Spatial–Temporal Evolution and Driving Factors of the Low–Carbon Transition of Farmland Use in Coastal Areas of Guangdong Province

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Below I leave my comments/suggestions for the manuscript: "Spatial-temporal evolution and driving factors of the low-carbon transition of farmland use in coastal areas of Guangdong Province"

- Authors must clearly identify the general objectives and specific objectives in the introduction.

- Research gaps are not clear in this work. Numerous studies in the literature address the methodology applied in this study.

- bibliographical references are missing in the characterization of the study area (section 2.1 study area).

- in section 2.2 – a justification is missing for each selected climatic and socio-economic variable.

- there is a need to better justify the use of each of the methods used. Why did the authors use the methods mentioned in Section 2.3 and not others? This is not explicit.

- Table 2. Selection of driving factors: the driving factors shown in table 1 must be justified. Furthermore, the authors in this table should indicate the scale/resolution of each of these variables; the source of the data; and bibliographical references that support the justification for the use of each of these factors.

- please, improve the readability of the maps in figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. (improving the resolution and size of the maps – in addition, the graphic scale should be in each one of the maps – not just one).

- it is not clear how/if this study was validated. Therefore, there is no way of knowing that the results achieved in this study are reliable.

- Discussion is completely absent. It remains to compare the results of this study with other similar studies. In addition, a solid explanation for the results achieved in this study is lacking.

- the limitations of this study are missing. In addition, the authors should indicate what they did to minimize these limitations/weaknesses.

- the conclusion should be clearer and more concise. The results in this section should be very succinct. Authors should, for example, explore the implications of this study for land use planning and point out future work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article: “Spatial-temporal evolution and driving factors of the low-2 carbon transition of farmland use in coastal areas of Guangdong 3 Province”  fits to the content of this journal.

Abstract indicates an aim of research, methodology which was used, also main findings of the research.

Introduction part is appropriate. There is an overview of many other authors in this part.

Materials and Methods part is described very properly.  

Results and discussion part includes findings of the authors regarding: spatial-temporal evolution characteristics of the low-carbon transition of farmland, patial clustering characteristics of the low-carbon transition of farmland use and analysis of the driving factors of the low-carbon transition of farmland use.

Conclusions are clear and based on the research results.

Comments:

-          Table 3. The GWR results: can you shortly and clearly explain the changes of adjusted R2 in year 2005-2015? Its very low, there has to be some external reasons of that, comparing with year 2000 and 2020.

Article fits the requirements of the journal and after minor adjustment can be published

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The low carbon transition is an international hot topic that is proposed and accentuated by many countries. Greenhouse gas emissions by China are the largest of any country in the world both in production and consumption terms, and stem mainly from coal burning in China, including coal-fired power stations, coal mining, and blast furnaces producing iron and steel.  Although now China is putting its efforts to convert to green jobs by reducing the carbon emissions and promised to bring carbon neutrality by 2060.The author have selected this important topic to highlight the driving factors in one of the major provinces of China and have provided a significant detail regarding low transition of farmland by targeting the coastal areas. However, there are few recommendations given in order to improve the manuscript.

Abstract: Although Abstract is well written and clearly describes the undertaken study, there is a need to revisit it after updating the methodology and conclusions sections in accordance with my observations for those sections.

Introduction and Literature Review: Introduction presents a background, defines research goals and provides a clear statement of research problem. The Introduction section includes multiple references and citations to support study. Thus, the Introduction well describes the research. Introduction and background show context of the article. Literature is well referenced and relevant.

Study area description: Study area is described with sufficient details and illustrated by map.

Material and Methods: 2.2 Data sources; the author needs to provide the name of satellite from where the remote sensing images have been extracted either it is GeoFen or SDGSAT-1 satellite used by Chinese academy.

In line 118 add “resolution” with 30 m.

There is a need to add methodological flow diagram to illustrate the various steps in a logical way.

There is a need to incorporate the limitations of the methodology by creating a separate subsection..

Other things related to methods are described with sufficient detail and information.

Results & Discussion: Results demonstrates the consistent interpretation with detailed explanations and comments. However, author have merged the results and discussion and it can be improved by dividing both sections and adding the comparison of the results with previous studies in discussion section.

Conclusion and Recommendations: In Conclusion section, authors discussed the results again which need to be revisited thoroughly along with addition of recommendations as well as limitation of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors answered my main concerns. Therefore, from my point of view, the manuscript can be published.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addressed my most of the comments satisfactorily, except for following improvement to be brought:

1. Although Discussion is separated, it is still underdeveloped. Authors need to build comparative discussion by incorporating atleast 12-15 relevant citations on the subject, covering last 5 years or so. 

2. Conclusion section needs revision as it is still underdeveloped. It should be shortened and written in a single flow.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx