Multi–Scenario Prediction of Land Cover Changes and Habitat Quality Based on the FLUS–InVEST Model in Beijing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Contribution

The study describes a project aimed at integrating three modeling approaches (CA-Markov, FLUS and InVEST) in a single modeling framework to predict potential land cover and habitat quality changes in Beiing, China. While the study may well be of great value, the manuscript in its current form does not adequately capture it. Below are some bullet points to explain this conclusion.

 

Significance

-       Broader impact: Results may be valuable to urban and regional planning in Beijing, China.

-       Intellectual merit: The multi-model framework is promising.

 

Novelty

-       Novel, as noted by the authors in “Clarification of the Innovations and Contributions of Our Manuscript”

 

Major Concerns

-       Avoid confusing land use and land cover. “cropland, forest land, grassland, water bodies, urban land, and unused land” are all examples of land “cover”, not land “use”

-       It is unclear how the “standardization” to a 100 m spatial resolution was accomplished. Nearest neighbor, cubic convolution, etc.? Whichever approach was chosen, why was it chosen?

-       How was aspect quantified? As northness or eastness? Aspect ranging from 0 to 360 degrees is not appropriate for the presented models.

-       “Habitat quality” depends on more than “land cover” – one can have five pixels in different locations characterized by the same land cover (e.g., urban) but with very different habitat qualities (e.g., based on % vegetation or impervious, type of vegetation, etc. The manuscript needs to be rewritten to more adequately capture what the study actually examined and revealed. Or did “habitat quality” rely on more than land cover? It is currently underdescribed in the manuscript.

-       The cited references are almost exclusively conducted in China and written by Chinese authors. Consequently, the manuscript does not capture the extensive research that has been conducted on related topics elsewhere in the world. Land is an international journal. Manuscripts should leverage global research.

-       Associated with the previous point, the manuscript as currently written is probably most interesting to an audience in and around Beijing. That is, in its current form, it is more appropriate for a regional journal.

-       The manuscript could be enhanced substantially by formally (e.g., with citations) incorporating ideas from “Clarification of the Innovations and Contributions of Our Manuscript” in the introduction. Instead of focusing on Beijing, review the literature more broadly and clearly indicate limitations of prior work. Then propose your modeling framework and implement it, along with some of the earlier simpler approaches. Describe the framework and each of the sub-models in greater detail. Then, in the results, focus on how the modeling framework is an improvement, e.g., in terms of accuracy, breadth and depth of findings, etc. This would make the manuscript much more interesting to a broader audience.

 

Minor Issues

-       Figures are too fuzzy to read and/or cut off at the bottom.

-       “natural characteristics such as the Digital Elevation Model (DEM), slope, and aspect;” A DEM is the spatial data product (an elevation “model”), not a natural characteristic. Did you mean “elevation”?-       Table 1: spell out all acronyms, use proper punctuation

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor edits required

Author Response

Major Concerns:
1. Avoid confusing land use and land cover. “cropland, forest land, grassland, water bodies, urban land, and unused land” are all examples of land “cover”, not land “use”.

Response: We agree with the reviewer’ s observation. We have revised the manuscript to correctly distinguish between land use and land cover throughout the text.

2. It is unclear how the “standardization” to a 100 m spatial resolution was accomplished. Nearest neighbor, cubic convolution, etc.? Whichever approach was chosen, why was it chosen?

Response: We have clarified the method used for standardization in the manuscript. The nearest neighbor resampling method was chosen for its computational efficiency and ability to preserve the original categorical nature of land cover data. This explanation has been added to the Data Sources and Processing section（Page5，Line162-164）.

3. How was aspect quantified? As northness or eastness? Aspect ranging from 0 to 360 degrees is not appropriate for the presented models.

Response: We appreciate this comment and have now clarified that aspect was quantified as northness and eastness. This information has been added to the Methods section（Page5，Line169-170）.

4. “Habitat quality” depends on more than “land cover” – one can have five pixels in different locations characterized by the same land cover (e.g., urban) but with very different habitat qualities. The manuscript needs to be rewritten to more adequately capture what the study actually examined and revealed. Or did “habitat quality” rely on more than land cover? It is currently underdescribed in the manuscript.

Response: We have revised the manuscript to better explain that habitat quality was assessed using multiple factors beyond land cover, including NDVI, population density, proximity to roads and urban centers, and industrial activity. These details are now included in the Methods section（Page8，Line271-290）.

5. The cited references are almost exclusively conducted in China and written by Chinese authors. Consequently, the manuscript does not capture the extensive research that has been conducted on related topics elsewhere in the world. Land is an international journal. Manuscripts should leverage global research.

Response: We have expanded our literature review to include more studies conducted globally. This helps to position our work within a broader international context and highlights its relevance to a
global audience. Additional references have been added to the Introduction and Discussion sections.

6. Associated with the previous point, the manuscript as currently written is probably most interesting to an audience in and around Beijing. That is, in its current form, it is more appropriate for a regional journal.

Response: We have revised the manuscript to emphasize the broader implications of our findings and how they can be applied to other rapidly urbanizing cities worldwide. This has been reflected in the Introduction and Conclusion sections.

7. The manuscript could be enhanced substantially by formally incorporating ideas from “Clarification of the Innovations and Contributions of Our Manuscript” in the introduction. Instead of focusing on Beijing, review the literature more broadly and clearly indicate limitations of prior work. Then propose your modeling framework and implement it, along with some of the earlier simpler approaches. Describe the framework and each of the sub-models in greater detail. Then, in the results, focus on how the modeling framework is an improvement, e.g., in terms of accuracy, breadth and depth of findings, etc. This would make the manuscript much more interesting to a broader audience.

Response: We have restructured the Introduction to include a broader review of the literature and to clearly indicate the limitations of prior work. The modeling framework and sub-models are now described in greater detail in the Methods section. The Results section now includes a discussion on how our framework improves accuracy, breadth, and depth of findings compared to previous studies.

Minor Issues:
1. Figures are too fuzzy to read and/or cut off at the bottom.
Response: We have improved the quality and clarity of all figures and ensured that they are properly formatted.
2. “natural characteristics such as the Digital Elevation Model (DEM), slope, and aspect;” A DEM is the spatial data product (an elevation “model”), not a natural characteristic. Did you mean “elevation”?
Response: We have corrected this to “elevation” in the manuscript.
3. Table 1: spell out all acronyms, use proper punctuation.
Response: We have revised Table 1 to spell out all acronyms and ensure proper punctuation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear 

The paper is an interesting work to prediction of land use changes and habitat quality based on the different model. You are submitting a very good paper, I really enjoyed reading and revising it. The paper is well structured in chapters with proper and clear contents to facilitate the reader and with adequate literature review.

Datasets used are clearly defined and analysis methods are sufficiently explained and justified. Results are straightforward and conclusions are properly discussed. The content and theme of the article is consistent with the lines of the journal and the topic is of interest to the readers.

The paper contain all main obligatory chapters (Introduction; Materials and Methods; Results; Discussion). However, the paper has some inconsistent compering to the instructors for the authors, which should be corrected. My corrections are the following ones:

Title

The title of the manuscript are concise, specific and relevant. This is Ok.

Abstract

The Abstract contain all main obligatory elements (according to the instruction to the authors): Background of the research, Methods; Results; Conclusion. This is Ok.

List of a Keywords is appropriate.

Introduction

İt is good to discuss land use simulation models and urban growth with national policies in China

Introduction chapter do not contain all mandatory elements. Define specific hypotheses which have being tested should be added. this chapter can be improved.

By the way, land use change key publication and the most cited studies (Wos) can be discussed.

Methods and Data Sources

Study Area

The figure 1 map cannot be read. Please revise it

Data Source

I think that physical, human and socioeconomic driving factors are appropriate.

The number of criteria-dataset selected is appropriate for Table 1

Method

 

Result

The Result chapter provide concise and precise description of the experiment results.

It may be appropriate to display variables/drivers as multiple maps. May be added at the discretion of the authors

All maps must be readable in research

Add legend to  figure 5.

Discussion

This chapter is integrated with Conclusion chapter and present results of the research. This is Ok.

Conclusion

I think this title should be at the end of the article.

References

The references are numbered in order of appearance in the text in the text in square bracket. This is Ok.

All equations are numbered in brackets and placed on the right margin of the text. This is Ok.

Author Response

1.Title：The title of the manuscript are concise, specific and relevant. This is Ok.

 

Response: Thank you for confirming that the title is concise, specific, and relevant.

 

2.Abstract：The Abstract contain all main obligatory elements (according to the instruction to the authors): Background of the research, Methods; Results; Conclusion. This is Ok.

 

List of a Keywords is appropriate.

 

Response:We are pleased to know that the abstract meets the required standards, containing all main obligatory elements: background, methods, results, and conclusion. The keywords are also deemed appropriate.

 

3.Introduction：İt is good to discuss land use simulation models and urban growth with national policies in China

 

Introduction chapter do not contain all mandatory elements. Define specific hypotheses which have being tested should be added. this chapter can be improved.

 

By the way, land use change key publication and the most cited studies (Wos) can be discussed.

 

Response:We agree that discussing land use simulation models and urban growth in the context of national policies in China can enhance this section. We will include a discussion on key land use change publications and the most cited studies (Wos) to provide a more comprehensive background. Specific hypotheses to be tested will also be clearly defined and added to improve this chapter.

 

4.Methods and Data Sources：Study Area

 

The figure 1 map cannot be read. Please revise it

 

Data Source

 

I think that physical, human and socioeconomic driving factors are appropriate.

 

The number of criteria-dataset selected is appropriate for Table 1

 

Method

 

Response:Study Area

 

We acknowledge that Figure 1's map is currently unreadable. We will revise it to ensure clarity and readability.

 

Data Source

 

We are glad that the selection of physical, human, and socioeconomic driving factors is appropriate, and that the number of criteria-datasets in Table 1 is satisfactory.

 

Method

 

We will ensure that all methodological details are clearly explained and justified as recommended.

 

5.Results：The Result chapter provide concise and precise description of the experiment results.

 

It may be appropriate to display variables/drivers as multiple maps. May be added at the discretion of the authors

 

All maps must be readable in research

 

Add legend to  figure 5.

 

Response:Thank you for recognizing the clarity and precision in the description of our experimental results. We agree that displaying variables/drivers as multiple maps can provide additional clarity. We will add these maps at our discretion. Additionally, we will ensure all maps are readable and add a legend to Figure 5 to enhance comprehension.

 

6.Discussion：This chapter is integrated with Conclusion chapter and present results of the research. This is Ok.

 

Response:We are pleased that you found the integration of the Discussion and Conclusion chapters satisfactory.

 

7.Conclusion：I think this title should be at the end of the article.

 

Response:We will ensure that the conclusion is placed at the end of the article as suggested.

8.References：The references are numbered in order of appearance in the text in the text in square bracket. This is Ok.
All equations are numbered in brackets and placed on the right margin of the text. This is Ok.
Response:Thank you for confirming that the references are numbered correctly and all equations are properly formatted.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors note, “We agree with the reviewer’ s observation. We have revised the manuscript to correctly distinguish between land use and land cover throughout the text.” --- This is incorrect. Land use is still appears 82 times in the manuscript, including the title and the abstract.

I appreciate aspect being represented as northness AND eastness. These terms, instead of aspect, should be used in the table. It’s unclear why both metrics were used. The table should also note “elevation” as the dataset name, not “DEM”. I believe the table column should say “data name”, not “date name”.

The authors write, "We have expanded our literature review to include more studies conducted globally. This helps to position our work within a broader international context and highlights its relevance to a global audience. Additional references have been added to the Introduction and Discussion sections." --- Unless references were removed, only 2 were added (58 in first submission, 60 in second submission). Looking at the authors’ names, the bibliography is still very biased.

The authors suggest, “We have revised the manuscript to emphasize the broader implications of our findings and how they can be applied to other rapidly urbanizing cities worldwide. This has been reflected in the Introduction and Conclusion sections.”--- The modifications in Intro and Conclusions were minor and, most importantly, the authors missed an opportunity to rewrite the results and discussion for a broad audience. I believe many readers will share a disinterest in the nuances of land change around Bejing. I think the manuscript is more suitable for a regional/national journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Acceptable.

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewers’ insightful comments and have made comprehensive revisions to our manuscript based on their feedback. Below, we detail our responses to the reviewers’ specific concerns and the corresponding changes made in the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer Comment 1:

"We agree with the reviewer’s observation. We have revised the manuscript to correctly distinguish between land use and land cover throughout the text."

 

Response: We acknowledge that the term "land use" still appeared 82 times in the manuscript, including in the title and abstract. We have conducted a thorough review to ensure the correct usage of "land use" and "land cover" throughout the document. All inappropriate usages of "land use" have been corrected to "land cover" and highlighted for clarity.

 

Reviewer Comment 2:

"I appreciate aspect being represented as northness AND eastness. These terms, instead of aspect, should be used in the table. It’s unclear why both metrics were used. The table should also note 'elevation' as the dataset name, not 'DEM'. I believe the table column should say 'data name', not 'date name'."

 

Response: We have updated the table to use the terms "northness" and "eastness" instead of "aspect" to ensure clarity. The dataset name has been corrected from "DEM" to "elevation". Additionally, the column heading has been changed from "date name" to "data name" to reflect accurate terminology.(Page6,Table1)

 

 

Reviewer Comment 3:

"The authors write, 'We have expanded our literature review to include more studies conducted globally. This helps to position our work within a broader international context and highlights its relevance to a global audience. Additional references have been added to the Introduction and Discussion sections.' --- Unless references were removed, only 2 were added (58 in the first submission, 60 in the second submission). Looking at the authors’ names, the bibliography is still very biased."

 

Response: We have expanded the literature review to include more studies conducted globally, ensuring a broader international context. We have increased the references from 58 to 71, including 26 papers authored by international researchers from high-impact journals outside of China. Additionally, we have reviewed and added more diverse references to address the issue of bias. We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive suggestions, and believe that our updated references now reflect a more balanced representation of global research.

 

Reviewer Comment 4:

"The authors suggest, 'We have revised the manuscript to emphasize the broader implications of our findings and how they can be applied to other rapidly urbanizing cities worldwide. This has been reflected in the Introduction and Conclusion sections.' --- The modifications in Intro and Conclusions were minor and, most importantly, the authors missed an opportunity to rewrite the results and discussion for a broad audience. I believe many readers will share a disinterest in the nuances of land change around Beijing. I think the manuscript is more suitable for a regional/national journal."

 

Response: We have significantly revised the Introduction and Conclusion sections to emphasize the broader implications of our findings. The Results and Discussion sections have been rewritten to appeal to a broader audience, highlighting how our findings can be applied to other rapidly urbanizing cities worldwide. For example, we have included studies from cities such as Shanghai, Mexico City, and Bangalore in our discussion, demonstrating the applicability of our methods and results in these contexts. Additionally, we have elaborated on how our research provides a framework for sustainable urban planning in other rapidly urbanizing cities. These changes ensure that the manuscript is relevant and engaging to an international readership.(Page2,Line55-61;Page15,Line489-494;Page15,Line489-494;Page16,Line538-550; Page17,Line573-585; Page18,Line621-630;)

 

Summary of Major Revisions:

Distinguishing between Land Use and Land Cover: We have meticulously reviewed and corrected instances of "land use" to "land cover" where applicable throughout the manuscript.

Table Updates: The table has been updated to use "northness" and "eastness" instead of "aspect", and the dataset name has been corrected to "elevation". The column heading has been changed to "data name".

Literature Review Expansion: The literature review has been expanded to include more globally conducted studies, addressing the bias in the references.

Broader Implications in Intro and Conclusions: The Introduction, Results, and Discussion sections have been revised to emphasize the global relevance of our findings, making the manuscript suitable for an international audience.

 

We believe that these revisions have addressed the reviewers’ concerns and significantly improved the manuscript. We appreciate the reviewers' valuable feedback and look forward to your positive response.

 

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Xiaoyu Zhu

School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf