Review Reports - Land Use and Nature-Based Climate Adaptation in Coastal and Island Regions: A Case Study of Muan and Shinan, South Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author focuses on Muan and Shinan Counties along the southwestern coast of South Korea, employing quantitative methods to explore the relationship between land use and climate adaptation. This topic is meaningful and policy-relevant, providing valuable insights into nature-based adaptation strategies for coastal and island regions. However, the manuscript still presents several issues that should be addressed to improve its scientific rigor and presentation quality, as detailed below:

Introduction: The first part of the introduction devotes excessive space to the bidirectional relationship between climate change and land use at a global and conceptual level, while the specific issues concerning the study areas (Muan and Shinan) appear later and are described only briefly. The author is advised to focus more directly on the context of the current study. In addition, although the introduction states that “this study examines the relationship between land use and climate conditions in coastal and island regions of Korea,” the research hypotheses or specific scientific questions are not clearly articulated.
Literature Review: The paper repeatedly refers to key concepts such as land use, climate variability, adaptation, and resilience but fails to present a clear theoretical framework or conceptual linkage among them. Moreover, although almost every statement is preceded by a citation, the manuscript lacks a critical synthesis of previous research — namely, a comparison of results, identification of research gaps, or commentary on existing limitations.
Figures: Figure 1 is non-standard. It lacks a north arrow, and the scale bars across various maps are inconsistent — some are labeled, others not. The author should pay particular attention to the cartographic consistency and professionalism of all figures.
Research Methodology: The absence of a dedicated methodology section is the most serious weakness of this paper. The author should add a clear Research Methodology section, following the structure and level of detail commonly found in comparable studies.
Statistical Basis: Although Table 4 reports correlation coefficients and significance levels, the manuscript does not specify sample size, spatial unit delineation, or whether any standardization or data transformation was applied before analysis. The author should provide these fundamentals at the beginning of the results section and clarify whether the data are based on grid cells or administrative units to ensure spatial consistency.
Interpretation Issue (Line 189): The explanation of the Water Surface category is conceptually inconsistent. It simultaneously reports a positive correlation with maximum temperature and a negative correlation with minimum temperature, then concludes that the overall temperature “increases.” The underlying mechanism needs to be clarified — does this reflect a causal relationship or merely a statistical association?
Lack of Mechanistic Discussion: The interpretation of results is largely descriptive, presenting correlations as isolated observations without discussing the underlying processes. For example, the strong positive correlation between agricultural land and high temperature should be related to surface characteristics such as low vegetation cover, dry soil conditions, or crop-type variation. The author is encouraged to add short process-based explanations (e.g., energy balance, surface albedo, evapotranspiration) after each land-use analysis to strengthen scientific reasoning.
Comparative Aspect: The paper targets two distinct regions, Muan and Shinan, but does not discuss differences in their land use–climate relationships. Are the coupling mechanisms between land use and climate distinct across the two contexts? It is suggested that the author further stratify the analysis of Table 4 by region and explain possible factors behind these differences (e.g., stronger oceanic moderation in archipelagic islands versus greater heatwave intensity in low-lying agricultural plains).
Conclusion: While the conclusion effectively reiterates the importance of nature-based adaptation, it suffers from several notable shortcomings. First, it largely repeats the results section, particularly the correlations between land-use types and climate variables (e.g., “agricultural land relates to higher temperature,” “forests have cooling effects”). Conclusions should move beyond descriptive repetition and instead synthesize overarching insights and theoretical significance.
Second, the conclusion does not sufficiently align with the research objectives stated in the introduction — namely, understanding land-use–climate relationships in coastal and island contexts and informing adaptation strategies for aging coastal populations. The discussion remains general and does not clearly answer whether the study confirmed interregional differences (Muan vs. Shinan) or proposed concrete policy recommendations.
Third, the section’s policy implications remain overly generic. Although the study is centered on “nature-based adaptation,” the recommendations (e.g., “expand forest cover,” “protect wetlands”) are broad and lack operational detail. The author should specify priority areas, feasible interventions, and possible constraints, ideally linking these to local socioeconomic features such as demographic aging or coastal development pressures.
Furthermore, the conclusion omits a discussion of the study’s limitations. For instance, the analysis relies on single-year land-use data (2014) and a decade of meteorological data (2001–2010), without considering long-term temporal dynamics or causality. Incorporating critical reflection on such limitations would enhance the study’s credibility.
Formatting: The manuscript contains numerous formatting and typographical issues, including inconsistent labeling, misplaced figure captions, and irregular spacing. A careful technical revision is needed before resubmission

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction:The first part of the introduction devotes excessive space to the bidirectional relationship between climate change and land use at a global and conceptual level, while the specific issues concerning the study areas (Muan and Shinan) appear later and are described only briefly. The author is advised to focus more directly on the context of the current study. In addition, although the introduction states that “this study examines the relationship between land use and climate conditions in coastal and island regions of Korea,” the research hypotheses or specific scientific questions are not clearly articulated.

In response to the reviewer’s comments on the introduction, Authors added a more detailed description of the two study areas and revised the latter part of the introduction by clearly articulating the scientific questions.

Literature Review:The paper repeatedly refers to key concepts such as land use, climate variability, adaptation, and resilience but fails to present a clear theoretical framework or conceptual linkage among them. Moreover, although almost every statement is preceded by a citation, the manuscript lacks a critical synthesis of previous research — namely, a comparison of results, identification of research gaps, or commentary on existing limitations.

A critical synthesis of previous studies was added to the end of the introduction.

Figures:Figure 1 is non-standard. It lacks a north arrow, and the scale bars across various maps are inconsistent — some are labeled, others not. The author should pay particular attention to the cartographic consistency and professionalism of all figures.

￨ It has been revised.

Research Methodology:The absence of a dedicated methodology section is the most serious weakness of this paper. The author should add a clear Research Methodology section, following the structure and level of detail commonly found in comparable studies.

￨ It has been revised.

Statistical Basis:Although Table 4 reports correlation coefficients and significance levels, the manuscript does not specify sample size, spatial unit delineation, or whether any standardization or data transformation was applied before analysis. The author should provide these fundamentals at the beginning of the results section and clarify whether the data are based on grid cells or administrative units to ensure spatial consistency.

￨ It has been revised with additional details regarding the analytical methods.

Interpretation Issue (Line 189):The explanation of the Water Surface category is conceptually inconsistent. It simultaneously reports a positive correlation with maximum temperature and a negative correlation with minimum temperature, then concludes that the overall temperature “increases.” The underlying mechanism needs to be clarified — does this reflect a causal relationship or merely a statistical association?

￨ The previous content has been thoroughly revised and strengthened

Lack of Mechanistic Discussion:The interpretation of results is largely descriptive, presenting correlations as isolated observations without discussing the underlying processes. For example, the strong positive correlation between agricultural land and high temperature should be related to surface characteristics such as low vegetation cover, dry soil conditions, or crop-type variation. The author is encouraged to add short process-based explanations (e.g., energy balance, surface albedo, evapotranspiration) after each land-use analysis to strengthen scientific reasoning.

￨ The previous content has been thoroughly revised and strengthened

Comparative Aspect:The paper targets two distinct regions, Muan and Shinan, but does not discuss differences in their land use–climate relationships. Are the coupling mechanisms between land use and climate distinct across the two contexts? It is suggested that the author further stratify the analysis of Table 4 by region and explain possible factors behind these differences (e.g., stronger oceanic moderation in archipelagic islands versus greater heatwave intensity in low-lying agricultural plains).

￨ To achieve stratification by region, research on a larger number of areas is necessary. Thus, beginning with the comparison of the two regions in this study, we plan to extend future analyses to additional islands and coastal areas. Furthermore, the discussion and conclusion sections have been revised to elaborate on heatwaves in agricultural lands and low-lying areas.

Conclusion:

While the conclusion effectively reiterates the importance of nature-based adaptation, it suffers from several notable shortcomings. First, it largely repeats the results section, particularly the correlations between land-use types and climate variables (e.g., “agricultural land relates to higher temperature,” “forests have cooling effects”). Conclusions should move beyond descriptive repetition and instead synthesize overarching insights and theoretical significance.Second, the conclusion does not sufficiently align with the research objectives stated in the introduction — namely, understanding land-use–climate relationships in coastal and island contexts and informing adaptation strategies for aging coastal populations. The discussion remains general and does not clearly answer whether the study confirmed interregional differences (Muan vs. Shinan) or proposed concrete policy recommendations.Third, the section’s policy implications remain overly generic. Although the study is centered on “nature-based adaptation,” the recommendations (e.g., “expand forest cover,” “protect wetlands”) are broad and lack operational detail. The author should specify priority areas, feasible interventions, and possible constraints, ideally linking these to local socioeconomic features such as demographic aging or coastal development pressures.Furthermore, the conclusion omits a discussion of the study’s limitations. For instance, the analysis relies on single-year land-use data (2014) and a decade of meteorological data (2001–2010), without considering long-term temporal dynamics or causality. Incorporating critical reflection on such limitations would enhance the study’s credibility.

￨ The discussion and conclusion sections have been thoroughly revised and enhanced, with a more detailed examination of nature-based solution strategies.

Formatting:The manuscript contains numerous formatting and typographical issues, including inconsistent labeling, misplaced figure captions, and irregular spacing. A careful technical revision is needed before resubmission

￨ It has been revised once again overall prior to submission.

Because I rewrote the abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, and conclusion at the level of substantially reconstructing the manuscript in response to the reviewers’ numerous comments, the revision became too extensive to address each question individually. Therefore, I kindly ask for your understanding for not being able to respond to each question in detail.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper analyze how land use interacts with climatic variablein two Korean coastal jurisdictions, Muan and Shinan. By employing Pearson correlation analysis on six land-use categories and eight climatic indicators, the authors aim to underline the land–climate interdependencies that can guide nature-based climate adaptation in coastal and island settings. The topic might important related with coastal ecosystem-based adaptation and also coastal climate resilience. The focus on small-scale coastal and island regions cover an empirical gap in Korean climate adaptation studies, which are rather urban-centered. Some remarks:

1) The tables 2–4 list land-use classifications, climatic variables, and correlation coefficients, but they do not include data collection years in the captions or columns. That temporal detail is provided only in the text description preceding the tables.

2) The methodology is transparent but limited. A multi-year or spatial regression model would strengthen analytical robustness.

3) The authors can strength the conceptual framing with resilience and ecosystem-based adaptation theories.

4) The use of a wider range of international references and reporting on other studies conducted in other parts of the world in the costal areas would increase the value of the paper.

5) The authors mentioned that the datasets used in the study were not
time‑synchronized, but also the data are not recent. Are there any international data related with the region that can be added?

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It has been additionally presented in the table title.

2) The methodology is transparent but limited. A multi-year or spatial regression model would strengthen analytical robustness.

To strengthen the methodology, a Spearman correlation analysis—less sensitive to variable distributions—was conducted.

3) The authors can strength the conceptual framing with resilience and ecosystem-based adaptation theories.

Additional descriptions related to nature-based solutions were incorporated into the introduction, discussion, and conclusion sections.

4) The use of a wider range of international references and reporting on other studies conducted in other parts of the world in the coastal areas would increase the value of the paper.

Thank you for the suggestion. Most coastal studies focus on large urban areas such as port cities, and many address topics such as land use, erosion, and sea-level rise. Studies targeting rural fishing and farming communities are extremely scarce. Therefore, this paper can serve as a valuable case study for small rural coastal areas.

5) The authors mentioned that the datasets used in the study were not time‑synchronized, but also the data are not recent. Are there any international data related with the region that can be added?

Thank you for the valuable suggestion. I will take it into consideration when conducting additional sample studies in more coastal areas in the future.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Below are several suggestions for improvement, which I hope will help enhance the quality of your manuscript.

1. Title issue: The current title does not clearly reflect the research content of this paper. I suggest revising it to:

“Correlational Study between Land Use and Nature-Based Climate Adaptation in Coastal and Island Regions: A Case Study of Muan and Shinan, South Korea” (or similar expressions).

2. According to writing template of Sustainability journal,, the initial letters of keywords should not be capitalized.

3. The current discussion of the relationship between Land Use and Nature-Based Climate Adaptation in Coastal and Island Regions lacks sufficient depth. Firstly, I recommend that you categorize and summarize the progress of international studies in this field. Secondly, please elaborate on the theoretical contribution of this paper (through comparison with existing international research) and specify the potential practical applications of your findings in urban development practices across different countries.

4. Research framework: I suggest adding "Figure 1. Research Framework" at the end of Section 1 (Introduction) to visually illustrate the research ideas, methods, and content, along with appropriate explanatory text.

5. The manuscript uses 2014 land use data and 2001–2010 meteorological data. Such early datasets may not capture recent land use changes or climate fluctuations in the study area, potentially affecting the accuracy and timeliness of the findings. I strongly recommend using more recent data from the past 10–15 years. If newer data are unavailable, please clearly explain the applicability boundaries and possible biases of the older datasets.

6. Please specify the exact sources of all datasets used in this study, either in the references or as an appendix, including the websites or electronic/printed sources where the data were obtained.

7. According to the writing template of Sustainability journal, I suggest revising the section titles of Chapters 4 and 5 as follows:

Divide “4. Results and Discussion” into two separate sections: “4. Results” and “5. Discussion,”and rename “5. Conclusion and Policy Implications” to “6. Conclusions.”

8. In the newly divided “5. Discussion” section, please provide a more substantial discussion of the results presented in “4. Results.” For instance, you may include discussions on:

"Analysis of current relevant policies and future policy recommendations"; "Sensitivity analysis and outlier testing"; "Comparative and applicability analysis"; "Limitations of the study (in terms of data sources, methods, etc.) and potential future solutions"; "Future development directions of Land Use and Nature-Based Climate Adaptation in Coastal and Island Regions research".

Therefore, the original content of “6. Limitations and Future Work” can be integrated into “5. Discussion.”

9. In “6. Conclusions,” please summarize the main findings of this study in a structured manner.

10. From the reader’s perspective, I encourage the authors to further elaborate on potential future research directions or issues stemming from this study.

Author Response

C. Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Below are several suggestions for improvement, which I hope will help enhance the quality of your manuscript.

1. Title issue: The current title does not clearly reflect the research content of this paper. I suggest revising it to:

“Correlational Study between Land Use and Nature-Based Climate Adaptation in Coastal and Island Regions: A Case Study of Muan and Shinan, South Korea” (or similar expressions).

Because there were numerous revisions to address, the authors substantially revised the entire manuscript while refining it to align with the original title.

2. According to writing template of Sustainability journal, the initial letters of keywords should not be capitalized.

The keywords have been revised.

Most international studies focus on large coastal cities or on erosion related to sea-level rise. It is extremely difficult to find global studies comparable to the case examined in this manuscript. This study provides a foundational analysis for helping small local governments respond more effectively to emerging climate-change challenges. It also highlights the need for further research on other coastal rural communities in the future.

The introduction and analytical sections were comprehensively revised and improved to provide more detailed descriptions.

The limitations of data collection were specified in the conclusion, and the role of the government in future data production was discussed.

6. Please specify the exact sources of all datasets used in this study, either in the references or as an appendix, including the websites or electronic/printed sources where the data were obtained.

Data sources have been specified in the tables and related elements.

7. According to the writing template of Sustainability journal, I suggest revising the section titles of Chapters 4 and 5 as follows:

Divide “4. Results and Discussion” into two separate sections: “4. Results” and “5. Discussion,”and rename “5. Conclusion and Policy Implications” to “6. Conclusions.”

Each section was separated and rewritten.

8. In the newly divided “5. Discussion” section, please provide a more substantial discussion of the results presented in “4. Results.” For instance, you may include discussions on:

Therefore, the original content of “6. Limitations and Future Work” can be integrated into “5. Discussion.”

The analysis was redone using the Spearman correlation method, which is robust to sensitivity issues and outliers, and the discussion section was rewritten accordingly.

9. In “6. Conclusions,” please summarize the main findings of this study in a structured manner.

The recommendations for the conclusion were accepted, and the entire section was rewritten.

10. From the reader’s perspective, I encourage the authors to further elaborate on potential future research directions or issues stemming from this study.

At the end of the conclusion, future research directions were outlined.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates the relationships between land use, climate, and nature-based adaptation in coastal and island regions of South Korea. On the whole, the standardization and structure of this manuscript are unreasonable. Moreover, the specific research methods and data processing have not been clearly proposed.

The main problems are as follows.

Suggest adding a keyword of “South Korea”.
“southwestern Korea” and “South Korea” are mixed.
The legend in Figure 1 is repeated.
The tables in this manuscript are too standardized. “197.37 persons km²” in Table 1 should be “198 persons/km²”. In addition, population density should not be decimal. “Human population (2020)” in Table 1 should be “The scale of local residents (2020)”. “86,132” in Table 1 should be “86,132 persons”.
“Natural environments” in Table 1 should be “Natural environment”.
It is suggested to interchange the two columns in Table 2.
“3.2. Analysis” is not appropriate.
Methods are not found in “3. Materials and Methods”.
“4.2 Correlations Between Land Use and Climate” belongs to analysis.
Discussion is not found in “4. Results and Discussion”.
“7. Patents” is unnecessary.
“Policy Implications” should address specific local problems.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

Author Response

D. Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main problems are as follows.

1. Suggest adding a keyword of “South Korea”.

￨ It has been added.

2. “southwestern Korea” and “South Korea” are mixed.

￨ When indicating the locations of the two regions, they were described as being in southwestern Korea

3. The legend in Figure 1 is repeated.

￨ Because the legends differ slightly depending on land use, both are necessary.

4. The tables in this manuscript are too standardized. “197.37 persons km²” in Table 1 should be “198 persons/km²”. In addition, population density should not be decimal. “Human population (2020)” in Table 1 should be “The scale of local residents (2020)”. “86,132” in Table 1 should be “86,132 persons”.

￨ All have been revised.

5. “Natural environments” in Table 1 should be “Natural environment”.

￨ Revised.

6. It is suggested to interchange the two columns in Table 2.

￨ Revised

7. “3.2. Analysis” is not appropriate.

￨ While revising the manuscript overall, it was changed to Correlation Analysis.

8. Methods are not found in “3. Materials and Methods”.

￨ A section on correlation analysis was added to provide a clearer and more accurate explanation of the analytical procedure.

9. “4.2 Correlations Between Land Use and Climate” belongs to analysis.

￨ While revising the manuscript as a whole, the results, discussion, and conclusion sections were rewritten.

10. Discussion is not found in “4. Results and Discussion”.

￨ The content has been completely rewritten.

11. “7. Patents” is unnecessary.

￨ Deleted.

12. “Policy Implications” should address specific local problems.

￨ It was added during the revision of the discussion and conclusion.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main purpose of the Conclusion section is to concisely summarize the research findings and highlight the study’s key contributions and significance, rather than to continue argumentation or cite supporting references. One issue with the current conclusion is that it still refers to multiple references (e.g., [43]–[47]) and, to some extent, extends into “discussion‑type” content, such as recommendations on “national policy” or “climate‑cooling infrastructure” development. These belong more appropriately in the Discussion section, as they involve interpretation and policy implications.

The conclusion should instead be based on facts directly derived from the research data and should address the study’s main questions in a concise and integrative manner. The inclusion of references here is unnecessary and even weakens the independence and coherence of the conclusions. Furthermore, this section is relatively lengthy and contains too many layers, which may blur the distinction between the study’s own findings and external evidence. It is recommended that the author remove references from the Conclusion and move comparative analyses, policy implications, and theoretical extensions to the Discussion section, while keeping the conclusion brief and focused. This structure would better align the paper with the conventional academic format of Results → Discussion → Conclusion, in which the conclusion should answer only “What did we find?” and “What does it mean?”, not “What have others found?”.

The scale bars in Figure 2 are inconsistent and should be corrected.

Author Response

Review 1

￨ First of all, your detailed and thoughtful explanations and comments played a significant role in guiding our paper in a much improved direction. We sincerely and deeply appreciate your support.

￨ As you suggested, we revised the discussion section to make it clearer and more focused on the results, and I rewrote it to better articulate the significance of the paper.

This study analyzed the correlations between land-use types and key climate variables in coastal and island regions characterized by agriculture-based economies, population decline, and a high proportion of elderly residents. Land use directly influences the formation of local microclimates and is closely associated with the occurrence of heat waves and tropical nights. The study areas, Muan and Shinan, are generally low-lying and dominated by agricultural land use, making them highly vulnerable to extreme heat events, which suggests a greater long-term susceptibility to the impacts of climate change.

The results indicate that forest and grassland exhibit cooling effects that mitigate tropical night conditions. Accordingly, this study proposes the restoration of village forests as a nature-based solution for climate change adaptation, tailored to the specific characteristics of the two regions.

Although wetland and bare land are generally known to exert opposing effects on local climates, the results of this study indicate that both land-use types exhibited similar climatic effects. Wetlands were found to moderate microclimatic conditions through hydrometeorological regulation, thereby contributing to the mitigation of climate warming. In the case of natural bare land composed of coastal sandy beaches or rocky shorelines, climatic effects similar to those of wetlands were observed; however, further research is needed to determine whether this is a unique phenomenon specific to island and coastal environments. Additionally, for water surface areas, more in-depth investigation is required, particularly regarding the influence of inland water surfaces in addition to the influence of the surrounding sea.

This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of land-use characteristics and climate-related factors in coastal and island regions, and proposes nature-based solutions that can be utilized by local governments with a long-term perspective. In addition, by establishing region-specific baseline data, this study offers scientific evidence to support the development of climate change mitigation and adaptation policies and strategies by both central and local governments in the future.

The scale bars in Figure 2 are inconsistent and should be corrected.

￨ It was revised using a new map.

Figure 2. Land use map of study areas in 2014 (attached file)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The population density should not have a decimal point, which does not meet the general requirements of population statistics. Authors are advised to take all relevant population density data as integers.
“Natural environments” in Table 1 should be “Natural environment”. The authors did not change it, but said they did!
“[36, 37, 38]” on line 566 should be “[36-38]”.
In Figure 2, the color of the same land type is inconsistent, which is wrong! Additionally, there are two forms of compass, and their sizes are not consistent. Authors are advised to revise them.
The depth of analysis of this manuscript is obviously insufficient.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

Author Response

Review 4

The population density should not have a decimal point, which does not meet the general requirements of population statistics. Authors are advised to take all relevant population density data as integers.

￨ The values were expressed as integers.

“Natural environments” in Table 1 should be “Natural environment”. The authors did not change it, but said they did!

￨ We sincerely apologize for this issue. It appears that it was inadvertently omitted while the authors were rewriting and revising the entire manuscript. We have now carefully checked and corrected it in accordance with your comment.

Table 1. Profile of the study areas (Muan and Shinan, statistical year 2020)

Item

Muan

Shinan

Area

436.40 km²

655.68 km²

The scale of local residents (2020)

86,132 persons

38,938 persons

Population density

197 persons/km²

59 persons/km²

Economy

Mainly agriculture; limited aquaculture

Mixed farming, fishing, and aquaculture

Administrative units

3 eups and 6 myeons

(9 local offices)

2 eups and 12 myeons

(14 local offices)

Natural environment

Muan Tidal Flat Wetland Protected Area

UNESCO World Heritage (Getbol), UNESCO Shinan-Dadohae Biosphere Reserve, Dadohaehaesang National Park

Geographical features

North–south elongated terrain; most hills 200–300 m above sea level; extensive reclaimed tidal flats converted to cropland since the 1960s

2 eups and 12 myeons (14 local offices)

Composed of ~890 islands; mostly rolling hills 200–300 m above sea level; broad tidal flats

Sources: https://www.muan.go.kr/, https://www.shinan.go.kr/

￨

“[36, 37, 38]” on line 566 should be “[36-38]”.

￨ In Sustainability, when two or more references appear consecutively, they are cited as a range of sequential numbers; therefore, this cannot be changed in order to comply with the journal’s formatting requirements.

In Figure 2, the color of the same land type is inconsistent, which is wrong! Additionally, there are two forms of compass, and their sizes are not consistent. Authors are advised to revise them.

￨ Following your advice, we redrew the map in Figure 2.

￨ Figure 2. Land use map of study areas in 2014

The depth of analysis of this manuscript is obviously insufficient.

￨ We added more analytical content to the Discussion section and rewrote the Conclusion to enhance the depth of the analysis. In particular, we incorporated additional regional context for the two study areas to provide a more in-depth discussion of the challenges they currently face.

Your detailed and thoughtful explanations and comments played a significant role in guiding our paper in a much improved direction. We sincerely and deeply appreciate your support.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the comments are revised accordingly.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude once again for your detailed and meticulous review. Your insightful comments and constructive suggestions have greatly improved the quality of our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised this manuscript according to the comments of the last review. However, I still feel that the depth of analysis is insufficient. This manuscript is prone to simple phenomenon description and lacks deep-seated mechanism or cause analysis.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

Author Response

We understand your reservations regarding the depth and analytical framework of our study. These limitations are largely attributable to the lack of fine-scale data (i.e., at the township level) currently available in South Korea, especially with respect to climatic variables. Nevertheless, we have substantially improved the manuscript by carefully incorporating the insightful comments and constructive suggestions provided by all reviewers, including yourself. To the best of our knowledge, the fine-scale analysis presented in this study represents the first attempt in South Korea to examine the relationship between land use and climatic factors, with a particular focus on islands and coastal areas. While similar analyses may be feasible in countries with more detailed and readily accessible datasets, the findings of our study provide valuable and context-specific insights for municipal governments in South Korea. We respectfully hope that this contextual constraint and contribution can be taken into consideration when evaluating our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx