Land-Use Conflict Identification from the Perspective of Construction Space Expansion: An Evaluation Method Based on ‘Likelihood-Exposure-Consequence’

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript seems to be interesting but with minor changes.

The Manuscript titled 'Land Use Conflict Identification from the Perspective of Construction Space Expansion: An Evaluation Method Based on LEC' has an interesting work of showing the conflict between construction, ecological space and agricultural space but minor changes are needed to be accepted to IJGI. 

1. Title of this manuscript includes an acronym 'LEC' which is not suggested as it may not be known by beginners of this field. Please modify the title accordingly.

2. Please explain more about the type of neural network and why it is used for this procedure.

3. Please show the performance metrics (Precision, Recall etc.,) for the model used.

4. Please recheck for the typos in the manuscript.

5. There are many acronyms in the manuscript which is quite confusing. Please modify it by its full forms.

Thank you.

Author Response

Dear review expert,

 

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions on my paper. These suggestions are very helpful to improve the quality of my paper. I have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. The following is a description of the modifications to these suggestions.

Thank you for your reading. I am looking forward to your affirmative reply.

 

Best regards,

Hao Zhou

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. There are many similar abbreviations (i.e. LUC, LEC, mu, ML, etc.). The list of their expansions would be nice to have at the end of the text.
2.  The input data sets should be given more details. Is it a good time (Nov-Oct) to collect TM images regarding vegetation? Is it a high or low season for growing?
3. Row 140-141: supervised classification is not an interpreter. It is a classifier. Rephrase it.
4. Row 161: give more details for BP neural network algorithm.
5. Row 182: double “dynamic”
6. Make sure and give sources for all formulas.
7. Table 1: Why index classification has 6 classes?
8. Row 204-211: Why the buffer zones have 3km, 1km, or 2,5km? From where do you derive these values?
9. Row 251-254: It is no clear. Rephrase or divide this sentence.
10. Formula 5: should be ESV?
11. Row 338-339: gramma
12. Figures 3, 4, and 5 have poor quality. They are not readable.
13. Table 3 and its explanation (row 374-377) is not clear.
14. Row 378-379: there is no verb.
15. Row 421-425: no clear sentence. Rephrase or improve the grammar.
16. Row 446: should be LUC
17. Table S1-S4 should have a reference in the text.

Author Response

Dear review expert,

 

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions on my paper. These suggestions are very helpful to improve the quality of my paper. I have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. The following is a description of the modifications to these suggestions.

Thank you for your reading. I am looking forward to your affirmative reply.

 

Best regards,

Hao Zhou

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting paper, but it is difficult for non-Chinese to understand what you did and why. In particular, I do not know if this is intended as a methods paper, primarily, or to convey useful information for planners in Hubei. Or both! Your application of LEC, from American security experts, to LUC, is that an original idea with you? If so, it is creative.

Many terms specific to China are not explained, e.g. “geographical indication certified agricultural products” (line 135). I do not understand what you are trying to say in lines 374-7.  Line 239 refers to S1, but I do not find that it helps me understand why you did what you did. Line 150, I understand L and C in LEC, but not E. (You first mention LEC on line 17, but do not describe until lines 104ff).

I imagine if I were Chinese I might understand, but I am not and I do not.

In addition, you mention authors without citing them: line 81- Carr and Zwick (nor are their shortcomings explained); line 104 – Graham and Kinney; and line 254 Xie Gaodi [possibly ref 51?]. These appear to be important, more so than many papers that you do cite.

Line 679-81, the title is all caps.

Author Response

Dear review expert,

 

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions on my paper. These suggestions are very helpful to improve the quality of my paper. I have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. The following is a description of the modifications to these suggestions.

Thank you for your reading. I am looking forward to your affirmative reply.

 

Best regards,

Hao Zhou

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf