Evolution Characteristics, Eco-Environmental Response and Influencing Factors of Production-Living-Ecological Space in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors of the article present a text in which they supplement the existing records concerning land use changes with a new spatially and functionally distinct QTP area. The methods used are based on the widely used PLES approach. In this respect, it is not so innovative, but allows comparison with similarly focused regional studies.

I have a few comments on the paper:

·        The current form of the article has a strongly descriptive character, the text focuses on descriptive characterization of land use changes, lacking deeper contextualization and search for causes of changes. For example, the authors define the Grassland - Other ecological space trajectory as essential for QTP , but no longer indicate whether the factories that cause this desertification. Is it a natural process induced by climate change or an anthropogenically conditioned process (e.g. overgrazing). Overall, the biggest spatial changes and transformations occur in Ecological space - are they man-made (afforestation, grassing) or are they natural processes (desertification, glacial melt)  

·        The authors state that lack of protection has led to changes in Grassland. Please describe in more detail what has led to the degradation of these areas . These areas have not transformed into the Living space or the Production space, which are primarily used by humans. Are these transformations primarily caused by human development?

Similarly, the increase in the Water ecological space. Why is the growth of water areas occurring - is it natural or anthropogenic growth, are there impacts of climate change on the region?

·        I propose to look in more detail at the sudden reduction in EEQI between 2000 and 2010. After 2010, economic development is no longer as dynamic, or regulatory mechanisms are so strong that they can negate the negative impacts of development?  EEQI growth is observed in a the northen and then eastern provinces - the text describes the process, not the causes - what are the land use changes behind this process, are they related to envi measures, or what? The most affected central areas of the QTP show no improvement - are the measures successful here as well? 

·        Why does the Nighttime light image factor come out differently than population density or economic density, they are essentially the same indicator (human activity)

A table with asolute values of land area, land use transfer matrix would be very much needed. (at least as an appendix)

The description of the area should be supplemented with basic socio-economic characteristics (population, population density, GDP, etc.).

A more detailed description of the data used - especially in terms of their origin and characteristics e.g. economic density – what does it means?

More precise characterisation of R value , the article you refer to is not possible to read in the English version and other authors use slightly different values (e.g. Yang, Y.; Bao, W.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Z. Land Use Transition and Its Eco-Environmental Effects in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Urban Agglomeration: A Production-Living-Ecological Perspective. Land 2020, 9, 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9090285

My conclusion is that the text needs major improvements.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, the paper is very well written. I just want to try to improve the manuscript with some minor suggestions.

The Abstract is a little descriptive probably it would be improved if you rewrite it including information about the scope of the paper and some relevant conclusion

- Line 162, you say: What are the characteristics of spatial heterogeneity of influencing factors? is that referes to GWR method? If yes you can indicate in parentheses?

- Line 256. For socio-economics, human activities, economic activities and construction activi-256 ties are common socio-economic activities. - I don't understand this sentence.

- Line 268: you say_ the ecological  environmental quality of the QTP around 2010 are obvious and typical.  This is probably a result of the investigation and in that case it should not be part of this section.

-Lines 508-515. I would try to give the text a more formal format, improving the way of citing the authors of the different papers. Also lines 563- 571. 

In figure 6. Would it be possible to generate a map of EEQI hotspots?

Thanks,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I thank the authors for answering my questions and for incorporating my comments into the text. Now the article provides more detailed information and broader context. I agree with the current form and recommend the article for publication.