The Rise and Fall of Land Use Mix: Review and Prospects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Journal: Land

Title: The Rise and Fall of Land Use Mix: Review and Prospects

 

In theoretical research, based on the use of available literature, the authors systematically explain the LUM concept - its historical development.

In short, the purpose of the research is to maximize the use of existing land (buildings, streets, etc.) without additional construction as a future strategy of urban sustainable development.

The positive and negative effects of the LUM concept are also given.

Since the term sustainable development means not to damage any component of the environment, I would ask the authors to briefly state the implications of the LUM concept related to environmental protection. While reading the paper, I noticed that the LUM concept can significantly contribute to environmental protection, so list the contributions of the LUM concept to environmental protection and thus sustainable development.

Author Response

Response to Reviews

• Ref. No.: land-2049057
• Title: The Rise and Fall of Land Use Mix: Review and Prospects

 

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments on our manuscript entitled ‘Exploration of informal farmland leasing mode: a case study of Huang Village in China’. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for improving our manuscript. We revised and improved the manuscript based on careful study of reviewers' comments. Please refer to the manuscript for relevant modification points. The specific responses to the comments are as follows (highlighted in red):

 

Replies to the reviewers’ comments:

Comment 1. In theoretical research, based on the use of available literature, the authors systematically explain the LUM concept - its historical development.

In short, the purpose of the research is to maximize the use of existing land (buildings, streets, etc.) without additional construction as a future strategy of urban sustainable development.

The positive and negative effects of the LUM concept are also given.

Since the term sustainable development means not to damage any component of the environment, I would ask the authors to briefly state the implications of the LUM concept related to environmental protection. While reading the paper, I noticed that the LUM concept can significantly contribute to environmental protection, so list the contributions of the LUM concept to environmental protection and thus sustainable development.

Response: Acknowledged. Thanks to the reviewer’s comments. The reviewer briefly states the implications of LUM related to environmental protection. Reviewer briefly state the implications of LUM related to environmental protection. After a further review of the literature, the authors found that although many studies involved this topic, most of them were discussed together with other economic and social, transportation and other related effects. Therefore, the author added a paragraph of summary on this aspect in Line 625-633.

The content is “In addition, in addition to the economic and social benefits mentioned above, environmental benefits are also an indispensable part. Only by achieving the balance and unity of the three can comprehensive benefits be maximized. However, the environmental benefits are often not intuitively reflected, but accompanied by the realization of economic and social benefits. On the one hand, while improving land use efficiency, LUM will relatively reduce the occupation of ecological land, thus avoiding the loss of environmental benefits. On the other hand, LUM will reduce residents’ dependence on motor vehicles and reduce energy consumption and environmental pollution while reducing the demand for transportation.”

 

Comment 2. The topic is very interesting and full of ideas for future urban development. However, there are several aspects that need to be explored and improved.

- The LUM idea is based on well-defined theoretical and historical elements and it is risky to argue that it was conceived in the same way in 700 BC, in the Middle Ages and in the 20th century! Even its development in different territorial contexts should be argued: which Western countries are we talking about? from the USA or from Europe? The authors seem to believe that the same models are found in very different temporal and spatial situations without specifying the possible points of convergence and diversity. The suggestion is to focus the analysis starting from the industrial revolution and to cite the oldest cases as "unaware pioneers" of contemporary models.

Response: Acknowledged. Thanks to the reviewer’s comments. As for the sorting out of LUM ideological evolution in this study, although it started from ancient Rome in 700 BC, the focus is mainly on the historical evolution after the Industrial Revolution. The reason why we should start from ancient Rome is mainly to explain a starting point background of development and evolution. The authors also agree with the opinion of reviewer that although there are some similarities in connotation and definition of LUM models in different times, there are great differences in nature, which are not only due to historical background, but also due to many regional and local characteristics. This point is elaborated in Section 3.2 of this paper. The LUM model in the modern sense is not only the inheritance of the early LUM model, but also the integration of functional zoning ideas.

 

Comment 3. - the analysis of the reasons and problems that led to the transition from one type of development to another (LUM vs zoning) is completely missing. In other words, the phases are described, but the reason for them is not explained.  

Response: Acknowledged. Thanks to the reviewer for this comment. Although this paper reviews the development and evolution of LUM idea, the reasons for its evolution are not detailed. For this, we add corresponding contents in each part to supplement the contents of this part, as follows:

• In Line 134-144, add text: ‘In conclusion, the evolution from “affirmation” to “negation” in this stage is largely due to the problems of LUM have started to appear [7]. During this period, the Industrial Revolution brought about rapid economic and social development, which basically destroyed the traditional workshop economic mode. However, due to the lack of proper guidance of urban planning and development theories, most urban development is in an unplanned and unordered state. In particular, the mixing of industry and residence leads to a series of health, traffic and housing problems [8]. At the same time, after World War II, with the great increase in owning private cars, a large number of residents began to move from the city center to the suburbs for better living conditions. In this context, with the Athens Charter of 1933 as the representative, scholars and experts put forward the far-reaching “functional zoning” thought.’
• In Line 182-195, add text: ‘In conclusion, in the early urban development practice of this stage, the idea of functional zoning played a positive role in partially solving some contradictions in the city. At the same time, the chaotic state of the industrial age cities was improved or avoided. As industrial civilization reached its peak, new urban problems became increasingly prominent, such as the endless outward sprawl of cities and the breakdown of urban contexts. In this context, the Charter of Machu Picchu in 1977 put forward the idea of comprehensive functional mixing on the basis of criticizing the thought of functional zoning [17]. For the development of this stage, some scholars believe that it is a return from functional zoning to LUM [8]. However, according to the above literature review, this is not a simple “return”, but a spiral rise from “negation” to “negation of the negation”. That is to say, the newly proposed modern LUM idea is a critical synthesis of the early LUM idea and functional zoning idea, rather than a simple succession or return. Therefore, modern LUM thought emphasizes the mixing of different uses or functions on the basis of functional zoning [8].’

 

Comment 4. - the influential factors (par. 3.4.1), although described in a very accurate way, are not then used to indicate how "to enlarge the positive effects on the one hand and effectively avoid the possible negative effects on the other". Furthermore, the important role of the technological and digital revolution in changing the behaviour, methods and conditions of use of urban contexts is not adequately mentioned.

Response: Acknowledged. Thanks to the reviewer for this comment. First of all, for how to enlarge the positive effects and avoid the possible negative effects, although this paper has a brief description in Line 634-648, but it is really not detailed enough. Considering that this is not the focus of this study, this paper only briefly covers it. It needs to be demonstrated in detail by a large number of subsequent studies.

As for the second point, the development of LUM under the influence of technological and digital revolution, the authors really failed to elaborate it, so the corresponding modification is made in this revision, as follows:

In Line 34-38, add text: ‘With the advent of the information age, the urban functional structure in the industrial age is also facing major changes, and SOHO (Small Office, Home Office) has become a new way of working and living [8]. COVID-19 is giving a boost to this lifestyle. This new life-style has blurred the boundary between work and life, and with the blurring of functional boundary, it has also spawned the demand of land use mix [8].’

 

Comment 5. - par.4.3 is too general and does not provide sufficient elements regarding the proposal of "a set of possible new conceptual model". The authors should better argue this crucial aspect.

Response: Acknowledged. Thanks to the reviewer’s comment. As for the new conceptual model proposed in the par 4.3 section, it is true that there is currently no detailed argument for this crucial aspect in this section. This is because this part is the conclusion of this paper, which is mainly an overview of this paper, so only some main points are briefly mentioned. The specific arguments are mainly in the par.3.2 section of this paper. Of course, we added a little bit of explanation:

• In Line 691-696, add text: ‘Specifically, in the process of quantitative research, it is necessary to position from the perspective of dimension and scale according to the research objectives and background, and then reflect the characteristics of LUM through various spatial texture parameters. As for spatial texture characteristic, in addition to “quantity” and “distance” proposed by Song, Merlin and Rodriguez [33], it is necessary to add “attribute” parameter to fully re-flect the essential characteristics of land use mix [75].’

 

Comment 6. It's been a long time since I've seen an article that deals with such a recent problem, with such a strong scientific basis, on a topic that is looking for such highly solution-focused procedures.

The literature review is professional and has clear concept.

The whole text is coherent has clear conception, to the point.

The examination of the LUM concept is multi-aspected and interdisciplinary.

SUGGESTION: More structural concepts from model theories supported by the scientific results of the excellent text of the article would be included in the conclusion.

Response: Acknowledged. Thank you very much for reviewer’s affirmation of this paper. In addition to revising the manuscript based on the above comments, the author further supplements and improves some other literatures.

 

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions which would help us both in English and in depth to improve the quality of the paper.

 

Kind regards,

Yuefei Zhuo

E-mail: zhuoyuefei@nbu.edu.cn

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The topic is very interesting and full of ideas for future urban development. However, there are several aspects that need to be explored and improved. - The LUM idea is based on well-defined theoretical and historical elements and it is risky to argue that it was conceived in the same way in 700 BC, in the Middle Ages and in the 20th century! Even its development in different territorial contexts should be argued: which Western countries are we talking about? from the USA or from Europe? The authors seem to believe that the same models are found in very different temporal and spatial situations without specifying the possible points of convergence and diversity. The suggestion is to focus the analysis starting from the industrial revolution and to cite the oldest cases as "unaware pioneers" of contemporary models. - the analysis of the reasons and problems that led to the transition from one type of development to another (LUM vs zoning) is completely missing. In other words, the phases are described, but the reason for them is not explained. - the influential factors (par. 3.4.1), although described in a very accurate way, are not then used to indicate how "to enlarge the positive effects on the one hand and effectively avoid the possible negative effects on the other". Furthermore, the important role of the technological and digital revolution in changing the behaviour, methods and conditions of use of urban contexts is not adequately mentioned. - par.4.3 is too general and does not provide sufficient elements regarding the proposal of "a set of possible new conceptual model". The authors should better argue this crucial aspect.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviews

• Ref. No.: land-2049057
• Title: The Rise and Fall of Land Use Mix: Review and Prospects

 

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments on our manuscript entitled ‘Exploration of informal farmland leasing mode: a case study of Huang Village in China’. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for improving our manuscript. We revised and improved the manuscript based on careful study of reviewers' comments. Please refer to the manuscript for relevant modification points. The specific responses to the comments are as follows (highlighted in red):

 

Replies to the reviewers’ comments:

Comment 1. In theoretical research, based on the use of available literature, the authors systematically explain the LUM concept - its historical development.

In short, the purpose of the research is to maximize the use of existing land (buildings, streets, etc.) without additional construction as a future strategy of urban sustainable development.

The positive and negative effects of the LUM concept are also given.

Since the term sustainable development means not to damage any component of the environment, I would ask the authors to briefly state the implications of the LUM concept related to environmental protection. While reading the paper, I noticed that the LUM concept can significantly contribute to environmental protection, so list the contributions of the LUM concept to environmental protection and thus sustainable development.

Response: Acknowledged. Thanks to the reviewer’s comments. The reviewer briefly states the implications of LUM related to environmental protection. Reviewer briefly state the implications of LUM related to environmental protection. After a further review of the literature, the authors found that although many studies involved this topic, most of them were discussed together with other economic and social, transportation and other related effects. Therefore, the author added a paragraph of summary on this aspect in Line 625-633.

The content is “In addition, in addition to the economic and social benefits mentioned above, environmental benefits are also an indispensable part. Only by achieving the balance and unity of the three can comprehensive benefits be maximized. However, the environmental benefits are often not intuitively reflected, but accompanied by the realization of economic and social benefits. On the one hand, while improving land use efficiency, LUM will relatively reduce the occupation of ecological land, thus avoiding the loss of environmental benefits. On the other hand, LUM will reduce residents’ dependence on motor vehicles and reduce energy consumption and environmental pollution while reducing the demand for transportation.”

 

Comment 2. The topic is very interesting and full of ideas for future urban development. However, there are several aspects that need to be explored and improved.

- The LUM idea is based on well-defined theoretical and historical elements and it is risky to argue that it was conceived in the same way in 700 BC, in the Middle Ages and in the 20th century! Even its development in different territorial contexts should be argued: which Western countries are we talking about? from the USA or from Europe? The authors seem to believe that the same models are found in very different temporal and spatial situations without specifying the possible points of convergence and diversity. The suggestion is to focus the analysis starting from the industrial revolution and to cite the oldest cases as "unaware pioneers" of contemporary models.

Response: Acknowledged. Thanks to the reviewer’s comments. As for the sorting out of LUM ideological evolution in this study, although it started from ancient Rome in 700 BC, the focus is mainly on the historical evolution after the Industrial Revolution. The reason why we should start from ancient Rome is mainly to explain a starting point background of development and evolution. The authors also agree with the opinion of reviewer that although there are some similarities in connotation and definition of LUM models in different times, there are great differences in nature, which are not only due to historical background, but also due to many regional and local characteristics. This point is elaborated in Section 3.2 of this paper. The LUM model in the modern sense is not only the inheritance of the early LUM model, but also the integration of functional zoning ideas.

 

Comment 3. - the analysis of the reasons and problems that led to the transition from one type of development to another (LUM vs zoning) is completely missing. In other words, the phases are described, but the reason for them is not explained.  

Response: Acknowledged. Thanks to the reviewer for this comment. Although this paper reviews the development and evolution of LUM idea, the reasons for its evolution are not detailed. For this, we add corresponding contents in each part to supplement the contents of this part, as follows:

• In Line 134-144, add text: ‘In conclusion, the evolution from “affirmation” to “negation” in this stage is largely due to the problems of LUM have started to appear [7]. During this period, the Industrial Revolution brought about rapid economic and social development, which basically destroyed the traditional workshop economic mode. However, due to the lack of proper guidance of urban planning and development theories, most urban development is in an unplanned and unordered state. In particular, the mixing of industry and residence leads to a series of health, traffic and housing problems [8]. At the same time, after World War II, with the great increase in owning private cars, a large number of residents began to move from the city center to the suburbs for better living conditions. In this context, with the Athens Charter of 1933 as the representative, scholars and experts put forward the far-reaching “functional zoning” thought.’
• In Line 182-195, add text: ‘In conclusion, in the early urban development practice of this stage, the idea of functional zoning played a positive role in partially solving some contradictions in the city. At the same time, the chaotic state of the industrial age cities was improved or avoided. As industrial civilization reached its peak, new urban problems became increasingly prominent, such as the endless outward sprawl of cities and the breakdown of urban contexts. In this context, the Charter of Machu Picchu in 1977 put forward the idea of comprehensive functional mixing on the basis of criticizing the thought of functional zoning [17]. For the development of this stage, some scholars believe that it is a return from functional zoning to LUM [8]. However, according to the above literature review, this is not a simple “return”, but a spiral rise from “negation” to “negation of the negation”. That is to say, the newly proposed modern LUM idea is a critical synthesis of the early LUM idea and functional zoning idea, rather than a simple succession or return. Therefore, modern LUM thought emphasizes the mixing of different uses or functions on the basis of functional zoning [8].’

 

Comment 4. - the influential factors (par. 3.4.1), although described in a very accurate way, are not then used to indicate how "to enlarge the positive effects on the one hand and effectively avoid the possible negative effects on the other". Furthermore, the important role of the technological and digital revolution in changing the behaviour, methods and conditions of use of urban contexts is not adequately mentioned.

Response: Acknowledged. Thanks to the reviewer for this comment. First of all, for how to enlarge the positive effects and avoid the possible negative effects, although this paper has a brief description in Line 634-648, but it is really not detailed enough. Considering that this is not the focus of this study, this paper only briefly covers it. It needs to be demonstrated in detail by a large number of subsequent studies.

As for the second point, the development of LUM under the influence of technological and digital revolution, the authors really failed to elaborate it, so the corresponding modification is made in this revision, as follows:

In Line 34-38, add text: ‘With the advent of the information age, the urban functional structure in the industrial age is also facing major changes, and SOHO (Small Office, Home Office) has become a new way of working and living [8]. COVID-19 is giving a boost to this lifestyle. This new life-style has blurred the boundary between work and life, and with the blurring of functional boundary, it has also spawned the demand of land use mix [8].’

 

Comment 5. - par.4.3 is too general and does not provide sufficient elements regarding the proposal of "a set of possible new conceptual model". The authors should better argue this crucial aspect.

Response: Acknowledged. Thanks to the reviewer’s comment. As for the new conceptual model proposed in the par 4.3 section, it is true that there is currently no detailed argument for this crucial aspect in this section. This is because this part is the conclusion of this paper, which is mainly an overview of this paper, so only some main points are briefly mentioned. The specific arguments are mainly in the par.3.2 section of this paper. Of course, we added a little bit of explanation:

• In Line 691-696, add text: ‘Specifically, in the process of quantitative research, it is necessary to position from the perspective of dimension and scale according to the research objectives and background, and then reflect the characteristics of LUM through various spatial texture parameters. As for spatial texture characteristic, in addition to “quantity” and “distance” proposed by Song, Merlin and Rodriguez [33], it is necessary to add “attribute” parameter to fully re-flect the essential characteristics of land use mix [75].’

 

Comment 6. It's been a long time since I've seen an article that deals with such a recent problem, with such a strong scientific basis, on a topic that is looking for such highly solution-focused procedures.

The literature review is professional and has clear concept.

The whole text is coherent has clear conception, to the point.

The examination of the LUM concept is multi-aspected and interdisciplinary.

SUGGESTION: More structural concepts from model theories supported by the scientific results of the excellent text of the article would be included in the conclusion.

Response: Acknowledged. Thank you very much for reviewer’s affirmation of this paper. In addition to revising the manuscript based on the above comments, the author further supplements and improves some other literatures.

 

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions which would help us both in English and in depth to improve the quality of the paper.

 

Kind regards,

Yuefei Zhuo

E-mail: zhuoyuefei@nbu.edu.cn

Reviewer 3 Report

It's been a long time since I've seen an article that deals with such a recent problem, with such a strong scientific basis, on a topic that is looking for such highly solution-focused procedures.

The literature review is professional and has clear concept.

The whole text is coherent has clear conception, to the point.

The examination of the LUM concept is multi-aspected and interdisciplinary.

SUGGESTION: More structural concepts from model theories supported by the scientific results of the excellent text of the article would be included in the conclusion. 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviews

• Ref. No.: land-2049057
• Title: The Rise and Fall of Land Use Mix: Review and Prospects

 

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments on our manuscript entitled ‘Exploration of informal farmland leasing mode: a case study of Huang Village in China’. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for improving our manuscript. We revised and improved the manuscript based on careful study of reviewers' comments. Please refer to the manuscript for relevant modification points. The specific responses to the comments are as follows (highlighted in red):

 

Replies to the reviewers’ comments:

Comment 1. In theoretical research, based on the use of available literature, the authors systematically explain the LUM concept - its historical development.

In short, the purpose of the research is to maximize the use of existing land (buildings, streets, etc.) without additional construction as a future strategy of urban sustainable development.

The positive and negative effects of the LUM concept are also given.

Since the term sustainable development means not to damage any component of the environment, I would ask the authors to briefly state the implications of the LUM concept related to environmental protection. While reading the paper, I noticed that the LUM concept can significantly contribute to environmental protection, so list the contributions of the LUM concept to environmental protection and thus sustainable development.

Response: Acknowledged. Thanks to the reviewer’s comments. The reviewer briefly states the implications of LUM related to environmental protection. Reviewer briefly state the implications of LUM related to environmental protection. After a further review of the literature, the authors found that although many studies involved this topic, most of them were discussed together with other economic and social, transportation and other related effects. Therefore, the author added a paragraph of summary on this aspect in Line 625-633.

The content is “In addition, in addition to the economic and social benefits mentioned above, environmental benefits are also an indispensable part. Only by achieving the balance and unity of the three can comprehensive benefits be maximized. However, the environmental benefits are often not intuitively reflected, but accompanied by the realization of economic and social benefits. On the one hand, while improving land use efficiency, LUM will relatively reduce the occupation of ecological land, thus avoiding the loss of environmental benefits. On the other hand, LUM will reduce residents’ dependence on motor vehicles and reduce energy consumption and environmental pollution while reducing the demand for transportation.”

 

Comment 2. The topic is very interesting and full of ideas for future urban development. However, there are several aspects that need to be explored and improved.

- The LUM idea is based on well-defined theoretical and historical elements and it is risky to argue that it was conceived in the same way in 700 BC, in the Middle Ages and in the 20th century! Even its development in different territorial contexts should be argued: which Western countries are we talking about? from the USA or from Europe? The authors seem to believe that the same models are found in very different temporal and spatial situations without specifying the possible points of convergence and diversity. The suggestion is to focus the analysis starting from the industrial revolution and to cite the oldest cases as "unaware pioneers" of contemporary models.

Response: Acknowledged. Thanks to the reviewer’s comments. As for the sorting out of LUM ideological evolution in this study, although it started from ancient Rome in 700 BC, the focus is mainly on the historical evolution after the Industrial Revolution. The reason why we should start from ancient Rome is mainly to explain a starting point background of development and evolution. The authors also agree with the opinion of reviewer that although there are some similarities in connotation and definition of LUM models in different times, there are great differences in nature, which are not only due to historical background, but also due to many regional and local characteristics. This point is elaborated in Section 3.2 of this paper. The LUM model in the modern sense is not only the inheritance of the early LUM model, but also the integration of functional zoning ideas.

 

Comment 3. - the analysis of the reasons and problems that led to the transition from one type of development to another (LUM vs zoning) is completely missing. In other words, the phases are described, but the reason for them is not explained.  

Response: Acknowledged. Thanks to the reviewer for this comment. Although this paper reviews the development and evolution of LUM idea, the reasons for its evolution are not detailed. For this, we add corresponding contents in each part to supplement the contents of this part, as follows:

• In Line 134-144, add text: ‘In conclusion, the evolution from “affirmation” to “negation” in this stage is largely due to the problems of LUM have started to appear [7]. During this period, the Industrial Revolution brought about rapid economic and social development, which basically destroyed the traditional workshop economic mode. However, due to the lack of proper guidance of urban planning and development theories, most urban development is in an unplanned and unordered state. In particular, the mixing of industry and residence leads to a series of health, traffic and housing problems [8]. At the same time, after World War II, with the great increase in owning private cars, a large number of residents began to move from the city center to the suburbs for better living conditions. In this context, with the Athens Charter of 1933 as the representative, scholars and experts put forward the far-reaching “functional zoning” thought.’
• In Line 182-195, add text: ‘In conclusion, in the early urban development practice of this stage, the idea of functional zoning played a positive role in partially solving some contradictions in the city. At the same time, the chaotic state of the industrial age cities was improved or avoided. As industrial civilization reached its peak, new urban problems became increasingly prominent, such as the endless outward sprawl of cities and the breakdown of urban contexts. In this context, the Charter of Machu Picchu in 1977 put forward the idea of comprehensive functional mixing on the basis of criticizing the thought of functional zoning [17]. For the development of this stage, some scholars believe that it is a return from functional zoning to LUM [8]. However, according to the above literature review, this is not a simple “return”, but a spiral rise from “negation” to “negation of the negation”. That is to say, the newly proposed modern LUM idea is a critical synthesis of the early LUM idea and functional zoning idea, rather than a simple succession or return. Therefore, modern LUM thought emphasizes the mixing of different uses or functions on the basis of functional zoning [8].’

 

Comment 4. - the influential factors (par. 3.4.1), although described in a very accurate way, are not then used to indicate how "to enlarge the positive effects on the one hand and effectively avoid the possible negative effects on the other". Furthermore, the important role of the technological and digital revolution in changing the behaviour, methods and conditions of use of urban contexts is not adequately mentioned.

Response: Acknowledged. Thanks to the reviewer for this comment. First of all, for how to enlarge the positive effects and avoid the possible negative effects, although this paper has a brief description in Line 634-648, but it is really not detailed enough. Considering that this is not the focus of this study, this paper only briefly covers it. It needs to be demonstrated in detail by a large number of subsequent studies.

As for the second point, the development of LUM under the influence of technological and digital revolution, the authors really failed to elaborate it, so the corresponding modification is made in this revision, as follows:

In Line 34-38, add text: ‘With the advent of the information age, the urban functional structure in the industrial age is also facing major changes, and SOHO (Small Office, Home Office) has become a new way of working and living [8]. COVID-19 is giving a boost to this lifestyle. This new life-style has blurred the boundary between work and life, and with the blurring of functional boundary, it has also spawned the demand of land use mix [8].’

 

Comment 5. - par.4.3 is too general and does not provide sufficient elements regarding the proposal of "a set of possible new conceptual model". The authors should better argue this crucial aspect.

Response: Acknowledged. Thanks to the reviewer’s comment. As for the new conceptual model proposed in the par 4.3 section, it is true that there is currently no detailed argument for this crucial aspect in this section. This is because this part is the conclusion of this paper, which is mainly an overview of this paper, so only some main points are briefly mentioned. The specific arguments are mainly in the par.3.2 section of this paper. Of course, we added a little bit of explanation:

• In Line 691-696, add text: ‘Specifically, in the process of quantitative research, it is necessary to position from the perspective of dimension and scale according to the research objectives and background, and then reflect the characteristics of LUM through various spatial texture parameters. As for spatial texture characteristic, in addition to “quantity” and “distance” proposed by Song, Merlin and Rodriguez [33], it is necessary to add “attribute” parameter to fully re-flect the essential characteristics of land use mix [75].’

 

Comment 6. It's been a long time since I've seen an article that deals with such a recent problem, with such a strong scientific basis, on a topic that is looking for such highly solution-focused procedures.

The literature review is professional and has clear concept.

The whole text is coherent has clear conception, to the point.

The examination of the LUM concept is multi-aspected and interdisciplinary.

SUGGESTION: More structural concepts from model theories supported by the scientific results of the excellent text of the article would be included in the conclusion.

Response: Acknowledged. Thank you very much for reviewer’s affirmation of this paper. In addition to revising the manuscript based on the above comments, the author further supplements and improves some other literatures.

 

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions which would help us both in English and in depth to improve the quality of the paper.

 

Kind regards,

Yuefei Zhuo

E-mail: zhuoyuefei@nbu.edu.cn

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All the points indicated and suggested have been satisfactorily addressed by the authors