Study on the Contradiction between Population and Cultivated Land and the Priority Protection of Cultivated Land in the Policy of Poverty Alleviation: A Case Study of the Upper Reaches of Min River, Sichuan Province, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper seems to attempt to point out the optimal mix with poverty alleviation and land preservation. For this, the work forecasts the trend of cultivated land area in the study area. It employed CA-Markov model to project the changes. The conclusions lead some questions; First, does the threshold k=0.28 has any reference with it? Second, it does not consider the government policies. If considered, government regulations would severely affect the trend and the maximization. There two types of government policies; controllable policies and uncontrollable regulations. Those will mediate the expansion of cultivated land. The research simulated simply the past trend and generated models to forecast the future. There must be more complex variables associated with the trend. Next time the repeated study must incorporate various factors to point out the exact answer.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers，
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Study on the contradiction between population and cultivated land and the priority protection of cultivated land in the policy of poverty alleviation： A case study of the Upper Reaches of Min River, Sichuan Province, China”. (ID: sustainability-1105080). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Point 1: Does the threshold k=0.28 has any reference with it?
Response 1: Thank you for your comments. The threshold k=0.28 has not reference with it (line 211-223).
“The ratio of the world’s per capita construction-land area (83 sq m) to the world’s per capita cultivated-land area (1920 sq m) is set as the human–land coordination threshold of 0.04. According to the World Food and Agriculture Organization’s per capita cultivated-land warning line (533.3 sq m) and the rural per capita construction-land scope (150 sq m) of China’s new urbanization construction, the human–land contradiction threshold is 0.28. When K<0.04, there are fewer people and more land, and the contradiction between people and land is minimal or even non-existent. When 0.04≤K<0.28, a human–land coordination type exists and the relationship between humans and land is relatively balanced; when K≥0.28, there are more people with fewer land and the contradiction between people and land is prominent. The threshold k=0.28 is the minimum requirement of priority protection of cultivated land.”
Point 2: It does not consider the government policies. If considered, government regulations would severely affect the trend and the maximization. There two types of government policies; controllable policies and uncontrollable regulations. Those will mediate the expansion of cultivated land. The research simulated simply the past trend and generated models to forecast the future. There must be more complex variables associated with the trend. Next time the repeated study must incorporate various factors to point out the exact answer.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestions. It has been mentioned in this paper, but it was not elaborated in detail (line40-42, line65-66, line139-140, line225-227, line390-393, etc). No land transfer works in isolation but is affected to a greater or lesser extent by many other factors. For example, quantitative factors: slope, elevation, water source, etc; qualitative factors: government planning, cost awareness, management system, etc. Using unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) data and field investigation results, the data with higher accuracy were obtained in study area. We hope to build a model from a smaller scale to study the influence of these factors. But, this is another article to be published. The CA-Markov method is simple and it has some actual value in the cultivated land distribution forcast. We only considered the transfer probability of different land in the prediction. Therefore, the prediction accuracy is not good enough ( OA=0.883, KC=0.865). (line 277-289)
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Li Chen, Qing Wang.
Corresponding author:
Name: Qing Wang
E-mail: qingwswust@126.com
20- Feb-2021
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is a classic case study with a descriptive character. It is well structured and gives appropriate insights into a relatively little researched area. The authors have presented important new results that can help to understand the complex challenges of land resource management in rural mountainous areas.
The manuscript has a sound methodological approach with various statistical and spatial analysis methods that are suitable for answering the research questions. The figures (maps and graphs) are high quality and support the findings of the text.
In line 66, the authors wrote „The per capita cultivated-land area has increased from 0.2 hectares in the 1950s to 0.09 hectares at present.” This means the per capita cultivated land is decreased, or the first number is 0.02 instead of 0.2.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Study on the contradiction between population and cultivated land and the priority protection of cultivated land in the policy of poverty alleviation： A case study of the Upper Reaches of Min River, Sichuan Province, China”. (ID: sustainability-1105080). We would like to thank the reviewers for their kind and constructive comments and feel that they have strengthened the manuscript. We are pleased to note the favorable comments of reviewers in their opening sentence.. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Point 3: In line 66, the authors wrote “The per capita cultivated-land area has increased from 0.2 hectares in the 1950s to 0.09 hectares at present.” This means the per capita cultivated land is decreased, or the first number is 0.02 instead of 0.2.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. According to your advice, we have consulted the original author about the figures. The references he quoted are not rigorous. And we've consulted a number of papers about the subject. Then, we consulted the other studies and made some necessary changes. (line 68-70).
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Li Chen, Qing Wang.
Corresponding author:
Name: Qing Wang
E-mail: qingwswust@126.com
20- Feb-2021
Reviewer 3 Report
I read with great interest the manuscript “Study on the contradiction between population and cultivated land and the priority protection of cultivated land in the policy of poverty alleviation： A case study of the Upper Reaches of Min River, Sichuan Province, China” which examines the conflict between population growth and land use. Although the issue is interesting, the manuscript needs to be carefully prepared. My concerns are:
- The manuscript needs proper proofreading by a native speaker. There are so many instances that the language is harsh. Just to name one or two: Lines 33-34, 38-39, 162-163, 166-167.
- The manuscript needs proper (scientific) editing. There are so many instances that terms and notions are used not in a rigorous way. Just to name one or two. The notion “rural” characterize the space while the term “agriculture” is an activity. So it is not correct to write “rural cultivated-land”, it suffices to agricultural land. Equally, there is no such thing as “rural urbanization”. Presumably, you refer to the “urbanization of rural areas”.
- Usually, the methodology section precedes the data one.
- The methodology section needs to be written with adequately structure and justification. Why CA-Markov model? Other alternatives? What is the meaning of equations used (1)-(6)? On which grounds did you select the objective function (6)? Define and justify the range of values used for the parameters.
- Define the abbreviations the first time they appear. The line 182 introduces the SDE while the definition is given by the line 188. Line 237 introduces the MARXAN but it is never defined throughout the manuscript.
- It is a good idea to keep the conclusion clear of parameters, values and comparisons. Stick with the main results and their implications.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers，
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Study on the contradiction between population and cultivated land and the priority protection of cultivated land in the policy of poverty alleviation： A case study of the Upper Reaches of Min River, Sichuan Province, China”. (ID: sustainability-1105080). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Point 4: The manuscript needs proper proofreading by a native speaker. There are so many instances that the language is harsh. Just to name one or two: Lines 33-34, 38-39, 162-163, 166-167.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We are very sorry for our incorrect writing. Before submission, this manuscript was edited for proper English language, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and overall style by one or more of the highly qualified native English speaking editors at NativeEE. NativeEE specializes in editing and proofreading scientific manuscripts for submission to peer-reviewed journals.
According to your advice, we revised the manuscript again, especially where you pointed out.
Line 34-35… We have modified the sentence according to the previous comment (Line 33-34).
Line 40-42… Thank you for underlining this deficiency. This section was revised and modified according to the information showed in the work suggested by the reviewer (Line 38-39).
Line 154-156… This phrase was modified according to the comment (Line 162-163).
Line 157-158… This sentence was rephrased according to the comment (Lines 166-167).
Point 5: The manuscript needs proper (scientific) editing. There are so many instances that terms and notions are used not in a rigorous way. Just to name one or two. The notion “rural” characterize the space while the term “agriculture” is an activity. So it is not correct to write “rural cultivated-land”, it suffices to agricultural land. Equally, there is no such thing as “rural urbanization”. Presumably, you refer to the “urbanization of rural areas”.
Response 5: The reviewer has made a very good point here. Cropland, cultivated land, farmland and arable land have the same meaning. This paper mainly focuses on the cultivated land in mountainous areas. This paper mainly focuses on the cultivated land in rural areas. Our original description has been misleading, and we have made correction in this revision as requested (Line 64). The “rural urbanization” was incorrectly stated in the original manuscript. This has been rectified (Line 66). The authors are grateful to the referees for pointing out their error.
Point 6: Usually, the methodology section precedes the data one.
Response 6: Thank you for your suggestions. We found the referee’s comments most helpful and have revised the manuscript
Point 7: The methodology section needs to be written with adequately structure and justification. Why CA-Markov model? Other alternatives? What is the meaning of equations used (1)-(6)? On which grounds did you select the objective function (6)? Define and justify the range of values used for the parameters.
Response 7: Thank you for your generous comments. In simulating the spatial-dynamic evolution, the CA model has obvious advantages in simulating the complex state and spatial–temporal evolution of the region, while the Markov model has obvious advantages in the simulation and prediction of the evolution quantity of land-use types. Therefore, the combination of the CA and Markov models enables full utilization of their respective advantages and ensures the precision and credibility of the simulation and prediction regarding land-use types (Line 158-162). We have revised the narrative part of the method, which will help readers to better understand this article .
The equations used (1)-(5) to reflect the spatial distribution of cultivated land from many aspects (Line 185-188). By comparing the area of standard deviation ellipse, the change in cultivated-land spatial distribution can be seen. The major axis and minor axis of the standard deviation ellipse represent the major and minor trend direction of cultivated-land distribution, respectively. The standard deviation ratio of the short axis to the long axis can reflect the spatial shape of a cultivated-land distribution. The change direction of cultivated land can reflect the main azimuth.
The equations used (6) to calculate spatial priority conservation areas for cultivated land conservation through whole of watershed (Line 232-234). According to the World Food and Agriculture Organization’s per capita cultivated-land warning line (533.3 sq m) and the rural per capita construction-land scope (150 sq m) of China’s new urbanization construction, the human–land contradiction threshold is 0.28. We calculated the optimal BLM (BLM=0.003 in this study) and the optimal number of iterations (iterations =17) by R, then analyzed the priority protected areas of cultivated land under different protection objectives.
Point 8: Define the abbreviations the first time they appear. The line 182 introduces the SDE while the definition is given by the line 188. Line 237 introduces the MARXAN but it is never defined throughout the manuscript.
Response 8: This is a constructive suggestion by the reviewers. We have revised this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion (Line 173-174, Line 230-232).
Point 9: It is a good idea to keep the conclusion clear of parameters, values and comparisons. Stick with the main results and their implications.
Response 9: Thank you for your valuable suggestions! We have revised this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion (Line 379, Line 387)
Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! I hope you are satisfied with the revised version, however, if there is more question, we are willing to revise it again. Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Li Chen, Qing Wang.
Corresponding author:
Name: Qing Wang
E-mail: qingwswust@126.com
20- Feb-2021
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
no further comments, the authors have addressed most of my reservations
