Expansion of Lifestyle Blocks in Peri-Urban New Zealand: A Review of the Implications for Environmental Management and Landscape Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is the review-type paper that reports the results of a systematic literature review of relevant studies on Lifestyle blocks in New Zealand and refers to similar international contexts. Its focus is on the environmental implications of lifestyle-related activities about water consumption, food production, energy use, and biodiversity protection. The outcome of the review highlights the need for further evaluation of the environmental sustainability of lifestyle blocks and emphasizes the importance of property design and adaptable planning policies. The focus is on strategies that balance environmental sustainability, land productivity, and lifestyle owners' aspirations.

 

 

Below are my suggestions on how to improve the quality of the manuscript:

 

1. Authors should explain why this review, that is, what was the motivation. Consider what is said in subchapter 1.3 (challenges in NZ).
2. All references must follow journal standards. In text use numbers in brackets instead of full names of referenced author(s). Only where important use names, but also add numbers in brackets corresponding to the reference list.
3. Results and Discussion sections are too long and should be shortened by avoiding extensive elaboration and putting too many unnecessary details.
4. On the contrary, the Conclusions section is short without any information about the review procedure, limitations in extracting literature sources, and details on bibliometric analysis if used (maybe I missed info about it).

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review our article.  We appreciate your comments, feedback and commitment to helping us improve the manuscript.  Please find the response to your comments outlined in the attached document.  Changes made can also be seen via track changes in the revised manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article focuses on the environmental sustainability of lifestyle blocks (LBs) in New Zealand's suburban areas. Through a systematic literature review, it incorporates multi-dimensional data including land use, water resource management, food production, energy use, and biodiversity conservation to assess the environmental impact of lifestyle blocks. The study points out that the differences in land use methods and environmental awareness among lifestyle block owners lead to different environmental outcomes. Their activities bring opportunities for biodiversity conservation and small-scale food production, but also pose challenges such as resource consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and the loss of productive land. This research has certain value, emphasizing the importance of balancing environmental sustainability, land productivity, and the expectations of lifestyle block owners through targeted landscape design and adaptive planning policies. It provides important theoretical support and practical guidance for ecological protection and sustainable land use planning in New Zealand and similar regions, but still has room for further revision and improvement.

 

1) It is suggested that the keywords be sorted in alphabetical order.

2) It is recommended that the proportion and significance of LBs in the overall land use of New Zealand be elaborated in Section 1.2 on line 59 to help readers better understand its research value.

3) When introducing the background of the rise of LBs in Section 2, various driving factors are mentioned, but the relative importance of each factor is not clearly indicated. It is suggested that a literature review or data analysis be conducted to rank or weight these factors, enhancing the depth of the background description.

4) It is recommended that lines 135-144 be supplemented to explain how the research will fill the gaps in existing studies. It is also suggested that the research innovations and expected contributions of this article be elaborated.

5) It is recommended that the discussion in Section 3.1 be supplemented. Currently, this part is too brief and needs to be deepened.

6) In Section 3.2, the literature search strategy only uses Scopus and Google Scholar databases, which may miss some important grey literature or industry reports. It is suggested to consider other relevant databases comprehensively, such as Web of Science and Agricola, to ensure the comprehensiveness of the literature.

7) In lines 257-266, the description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria is clear, but it is recommended to further explain why the period from 2000 to 2025 is chosen as the key research period instead of other periods, such as 1990 to 2020. Are there specific reasons or data to support this choice? Please provide appropriate explanations. Additionally, during the screening process, only the titles and abstracts are used for initial screening, which may lead to misjudgments. It is suggested to briefly read the full text of some questionable documents after the initial screening to ensure the accuracy of the screening results.

8) In Section 4.1, when analyzing the environmental impacts of LBs, issues such as land fragmentation and loss of high-yield land are mentioned, but no specific data or case studies are provided to quantify the extent of these impacts. It is recommended to supplement relevant data or case studies to enhance the persuasiveness of the results.

9) In Section 4.1.4, when discussing the biodiversity conservation potential of LBs, some positive management practices are mentioned, but the actual application situation of these practices in New Zealand is not clearly indicated. It is recommended to supplement the description of the actual participation of New Zealand LBs owners in biodiversity conservation and the challenges they face.

10) In lines 755-773, it is mentioned that LBs owners show strong environmental awareness, but this awareness does not always translate into practical actions. It is recommended to further explore how to convert this awareness into sustainable land management practices through education, incentives, or policy guidance.

11) It is recommended to supplement lines 846-862 to conduct an in-depth analysis of the specific differences in land use and environmental management between New Zealand and other countries. It is also suggested to conduct a comparative analysis to explore which international experiences can be directly borrowed and which need to be adjusted according to New Zealand's national conditions.

12) It is recommended to supplement the future development and shortcomings of this research at the end to ensure the rigor of the article.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review our article.  We appreciate your comments, feedback and commitment to helping us improve the manuscript.  Please find the response to your comments outlined in the attached document.  Changes made can also be seen via track changes in the revised manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx