

o Moreover, the 2nd objective is described in general terms. Naming the city Ankang so early on is clearly out of place.

- I would have presented the results in the following order: 2-3-1

- Summary conclusion: the implications of the results are clear. I would have added a small sentence on the importance of the results, since they come from a city that already has the environment at heart, so it will be worse in cities where the priority is economic development.

Introduction

 

L59: add this reference:

Girona, M. M., Morin, H., Gauthier, S., & Bergeron, Y. (2023). Boreal Forests in the Face of Climate Change: Sustainable Management (p. 837). Springer Nature.

- From line 65 onwards: we understand that some studies have been carried out and that others are still needed to deepen/expand the subject. However, there is a lack of precision regarding the results of the studies; we understand the subjects of the studies, but not the results/conclusions.

L66-67. Add this citation:

 

Hof, A. R., Montoro Girona, M., Fortin, M. J., & Tremblay, J. A. (2021). Using landscape simulation models to help balance conflicting goals in changing forests. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 795736.

 

- The audience is definitely knowledgeable scientists, since there aren't many definitions/explanations.

- 84: which models? What other variables are equivalent to the models?

- 92: super clear! I think that's what's missing here

- 98: they say there are interesting studies, but they don't name them?

o Not many sources in the beginning of this whole paragraph...

Methodology

Study area

- 152: it's clear why they use this territory

- 155: it takes a lot of analysis to figure out which map means what... there's no A), B), C) or description of each of the photos we see

Data sources

- 158: the 3 types of sources named are the only ones in the table, so the etc. is irrelevant here. If the data is not complete, then all the statements, do not put etc. It's important to understand the text without the figures and tables.

- Exact repetition of what is in the table

Search method

- Are the same scenarios always used? It's not clear

- The description of the figure and tables is inadequate (and nowhere in the text)

o Same thing for formulas

- Full of acronyms and difficult to understand

- Information in some tables is not found in the text, the table is not introduced and not described

- You can't find the units of the values?

Results

- First result: it lacks clarity. Couldn't they have passed the canopy types one after the other, or the scnarios one after the other? Or cover types one after the other?

- Same thing for the 2nd result: they already run the scenarios one after the other, but reverse the variables.

- 3rd result: it would have been interesting to see the U shape.

- Figure too small and poor use of color

- It puts interpretation in the results (line 348) rather than in the discussion.

- Line 379: analysis description not found in methodology?

- Habitat quality: table presentation in the text and explanation à should be in the table title. Same for figure 11

Discussion

- 4.1: return made and unnecessary. Would be better placed in the conclusion

- 4.2: verb tense used is bogus. I have the impression that they did an experiment rather than simutlaitons...

- 4.4: literature review which I think should be in the introduction

 

see before

Author Response

We have written our response to the reviewer's suggestions in the attachment below and would be grateful if you could review it.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have taken into considerations my comments,

I accept the paper in the current form

Miguel 

nothing