Exploring Land Use Management Strategies through Morphological Spatial Patterns Using a Climate–Socioeconomic-Based Land Use Simulation Modeling Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review: "Exploring Land Use Management Strategies through Morphological Spatial Patterns using a Climate-Socio-Economic-Based Land Use Simulation Modeling Framework"

Originality/Novelty: The paper's approach, which combines climate, socio-economic, and morphological spatial pattern analyses in a comprehensive land use simulation framework, demonstrates a high level of originality and novelty. The integration of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) scenarios with morphological spatial pattern analysis is particularly innovative. This approach offers a fresh perspective on studying land use management strategies and their implications.

Significance of Content: The paper's focus on addressing complex climate changes and economic fluctuations through land use simulation is highly significant. By incorporating both quantitative (LULC simulation) and qualitative (morphological spatial pattern analysis) approaches, the study provides a holistic understanding of land use dynamics. The emphasis on policy implications and decision-making adds practical relevance and makes the content even more impactful.

Quality of Presentation: The abstract is well-structured and effectively communicates the study's objectives, methodology, and key findings. However, it could benefit from some minor improvements in terms of clarity and concise explanations. The use of acronyms such as SSP and RCP could be explained upon first use, enhancing the overall clarity of the abstract.

Scientific Soundness: The paper outlines a comprehensive research methodology that integrates established models (PLUS and Invest) with novel morphological spatial pattern analysis techniques. The use of Pearson correlation analysis to investigate relationships between land use changes and carbon storage enhances the scientific rigor of the study. The simulation approach and the incorporation of multiple factors contribute to the overall scientific soundness.

Interest to the Readers: Given the pressing global issues of climate change, economic fluctuations, and sustainable land use management, the paper is likely to capture the interest of a wide range of readers, including researchers, policymakers, and practitioners. The innovative approach and the potential insights into optimal land use strategies are likely to engage the target audience.

Overall Merit: The paper holds substantial merit due to its originality, relevance, and innovative approach to studying land use management strategies. The integration of various elements – climate scenarios, socio-economic factors, spatial analysis – contributes to a comprehensive and holistic framework that holds promise for informing decision-making processes. With minor improvements in clarity and explanation, the abstract could further enhance its overall merit.

In summary, the paper demonstrates a high level of originality, presents significant content, and offers an innovative approach to studying land use management strategies. With minor refinements in presentation, the paper could become even more impactful and engaging for a diverse readership.

The quality of English in the paper is generally good. The sentences are well-structured, and the content is understandable. However, there are a few instances where minor improvements can be made for clarity and fluency. In the abstract, introduction and conclusion sections, suggested revisions aim to enhance clarity and precision, ensuring that the information is conveyed accurately and effectively to a wide readership.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

On behalf of my co-authors, we once again thank the editor and the reviewer very much for the constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Exploring Land Use Management Strategies through Morphological Spatial Patterns using a Climate-Socio-Economic Based Land Use Simulation Modeling Framework”.

We have studied the comments carefully and made corrections which we hope meet with approval. The corrections are in the manuscript and the response to the reviewer’s comments is as follows.

All paragraph numbers are in revision mode.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The research develops a crucial topic, but it is suggested to integrate the different geostatistical evaluation methodologies with the definition of how, operationally, to integrate these analysis methodologies into ordinary land-use planning. It is necessary to verify whether Japanese institutions, at all institutional levels, have the operational tools to apply these analyses and whether and how plans would be technically capable of incorporating the indications derived from these analyses. Especially at the local planning level, opinions are sought on the applicability of this (proper) method. Or whether there is a need for innovations in current planning practices.

If you want to conclude that:

“The LULC simulation results of this study serve as fundamental information for collaborative urban planning, the planning and adjustment of nature reserve areas, and the dynamic regulation and protection of cultivated land. This study contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the future dynamic changes in LULC in Kinki metropolitan, emphasizing the significance of formulating localized land management strategies and providing valuable references for policymakers and land managers.” [559-564]

then it is necessary to explain whether Japanese institutions are taking this orientation or whether it is just an academic reflection. It is required to explain whether some public institutions with planning competence have taken over this study .

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

On behalf of my co-authors, we once again thank the editor and the reviewer very much for the constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Exploring Land Use Management Strategies through Morphological Spatial Patterns using a Climate-Socio-Economic Based Land Use Simulation Modeling Framework”.

Please refer to the PDF (response to the reviewer) for a detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

See the attached doc. for the comments and suggestions. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor English Editing is required.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

On behalf of my co-authors, we once again thank the editor and the reviewer very much for the constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Exploring Land Use Management Strategies through Morphological Spatial Patterns using a Climate-Socio-Economic Based Land Use Simulation Modeling Framework”.

We have studied the comments carefully and made corrections which we hope to meet with approval. The corrections are in the manuscript and the response to the reviewer’s comments is as follows.

All paragraph numbers are in revision mode.

The study developed a comprehensive LULC simulation modelling framework based on PLUS and Invest models to simulate future LULC change and the impact on carbon storage under different scenarios in the Kinki Metropolitan of Japan. The study provides understanding of the future dynamic changes in LULC and may serve as the basis for formulating localized land management policies in the Kinki Metropolis. However, the authors must address the following points.

Introduction

1. Clearly state the major research problems in the main study area (Kinki metropolitan) and how that can be addressed by your research approach.

Response：Thank you for your detailed comments and suggestions. Currently, research on future LULC simulation has been carried out in many cities, but not enough in developed countries, so we chose Japan as the research target for this study. In addition, we also found that many studies lacked discussion with local planning policies, so the future LULC analysis with local policies is also the main highlight of this study. We believe that the question raised by the reviewer should be taken seriously. However, considering the core focus and research gap, we believe it would be more appropriate to elaborate on them in the study area. However, in order to enhance the core and emphasis, we rearranged the background part and underlined essential research goals. Please refer to L72-85 and L98-101 for detail.

2. Consider moving the texts in lines 133-144 to the introduction (between lines 86-87).

Response：Thank you for your suggestion. We have mentioned in the background the problems that generally exist in Japan, such as the aging of the population (L92-93), but if we move the above paragraph, it will affect the completeness of the section on the study area. Therefore, we have retained the current paragraph and modified the structure of the study area. Please refer to L86-101 for detail.

3. “Prefecture” is a special term. Therefore, it will be appropriate to define it the first time it is mentioned in the texts.

Response：Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the explanation for “Prefecture”. Please refer to L125-126 for detail.

Study Area and Materials.

1. Line 137: Cultivated land, forest and artificial surface changed to which LULC types?

Response：Thank you for your attention. The main point of this paragraph is to emphasize that the LULC types in the Kinki metropolitan that have the largest area and the greatest changes are the three types. We have rewritten this paragraph, and please refer to L145-146 for detail.

2. Line 149: The “boundary” should be changed to boundary shape file.

Response：Thank you for your reminder. We have revised it, and please refer to L160 for detail.

3. Include the original LULC maps of 2000, 2010 and 2020 as one Figure, perhaps in Figure 1. This will help the readers to appreciate the change areas on the change maps (LULC expansion maps). Consider changing the gray scale of the elevation map to color ramp.

Use symbols (a, b, c...) to represent the maps in each panel and define them in the caption.

For a given LULC type, e.g., artificial surface, stick to one color code throughout the manuscript.

Response：Thank you for your reminder. Considering that the research focuses on future LULC, but the historical LULC from 2000-2020 are also important, we put the LULC map from 2000-2020 into the “Supplementary Material”. This is also for the reason that there are too many figures in the manuscript. In addition, we have revised the figures numbers for the entire manuscript according to the suggestions of the reviewers. Please refer to the file (Supplementary material) and manuscript.

4. In table 1, spatial accessibility and soil characteristics are supposed to be gridded raster files and hence you need to be able to specify their resolutions. It is inaccurate to place “shape file” under spatial resolution.

Response： Thank you for your reminder, we have revised it and please refer to table 1 for detail.

5. Check to make sure all the units in the texts and tables are correct and consistent, e.g., table 2, line 236 and line 304.

Response：We apologize for this problem, we have revised this. Please refer to table 2.

6. Check the Sankey diagram in Figure 2. Separate the units from the LULC areas. Make sure the colors you used to represent the LULC types in the Sankey diagram are not different from the colors you used for the maps.

Response：Thank you for your reminder, we have revised it. For details, please see the Figure 2.

Methodology

1. “Spatial patterns analysis and morphological spatial patterns from the perspective of LULC types” must come before the other analyses, i.e., 1. spatial patterns analysis and morphological spatial patterns from the perspective of LULC types, 2. Future LULC simulations under four SSP-RCP scenarios, 3. Carbon storage calculation by future LULC.

Response：The main contents of this study include 3 aspects: (1) to simulate LULC from 2020 to 2100; (2) to analyze changes in the distribution of terrestrial CS under four scenarios and explore their correlation with the MSPA classes of forest, and (3) to analyze and discuss the spatial pattern changes of LULC type guided by wide area planning.

The second and third steps are not prioritized in terms of the analysis steps, as both are based on the types of future LULC. We apologize for any misunderstanding of the structure by the reviewers due to the incompleteness of the framework. We have revised the figure 3. Technical analysis pathway and modeling framework. For detail, please refer to Figure 3.

2. Why did you use the 2020 LULC map as a baseline for model calibration why not the LULC map in the year on 2000? Any justification?

Response: We apologize for any confusion. Because of the consideration of verifying whether the PLUS model can be used for land use simulation in the Kinki metropolitan, it is necessary to compare the results with the simulation results using the results of LULC for known years. Based on the principles of the various simulation models, at least three years of actual LULC results are required, and the time intervals between the three years need to be consistent. For example, land use maps for 2000, 2010, and 2020 are used in this research. We used the LULC in 2000 and 2010 to simulate the year 2020 and compare the simulated 2020 results with the actual 2020 results to verify the accuracy of the model. If the 2000 land use type structure is to be applied, then actual pre-2000 land use results from at least 2 periods with consistent intervals are required.

3. Move lines 186-191 to the section on data acquisition.

Response：Thank you for your reminder. We have moved this content to data acquisition. Please refer to L167-172 for detail.

4. In Figure 3, some of the arrows are hanging. It is difficult to find a link between the step 1 and the remaining steps. In Figure 7, describe a, b in the caption. Apart from that a and b are repeated at the bottom of the maps. What do they mean?

Response：We apologize for the confusion caused by the above problems. We have revised Figure3 and Figure7. For detail, please refer to them.

5. Why do you have land expansions in 2020-2040, 2040-2060 and 2060-2080 as part of the historical baseline data? Are they not the outputs of the future LULC simulation? Highlight the expansion maps you used as the input data in the Plus model for the Transition Analysis Strategy (LEAS) and separate them from the simulated LULC expansion maps.

Response：I am very sorry for the problem caused by the unclear framework. Because the principle of simulation is to consider consistent simulation time intervals. Therefore, if we want to simulate the land use type map for 2060, we need the land use type for 2020 and the land use type for 2040. The land use types for 2040 can be obtained through land use simulation from 2000 to 2020. Therefore, the entire process is a continuous cycle. Another example is if we need a land use type map for 2080, we need to first obtain the land use type maps for 2040 and 2060, and analyze the land use changes from 2040 to 2060, to further simulate the land use type results for 2080.

6. In line 182-185, you mentioned the inaccuracy in the classification of the grassland category and the missing numbers in the water body category without citing any literature to support your claim. Please, provide a brief information about how the LULC data was developed and the possible sources of error under the section on data acquisition.

Response：LUH2 is an open data source that we obtain through Python and GIS, and the data of water bodies are not provided in LUH2. The results of the grassland were determined to have serious errors by comparing the data from 2000 to 2020, so we used Markov-chain to revise the data. To demonstrate the feasibility of the method, we have added relevant references. Please refer to L202 for detail.

7. Include a table which briefly describe what each scenario you used for the simulation entails.

Response：Thanks for your advice, we have explained the scenarios in the L of the original manuscript. Considering the number of graphs and charts in the manuscript, we added tables as commented by the reviewing experts and placed them in the appendix. Please refer to Table S1.

8. Why did you use carbon density values estimated for areas (e.g., Ethiopia) which have completely different environmental conditions from your study area? Why didn’t you use the IPCC carbon density default values for Japan instead?

Response：We are very sorry for the misunderstanding of the reviewer due to the reference number, we rechecked the reference numbers throughout the manuscript and corrected them. As mentioned by the reviewer, the CS data were first calculated based on relevant studies in Japan, and when the relevant values could not be obtained, data from the IPCC were used to supplement them. Please refer to references and Table 2 for detail.

9. In line 254, where did you get the binary raster imagery from?

Response：The “binary raster imagery” here refers to the LULC results of each period. We have changed these words to easily understand. Please refer to L272 for detail.

10. Label all the equations in the manuscript.

Response：Thank you for your reminder, we have added the number of equations. For detail, please refer to equations.

Results

1. Show some results from the model validation.

Response：The model validation results have been placed in the Methods because of the coherence of the results part. We hope that the Reviewer will understand our approach, which is also based on the organization of the manuscript structure by the relevant references. For model validation, please refer to L237-242 for detail.

2. For all the Figures, use symbols (a, b, c ….) to represent the images in the various panels and define them in the caption. E.g., in Figure 5, use a, b, c etc. to indicate the different scenarios and define them in the caption, e.g., a is SSP216 in 2020-2100, b is SSP245 in 2020-2100 etc.

Response：Thank you for your reminder, we have revised this Figure, please refer to Figure5 for detail.

3. For the panels a and b In Figure 7, which one is the CS in 2100 and the distribution changes from 2020 to 2100 respectively? Explain that in the caption.

Response：Thank you for your reminder, we have revised it, please refer to Figure7 for detail.

4. Some of the figures are very compact and unclear. E.g., Figures 13 and S3.

Response：Thank you for your reminder, we have changed them, If it is still unclear, we can provide high-definition images. Please refer to Figure13 and S3 for detail.

5. It will be interesting to provide in-depth findings on the nature of the LULC transitions. What could be the major cause of the decline in the cultivated land? Is it due to encroachment by artificial surfaces, i.e., replacement of cultivated land by artificial surfaces or due to abandonment of cultivated land? Could it be due to the LULC restrictions imposed by the Government? Which LULC types transitioned to forestland? Replacement of cultivated land by grassland, forestland and other vegetation may provide a clue. In the discussion, you addressed these concerns based on previous findings by other researchers. But it will be appropriate to support the existing evidence with the findings from this research.

Response：Thank you very much for the suggestions from the reviewers. It is indeed difficult to identify the reasons for the decrease or increase in LULC in the results section of the manuscript. However, in the first part (5.1) of the discussion, some opinions and hypotheses were proposed through relevant references. In the second part (5.2), the future development of arable land, forest land, and construction land was described, and relevant policies were discussed. It is believed that the descriptions of cultivated land, forest land and artificial surface in 5.2 respond to the reviewer's questions. Please refer to L523-571 for detail.

Discussion

1. Systematically discuss the findings based on the study objectives and approach.

Response：Thank you for your suggestions. In the discussion section, the research is mainly conducted based on the purpose of the study. The first part is to consider the reasons for land use changes. The second part discusses the possibility of combining with existing policies from the perspectives of forest land, artificial surface, and cultivated land.

2. Are the results consistent with the facts you presented in the introduction?

Response：I think the results are consistent with the facts, because simulating LULC change is of great significance for future land use planning. The relevant laws and policies are forward-looking, so LULC simulation has a broad prospect for land use management and planning.

3. Why did you observe conversion of cultivated land and artificial surface to forestland in Hyogo, Kyoto and Shiga as well as increased in grassland areas in Nara under SSP370scenario which is expected to be driven by limited attention to environmental concerns?

Response：As shown in Figure 6, under the SSP370 scenario, forested land increases in Hyogo, Kyoto and Shiga, while cropland and built-up land are decreasing, and the size of the area is characterized by some complementarities, so that it is considered that there is a conversion of built-up land and cropland to forested land. This is further verified in Figure 5. The specific reason for the increase of grassland in Nara cannot be clearly answered from this study. However, from the results of LULC from 2000 to 2020 and the problems that are currently prevalent in Japan, the land abandonment phenomenon due to population decline may be the main reason for the increase in grassland under this scenario.

4. Is the observed increased in artificial surfaces consistent with the findings by the previous studies? How do you explain the expected increase in artificial surfaces in a depopulated country? For example, you stated that the Kinki metropolitan of Japan, is characterized by slow urbanization, but your results suggest otherwise (increased in artificial surface).

Response：Thank you for your question, this study provides four future global development possibilities, with significant differences in land use changes under different scenarios. However, it is worth noting that SSP245 is a scenario designed to continue the characteristics of existing land use changes. It is not difficult to see that Japan's future construction land will increase in most cases, but its growth rate is very slow compared to developing countries. Although Japan's population has been decreasing since the 1990s, construction land is still slowly increasing (such as the LULC changes from 2000 to 2020), which has similar characteristics to many developed countries. The main reason I suspect is that people have different usage functions after the development of construction land, and there is also a low utilization rate after development. After policy adjustments, other green spaces are chosen for development, and the demolition of existing buildings or cement floors requires certain economic expenses. Under this situation, these spaces will be idle as construction land.

Conclusion

1. State the implications of the findings on global climate change mitigation and adaptation.
2. Could you suggest any mitigation/adaptation plan for the Kinki Metropolitan Assembly?

Response：Thank you very much to the reviewers for their serious and meticulous questions. We have further summarized, refined, and summarized the conclusion section. However, it should be noted that this study provides the future change characteristics of three types of LULC under four scenarios, and analyzes and explains their ability to provide data support and role for the protection, management, and development of existing policies. For detail, please refer to L586-597.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript.

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 comments and suggestions.

Yours sincerely.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

See the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Minor editing is required.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

On behalf of my co-authors, we once again thank the editor and the reviewer very much for the constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Exploring Land Use Management Strategies through Morphological Spatial Patterns using a Climate-Socio-Economic Based Land Use Simulation Modeling Framework”.

We have studied the comments carefully and made corrections which we hope to meet with approval. The corrections are in the manuscript and the response to the reviewer’s comments is as follows.

All paragraph numbers are in revision mode. Please download this file for detail.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx