Research Progress in Spatiotemporal Dynamic Simulation of LUCC

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your revised version of this manuscript. The paper needs substantial work before it can be considered for publication. Most importantly, you need a strong Methods section, the structure of the paper needs improvement, and you need to be very clear in your initial framing in explaining the scope, focus, and justification for your review, besides the more general purpose of contributing to the field.

lines 39-40: Please correct the wording: Changes in Land use and land Cover Change  (LUCC) - you should not be using the word change twice, and if you use initial upper case for some of the words, you should use it for the others as well (except here the word "and"). Please check your manuscript throughout to be consistent.

line 44: social and natural ecosystems  - social ecosystem is not a commonly used or understood concept. Also, land use does not only affect (natural) ecosystems, but also wider natural systems. The reference that you use (Ecological footprint: an indicator of environmental sustainability of a surface coal mine) does not seem to be particularly well suited to support the more general argument that you seem to be making on impacts of land use. Also, the term "sustainable development" refers to a wide range of concepts, and if you wish to use the term you should clarify your intended meaning.

line 51: in advancing land use planning and management in order - please delete these words to avoid unnecessary repetition.

lines 53-61: I suggest reorganising this paragraph as follows, to improve readability and to avoid misunderstandings:

Research on the spatiotemporal dynamics of land use change notably includes monitoring the spatial and temporal dynamics of land use change, assessing impacts of LUCC at global or regional scales [6,7], identifying LUCC drivers, and spatiotemporal dynamic LUCC simulation. Geographic  Information Science (GIS) and Remote Sensing (RS) are utilized to monitor dynamics of land use change at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Approaches to assess LUCC impacts include ... (HERE LIST SOME METHODS FOR LUCC IMPACT ASSESSMENTS, WITH SUITABLE REFERENCES). Common methods to identify LUCC drivers are ... (HERE LIST METHODS TO IDENTIFY LUCC DRIVERS). With respect to spatiotemporal dynamic LUCC simulation, scholars have proposed different strategies that ....

I suggest that you move the sentence Possible impacts brought about by LUCC include climate change [8,9], food security [10,11], and biodiversity decline [12] - placing it line 43, just after;  ...and others [1-4]. Possible impacts ...

The sentence "LUCC is influenced by a variety of processes and factors [13], especially the dominant role of human activities in urbanization [14]" applies to urban and peri-urban contexts, and the case studies that you reference are in China, which should be clarified in the wording. I also suggest that you move the sentence to line 44: In Chinese urban and peri-urban contexts, LUCC is influenced by ... in urbanization [14]. Many government planning efforts, in China and elsewhere, are focused on the intersection of ....

line 64: ... [15-18]. They aimed to finding - Incorrect syntax, please reword to: The approaches used by these scholars aimed to shed light on how future ...

line 65: as well as to providing input - please reword: ... as well as to provide input ...

lines 69-73:  While previous studies have explored the direction of LUCC spatiotemporal dynamic simulation, existing review articles often focus on the application of a particular model and its extensions or are confined to a particular region. They need comprehensive discussions on several key points of LUCC spatiotemporal dynamic simulation research, and to be analyzed and summarized. - my understanding is that you here wish to explain that you have not found any review articles on methods for LUCC spatiotemporal simulation that provide the particular focus, scope, analysis or relevant information that your own review article does. The wording as it stands does not make sense, and should be deleted.  How do you know that your review article will be useful and does not duplicate other work? Did you a) conduct a search for review articles on the topic (If so, this should be indicated and the precise methodology and results should also be provided) or b) did you read in another (very recent) review article that reviews on this topic were lacking? (if so, you need to explain that this is what you did, and provide the reference. Also, if the earlier review (or reviews, on which you base the assumption that your own review article - with its particular scope, focus and perspective - is needed) is not extremely recent, it could be that another review has been published in the meantime. 

lines 81-102 2.1 Literature statistics  - please delete this section, which does not add anything to your own review article, and which also is not useful to the research field. 

Besides being explicit on how you identified the research gap that justifies your own review (see comment to lines 69-73 above), you need a separate methods section, clarifying the search strategy that you used for your own review, inclusion and exclusion criteria and process, number of identified articles and number of selected articles, as well as a clear description of how you analysed the selected publications, and the motivations for your choice of search strategy and  selection. What kind of publications are included in your results (section 2.2 and following)? Are they methods articles? review articles? studies that apply the methods that you later for particular purposes and in specific cases? Did you find other methods than the ones that you have chosen to describe? if so, why did you not include them? How did you find the methods that you have chosen to describe, and why did you select them? 

lines 104-105: Current research in this field is based on objective existence, utilizing past experiences and logical reasoning for research and analysis [19].  - this sentence does not make sense at all, and should be deleted.

The reference [19] (Brown et al. Opportunities to improve impact, integration, and evaluation of land change models), even if it is not very recent, would actually be useful for you to discuss why and in which respect the particular models that you later describe (section 2.3 and following) are suitable for particular applications or not, and I recommend that you carefully study the arguments put forward by Brown et al. on land change models. 

lines 105-109: Specifically, it focuses on  studying a LULC pattern at a specific initial state, utilizing spatiotemporal dynamic simulation models as the primary research tools and optimizing them with various scientific theories and methods. The primary objective is to delve into the internal characteristics of LUCC and its driving factors, utilizing models to simulate future LULC patterns over a specific period [20,21]

- these sentences do not make sense.  What focuses on studying etc? if it is the "field of research", then you cannot summarise it in this sentence, because the field is very wide and different strands of research focus on different things. If you are interested in modelling and simulation, then  firstly, the focus is not on a state but on changes, and secondly you will need more than a particular "initial state" of land use and land cover, since to project possible future changes, models use data on past states and how these have changed over time. Also, you cannot summarise the "primary objective" of LUCC research in this way, and you have in your introduction already given a brief description of some main objectives in LUCC research. Please delete the sentences.

lines 111-115: Through reviewing and analyzing the literature in relevant fields [22,23], this article outlines the basic steps of the current research based on the common research processes, as illustrated in Figure 2. This step not only enhances the positivity and operability of the study but also provides a solid theoretical and logical foundation for a profound  understanding of the spatiotemporal dynamic simulation of LUCC.

- these sentences do not make sense. If by "this article" you mean your own review, then reading (and analyzing) two articles does not constitute a review (and when you say "relevant" - relevant to what?). If you wish to write an article with a critical discussion of the approaches used by [22,23), that would be an entirely different project.

When referencing in this manner (... used by), you need to write the surnames of the authors in your text, eg: ... used by [Gosh et al. (22) and Nath et al. (23) ...

what do you mean by "the current research" or "the study"??? - again, if you are referring to your own review, this does not make sense at all.

Also, as far as I can see, you do not use the steps outlined in Figure 2 and described lines 121-145 to contextualise, organise or analyse the results presented in section 2.3. 

If you do wish to provide a conceptual map of a generic LUCC research project to show for which steps the different models that you describe in section 2.3 can be used, then this conceptual map should be modified so that it does indeed show at which step these particular models can be used. (in this case I suggest that the order of presenting the different models and approaches be modified in section 2.3, so that it follows the process logic of your conceptual map/ or maps).  It should also be explained already in your Methods section that you will use a conceptual map, why you feel that this will be useful/helpful, as well as exactly how you will use the conceptual map (or maps).

In any case, your revised wording and section caption for section 2.2 must first of all clearly indicate the purpose of this section with respect to the manuscript as a whole. Secondly, any text that you use to describe a figure that is intended to serve as a conceptual map to situate the methods or approaches that you describe in section 2.3 should mention the specific models that you give as examples.

You may wish to consider using several figures with conceptual maps, since I am not sure that all the examples that you describe and discuss in section 2.3 fit neatly into a single generic process map. 

The text lines 121-145 has very poor sentence structure, and the seemingly random choice of verb forms makes it almost impossible to understand. 

line 147: Currently, LUCC models primarily include the Markov model, ...

If I remember correctly, in my previous review of your earlier draft, I asked you on which basis you make this statement. This is still not clear, and I suggest that you reword the first sentence of 2.3 to: In the following, we will describe a number of common types of LUCC models, as well as providing some examples of specific models belonging to these broad families. 

If the list provided lines 147-152 is in fact your point of departure in selecting methods for this review, and if you used the list of model types to search for the literature that you have used, or as a criterion for inclusion/exclusion, then this should be clearly explained in your Methods section.

The list provided lines 147-152 does not match the content or order of presentation in Table 1.

Table 1 does not indicate a source. If the contents of the table are taken from another source, you need to indicate the source. If you have adapted the contents of Table 1 from another source, then you should indicate the source and that you have adapted the contents of the table from that source. If you have drawn on several sources to create the content in Table 1, then you should indicate that this is what you have done, and provide references to the sources that you have used. If the contents of Table 1 summarise your own analysis, based on reviewing all studies selected for your review, then this needs to be expressed explicitly. If Table 1 summarises your own analysis, you should additionally explain in your Methods section that you will be doing this, and also explain how you will be doing it.

As far as I can see, Qiao et al. 2022 (who you cite as reference (20) for lines 147-152 has a very similar table to yours, listing features of the models, main advantages and main limitations, and if your own table is adapted from Qiao et al., then this must be clearly indicated.

Qiao, Z.; Jiang, Y.; He, T.; Lu, Y.; Xu, X.; Yang, J. Land use change simulation: progress, challenges, and prospects. Acta Ecologica 630 Sinica 2022, 42(13). 

Qiao et al. provide the following references for their list: 

Pielke R A Sr. Land use and climate change. Science , 2005 , 310(5754): 1625 -1626 

Rounsevell M D A, Pedroli B, Erb K H, Gramberger M, Busck A G, Haberl H, Kristensen S, Kuemmerle T, Lavorel S, Lindner M, Lotze-Campen H, Metzger M J, Murray-Rust D, Popp A, Pérez-Soba M, Reenberg A, Vadineanu A, Verburg P H, Wolfslehner B. Challenges for land system science. Land Use Policy , 2012 , 29(4): 899 -910

I cannot read Chinese, so have no clear idea of which methodology Qiao et al. used, but both Pielke and Rounsevell are quite old references for a field that is developing quite quickly, and can therefore not be used to support the statement that these types of models are "currently" popular or common. If Qiao et al. have based their statement on a review of research conducted in China, then you should write something along the lines of Based on a review of research conducted in China in the period XXXX to YYYY, Qiao et al. found that the most popular models could be categorised in the following types: the Markov model, .... (GeoSOS) (20).

lines 189-209: I suggest that you include a separate subheading for models that use AI

lines 210 ff: I suggest that you include a separate subheading for integrated models

lines 311 ff: 3. The main issues in the existing research - you need to clarify in your methods section in which manner you have identified what these issues are, and at the very beginning of this section you need to very briefly repeat on which basis the statements contained in the section are made. 

lines 343-352: please provide one or more references 

lines 378 ff: 3.3. Issues in the driver analysis - if you are going to go into the question of analysis of LUCC drivers, you need to clearly indicate this already in your initial framing (towards the end of your Introduction)

line 531: since "ecological security pattern" is not a term/concept that international readers will be familiar with, it needs a brief explanation in your text.

Throughout the manuscript, please be careful with how you use the word "predict" - models and simulations do not and cannot "predict" the future, but allow evidence-based projections of how LULC might evolve under various conditions (based on selected data, assumptions, type of model, scenarios etc), and therefore also allow decision-makers to better understand possible consequences of the decisions that they take.

In your discussion, I recommend that you also draw on Brown et al. to point to the intrinsic limitations of machine learning and AI based modelling (there are more recent publications on this, but Brown et al. express the fundamental issues with different types of modelling (advantages and disadvantages, depending on intended application)  in a comprehensive fashion, and in a language that is easy to understand).

Please change the structure of section headings and subheadings throughout to include a complete Methods section (with relevant subsections), and a Results (or Findings) section (with relevant subsections). Please also ensure that section headings and subheadings are worded so that they clearly correspond to the content of each section/subsection.

Kindly ensure that all tables and figures indicate the source or sources from which they were taken or adapted from.

Kindly follow the journal reference style consistently, which for articles is:

Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

Thus, for instance, names of journals should not be indicated with all upper case letters, and titles of journal articles and books should be lower case, except for words that always use upper case (you will find additional example of format on the journal's webpage instruction for authors.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In my comments I have indicated some important issues with wording and use of English, but my comments do not list all language issues - therefore please get help with revising your English wording from colleagues or professionals who are both sufficiently competent in academic English and familiar with the research field.

Author Response

Point 1: lines 39-40: Please correct the wording: Changes in Land use and land Cover Change  (LUCC) - you should not be using the word change twice, and if you use initial upper case for some of the words, you should use it for the others as well (except here the word "and"). Please check your manuscript throughout to be consistent.

Response 1: Thank you for your recommendation, and it’s a good advisement. We have corrected these issues.

 

Point 2: line 44: social and natural ecosystems  - social ecosystem is not a commonly used or understood concept. Also, land use does not only affect (natural) ecosystems, but also wider natural systems. The reference that you use (Ecological footprint: an indicator of environmental sustainability of a surface coal mine) does not seem to be particularly well suited to support the more general argument that you seem to be making on impacts of land use. Also, the term "sustainable development" refers to a wide range of concepts, and if you wish to use the term you should clarify your intended meaning.

Response 2: Thank you for your careful recommendation, and we have removed these expressions.

 

Point 3: line 51: in advancing land use planning and management in order - please delete these words to avoid unnecessary repetition.

Response 3: Thank you for this suggestion, we have deleted these words.

 

Point 4: lines 53-61: I suggest reorganising this paragraph as follows, to improve readability and to avoid misunderstandings: Research on the spatiotemporal dynamics of land use change notably includes monitoring the spatial and temporal dynamics of land use change, assessing impacts of LUCC at global or regional scales [6,7], identifying LUCC drivers, and spatiotemporal dynamic LUCC simulation. Geographic  Information Science (GIS) and Remote Sensing (RS) are utilized to monitor dynamics of land use change at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Approaches to assess LUCC impacts include ... (HERE LIST SOME METHODS FOR LUCC IMPACT ASSESSMENTS, WITH SUITABLE REFERENCES). Common methods to identify LUCC drivers are ... (HERE LIST METHODS TO IDENTIFY LUCC DRIVERS). With respect to spatiotemporal dynamic LUCC simulation, scholars have proposed different strategies that ....

I suggest that you move the sentence Possible impacts brought about by LUCC include climate change [8,9], food security [10,11], and biodiversity decline [12] - placing it line 43, just after;  ...and others [1-4]. Possible impacts ...

The sentence "LUCC is influenced by a variety of processes and factors [13], especially the dominant role of human activities in urbanization [14]" applies to urban and peri-urban contexts, and the case studies that you reference are in China, which should be clarified in the wording. I also suggest that you move the sentence to line 44: In Chinese urban and peri-urban contexts, LUCC is influenced by ... in urbanization [14]. Many government planning efforts, in China and elsewhere, are focused on the intersection of ....

Response 4: We have corrected to the expressions in this section, as detailed in the track changes of the manuscript.

 

Point 5: line 64: ... [15-18]. They aimed to finding - Incorrect syntax, please reword to: The approaches used by these scholars aimed to shed light on how future ...

Response 5: Thank you for your careful recommendation, and we have corrected the syntax.

 

Point 6: line 65: as well as to providing input - please reword: ... as well as to provide input ...

Response 6: Thank you for your recommendation. According to your advisement, we have made corresponding correction.

 

Point 7: lines 69-73: While previous studies have explored the direction of LUCC spatiotemporal dynamic simulation, existing review articles often focus on the application of a particular model and its extensions or are confined to a particular region. They need comprehensive discussions on several key points of LUCC spatiotemporal dynamic simulation research, and to be analyzed and summarized. - my understanding is that you here wish to explain that you have not found any review articles on methods for LUCC spatiotemporal simulation that provide the particular focus, scope, analysis or relevant information that your own review article does. The wording as it stands does not make sense, and should be deleted.  How do you know that your review article will be useful and does not duplicate other work? Did you a) conduct a search for review articles on the topic (If so, this should be indicated and the precise methodology and results should also be provided) or b) did you read in another (very recent) review article that reviews on this topic were lacking? (if so, you need to explain that this is what you did, and provide the reference. Also, if the earlier review (or reviews, on which you base the assumption that your own review article - with its particular scope, focus and perspective - is needed) is not extremely recent, it could be that another review has been published in the meantime.

Response 7: After correction, we have found any review articles on methods for LUCC spatiotemporal simulation that provide the particular focus, scope, analysis or relevant information and added references.

 

Point 8: Literature statistics - please delete this section, which does not add anything to your own review article, and which also is not useful to the research field.

Response 8: We have deleted this section.

 

Point 9: Besides being explicit on how you identified the research gap that justifies your own review (see comment to lines 69-73 above), you need a separate methods section, clarifying the search strategy that you used for your own review, inclusion and exclusion criteria and process, number of identified articles and number of selected articles, as well as a clear description of how you analysed the selected publications, and the motivations for your choice of search strategy and  selection. What kind of publications are included in your results (section 2.2 and following)? Are they methods articles? review articles? studies that apply the methods that you later for particular purposes and in specific cases? Did you find other methods than the ones that you have chosen to describe? if so, why did you not include them? How did you find the methods that you have chosen to describe, and why did you select them?

Response 9: Thanks for your recommendation. We have added data and methods section clarifying the search strategy that we used for our own review, inclusion and exclusion criteria and process, number of identified articles and number of selected articles, as well as a clear description of how we analysed the selected publications, and the motivations for our choice of search strategy and selection.

 

Point 10: 1.3 Current research in this field is based on objective existence, utilizing past experiences and logical reasoning for research and analysis [19].  - this sentence does not make sense at all, and should be deleted.

Response 10 We have deleted this sentence.

 

Point 11: The reference [19] (Brown et al. Opportunities to improve impact, integration, and evaluation of land change models), even if it is not very recent, would actually be useful for you to discuss why and in which respect the particular models that you later describe (section 2.3 and following) are suitable for particular applications or not, and I recommend that you carefully study the arguments put forward by Brown et al. on land change models.

Response 11: Thank you for your recommendation. We quoted the article in the discussion section.

 

Point 12: 2. lines 105-109: Specifically, it focuses on  studying a LULC pattern at a specific initial state, utilizing spatiotemporal dynamic simulation models as the primary research tools and optimizing them with various scientific theories and methods. The primary objective is to delve into the internal characteristics of LUCC and its driving factors, utilizing models to simulate future LULC patterns over a specific period [20,21]

- these sentences do not make sense.  What focuses on studying etc? if it is the "field of research", then you cannot summarise it in this sentence, because the field is very wide and different strands of research focus on different things. If you are interested in modelling and simulation, then  firstly, the focus is not on a state but on changes, and secondly you will need more than a particular "initial state" of land use and land cover, since to project possible future changes, models use data on past states and how these have changed over time. Also, you cannot summarise the "primary objective" of LUCC research in this way, and you have in your introduction already given a brief description of some main objectives in LUCC research. Please delete the sentences.

Response 12: Thank you for your recommendation. We have deleted the sentences.

 

Point 13: lines 111-115: Through reviewing and analyzing the literature in relevant fields [22,23], this article outlines the basic steps of the current research based on the common research processes, as illustrated in Figure 2. This step not only enhances the positivity and operability of the study but also provides a solid theoretical and logical foundation for a profound  understanding of the spatiotemporal dynamic simulation of LUCC.

- these sentences do not make sense. If by "this article" you mean your own review, then reading (and analyzing) two articles does not constitute a review (and when you say "relevant" - relevant to what?). If you wish to write an article with a critical discussion of the approaches used by [22,23), that would be an entirely different project.

When referencing in this manner (... used by), you need to write the surnames of the authors in your text, eg: ... used by [Gosh et al. (22) and Nath et al. (23) ...

what do you mean by "the current research" or "the study"??? - again, if you are referring to your own review, this does not make sense at all.

Also, as far as I can see, you do not use the steps outlined in Figure 2 and described lines 121-145 to contextualise, organise or analyse the results presented in section 2.3.

If you do wish to provide a conceptual map of a generic LUCC research project to show for which steps the different models that you describe in section 2.3 can be used, then this conceptual map should be modified so that it does indeed show at which step these particular models can be used. (in this case I suggest that the order of presenting the different models and approaches be modified in section 2.3, so that it follows the process logic of your conceptual map/ or maps).  It should also be explained already in your Methods section that you will use a conceptual map, why you feel that this will be useful/helpful, as well as exactly how you will use the conceptual map (or maps).

In any case, your revised wording and section caption for section 2.2 must first of all clearly indicate the purpose of this section with respect to the manuscript as a whole. Secondly, any text that you use to describe a figure that is intended to serve as a conceptual map to situate the methods or approaches that you describe in section 2.3 should mention the specific models that you give as examples.

You may wish to consider using several figures with conceptual maps, since I am not sure that all the examples that you describe and discuss in section 2.3 fit neatly into a single generic process map.

Response 13: Thank you for your recommendation. We've made changes to Figure 2 and added a description and reference to it.

 

Point 14: The text lines 121-145 has very poor sentence structure, and the seemingly random choice of verb forms makes it almost impossible to understand.

Response 14: According to your advisement, we have made corresponding correction.

 

Point 15: line 147: Currently, LUCC models primarily include the Markov model, ...

If I remember correctly, in my previous review of your earlier draft, I asked you on which basis you make this statement. This is still not clear, and I suggest that you reword the first sentence of 2.3 to: In the following, we will describe a number of common types of LUCC models, as well as providing some examples of specific models belonging to these broad families.

Response 15: Based on your suggestions, we have made some adjustments to the reference papers.

 

Point 16: If the list provided lines 147-152 is in fact your point of departure in selecting methods for this review, and if you used the list of model types to search for the literature that you have used, or as a criterion for inclusion/exclusion, then this should be clearly explained in your Methods section.

Response 16: Based on your suggestions, we have explained this in Data and methods.

 

Point 17: The list provided lines 147-152 does not match the content or order of presentation in Table 1.

Response 17: We've adjusted the order of the lists.

 

Point 18: Table 1 does not indicate a source. If the contents of the table are taken from another source, you need to indicate the source. If you have adapted the contents of Table 1 from another source, then you should indicate the source and that you have adapted the contents of the table from that source. If you have drawn on several sources to create the content in Table 1, then you should indicate that this is what you have done, and provide references to the sources that you have used. If the contents of Table 1 summarise your own analysis, based on reviewing all studies selected for your review, then this needs to be expressed explicitly. If Table 1 summarises your own analysis, you should additionally explain in your Methods section that you will be doing this, and also explain how you will be doing it.

Response 18: Based on your suggestions, we have indicated the source and explain in Data and methods.

 

Point 19: As far as I can see, Qiao et al. 2022 (who you cite as reference (20) for lines 147-152 has a very similar table to yours, listing features of the models, main advantages and main limitations, and if your own table is adapted from Qiao et al., then this must be clearly indicated.

Response 19: We have indicated that this table is adapted from Qiao et al.

 

Point 20: I cannot read Chinese, so have no clear idea of which methodology Qiao et al. used, but both Pielke and Rounsevell are quite old references for a field that is developing quite quickly, and can therefore not be used to support the statement that these types of models are "currently" popular or common. If Qiao et al. have based their statement on a review of research conducted in China, then you should write something along the lines of Based on a review of research conducted in China in the period XXXX to YYYY, Qiao et al. found that the most popular models could be categorised in the following types: the Markov model, .... (GeoSOS) (20).

Response 20: Based on your suggestions, we have made adjustments to the expression.

 

Point 21: lines 189-209: I suggest that you include a separate subheading for models that use AI

Response 21: We have included a separate subheading for models that use AI.

 

Point 22: lines 210 ff: I suggest that you include a separate subheading for integrated models

Response 22: We have include a separate subheading for integrated models.

 

Point 23: lines 311 ff: 3. The main issues in the existing research - you need to clarify in your methods section in which manner you have identified what these issues are, and at the very beginning of this section you need to very briefly repeat on which basis the statements contained in the section are made.

Response 23: Based on your suggestions, we have made some adjustments.

 

Point 24: lines 378 ff: 3.3. Issues in the driver analysis - if you are going to go into the question of analysis of LUCC drivers, you need to clearly indicate this already in your initial framing (towards the end of your Introduction)

Response 24: Thanks for your suggestion, we have made some adjustments.

 

Point 25: line 531: since "ecological security pattern" is not a term/concept that international readers will be familiar with, it needs a brief explanation in your text.

Response 25: Based on your suggestions, we have made some explanation.

 

Point 26: Throughout the manuscript, please be careful with how you use the word "predict" - models and simulations do not and cannot "predict" the future, but allow evidence-based projections of how LULC might evolve under various conditions (based on selected data, assumptions, type of model, scenarios etc), and therefore also allow decision-makers to better understand possible consequences of the decisions that they take.

Response 26: We have made some adjustments of this word.

 

Point 27: In your discussion, I recommend that you also draw on Brown et al. to point to the intrinsic limitations of machine learning and AI based modelling (there are more recent publications on this, but Brown et al. express the fundamental issues with different types of modelling (advantages and disadvantages, depending on intended application)  in a comprehensive fashion, and in a language that is easy to understand).

Response 27: Thanks for your recommendation. We have drawn this article.

 

Point 28: Please change the structure of section headings and subheadings throughout to include a complete Methods section (with relevant subsections), and a Results (or Findings) section (with relevant subsections). Please also ensure that section headings and subheadings are worded so that they clearly correspond to the content of each section/subsection.

Response 28: We have changed the structure of section.

 

Point 29: Kindly ensure that all tables and figures indicate the source or sources from which they were taken or adapted from.

Kindly follow the journal reference style consistently, which for articles is:

Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

Thus, for instance, names of journals should not be indicated with all upper case letters, and titles of journal articles and books should be lower case, except for words that always use upper case (you will find additional example of format on the journal's webpage instruction for authors.

Response 29: We have indicated the source of these tables and figures, and we have followed the journal reference style.

 

Thanks again for taking time to review our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Author Response

Comment: Accept in present form.

 

Response: Thanks for your kind comment.

Please contact us if you have any other new questions. Thanks again for your help.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reviews the current research in the simulation of spatiotemporal dynamics of LUCC and several mainstream models and analyzing their characteristics and limitations. However, the following issues should be improved.

1. About the structure of the paper. Reviews do not have to follow the structure of regular research papers. For example, the discussion section does not need to be listed separately; it can be included in other relevant sections. This part can discuss "the development prospect of land cover change simulation research".

2. About the length of the paper. As a critical paper, the length of this paper is too long. Appropriate compression is recommended. For example: (1) some commonsense content can be deleted; (2) Research status does not need to be listed separately, it should be included in the relevant progressive review.

3. About the key points of the paper. It is suggested that the author should focus on the common academic issues such as the simulation scenarios, simulation methods and the credibility of simulation results.

4. The format of the references in this paper is not uniform and needs to be modified.

Author Response

Point 1: About the structure of the paper. Reviews do not have to follow the structure of regular research papers. For example, the discussion section does not need to be listed separately; it can be included in other relevant sections. This part can discuss "the development prospect of land cover change simulation research".

Response 1: Thank you for your recommendation. This part is discussing "the development prospect of land cover change simulation research".

 

Point 2: About the length of the paper. As a critical paper, the length of this paper is too long. Appropriate compression is recommended. For example: (1) some commonsense content can be deleted; (2) Research status does not need to be listed separately, it should be included in the relevant progressive review.

Response 2: Thank you for your careful recommendation, and we have made correction to this point.

 

Point 3: About the key points of the paper. It is suggested that the author should focus on the common academic issues such as the simulation scenarios, simulation methods and the credibility of simulation results.

Response 3: Thank you for this suggestion, we have revised our structure.

 

Point 4: About the key points of the paper. It is suggested that the author should focus on the common academic issues such as the simulation scenarios, simulation methods and the credibility of simulation results.

Response 4: Thank you for your careful recommendation, we have modified and improved the paper.

 

Point 5: The format of reference documents is not uniform.

Response 5: We have uniformed the format of reference documents.

 

Thanks again for taking time to review our manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised version of your manuscript, which has addressed several of my earlier comments.

Regarding the Data and method section, the revisions still do not fully satisfy my concerns. You present your paper as a review, but the description of your search strategy, scanning and selection of the papers included is still not clear, accurate and complete. The date (or dates) on which you conducted your database search should be provided, and it should be clarified that the search terms were in English. The search string that you provide contains errors in how boolean operators, quotation marks and parentheses are combined. The specification of discipline fields and journal sources are carelessly described. You do not clarify a) how many publications the initial database search yielded for each of the databases, b) on which inclusion or exclusion criteria you based the exclusion of "entries unrelated to the review topic" (line 90), c) how you conducted this first scanning d) or how the "total of 2118 English articles and 816 Chinese articles (...) including 2876 methodological articles and 58 review articles" were distributed across the databases that you used. 

Lines 307 and 308, you state that: "This review summarizes the following three questions based on the retrieved review articles and method articles related to model application".

However, in your paper you base your arguments and synthesis on approximately 100 references. My immediate impression is therefore that you did not review approximately three thousand publications, but rather the hundred or so that you reference (which is largely sufficient for the purposes of the paper). If this is indeed what you did, your Data and method section needs to carefully describe not only the initial search and scanning, but also for the second step of selecting the hundred publications that you later use, from the three thousand that were identified in the first step of your search process. The second step should be described with equal care and accuracy (see comments above) as the first step. 

If, on the other hand, my impression is incorrect, and you actually used the 2934 publications identified in the first step of your search for your analysis, then you need to clearly and in detail describe in your Data and method section the procedure that you followed in order to identify the "main issues" in this body of literature. 

In either event, I would strongly recommend that you use a Prisma diagram to summarise the different steps that you followed in your search in the various databases.

Some additional comments on the content and wording:

lines 109-111: please reword to: Drawing on the categorization of Liu et al. [26], we have organized the basic steps of LUCC spatiotemporal dynamic simulation research, as shown in Figure 2, both to clarify the elements and processes that are typically involved, and to indicate for which parts of the process the various tools and approaches are employed.

line 119: please reword to: For spatiotemporal process detection (see Figure 2), sensing technology ...

lines 119-135: I suggest that you place the expressions spatiotemporal process detection, driving mechanism analysis, and simulation of spatiotemporal processes in italics to make it clearer that these refer to the figure.

lines 149-150: for clarity please reword to:

In Table 1, based on research articles treating other models, we have supplemented the characteristics and limitations identified by Qiao et al. [28].

lines 527-529: please add (ESP) after ecological security patterns to clarify that this is a concept used in the literature. The explanation of the concept lines 528-529 does not correspond to the concept as used by Li et al. 2022 - please revise the explanation so that it clarifies the actual meaning of the concept (not just its purpose).

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English language is uneven, and will need serious attention before the manuscript can be considered for publication. 

Besides several mistakes in grammar and syntax throughout the manuscript, please also consider the following points: 

Not all mistakes will be picked up by your word processing programme. For instance, line 334 you write: Computer can... 

The correct form is here: Computers can ...

Your word processing programme will only pick up on cases where the subject of the sentence does not match the verb form, but in this case both the singular and the plural of computer can be combined with "can". (However, there are numerous instances in your text where the verb does not agree with the subject, which should be easily corrected using word processing).

To describe the method you have used, you should use the past tense.

Please consistently provide the full form for acronyms/abbreviation the first time that they appear, not only in the figure or table, but also in the main text. (see journal instructions for authors)

• Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract; the main text; the first figure or table. When defined for the first time, the acronym/abbreviation/initialism should be added in parentheses after the written-out form.

line 480: "Sun have ... " should be "Sun et al. have ..."

When referencing in the text, for publications with two authors you have sometimes listed both authors, and at other times listed the first author followed by et al. - please revise for consistency.

Reference list: Please consistently use lower case for the titles of publications in your reference list, except for words that always take upper case. Thus:

Monitoring Land Use Changes and Their Future Prospects Using GIS and ANN-CA 712 for Perak River Basin, Malaysia 

should be:

Monitoring land use changes and their future prospects using GIS and ANN-CA 712 for Perak River Basin, Malaysia.

(there are several examples where titles in the reference list do not consistently conform to the journal style).

 

Author Response

Point 1: Regarding the Data and method section, the revisions still do not fully satisfy my concerns. You present your paper as a review, but the description of your search strategy, scanning and selection of the papers included is still not clear, accurate and complete. The date (or dates) on which you conducted your database search should be provided, and it should be clarified that the search terms were in English. The search string that you provide contains errors in how boolean operators, quotation marks and parentheses are combined. The specification of discipline fields and journal sources are carelessly described. You do not clarify a) how many publications the initial database search yielded for each of the databases, b) on which inclusion or exclusion criteria you based the exclusion of "entries unrelated to the review topic" (line 90), c) how you conducted this first scanning d) or how the "total of 2118 English articles and 816 Chinese articles (...) including 2876 methodological articles and 58 review articles" were distributed across the databases that you used.

Lines 307 and 308, you state that: "This review summarizes the following three questions based on the retrieved review articles and method articles related to model application".

However, in your paper you base your arguments and synthesis on approximately 100 references. My immediate impression is therefore that you did not review approximately three thousand publications, but rather the hundred or so that you reference (which is largely sufficient for the purposes of the paper). If this is indeed what you did, your Data and method section needs to carefully describe not only the initial search and scanning, but also for the second step of selecting the hundred publications that you later use, from the three thousand that were identified in the first step of your search process. The second step should be described with equal care and accuracy (see comments above) as the first step.

If, on the other hand, my impression is incorrect, and you actually used the 2934 publications identified in the first step of your search for your analysis, then you need to clearly and in detail describe in your Data and method section the procedure that you followed in order to identify the "main issues" in this body of literature.

In either event, I would strongly recommend that you use a Prisma diagram to summarise the different steps that you followed in your search in the various databases.

Response 1: Thank you for your recommendation, and it’s a good advisement. We have corrected the data and methods section, and we have used the prism diagram according to your suggestion.

 

Point 2: Some additional comments on the content and wording:

lines 109-111: please reword to: Drawing on the categorization of Liu et al. [26], we have organized the basic steps of LUCC spatiotemporal dynamic simulation research, as shown in Figure 2, both to clarify the elements and processes that are typically involved, and to indicate for which parts of the process the various tools and approaches are employed.

line 119: please reword to: For spatiotemporal process detection (see Figure 2), sensing technology ...

lines 119-135: I suggest that you place the expressions spatiotemporal process detection, driving mechanism analysis, and simulation of spatiotemporal processes in italics to make it clearer that these refer to the figure.

lines 149-150: for clarity please reword to:

In Table 1, based on research articles treating other models, we have supplemented the characteristics and limitations identified by Qiao et al. [28].

Response 2: Thank you for your careful recommendation, and we have corrected the content and wording.

 

Point 3: lines 527-529: please add (ESP) after ecological security patterns to clarify that this is a concept used in the literature. The explanation of the concept lines 528-529 does not correspond to the concept as used by Li et al. 2022 - please revise the explanation so that it clarifies the actual meaning of the concept (not just its purpose).

Response 3: Thank you for this suggestion, we have corrected the explanation.

 

Point 4: The quality of the English language is uneven, and will need serious attention before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

 

Besides several mistakes in grammar and syntax throughout the manuscript, please also consider the following points:

 

Not all mistakes will be picked up by your word processing programme. For instance, line 334 you write: Computer can...

 

The correct form is here: Computers can ...

 

Your word processing programme will only pick up on cases where the subject of the sentence does not match the verb form, but in this case both the singular and the plural of computer can be combined with "can". (However, there are numerous instances in your text where the verb does not agree with the subject, which should be easily corrected using word processing).

 

To describe the method you have used, you should use the past tense.

Response 4: We have invited teachers with good English skills to revise some grammar, word order and other issues in this article.

 

Point 5: Please consistently provide the full form for acronyms/abbreviation the first time that they appear, not only in the figure or table, but also in the main text. (see journal instructions for authors)

 

Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract; the main text; the first figure or table. When defined for the first time, the acronym/abbreviation/initialism should be added in parentheses after the written-out form.

Response 5: Thank you for your careful recommendation, and we have corrected it.

 

Point 6: line 480: "Sun have ... " should be "Sun et al. have ..."

When referencing in the text, for publications with two authors you have sometimes listed both authors, and at other times listed the first author followed by et al. - please revise for consistency.

Response 6: According to your advisement, we have made correction.

 

Point 7: Reference list: Please consistently use lower case for the titles of publications in your reference list, except for words that always take upper case. Thus:

Monitoring Land Use Changes and Their Future Prospects Using GIS and ANN-CA 712 for Perak River Basin, Malaysia

should be:

Monitoring land use changes and their future prospects using GIS and ANN-CA 712 for Perak River Basin, Malaysia.

Response 7: After correction, we have followed the journal reference style

Thanks again for taking time to review our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You will find my detailed comments in the attached file. Please revise your manuscript carefully addressing all comments, before submitting a revised version.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some of the issues in this paper may be due to misunderstanding of English terms, or a mistranslation to English from your native language. I would therefore advise you to work on revisions in collaboration with a native speaker who is knowledgeable in the field of your study.

Author Response

Thank you for your review of our manuscript. We have reorganized and revised this manuscript according to your valuable comments:

1) We have removed and fixed some incorrect expressions.

2) Corrected numbers of sections.

3) The literature analysis was changed to literature statistics, and the content of the review was stated after the paragraph.

4) References have been added in some parts.

5) The case of model coupling is placed in the driver analysis section.

6) “Ecological security pattern” is a vocabulary in the reference.

7) The format of the references has been corrected and harmonized.

 

Thanks again for taking time to review our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Author Response

Comment: Accept in present form.

 

Response: Thanks for your kind comment.

 

 

Please contact us if you have any other new questions. Thanks again for your help.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. As a critical paper, the length of this paper is too long. Appropriate compression is recommended. For example, the status of research need not be listed separately; it should be included in the review.

2. The review should focus on some common academic problems, point out their achievements and shortcomings, and look forward to their future application prospects.

3. Reviews do not have to follow the structure of regular research papers. For example, it is not necessary to list the discussion section separately, because the comments can include the discussion.

4. It is suggested that the authors re-sort the theme of the review, modify and improve the paper.

5. The format of reference documents is not uniform.

Author Response

Point 1: As a critical paper, the length of this paper is too long. Appropriate compression is recommended. For example, the status of research need not be listed separately; it should be included in the review.

Response 1: Thank you for your recommendation, and it’s a good advisement. We have shortened some of the sections appropriately.

 

Point 2: The review should focus on some common academic problems, point out their achievements and shortcomings, and look forward to their future application prospects.

Response 2: Thank you for your careful recommendation, and we have made correction to this point.

 

Point 3: Reviews do not have to follow the structure of regular research papers. For example, it is not necessary to list the discussion section separately, because the comments can include the discussion.

Response 3: Thank you for this suggestion, we have kept our article structure.

 

Point 4: It is suggested that the authors re-sort the theme of the review, modify and improve the paper.

Response 4: Thank you for your careful recommendation, we have modified and improved the paper.

 

Point 5: The format of reference documents is not uniform.

Response 5: We have uniformed the format of reference documents.

 

 

 

Thanks again for taking time to review our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx