Spatial–Environmental Coupling and Sustainable Planning of Traditional Tibetan Villages: A Case Study of Four Villages in Suopo Township

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors dedicated their research to Spatial–Environmental Coupling and Sustainable Planning of Traditional Tibetan Villages: A Case Study of Four Villages in Suopo Township. The theme is very interesting, as traditional Tibetan villages are really unique, even if managerial and procedural approach my be similar to other mountanous regions. The references are complete, bu the reviewer would also like to point out that the researchers should have quoted: "Feng, X.; Hu, M.; Somenahalli, S.; Zhang, W.; Liu, K.; Li, M.; Zhou, Z.; Li, F. Study on the Spatial Morphology of Ando Tibetan Traditional Villages in China: A Case of Traditional Villages in Huangnan Prefecture. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1353. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041353. The diagrams and outcomes from the research are interesting, however 4.2. Strategies for sustainable development should be expanded, as currently the descriptions are on a high level of generality. i.e. statements such as: "Public activities are limited to low-impact cultural displays" - should be expanded as "low-impact" is not sufficiently precise for full understanding, the same can be said about: " best conditions for modest village expansion", "minor road widening, discreet drainage systems", "facilitating daily
water access while posing flood and erosion risk when too close to primary or secondary streams" and "ecosystem upkeep—like planting native vegetation, stabilizing terraces, and controlled grazing". All of those statements, including others which have not been placed as an example, ]should be described with much more detail - i.e. what is native vegetation to this area? Moreover, Conclusion sector is more like an abstract, maybe the authors can develop an idea as to how their methodology may be used within Master Plan development and what are the drawback of this method.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank  you for your constructive and insightful comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript, with all modifications highlighted in the revised version. Below we provide a  point-by-point response.

Response to Reviewer 1

Comment 1: Please cite Feng et al. (2025) on the spatial morphology of Ando Tibetan villages.
Response: We have added this reference in the introduction when discussing related research on Tibetan settlement morphology.

Comment 2: Section 4.2 on sustainable development strategies is too general; terms such as “low-impact” or “native vegetation” should be specified.
Response: We expanded Section 4.2 to provide precise descriptions. For example, “low-impact cultural displays” are now clarified as “non-intrusive community festivals, small-scale handicraft markets, and heritage interpretation tours.” “Native vegetation” is specified as “local species such as poplar, willow, Sichuan alder, sea buckthorn, and alpine meadow grasses, which are already common in Danba.”

Comment 3: The conclusion reads like an abstract and should instead reflect methodology’s applicability to master planning and its limitations.
Response: We rewrote the conclusion to discuss how the framework can inform master plans for mountainous heritage regions, identifying strengths (fine-grained diagnostics) and limitations (data availability, scale transferability).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is very interesting for the community. However, the authors present  microscale analysis but never acknowledges the effort, limitations, or potential gaps in the data (socio-economics overall) that must have shaped the work. It can make  harder for others to understand the constraints of the study or to build microscale analyses on it meaningfully. It's a missed opportunity to foster transparency and solidarity in a field where good data is often the hardest thing to come by.

The use of high-res satellite imagery and geographically weighted regression is impressive and clearly shows a commitment to digging into the local details. Congratulations for this effort.

But what’s a bit surprising is that there’s no mention of how hard it probably was to get this kind of data—or if it was hard at all (like the lack of socio-economic data). Anyone who’s tried to do this kind of research knows how tricky it can be to find, access, or clean up detailed environmental and cultural data, especially in remote areas. By not talking about that side of things, the study ends up making the process look smoother than it likely was, which can set unrealistic expectations for others. It’s a missed chance to be transparent about the behind-the-scenes challenges that are just as important as the results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank  you for your constructive and insightful comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript, with all modifications highlighted in the revised version. Below we provide a  point-by-point response.

Response to Reviewer 2

Comment 1: The manuscript does not acknowledge limitations, especially regarding socio-economic data.
Response: We added a section on limitations (end of Methods and Discussion). We acknowledge the lack of village-level socio-economic data, note how this shaped the scope of our study, and suggest integration of such data in future research.

Comment 2: The paper does not describe the challenges of applying high-resolution imagery and regression in mountainous terrain.
Response: We inserted a new paragraph in Methods describing the technical challenges (cloud cover, snow, terrain shadowing, misclassification) and how we addressed them (repeated calibration, post-processing, data harmonization).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript does not clearly explain the research background and issues, and lacks innovation. The authors claim that research often "pays little attention to the villages at the micro level". However, there are numerous applications of GWR in analyzing spatiotemporal heterogeneity. Moreover, the “data-driven, spatial–environmental analysis method” claimed in this manuscript does not contain any innovation.

1)The introduction section does not introduce the objective problems and their research significance.

2)Methods section: There is a lack of an overall research roadmap. Also, there is no innovation in the methods or special features of the research.

3)The discussion and conclusion sections need to be further explored.

4)This manuscript contains meaningless symbols in many places.

5) There are some typesetting and formatting issues in the manuscript.

The manuscript does not consider spatiotemporal heterogeneity or multi-scale issues. The methods used and the research content are not in-depth enough.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank  you for your constructive and insightful comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript, with all modifications highlighted in the revised version. Below we provide a  point-by-point response.

Comment 1: The introduction does not adequately explain research problems and significance.
Response: We expanded the introduction to explicitly state our research problem: how spatial–environmental interactions at the micro-scale shape settlement distribution in fragile heritage landscapes, and highlighted the significance for sustainable planning.

Comment 2: Lack of an overall research roadmap.
Response: We added a clear four-step methodological roadmap and a schematic diagram (Figure 2).

Comment 3: Methods show no innovation; GWR is already widely used.
Response: We clarified that the novelty lies in applying GWR at the micro-village scale in a heritage-sensitive context, directly linking results to zoning strategies. This integration of environmental and cultural factors at such fine scales is rare.

Comment 4: Discussion and conclusion are underdeveloped.
Response: Both sections were expanded. Discussion now better integrates with existing literature and highlights planning implications; the conclusion now elaborates broader applicability and limitations.

Comment 5: There are meaningless symbols and formatting issues.
Response: We carefully proofread and corrected typesetting, removed stray symbols, and standardized formatting throughout the manuscript.

Comment 6: No consideration of spatiotemporal heterogeneity or multi-scale issues.
Response: While our focus is micro-scale, we added discussion on how future work could integrate multi-scale (county/township) and temporal analyses to complement our framework.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article provides a very detailed context, describing both the environmental conditions (topography, climate, hydrology) and cultural conditions (the heritage of the Tibetan Jiarong villages, the importance of defensive towers, the traditional settlement pattern).

The goal is clearly stated: to analyze spatial-environmental interactions in traditional Tibetan villages, using Suopo as an example, in order to develop a framework for sustainable planning. The hypotheses are not explicitly stated as "we assume that...", but they can be easily inferred: for example, that topographic and cultural factors (defense towers) strongly determine settlement patterns. It may be worthwhile to consider explicitly identifying them.

The methods are described in great detail and correctly: land cover classification using the Random Forest method, 100×100 m fishnet, spatial metrics (Moran’s I, KDE, convex hull), OLS and GWR regression.

The results are presented clearly and step-by-step, from classification, through analysis of elevation gradients, slopes, exposures, road and water accessibility, to regression models. Numerical data are complemented with maps and graphs, and the authors demonstrate which factors are most important locally (e.g., slope, distance from towers).

The discussion links the results well with previous literature and planning practice. The conclusions are comprehensive – the authors propose four planning zones (protection, development, ecological conservation, and economic development), which gives the work a practical dimension.

Discussion suggestion: It would be worth considering adding a paragraph on quality of life and education—for example, how the proposed development zones might impact residents' well-being, maintaining traditions, retaining young people in the region, or supporting cultural and environmental education. This would connect spatial outcomes with broader social and human dimensions, e.g. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15122257

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank  you for your constructive and insightful comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript, with all modifications highlighted in the revised version. Below we provide a  point-by-point response.

Response to Reviewer 4

Comment 1: Hypotheses should be explicitly stated.
Response: We revised the introduction to clearly state hypotheses:the historical cores of settlement development in Suopo Township were shaped by natural environmental factors, and that their subsequent expansion has continued to be influenced by these same conditions. Cultural heritage features, particularly the distribution of defensive stone towers, are also expected to reinforce these spatial patterns.

Comment 2: Consider adding discussion of quality of life and education.
Response: We added a paragraph in the discussion linking zoning outcomes to social well-being, such as retention of youth, cultural continuity, and environmental education, citing relevant studies (e.g., Forests 2024, doi:10.3390/f15122257).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is the second review. In comparison to the initial remarks, the authors have corrected majority. The diagrams are also much clearer. What is still missing is a comparison to other mountain regions with similar research it at least clear research statement that similar research has not been conducted in any other mountain region on any continent. It should be noted that there are numerous publications originating originating in China. A different approach is presented in other areas of out globe and this has not been noted/ compared by the authors i.e. Zeybek, O.; Erdoğan, E. Transforming Traditional Villages into Sustainable Communities: Evaluating Ecovillage Potential in Bursa, Turkey. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2095. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052095  

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and insightful comments, which have greatly helped us to improve the clarity and depth of our manuscript.

Comment 1：“The manuscript lacks a comparison to other mountainous regions with similar research, or at least a clear statement that such research has not been conducted elsewhere.”

Response:
We appreciate this important observation. In the revised Introduction, we have added a dedicated comparative review of recent international studies:

Turkey (Bursa region): Zeybek et al. applied the Global Ecovillage Network Community Sustainability Assessment to evaluate village transformation potential.

Ethiopia (Konso cultural landscape): Studies show how climate variability interacts with terracing and indigenous institutions to sustain soil–water conservation and resilience.

European Alps: Stotten et al. compared two Alpine villages, highlighting how historical “lock-in” effects constrain adaptation.

Himalaya (Nepal): Chaudhary et al. developed a risk-based land-use planning framework integrating topography and accessibility.

Andes (Peru): Zeballos-Velarde et al. examined the Colca Valley, showing how ancestral practices strengthen disaster resilience.

We then explicitly note that although these studies emphasize governance, risk management, or tourism, few link high-resolution spatial–environmental coupling directly to village-scale zoning, which clarifies the contribution of our paper. (please see revised Introduction, p. 3, lines 116–134).

 

Comment 2：“The authors should provide a clearer justification of the study’s uniqueness.”

Response:
We have revised the Conclusion to highlight our study’s methodological contribution in a measured tone. Specifically, we added:

“Across international case studies, there are few examples where high-resolution environmental drivers are directly coupled with village-scale spatial morphology, or where such coupling frameworks are explicitly applied to specific village planning. This methodological emphasis highlights both the originality and the transferability of our approach.”( please see revised Conclusion, p. 21, lines 674–678).

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have included responses to my comments. I believe the paper is ready to be published.