Review Reports - Spatiotemporal Evolution and Driving Mechanism of Production–Living–Ecological Space from 1990 to 2020 in Hunan, Central China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) The initial sentences of the abstract fail to clearly elucidate the practical significance and scientific reference value of this study.

(2) Is the statement “providing a model” appropriate as mentioned in Lines 28-29?

(3) In Lines 44-45, the sentence (compact ... 17].) deviates from English expression norms and does not align with academic writing conventions. Additionally, the logical flow of the introduction's first two paragraphs is not sufficiently clear. It is recommended to reposition the content of the second paragraph before this sentence.

(4) The third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs of the introduction are excessively lengthy. It is advisable to consolidate these three paragraphs into a cohesive paragraph while succinctly summarizing the key points.

(5) The introduction fails to provide a comprehensive overview of the research methodologies employed in this article.

(6) The grammatical correctness of the use of “will” in the last sentence of section 2.2 is to be determined.

(7) The quality of Figure 1 still requires improvement. Moreover, the blurriness of Figure 1 hinders its identification.

(8) This article employs various research methodologies, emphasizing the importance of developing a comprehensive technical roadmap and providing detailed elucidations of the research idea within the text.

(9) In Line 270, the location of Dongting Lake should be specified. Additionally, it would be beneficial to include information regarding its area size. Furthermore, for foreign readers who may not be familiar with the concept of a city core area mentioned in Line 273, corresponding annotations and explanations should be provided in the research area overview. It is recommended to review and modify similar information throughout the article.

(10) Tables 3 and figures 3 still need improvement.

(11) The text and legend fonts in Figures 4, 6, and 7 are insufficiently legible.

(12) The content in the first paragraph of section 3.3.2 appears to be more suitable for inclusion within the methods section.

(13) Although Hunan is geographically located within the Yangtze River Basin, it is necessary to compare this study with research conducted in the Yellow River Basin as indicated in Lines 474-482?

(14) In section 4.3, it is imperative to broaden the scope of policy recommendations beyond local issues in order to enhance the scientific reference value and practical significance of this article.

(15) Currently, the paper presented to conventional approaches and lacks innovative insights and substantial academic contributions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

(1) The initial sentences of the abstract fail to clearly elucidate the practical significance and scientific reference value of this study.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The abstract has been updated to include the practical significance of this study; please see lines 15–19. The scientific reference value is highlighted in the final paragraph.

(2) Is the statement “providing a model” appropriate as mentioned in Lines 28-29?

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised it as “and offer a valuable case study for sustainable PLES planning in rapidly developing regions”. Please see line 32.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised the original lines 44-45 and the second paragraph; please see lines 48–60.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised the original lines 44-45 and the second paragraph; please see lines 61–87.

(5) The introduction fails to provide a comprehensive overview of the research methodologies employed in this article.

Answer: Thank you for your meaningful insights. We have reviewed and supplemented the description of the study methods. Please see lines 108–115.

(6) The grammatical correctness of the use of “will” in the last sentence of section 2.2 is to be determined.

Answer: Thank you for pointing this out. We removed the word “will” as it was not appropriate. The sentence has been revised. Please see line 137.

(7) The quality of Figure 1 still requires improvement. Moreover, the blurriness of Figure 1 hinders its identification.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have improved the resolution of all the figures, including Figure 1, please see line 142.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have supplemented the technical roadmap elaborated on the research approach. Please see lines 155–161.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have added information about Dongting Lake, including its location and area size. Additionally, it has been marked separately in Figure 1, and the information about the urban agglomeration has also been supplemented. Please see lines 133–142.

(10) Tables 3 and figures 3 still need improvement.

Answer: We have revised Table 3 and updated Figure 3 (revised as Figure 4, line 322). The original Figure 3 was a Sankey diagram based on the transformed area rather than the total area. Using the total area would make the transformed areas proportionally too small, reducing the diagram's clarity. Therefore, the Sankey diagram represents transformed areas for each time period.

(11) The text and legend fonts in Figures 4, 6, and 7 are insufficiently legible.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have updated the original figures 4, 6, and 7, which are now figures 5, 9, and 10, respectively. Please see lines 340-342, 413-416, and 417-420.

(12) The content in the first paragraph of section 3.3.2 appears to be more suitable for inclusion within the methods section.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have moved this content to the Methods section. Please see lines 222–226.

(13) Although Hunan is geographically located within the Yangtze River Basin, it is necessary to compare this study with research conducted in the Yellow River Basin as indicated in Lines 474-482?

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We believe that it is important to compare studies from other provinces in China, including the Yellow River Basin and the Yangtze River Basin. Although there are similar development trends across provinces, such as the decrease in ES and the expansion of LS, significant differences exist in the spatial distribution and evolution of these spaces, as highlighted in our article. Therefore, specific policies must be tailored to the unique circumstances of each province.

(14) In section 4.3, it is imperative to broaden the scope of policy recommendations beyond local issues in order to enhance the scientific reference value and practical significance of this article.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The revised version is as follows:

The synthesis of previous research results indicates that urban expansion encroach-ing upon production and ecological spaces exists to varying degrees across all provinces in China, not just in Hunan. Therefore, under the concept of Production-Living-Ecological (PLE) spaces, a fundamental principle that all provinces need to adhere to is controlling the continued unregulated expansion of urban areas, promoting the intensive development of urban land, and further strengthening the protection of basic farmland and eco-logical spaces.

Please see lines 532–538.

(15) Currently, the paper presented to conventional approaches and lacks innovative insights and substantial academic contributions.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have comprehensively applied well-established research methods from previous studies in land use to analyze the spatial characteristics and influencing factors of the evolution of PLES (production, living, and ecological spaces) in Hunan Province over the past 30 years, using counties as the unit of analysis; this provides new material and case studies for research on PLES in China. At the same time, our study further demonstrates that the distribution and evolution of PLES exhibit strong regional characteristics across different provinces in China, and each province needs to formulate relevant policies based on its unique characteristics. Therefore, we agree with the reviewers' comments that only conventional methods were used. However, our research still holds significant reference value for other researchers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper mainly analyzes the spatiotemporal evolution and driving mechanism of PLES in Hunan Province. There are some key concerns and questions that should be addressed.

(1) The paper lacked sufficient focus on the core research question: It highlights the research problem where historical studies have tended to prioritize economically developed counties, so resulting in a data black hole in remote areas. Additionally, the differences in statistical standards and methods in each county reduced the comparability, emphasizing the need to focus more on regional disparities. However, the analysis using geological models is still at the provincial scale, such as 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. The model's calculation of barycenter for the entire Hunan Province does not directly address the research problem concerning PLES at the county scale. It is essential to further augment the analysis specifically at the county scale.

(2) What is the significance of barycenter migration of a few kilometers or the axis shift of 0.2° for the provincial scale? Is it possible that such a small change is due to data bias?

(3) Table 1 is the PLES classification of a certain year, but for PS and ES, how is the quantity defined? Please add a vector distribution map for each class.

(4) Please explain why PS and ES show cyclical fluctuations from 2000 to 2020 in Figure 3.

(5) Please explain the reason of driving factors. How the DEM, GDP, slope have changed in the past ten years, and the reason for the higher driving force?

(6) The discussion section focuses on the experimental results, but lacks policy, data, and theoretical support. How to prove the reliability of results, please provide some methods and evidence to validate the results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English expression still needs further modification.

Author Response

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion.

We agree that enhancing the analysis at the county level is necessary. In this study, our county-level analysis primarily focuses on spatial relationships, and the key influencing factors, using county-specific s land use and socio-economic data. this data serves as the foundation for calculating the overall centroid and standard deviation ellipse at the provincial level for Hunan Province.

The centroid and standard deviation ellipse are applied at the macro level, to reflect the overall situation of Hunan Province, which comprises 122 county-level administrative regions. Analyzing these metrics individually for each county, would result in an overly fragmented presentation of the findings. Hence, we chose to focus on spatial relationships and influencing factors at the county level while addressing the broader provincial patterns. In future studies, we plan to conduct more detailed analyses at the county level to provide deeper insights into regional disparities and enhance our understanding of PLES at finer scales.

(2) What is the significance of barycenter migration of a few kilometers or the axis shift of 0.2° for the provincial scale? Is it possible that such a small change is due to data bias?

Answer: We believe that at the provincial level, the small shifts in the centroid and standard deviation ellipse effectively reflect the land-use change trends. Combining insights from previous studies, it has been demonstrated that, at the provincial level, the numerical changes in centroids and standard deviation ellipses are generally minor but adequately represent the trends in land use change within a province. For example, the study by Xia et al. (2023) on Xinjiang and the research by Wei et al. (2021) on Hubei both support this point. Therefore, we conclude that the centroid migration and standard deviation ellipse in Hunan Province accurately capture the actual situation in the region. Additionally, we have further elaborated on this in the discussion section; please see lines 493–496.

(3) Table 1 is the PLES classification of a certain year, but for PS and ES, how is the quantity defined? Please add a vector distribution map for each class.

Answer: Regarding the classification of PS and ES, we followed the classification standards of the "China Land Use Status Remote Sensing Monitoring Dataset." The first-level classification includes six categories: cultivated land, forest land, grassland, water bodies, construction land, and unused land. The second-level classification comprises 23 types. We reanalyzed the land types according to their production, living, and ecological functions based on the second-level classification. For example, in the second-level classification of forest land, types 21, 22, 23, and 24 were reclassified as ecological land, while type 25 (orchards) was reclassified as production land. The reclassification for 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020 was consistently based on this standard.

To further illustrate this classification, we have uploaded four figures: figure a shows the original land use distribution in 2020, figure b represents the reclassified PS, the third Figure shows the reclassified LS, and the fourth Figure displays the reclassified ES.

Figure a: 2020 land use map

Figure b: The distribution of PS in 2020

Figure c: The distribution of LS in 2020

Figure d: The distribution of ES in 2020

（PS: I can not insert the figures in this text, please check tthe box below, thank you!)

(4) Please explain why PS and ES show cyclical fluctuations from 2000 to 2020 in Figure 3.

Answer: We have revised Table 3 and Figure 3 (revised as Figure 4, line 321). The original Figure 3 is a Sankey diagram based on the transformed area rather than the total area. If the Sankey diagram were based on the total areas of PS, ES, and LS across the entire province, the proportion of transformed areas would be too small, making it difficult for the Sankey diagram to effectively represent the data. Therefore, we created the diagram based on the transformed areas for each period.

Between 2000 and 2010, PS and ES had a significant mutual conversion. As noted in our paper, this period coincided with implementing national policies such as the "Grain-for-Green" and "Return Farmland to Lake" initiatives, which led to substantial conversions between PS and ES. However, between 2010 and 2020, the enforcement intensity of these policies declined (Discussion, lines 478–480), resulting in a decrease in the mutual conversion area between PS and ES.

(5) Please explain the reason of driving factors. How the DEM, GDP, slope have changed in the past ten years, and the reason for the higher driving force?

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. During the study period, the DEM and SLOPE values across regions remained unchanged, while GDP experienced significant growth, aligning with China's general trend over the past 30 years. Numerous previous studies have shown that GDP has become one of the key factors influencing land use in China. The GDP growth primarily originates from urban areas, which drives rapid urban expansion, often encroaching on the production and ecological lands surrounding cities.

DEM and SLOPE primarily affect changes in land use types as limiting factors. In the case of Hunan Province, areas with higher DEM or steeper SLOPE are generally less suitable for human production activities. Furthermore, the Chinese government has implemented policies such as the "Grain-for-Green" program in areas with steep slopes, encouraging the conversion of agricultural land to forested areas. Under the combined influence of DEM and SLOPE, these regions tend to be preserved as ecological spaces.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have added some supplementary references; please refer to the discussion section. Please see lines 476–484.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The problem solved in the manuscript is relevant. There are a number of suggestions and comments, in connection with which the study should be finalized and expanded.

1. Clearly state the research problem statement at the beginning of the paper.

2. Describe how the research and general conclusions drawn in Source 26, differ fundamentally from your research.

3. Has no one in the world done this kind of research? Almost all the sources in References belong to authors from China. It is necessary to show the research of this problem all over the world.

4. Put the citations of sources in References in the text in order. For example, there are 65 sources in total, but references up to number 74. There is no reference to sources 13, 25. The references are also out of order (lines 65, 157, 209).

5. Decipher the abbreviations: PS, LS and ES at first mention.

6. Formula 1: the variables “N” (in the description) and “n” (in the formula) not the same. It is better to use the same letter. In formula 3, “N” is used as another variable.

7. Check the formula 13 itself and the description of the variables to it. There are some inaccuracies.

8. Line 222: “The null hypothesis was, therefore, rejected”. On the basis of what numbers (results) did the authors draw this conclusion?

9. The inscriptions on Figure 5 are very small. Could reduce their volume or spell them out in the text of the article. Similarly for Figure 7.

10. Line 518: “...the occupation of a large amount of high-quality arable land”. Doesn't the state regulate what land can be built on?

11. Also indicate whether there is support of the state in the environmental sphere and sustainable development of territories? The changes that occurred in the period under consideration, most likely, depend on the policy of the authorities.

12. There is nothing in the article about public-private partnership (or municipal-private partnership), which is widely used in many countries of the world. Why can't it be applied in your case? Within the framework of this partnership, the government and business interact, sustainable development and ESG factors are discussed in detail.

13. There is not enough information to understand the conclusions, e.g. Tables with natural and socio-economic factors (X1-X9) for 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020.

14. Check the text carefully. Many small errors.

There is no reference to Figure 8. The text is above Figure.

Line 225: possibly “formula” instead of “table”.

Author Response

This study analyzes conflicts among production, living, and ecological spaces (PLES) dynamics in Hunan Province from 1990 to 2020, using remote sensing data with land-use transition matrices, centroid migration, standard deviation ellipses, spatial autocorrelation, and geographic detectors. The problem solved in the manuscript is relevant. There are a number of suggestions and comments, in connection with which the study should be finalized and expanded.

Clearly state the research problem statement at the beginning of the paper.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion.

This paper investigates the changes in PLES in Hunan Province. The introduction outlines the rationale behind China’s adoption of the PLES concept and reviews the current research progress on PLES in China. It then presents the study's research focus, objectives, and scientific questions. We believe this structure aligns well with the overall framework of this paper.

Describe how the research and general conclusions drawn in Source 26, differ fundamentally from your research.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Source 26 studied the spatio-temporal pattern evolution characteristics in the PLES and the coupling coordination level of the production–ecological function in Jilin Province by using the entropy method, dynamic attitude of land use, spatial autocorrelation, cold hot spot analysis, and a coupling coordination degree model to identify the basic development characteristics and coordination state of PLES. Reference 26 evaluates the functions of PLES and calculates the coupling coordination degree. We believe the main difference between their study and ours lies in their focus on the evolution of PLES in Jilin Province based on the degree of coupling coordination.

Has no one in the world done this kind of research? Almost all the sources in References belong to authors from China. It is necessary to show the research of this problem all over the world.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have added some references from foreign authors; please see lines 56-59.

Put the citations of sources in References in the text in order. For example, there are 65 sources in total, but references up to number 74. There is no reference to sources 13, 25. The references are also out of order (lines 65, 157, 209).

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We are sorry for our careless mistakes. As suggested by the reviewer, it has been corrected in the revised manuscript, and we have checked all the citations.

Decipher the abbreviations: PS, LS and ES at first mention.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In the revised version, we explained when the PS, LS, and ES were first mentioned in lines 49, 52, and 54.

Formula 1: the variables “N” (in the description) and “n” (in the formula) not the same. It is better to use the same letter. In formula 3, “N” is used as another variable.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We are sorry for our careless mistakes. As suggested by the reviewer, it has been corrected in the revised manuscript; please see lines 171-174.

Check the formula 13 itself and the description of the variables to it. There are some inaccuracies.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have rechecked the formulas and variable descriptions and made the necessary corrections; please see lines 221-225.

Line 222: “The null hypothesis was, therefore, rejected”. On the basis of what numbers (results) did the authors draw this conclusion?

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We reviewed this explanation and found that the sentence provided no meaningful formula interpretation. Therefore, we decided to delete it. We are sorry for our careless mistakes.

The inscriptions on Figure 5 are very small. Could reduce their volume or spell them out in the text of the article. Similarly for Figure 7.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised all the figures in the article.

Line 518: “...the occupation of a large amount of high-quality arable land”. Doesn't the state regulate what land can be built on?

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. A significant amount of arable land has been occupied due to urban development needs. The Chinese government has introduced policies to protect arable land, such as the arable land occupation-compensation balance policy. However, implementing these policies can only ensure that the total area of arable land is controlled. We have revised our expression accordingly; please see lines 531 -537.

Also indicate whether there is support of the state in the environmental sphere and sustainable development of territories? The changes that occurred in the period under consideration, most likely, depend on the policy of the authorities.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In the discussion, we elaborated on the role of national policies in shaping Hunan Province’s PLES dynamics. Policies such as returning farmland to forests, restoring lakes, and ensuring a balance in arable land occupation and compensation have played a significant role in controlling the degradation of ecological and production spaces. These initiatives reflect the state’s commitment to environmental sustainability and the sustainable development of territories. We have cited relevant references to support this analysis; please see lines 477–481.

There is nothing in the article about public-private partnership (or municipal-private partnership), which is widely used in many countries of the world. Why can't it be applied in your case? Within the framework of this partnership, the government and business interact, sustainable development and ESG factors are discussed in detail.

Answer: We also reviewed relevant literature on public-private partnerships (PPP) during the revision process. We strongly agree with the reviewers that PPP is a viable pathway to sustainable development. However, based on our understanding, implementing PPP in production and ecological land in China is currently challenging. Additionally, the authors lack sufficient in-depth knowledge of PPP. Therefore, we did not include this content in the revised version of the paper. We apologize for this omission and will work to deepen our understanding of PPP in future research.

There is not enough information to understand the conclusions, e.g. Tables with natural and socio-economic factors (X1-X9) for 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Due to the paper's length limitations, we did not include the calculation basis for X1-X9 in the manuscript. However, we have uploaded the raw data for X1-X9. But we think it is not suitable for publish. Please check the attachment.

Check the text carefully. Many small errors. There is no reference to Figure 8. The text is above Figure. Line 225: possibly “formula” instead of “table”.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Figure 8 in the original version has been revised to Figure 11 and is cited in line 440. Line 225 should refer to a formula that has been corrected. Please see line 232.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic presented by the authors is interesting and the case study analyzes the production-living-ecological-space (PLES) dynamics in Hunan Province from 1990 to 2020. The structure of the paper is well organized and reflects that of a scientific paper. However, some minor changes are needed to make it suitable for publication.

- in the abstract, it is advisable to make the contents of the paper more explicit, briefly listing the various sections, not just describing the results;

- at the beginning of the methodology chapter 2.2, briefly describe the main steps involved, before going on to describe them in detail in the subsections;

- the conclusions could be enriched by explaining the main stakeholders of the research and future developments;

- check the quality of the inserted images;

- some references must be formatted correctly.

Based on the following highlighted areas, the manuscript needs minor revisions.

Author Response

(1) In the abstract, it is advisable to make the contents of the paper more explicit, briefly listing the various sections, not just describing the results;

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In the abstract, we have provided a concise summary of the study's objectives, research methods, key findings, and significance. We believe that further elaboration on the paper's content might make the abstract overly verbose. Therefore, we have opted to make only minor adjustments to the abstract.

(2) At the beginning of the methodology chapter 2.2, briefly describe the main steps involved, before going on to describe them in detail in the subsections;

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have supplemented the technical roadmap elaborated on the research approach. Please see lines 155–161.

(3)The conclusions could be enriched by explaining the main stakeholders of the research and future developments;

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have added some comments in the conclusion. Please see lines 584-589.

(4) Check the quality of the inserted images;

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have improved the resolution of all the figures.

(5)Some references must be formatted correctly.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) There are several formatting and presentation issues in the manuscript that need to be addressed to meet the standards of an academic paper. Specifically, there is a missing semicolon between the third and fourth email addresses in Lines 7-8. Additionally, the text alignment is inconsistent in Lines 144-159 and 247-273, as it is not justified on both sides. The scale labels in Figure 3 are too small to be legible, and the labeling for region names, longitudes, and latitudes in Figure 5 is also too small. Conversely, the legend text in Figures 6-8 appears overly large. Furthermore, reference 68 in Line 765 is missing. Please review the entire document to correct these and any similar issues.

(2) In Line 101, it is essential to explicitly clarify which specific economic belt is being referred to.

(3) It is noted in Line 122 that the Yangtze River Basin is mentioned, yet it is not indicated on the figure. This information may be unfamiliar to international readers. Similarly, the four major river systems referenced in the text are also unmarked on the figure. Furthermore, it is recommended that a comprehensive map of China should include labels for each province and ensure that important geographical features such as Chiwei Yu are not obscured by arrows.

(4) In Section 2.3, the statistical period and spatial scale for each dataset should be specified. Specifically, the statistical unit for the socio-economic data and the locations of the meteorological data collection stations need to be clearly defined.

(5) What do the figures in Table 1 represent respectively? Please provide them.

(6) It is noted that the data processed by the Geodetector spans from 1990 to 2020 in Line 271, whereas the main text discusses data from 2000 to 2020. Please provide an explanation for this discrepancy.

(7) In Figures 9 and 10, the time labels for each subgraph should represent individual years rather than broader time periods. For instance, "1990s" encompasses a decade, whereas the data presented should correspond to specific years such as 1990. This adjustment should ensure that each subgraph accurately reflects data for a single year.

(8) In the subgraph depicted in Figure 11, it is inappropriate to place the later period before the earlier period.

(9) The city center referred to in line 488 may be unfamiliar to international readers and therefore should be clearly indicated in Figure 1.

(10) In Section 4.3, policy recommendations should be formulated based on the research findings of this study. Additionally, targeted strategies and suggestions should be provided for other analogous regions.

(11) The discussion section lacks comprehensiveness. It is necessary to further elaborate on the limitations of the research and provide a more detailed outlook for future directions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have corrected these issues mentioned by the reviewer and revised Figures 3, 5, 6-8. Please see lines 7-8, 140-156, 243-268, 280, 336, 371-376, 769

(2) In Line 101, it is essential to explicitly clarify which specific economic belt is being referred to.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have added the name of the economic belt. Please see line 97.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised Figure 1. We attempted to include the names of each province in the figure but found that this made the figure overly crowded. Additionally, some names are relatively long and cannot be fully displayed on the figure. Therefore, we have decided not to include the names of each province. However, we added the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers to the figure. Please see line 137.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We specifically outlined the datasets' statistical periods and spatial scales in section 2.2. Please see line 155. Since each county has its meteorological station, we did not specifically indicate the locations in the paper.

(5) What do the figures in Table 1 represent respectively? Please provide them.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The figures in Table 1 represent the secondary classification codes of China's land use/cover change (LUCC) classification system. The Chinese Land Use Classification System is divided into primary and secondary classifications, as described in reference 46.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We apologize for our careless mistakes. As suggested by the reviewer, it has been corrected in the revised manuscript. Please see line 267.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised Figures 9 and 10. Please see lines 412-415.

(8) In the subgraph depicted in Figure 11, it is inappropriate to place the later period before the earlier period.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised Figure 11. Please see line 445.

(9) The city center referred to in line 488 may be unfamiliar to international readers and therefore should be clearly indicated in Figure 1.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. As we mentioned before, it is very difficult to add other information in Figure 1. However, we added the Yangtze River and Yellow River in Figure 1, which will help the reader find the locality of those agglomerations.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Based on the study's findings in the recommendations section, we emphasized the need to prioritize protecting important ecological areas in Hunan Province, such as Dongting Lake. We highlighted the importance of maintaining the achievements of the “returning farmland to forest” program. As mentioned in the paper and supported by other scholars' studies, the situation varies significantly across provinces in China. Therefore, policies should be tailored to the specific conditions of each province. Consequently, the policy recommendations in this study focus solely on measures beneficial to Hunan Province.

(11) The discussion section lacks comprehensiveness. It is necessary to further elaborate on the limitations of the research and provide a more detailed outlook for future directions.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We added the part of “4.4. Limitations and Future Directions”. Please see lines 541-551.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Part of the clarifications are acceptable, but I still keep my skepticism. I think this paper is feasible in methodology, but there are still some issues that need to be improved in academics. The study is not innovative, it is more like an analysis report of Hunan Province. The research question is inadequate, it does not present a real scientific question to solve it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need to be improved.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #2:

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have comprehensively applied well-established research methods from previous studies in land use to analyze the spatial characteristics and influencing factors of the evolution of PLES (production, living, and ecological spaces) in Hunan Province over the past 30 years, using counties as the unit of analysis; this provides new material and case studies for research on PLES in China. Simultaneously, our study further demonstrates that the distribution and evolution of PLES exhibit strong regional characteristics across different provinces in China, and each province needs to formulate relevant policies based on its unique characteristics. Therefore, we believe our research holds significant reference value for other researchers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have amended and clarified in line with my comments. The manuscript is markedly improved.

In References, correct the blank line in source 68.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #3:

The authors have amended and clarified in line with my comments. The manuscript is markedly improved.

In References, correct the blank line in source 68.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have deleted the blank line. Please see line 770.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article generally meets the publication requirements, but there are numerous errors in the details that need to be addressed. Please thoroughly review and correct all similar errors mentioned below throughout the text. Such issues should not appear in scientific papers, for instance:

(1)Two left parentheses appear in Line 286.

(2)Is the citation format of the references in Lines 486-487 correct (Zhao et al. (2021) [25] and Sun et al. (2020) [24])?

(3)Remove the leading spaces at the beginning of Line 519.

(4)In Line 607, a period is missing at the end of the sentence.

(5)The sentence on line 608 is a half-sentence, missing its object.

Author Response

Two left parentheses appear in Line 286.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We are sorry for our careless mistakes. As suggested by the reviewer, it has been corrected in the revised manuscript. Please see line 287.

Is the citation format of the references in Lines 486-487 correct (Zhao et al. (2021) [25] and Sun et al. (2020) [24])?

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have checked the format and revised it as (Zhao et al. [25] and Sun et al. [24]). Please see lines 486-487.

Remove the leading spaces at the beginning of Line 519.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised it.

In Line 607, a period is missing at the end of the sentence.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised it.

The sentence on line 608 is a half-sentence, missing its object.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We are sorry for our careless mistakes. We have supplemented the sentence as: The authors would like to thank everyone who contributed to the study. We appreciate constructive comments from the reviewers to improve the quality of this manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author made certain revisions and reaffirmed that the paper has certain application value. However, the applicability of the analytical method was not analyzed, and the application of the paper's method in other regions was not fully elaborated. The method system should be reorganized to demonstrate the paper's application capability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English description can be understood.

Author Response

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In the part of “2.3.1Framework Design” we added a description of the universality of the methods used in the research. Please see lines 156-158. For the method of Barycenter Migration Model, the references from 47-49 were cited, please see lines 176-180. The Standard Deviation Ellipse method we cited the references of 31,50, 51 and 52, Please see lines 194-199, 210. The method of Spatial Autocorrelation Analysis we cited the references of 26, 53-58, Please see lines 212-220, 230,236-240. The method of GeoDetector Model we cited the references of 31,33, 47, 59, and 60, Please see lines 248-251, 262-263. We believe these references demonstrate that the methods we employed to analyze land use changes, including alterations in PLES, are widely applicable globally. Additionally, many studies cited in our references have also utilized some of the methods used in our research, further supporting our assertion that our research methods are universally applicable.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf