Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. "China" needs to be added in the keywords.
2. When LCA (line42) is mentioned for the first time in the main text, its full name should be given instead of being indicated on Line 46.
3. Line 53-64: (1) The logic is rather chaotic in this section. It is suggested that the authors optimize the way of expression and clearly state the specific logical hierarchy. (2) Why "Current discussions on landscapes still focus on exploring the cultural value of landscapes"? In my opinion, the research on the natural attributes of landscapes is also sufficient. (3) How did the authors draw the conclusion of Line 59 from Line 58? There is no causal relationship between them.
4. In the introduction, the authors intend to emphasize the significance of cultural elements in landscape classification, but does not explicitly explain why landscape classification is carried out.
5. Line 95-102, the authors seem to be introducing how to optimize the method. Therefore, the core idea of this paragraph should first be clarified. Besides, this passage seems a bit abrupt and lacks transitional sentences from the previous text.
6. One major issue in the introduction is that the relevant research progress has not been thoroughly sorted out.
7. There are many errors in the citation of literature throughout the text.
8. There is a lack of detailed introduction to the Miao Frontier Corridor. In the sutdy area section, the origin of the Miao Frontier Corridor and its historical and cultural significance should be supplemented to emphasize its role in cultural dissemination.
9. Line 131-132, the data cited by the authors here is from 2010, but the data from China's seventh national census has been released. Please replace it with the latest data.
10. Figure 1, (1) The global map in the upper left corner can be removed. On the one hand, it has little reference value; on the other hand, it is not a complete global map. (2) Add a compass and a scale to the map of China. (3) It is suggested that the DEM of the study area be supplemented as the base map to facilitate correspondence with the textual description of the study area introduction. (4) Add frames to the map of the study area. Currently, the administrative boundaries have suddenly been disconnected, which is neither aesthetically pleasing nor standardized.
11. Change the title of section 2.2 as “Variables selection and data preprocessing”.
12. Check the percentages in Table 2. The total seems to have exceeded 100%.
13. The explanatory text of line 225 should be placed in the main text.
14. On line 298-427, the authors devoted a considerable amount of space to introducing the basic characteristics of each cluster, but it was more like a simple listing, lacking analysis.
15. Discussion section: (1) It is suggested to divide it into sub-sections. (2) The content of the discussion is not sufficient. In the Line 445-448 section, only two or three sentences explain why there are such landscape differences. Such a statement lacks credibility. It is suggested that the authors add relevant argumentative information to enrich the discussion part. (3) The discussion is more like presenting the innovative points of this study rather than a deeper analysis of the results.

Author Response

1.     Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: "China" needs to be added in the keywords.

Revisions 1: Landscape Character; Cultural Landscape; Multi-ethnic Area; China; The Miao Frontier Corridor; (You can see this revision in line 25-26 of the Keywords section of the new version of the manuscript.)

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestions and we apologize for ignoring the word China in my keyword selection. Since the research of this paper is based on the example of multi-ethnic area in China, we think it is very necessary to add the word “China” in the keywords. We have already added the word “China” to the keywords. In addition, we added “Miao Frontier Corridor” as a keyword for the manuscript.

Comment 2: When LCA (line42) is mentioned for the first time in the main text, its full name should be given instead of being indicated on Line 46.

Revisions 2: Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) [4] is a tool to support landscape conservation and management. LCA represent the landscape character of an area by identifying and categorizing landscape types into distinct units. (You can see these revisions in lines 46-47 of the new version of the manuscript.)

The following are the newly added reference：

4. Jellema, A.; Stobbelaar, D.J.; Groot, J. C. J.; Rossing, W. A. H. Landscape character assessment using region growing techniques in geographical information systems. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 90, S161-S174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.11.031.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your feedback. We apologize for this oversight. We have now corrected the content you mentioned, and LCA will be presented in its entirety when it is first mentioned in the main text. In addition, we have added a reference to further explain LCA.

Comment 3：Line 53-64: (1) The logic is rather chaotic in this section. It is suggested that the authors optimize the way of expression and clearly state the specific logical hierarchy. (2) Why "Current discussions on landscapes still focus on exploring the cultural value of landscapes"? In my opinion, the research on the natural attributes of landscapes is also sufficient. (3) How did the authors draw the conclusion of Line 59 from Line 58? There is no causal relationship between them.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable feedback and suggestions for improvement, which have been very helpful to us. This section does indeed contain logical contradictions and overly one-sided statements. We have revised this section based on the third, fourth, and sixth comments. The paragraph has now been rewritten as an overview of LCA research, aiming to summarize European LCA research, correct the article's overemphasis on cultural elements, and present the research background as comprehensively as possible. For detailed information on the revisions, please refer to our response to the sixth comment.

Comment 4：In the introduction, the authors intend to emphasize the significance of cultural elements in landscape classification, but does not explicitly explain why landscape classification is carried out.

Revision 4: Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) [4] is a tool to support landscape conservation and management. LCA represent the landscape character of an area by identifying and categorizing landscape types into distinct units. Dividing landscapes into different types of units is a traditional task in environmental and geographical research [5], as it allows for clearer explanations of landscapes and helps protect their uniqueness and diversity [6, 7]. LCA involves two processes. The characterization process, which includes the delineation of the area, selection of elements, landscape classification, and characterization, followed by the judgment process, which informs decision-making [8, 9]. In LCA, landscape character is defined as a unique, recognizable, and consistent pattern of elements, focusing on identifying differences between landscapes rather than determining which is superior or inferior [8]. The value of LCA lies in the creation of a landscape resource database for a region, providing comprehensive information and a spatial framework for landscape conservation and management [10]. Understanding regional landscape character is crucial for preserving the unique and diverse values of its landscapes [6].

(You can see these revisions in lines 46-60 of the new version of the manuscript.)

The following are the newly added references：

4. Jellema, A.; Stobbelaar, D.J.; Groot, J. C. J.; Rossing, W. A. H. Landscape character assessment using region growing techniques in geographical information systems. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 90, S161-S174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.11.031.
5. Antrop, M.; Van Eetvelde, V. Landscape perspectives：The Holistic Nature of Landscape; Springer, 2017. DOI: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-024-1183-6.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We noticed that many statements in the introduction emphasized the importance of cultural elements in landscape classification, while neglecting the overall context. We apologize for not noticing this issue in our previous writing. At the same time, your comments prompted us to re-examine the introduction, where we found some errors in expression, namely that landscape classification is not independent or similar to LCA, but is in fact a step in LCA work. In the previous version of the manuscript, we failed to clarify the relationship between the two. Therefore, what we should do is to explain the importance of cultural elements in LCA, rather than the importance of cultural elements in landscape classification, because the selection of landscape elements and landscape classification are both steps in LCA. Based on your suggestion, I think the question that should be clearly explained in the text should be changed from “why landscape classification is carried out.” to “why LCA is carried out.” In response, we have revised the second paragraph of the introduction. First, we switched the positions of the second and third sentences in the second paragraph, because we found that there was a slight logical error between the two sentences, which did not clearly summarize the core concepts and significance of LCA. We also added a description of the LCA steps in the second paragraph and cited relevant literature to correct the vague description of the relationship between landscape classification and LCA in the previous introduction. Second, at the end of the second paragraph, I quoted Antrop and Van Eetvelde's views to show the key role of LCA in landscape protection, which can more clearly explain why LCA should be conducted and also respond to the landscape protection needs of multi-ethnic areas raised in the first paragraph of the introduction. The overall changes to this paragraph aim to illustrate the importance of conducting LCA (in multi-ethnic areas).

Comment 5：Line 95-102, the authors seem to be introducing how to optimize the method. Therefore, the core idea of this paragraph should first be clarified. Besides, this passage seems a bit abrupt and lacks transitional sentences from the previous text.

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion on this issue, which is very useful to us. The core purpose of this paragraph is to show that the parameterization method of LCA should use clustering algorithms to identify and classify landscape characters. However, after reviewing the literature, we found that many LCA studies have already applied clustering algorithms, the discussion of the background of the use of clustering algorithms in this paragraph is not sufficient, and this study does not attempt to make a breakthrough in the use of clustering algorithms. This paragraph does indeed feel somewhat out of place here. Therefore, we have removed it without disrupting the article's structure. We hope you understand.

Comment 6：One major issue in the introduction is that the relevant research progress has not been thoroughly sorted out.

Revision 6: Since the 21st century, based on the European Landscape Convention, 2000 (ELC) [11] understanding of the landscape, LCA has become an important decision-making tool aid at the national/regional terrestrial scale in Western and Northern European countries. It has been successfully implemented in the UK [10, 12], the Netherlands [13], Belgium [14], Austria [15], Portugal [16], New Zealand [17], Cyprus [18] and other countries/regions. Initially, Traditional assessments of landscapes in the UK and Europe have mainly characterized them through biophysical and cultural-physical dimensions [19]. At the beginning of the 21st century, research expanded to include dimensions of human disturbance intensity and perception [20]. Over the past decade, research has further incorporated dimensions characterizing intangible cultural and ecological functions, enriching the indicators measuring the perceptual and cultural-physical dimensions [21].

Developing a framework for Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) in multi-ethnic areas remains a significant challenge. Due to the cultural diversity and spatial heterogeneity of these regions, where landscapes are often deeply influenced by national cultures, it is crucial to incorporate socio-cultural factors that reflect these differences when conducting LCA. However, there are few references available for LCA research in China in this regard. The LCA in Hong Kong was conducted in 2001 and was the first city in Asia to apply LCA. Unlike Western countries, which typically have clear distinctions between urban and rural areas, the evaluation in Hong Kong covered both urban and rural landscapes, providing a demonstration and model for urban and rural landscape planning and management in mainland China [22]. After 2012, the LCA method of evaluating the landscape character of China's countryside has been applied more in the implementation of the project [23-25] and scenic area planning [26]. Subsequently, local-scale LCA-based studies began to emerge, focusing on a variety of landscapes, such as river corridors [27], mountainous scenery areas [28], towns at different scales [29] and urban and rural boundaries [30]. While numerous LCA studies have been conducted in China as part of landscape spatial development planning, and many LCA research results are used to guide landscape planning [31], research specifically on multi-ethnic areas remains scarce [28]. Furthermore, in these studies, landscape classification and evaluation primarily focus on biophysical and aesthetic dimensions, with only a few incorporating cultural elements [32]. (You can see these revisions in lines 61-87 of the new version of the manuscript.)

The following are the newly added references：

11. Council of Europe. European landscape convention. report and convention florence (ETS No. 176). 2000. DOI: http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/176.
12. Warnock, S.; Griffiths, G. Landscape Characterisation: The Living Landscapes Approach in the UK. Landscape Research 2015, 40 (3), 261-278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2013.870541.
13. Meeus, J. H. A. Pan-European landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 1995, 31 (1), 57-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(94)01036-8.
14. Antrop, M.; Brandt, J.; Loupa-Ramos, I.; Padoa-Schioppa, E.; Porter, J.; Van Eetvelde, V.; Pinto-Correia, T. How landscape ecology can promote the development of sustainable landscapes in Europe: the role of the European Association for Landscape Ecology (IALE-Europe) in the twenty-first century. Landscape Ecology 2013, 28 (9), 1641-1647. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9914-9.
15. Peterseil, J.; Wrbka, T.; Plutzar, C.; Schmitzberger, I.; Kiss, A.; Szerencsits, E.; Reiter, K.; Schneider, W.; Suppan, F.; Beissmann, H. Evaluating the ecological sustainability of Austrian agricultural landscapes—the SINUS approach. Land Use Policy 2004, 21 (3), 307-320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.011.
16. Medeiros, A.; Fernandes, C.; Gonçalves, J. F.; Farinha-Marques, P. A diagnostic framework for assessing land-use change impacts on landscape pattern and character – A case-study from the Douro region, Portugal. Landscape and Urban Planning 2022, 228, 104580. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104580.
17. Brabyn, L. Classifying Landscape Character. Landscape Research 2009, 34 (3), 299-321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390802371202.
18. Manolaki, P.; Chourabi, S.; Vogiatzakis, I. N. A rapid qualitative methodology for ecological integrity assessment across a Mediterranean island's landscapes. Ecological Complexity 2021, 46, 100921. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2021.100921.
19. T. Wrkba, K. R., E. Szerencsits, H. Beissmann, P. Mandl, A. Bartl, …, W. Schneider. Landscape Structure derived from Satellite Images as Indicator for Sustainable Landuse. 1998, pp. 119-129.
20. Brabyn, L. Solutions for characterising natural landscapes in New Zealand using geographical information systems. Journal of Environmental Management 2005, 76 (1), 23-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.01.005.
21. Gottero, E.; Cassatella, C. Landscape indicators for rural development policies. Application of a core set in the case study of Piedmont Region. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2017, 65, 75-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.04.002.
22. Z. Bao, J. Z. Landscape character assessment in UK——a new tool to manage landscape change. China Landscape Architect. 2015, (31 (2015)), pp. 46-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16414/j.wa.2006.07.004 From Cnki.
23. Chen, Y. Character Assessment and Planning of Rural Landscape. Tsinghua University 2012. DOI: http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=1014020563.nh&DbName=CDFD2014.
24. X. Zhang, W. L., Z. Yu. Landscape character assessment framework in rural area: a case study in Qiaokou, Changsha, China. Journal of Applied Ecology 2015, (26), 1537-1547. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13287/j.1001-9332.20150302.016.
25. R. Zhao, D. L., M. Zhao. Research on rural landscape character assessment and optimization of sanya under the background of new-type urbanization. Architect and Culture 2015, 112-113. DOI: http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=JZYW201502030&DbName=CJFQ2015.
26. Qi, Y. The Evaluation of Park’s Landscape Features in Harbin Qunli. Northeast Forestry University 2014, 85. DOI: http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=1014402224.nh&DbName=CMFD2015.
27. Jiang, S. Distributions of Terrestrial Wildlife and Corridor Planning in Towns of Chongming. East China Normal University 2009, 105. DOI: http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=2009187168.nh&DbName=CMFD2009.
28. Li, G.; Zhang, B. Identification of landscape character types for trans-regional integration in the Wuling Mountain multi-ethnic area of southwest China. Landscape and Urban Planning 2017, 162, 25-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.01.008.
29. W. Liu, Z. Y. Identification and assessment of landscape character of haidian district, beijing. Chin. J. Ecol. 2016, 35, 1338-1344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13292/j.1000-4890.201605.031.
30. Z. Bao, J. Z. Multifunctional landscape: new strategy for planning and management in peri-urban areas. South Architect. 2017, 32-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-0232.2017.03.032.

Response 6: Agreed. Your comments have highlighted shortcomings in the content of the introduction section of our manuscript. Based on your third and fourth suggestions, we have revised the third paragraph of the manuscript's introduction to summarize the current state of European life cycle assessment (LCA) research and added relevant information about Chinese LCA research in the fourth paragraph. There are several reasons for this. First, the previous version of the manuscript's introduction failed to fully present the progress of LCA research, which would weaken the research objectives and significance of this study and hinder readers' deep understanding of the research background. Adding a review of related research would make the overview of the research background more comprehensive. Second, the description of the overview of European LCA research in the third paragraph also serves as a supplement to the second paragraph, further emphasizing the importance of conducting LCA research in different regions. Finally, the description of the overview of LCA research in China inserted in the fourth paragraph is intended to further demonstrate that LCA research in China's multi-ethnic areas is extremely scarce and that the available reference materials are very limited.

Comment 7: There are many errors in the citation of literature throughout the text.

Revision 7:

1. Maurer-Fazio, M.; Hasmath, R. The contemporary ethnic minority in China: an introduction. EURASIAN GEOGRAPHY AND ECONOMICS 2015, 56 (1), 1-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2015.1059290.
2. Ouyang, Y.; Pinstrup-Andersen, P. Health Inequality between Ethnic Minority and Han Populations in China. World Development 2012, 40 (7), 1452-1468. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.03.016.

6.Antrop, M.; Van Eetvelde, V. Landscape perspectives：The Holistic Nature of Landscape; Springer, 2017. DOI: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-024-1183-6.

9. Tudor, C. An approach to landscape character assessment. Natural England, 2014. DOI: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691184/landscape-character-assessment.pdf.
10. Swanwick, C.; Gao, F. Landscape Character Assessment in Britain. World Architecture 2006, (07), 23-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16414/j.wa.2006.07.004 From Cnki.
11. Antrop, M.; Brandt, J.; Loupa-Ramos, I.; Padoa-Schioppa, E.; Porter, J.; Van Eetvelde, V.; Pinto-Correia, T. How landscape ecology can promote the development of sustainable landscapes in Europe: the role of the European Association for Landscape Ecology (IALE-Europe) in the twenty-first century. Landscape Ecology 2013, 28 (9), 1641-1647. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9914-9.

Response 7: Thank you very much for pointing out these errors in the article. Based on your feedback, we have carefully reviewed all the references in the full text, including the newly added 24 references, and indeed found several errors. As a result, we have made the following revisions:

1. In the original manuscript, lines 29–31 contained an issue of secondary citation regarding the description of ethnic minorities. We mistakenly cited another article that had already cited the original source. This has now been corrected to reference the original source that supports this viewpoint.
2. The original manuscript contained an incorrect citation on lines 31-33. The cited literature did not state that Yunnan, Guizhou, and Hunan are the provinces with the most diverse ethnic minorities, so we have removed this reference.
3. The original manuscript lacked a citation on lines 48-50, so we have added an additional reference.
4. The complete list of authors for the reference cited in lines 50-54 of the original manuscript was not listed in the detailed reference information section. We have now corrected the complete list of authors for this reference.
5. Since we rewrote lines 55-64 of the original manuscript, we have deleted the reference cited in this section.
6. The reference cited in lines 94-93 of the original manuscript was incorrect, so we have deleted this reference.
7. There were incorrect citations in lines 170-174 of the original manuscript, and the detailed information for this reference could not be found in the reference section. This was because we intended to delete this citation when revising the initial draft of the article, but due to an oversight, we did not completely delete this reference. We have now completely deleted this reference.
8. There were two instances of improper citations in the discussion section of the original manuscript. We have now rewritten the entire discussion section based on your 15th comment, and these improperly cited references have been removed.
9. The sixth reference in the original manuscript had a formatting error. This reference is actually a book rather than a journal article, but we mistakenly formatted it as a journal citation during editing. We have now changed the reference format to ACS book format.
10. There were multiple instances of incomplete DOI numbers in the citations of the original manuscript. We have added complete DOI numbers to all references for which we could find them.
11. There were multiple citation format errors in the original manuscript. We have corrected the citation formats of these references as much as possible.

We hope that the above modifications will resolve the citation errors in the manuscript.

Comment 8: There is a lack of detailed introduction to the Miao Frontier Corridor. In the study area section, the origin of the Miao Frontier Corridor and its historical and cultural significance should be supplemented to emphasize its role in cultural dissemination.

Revision 8: The main ethnic minorities in the Miao Frontier Corridor include the Miao, Buyi, Dong, Gelao, Yi, She, Tujia, and Yao [40]. According to data from China's Seventh National Census (2020), the total population of ethnic minorities in the corridor is approximately 10.21 million (www.stats.gov.cn). Many of these ethnic groups have developed unique cultural traditions, traditional settlements, and local architectural styles. As of December 2020, a total of 440 villages in the corridor were listed as national or provincial traditional settlements.

Originally, the Miao Frontier Corridor served as a government road established at the end of the Yuan Dynasty and the beginning of the Ming Dynasty to strengthen the state's control over the southwestern region, contributing to the nationalization of the southwestern border [40]. During the Hongwu period of the Ming Dynasty, large numbers of Han Chinese military personnel and civilians migrated to the area, giving rise to the "military settlement culture," which facilitated the integration of Han culture with that of the Miao, Bouyei, Yi, and other ethnic groups. Following the Qing Dynasty's pol-icy of "replacing local chieftains with imperial officials," the region's population surged from 10,000 at the beginning of the Qing Dynasty to 5 million by the end of the Qianlong era, forming a land-based economic corridor linking the Yangtze and Pearl River systems. Building on this foundation, Confucianism, Chinese characters, lantern dances, and Han ethnic festivals spread westward along the corridor. In turn, rice terrace farming techniques, Miao-Dong songs and dances, Bouyei wax printing, and Yi medicine spread into the interior. The influx of immigrants and trade activities further promoted cultural integration between the Central Plains and the southwest. Unlike the now-abandoned "Tea-Horse Ancient Road," this corridor remains a densely populated and culturally vibrant economic belt to this day.

(You can see these revisions in lines 148-165 of the new version of the manuscript.)

The following are the newly added references：

40. Li, X., Mei; Dai, Z., Zhong. A Study on the Diversity and Integration Characteristies of TraditionaVillages Ethnic Cultural Genealogy in Miao-Jiang Corridor. Journal of Hubei University for Nationalities (Philosophy and Social Science) 2023, 41 (06), 136-146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13501/j.cnki.42-1328/c.2023.06.011 From Cnki.
41. Zhao, W.; Xiao, D.; Li, J.; Xu, Z.; Tao, J. Research on Traditional Village Spatial Differentiation from the Perspective of Cultural Routes: A Case Study of 338 Villages in the Miao Frontier Corridor. Sustainability 2024, 16 (13). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135298.

Response 8: Thank you for your suggestion. We agree with your comment about including basic information about the Miao Border Corridor in the article. To this end, we have added a new paragraph to the Study Area section of the manuscript to supplement the information you suggested presenting. This paragraph clearly explains the date of establishment, purpose, development history, and role in cultural dissemination of the Miao Border Corridor.

Comment 9: Line 131-132, the data cited by the authors here is from 2010, but the data from China's seventh national census has been released. Please replace it with the latest data.

Revision 9: The main ethnic minorities in the Miao Frontier Corridor include the Miao, Buyi, Dong, Gelao, Yi, She, Tujia, and Yao [40].  According to data from China's Seventh National Census (2020), the total population of ethnic minorities in the corridor is approximately 10.21 million (www.stats.gov.cn).

(You can see these revisions in lines 141-144 of the new version of the manuscript.)

Response 9: Agreed. The data we cited in the manuscript is indeed outdated. We have now corrected the data source from the sixth national census data to the seventh national census data and attached the website link. We have also corrected the number of ethnic minorities in the Miao Frontier Corridor from 22 million to 10.21 million based on the data from the seventh national census.

Comment 10: Figure 1, (1) The global map in the upper left corner can be removed. On the one hand, it has little reference value; on the other hand, it is not a complete global map. (2) Add a compass and a scale to the map of China. (3) It is suggested that the DEM of the study area be supplemented as the base map to facilitate correspondence with the textual description of the study area introduction. (4) Add frames to the map of the study area. Currently, the administrative boundaries have suddenly been disconnected, which is neither aesthetically pleasing nor standardized.

Revision 10:

(You can see these revisions in lines 166 of the new version of the manuscript.)

Response 10: Thank you for pointing out this issue and offering valuable suggestions. We have now made the following adjustments to Figure 1: 1. We have removed the incomplete world map. 2. We have added border lines to the map of China and the map of the Miao Frontier Corridor. 3. We have added a compass, scale, and legend to the map of China. 4. We have changed the base map of the Miao Frontier Corridor to the DEM of the area to correspond to the description in the study area.

Comment 11: Change the title of section 2.2 as “Variables selection and data preprocessing”.

Revision 11: Selection of variables and data preprocessing

(You can see these revisions in lines 168 of the new version of the manuscript.)

Response 11: Thanks for your good suggestion, we have modified it according to your request.

Comment 12: Check the percentages in Table 2. The total seems to have exceeded 100%.

Revision 12:

Ethnic Cultural	Number of units	area（km²）	percentage
Buyi	13	6856	9.49%
Dong	1	5252	7.30%
Ge Jia	2	99	0.14%
Ge Lao	3	190	0.26%
Han	15	15987	22.22%
Hui	2	692	0.96%
Miao	20	12999	18.10%
She	1	431	0.60%
Shui	2	704	0.98%
Tujia	6	3750	5.21%
Yi	6	3272	4.55%
Yao	3	1663	2.31%
Han-minorities integration	23	16366	22.75%
Multi-minorities integration	18	3692	5.13%

(You can see these revisions in lines 232 of the new version of the manuscript.)

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. This error occurred because, when initially calculating these percentages, the total area value used was derived from the combined area of all fishing net grids, which is 69,185 km². However, the actual area of the fishing net grids is smaller than the total area of the region, as we had already excluded some damaged fishing nets prior to calculating the grid areas to facilitate subsequent data preprocessing. Damaged fishing nets can lead to outliers in the statistical analysis of various variables when partitioning the data. Therefore, the fishing net grid does not fully cover the study area. However, the areas and proportions of each ethnic cultural unit were calculated based on the total area of the region, resulting in the total area of all ethnic cultural units being slightly larger than the total area of the fishing net grid. As a result, the sum of these data exceeds 100%. We sincerely apologize for this issue. We have recalculated the area proportions of each ethnic cultural unit based on the regional area. Please review the updated data.

Comment 13: The explanatory text of line 225 should be placed in the main text.

Revision 13: To select the optimal number of clusters (K), we ran the K-means algorithm across a range of K values from 10 to 50. Based on the comprehensive evaluation formula for clustering effectiveness (Equation 1), we assessed the clustering results to determine the optimal K value. The five K-values with the highest composite scores were chosen, and their corresponding clustering results were visualized to identify the best landscape classification. To visualize the clustering results, we first established a matrix linking type values with grid cells [69185×52] and imported the clustering type values into the corresponding geo-coded grid cells. Finally, the clustering results were visualized using the GIS platform.

Evaluation Values = (CH + SL) – (DB + WCSS)

Equation 1. Clustering effectiveness evaluation formula based on CH value, SL value, DB value, and WCSS value.

(You can see these revisions in lines 250-260 of the new version of the manuscript.)

Response 13: Agreed. We have added this descriptive language to the main text and changed the name of the formula. The main text now provides a more detailed explanation of the purpose of Equation 1.

Comment 14: On line 298-427, the authors devoted a considerable amount of space to introducing the basic character of each cluster, but it was more like a simple listing, lacking analysis.

Revision 14: Regarding the distribution of ethnic landscape character types, the landscape characters of the ethnic groups in the Miao Frontier Corridor are diverse. Among the major ethnic groups, the Bouyei have six types of landscape character (types 12, 13, 20, 21, 26, and 36), with an altitude of 1,169-1,290 meters. The main landscape character is farmland located in river valleys, hillsides, hills, or gentle areas of karst mountains, surrounded by a large amount of mixed vegetation.

The Dong and Tujia ethnic groups have four (types 2, 30, 31, and 32) and five (types 6, 9, 25, 33, and 34) landscape character types, respectively. The Dong people live in an area with an altitude of 542 m to 996 m, and the main landscape character is villages distributed along rivers and terraced fields on the slopes on both sides of the rivers.

The Han, Miao, Han-minority integration have 16 types (types 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29), 13 types (types 2, 6, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 24, 26, 30, 33, 36, 37), and 19 types (types 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 33, 35, 37) of land-scape character types. These three ethnic groups are distributed throughout the region, and the distribution of landscape character are not uniform. The altitude of the land-scape character area where the Han people live is 225m-2054m, and the relatively prominent landscape character is the plain or hilly agricultural landscape.

The altitude of the landscape character area where the Miao people live is 227m-2098m, and the relatively prominent landscape character is the hilly and karst mountainous landscape accompanied by terraced fields or plain farmland.

The landscape character area where the Han-minority integration ranges from 404 m to 2,054 m above altitude, with relatively prominent landscape character of moun-tainous terraced fields and villages surrounded by mixed vegetation.

The She have only one type of landscape (type 30), with an average altitude of 860 meters. The main landscape character is large areas of tree-shaped mountains, with scattered farmland and villages at the foot of the mountains.

The Tujia live in an area with an altitude of 277 m to 794 m, and the main land-scape character is villages located in gentle areas in the mountains and terraced fields on gentle slopes.

The Yi have four (types 3, 5, 19, and 24), with altitudes between 1,807 m. The main landscape character of the Yi ethnic group's location is plateau agricultural landscapes and high-altitude mountain terraced landscapes, covering farmland and coniferous for-ests.

There are three types (types 9, 17, and 27) of landscape characters among the Yao people. The altitude ranges from 404 m to 794 m. The main landscape characters are traditional settlements on both sides of mountain rivers, with terraced fields on the lower slopes surrounding the settlements.

There are five types of Multi-minorities integration communities (types 2, 10, 25, 33, and 34) with landscape character ranging from 307 m to 1,208 m above sea level. The main landscape characteristics of these areas are karst mountains or low-altitude hills, with settlements surrounded by gentle farmland or terraced fields located at the foot of the mountains.

Based on field surveys and satellite images, we recorded the key landscape character of each landscape character zone. After analysis, these characteristics can be grouped into six major categories: karst landscapes, subalpine terraced landscapes, hilly-river valley agricultural landscapes, urban-suburban transition zone landscapes, alpine forest-grassland landscapes, and a number of unique landscapes that cannot be classified. Among these, the main features of karst landscapes include karst peaks, canyons, caves, waterfalls, and land desertification. The key features of subalpine terraced landscapes are continuous terraced fields on mountain slopes, ridge roads, and villages arranged in a comb-like or tree-like pattern. Hilly river valley agricultural landscapes are characterized by interwoven alluvial plains and low hills, with large areas dedicated to crop rotation, including rapeseed, rice, and vegetables. Settlements are typically aligned along rivers and roads, resembling a string of beads. The main landscape features of urban-suburban transition zones consist of alluvial plains or dissolution basins, with urban core areas at the center, surrounded by hills and forest belts. Finally, the alpine forest-grassland landscape is defined by large mountains, with slopes covered in a mix of coniferous and broadleaf forests, low shrubs, and settlements generally located on gentle slopes or in valleys.

(You can see these revisions in lines 322-384 of the new version of the manuscript.)

Response 14: Thank you for your valuable comments. They are very helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript. As you said, the results of this paper should present more content. Therefore, we have made corresponding revisions to the discussion section on ethnic landscape character and the landscape character description section in the results of the paper. First, we have conducted a more detailed description of the landscape character of each ethnic group's region, including the number and detailed type codes of each ethnic group's landscape character, the altitude range of these landscape character, and a description of the main landscape character of each ethnic group's settlement. This clearly shows the living environment and natural preferences of each ethnic group. If these results are linked to the newly revised discussion section, it can also explain the impact of ethnic migration and land distribution on the regional landscape under the historical system. At the same time, I also added analysis to the landscape character description section. We summarized the key landscape characters of all regions into six major categories and extracted the common character of all landscape characters in each major category. This allows readers to have a clearer understanding of the overall landscape of the Miao Frontier Corridor.

Comments 15: Discussion section: (1) It is suggested to divide it into sub-sections. (2) The content of the discussion is not sufficient. In the Line 445-448 section, only two or three sentences explain why there are such landscape differences. Such a statement lacks credibility. It is suggested that the authors add relevant argumentative information to enrich the discussion part. (3) The discussion is more like presenting the innovative points of this study rather than a deeper analysis of the results.

Revision 15:

4. Discussion

4.1. Differences in landscape character caused by natural conditions

The Miao Frontier Corridor connects China’s three major geographical terraces and spans a wide range of altitudes, characterized by complex terrain and landforms. The results indicate that the main land cover in areas with high altitude (1500m-3500m) landscape character types (types 3, 5, 14, 16, 19, 23, 24, 28, and 37) is mainly evergreen coniferous forest and mixed vegetation (LC7, LC4), while the main land cover in areas with low altitude (less than 500 m) landscape character types (types 1, 4, 6, 7, 25, 27, 29, and 34) is mosaic farmland and evergreen broadleaf forest (LC3 and LC5). Human intervention is more pronounced in low-altitude regions than in high-altitude areas [53], leading to a larger area of artificially planted vegetation [54-56], consequently, more farmland in these regions [57, 58]. Additionally, broadleaf forests generally thrive in low-altitude regions, while coniferous forests are more common at higher altitudes [59-61].

From the perspective of relief amplitude, the average relief amplitude in the Guizhou section is 26.74 m, higher than that of the Yunnan section (23.17 m) and the Hunan section (24.55 m). Meanwhile, the average area of landscape character areas in the Guizhou section is 1,632.74 km², smaller than that of the Yunnan section (1,824.62 km²) and the Hunan section (1,771.28 km²). This suggests that an increase in relief amplitude contributes to greater landscape fragmentation, as steeper mountainous areas reduce the availability of arable land and limit human activity [62, 63], As a result, the landscape becomes fragmented into smaller units, enhancing landscape diversity [64]. In contrast, gentler river valleys or plains tend to have more homogeneous landscapes [63, 65]. These findings highlight the significant influence of natural conditions, such as altitude and relief amplitude, on the overall landscape character of the Miao Frontier Corridor.

4.2. Differences in landscape character caused by historical institutions

The formation of landscapes is deeply intertwined with human culture. Landscapes are undoubtedly the result of the dynamic interaction between natural and cultural factors, and this concept has gained multidisciplinary and comprehensive significance [14]. Historical institutions play a crucial role in shaping the landscape character of corridors. Beginning in the Ming Dynasty, large-scale migration of Han Chinese from the Central Plains to the southwest took place through the Miao Frontier Corridor. Research indicates that landscape character areas with a significant presence of Han Chinese cultural units are primarily located along river valleys and plains, such as in types 4, 6, and 15. In contrast, areas dominated by ethnic minority cultural units tend to be situated in mountainous and high-altitude regions, such as types 12, 24, and 26. These areas have developed distinct landscape characters over time due to the long-standing practices of different ethnic groups. This is because the existence of the government and military during the Ming and Qing dynasties introduced various institutions, such as the “Expulsion of the minorities for Land Development” institution in the Ming Dynasty, and the “replacing local chieftains with imperial officials” institution during the Qing Dynasty [66, 67]. The implementation of these institutions led to the Han Chinese encroaching on areas with more favorable farming conditions, while ethnic minorities were pushed to marginal lands. This displacement forced many ethnic minorities into mountainous areas, where they adapted their lifestyles and production methods to the local environment based on the natural conditions. These adaptations, in turn, influenced the local natural landscape. The findings suggest that historical systems have indeed played a significant role in shaping the landscape character of the Miao Frontier Corridor.

Additionally, the establishment of the Miao Frontier Corridor provided a vital communication channel between ethnic groups, facilitating trade, cultural exchanges, and other interactions within the corridor and its surrounding regions. In the Hunan section of the corridor adjacent to the Central Plains, Han Chinese cultural units were prevalent in landscape character types 4, 6, 7, 9, and 17, accounting for 81.8% of the total landscape character types in this region. Entering Guizhou and Yunnan sections, the presence of Han Chinese cultural units has diminished, appearing only in types 15 and 20. However, cultural units blending Han-minority integration are abundant in types 2, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 33, and 35. The deployment of the military changed the ethnic composition of many traditional settlements, transforming them into mixed settlements. At the same time, in landscape character areas where Han-minority integration cultures mix, agricultural landscapes account for a significant proportion, such as types 1, 4, and 20. This suggests that, over the 700 years since the establishment of the Miao Frontier Corridor, Han culture spread along this ancient postal route to the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau, facilitating cultural and technological exchanges between Han commoners and indigenous peoples. This exchange led to the formation of a small portion of traditional settlements which are Han-minority integration, while also transforming local agricultural landscapes and environments. However, a more profound impact stemmed from the Ming Dynasty's military garrison institution, which led to the establishment of numerous “military settlements” within the Miao Frontier Corridor [68]. At the same time, the forced introduction of Han Chinese farming techniques significantly altered the lifestyles and land use practices of the indigenous peoples, thereby having a profound impact on the overall land use and landscape of the Miao border corridor.

4.3. Revelation for the application of LCA in multi-ethnic areas

This study identified the landscape character of the multi-ethnic regions of the Miao ethnic border corridor by integrating both natural and cultural elements. The results demonstrate that utilizing ethnic culture as a cultural element helps to reveal the diverse landscape characteristics of different ethnic groups, as well as the variations in landscape features between them. Secondly, the cost allocation method employed to delineate the extent of ethnic group cultural influence in geographical space is both objective and reliable. The study uses cost-allocation tools to analyze the influence range of ethnic group culture during its dissemination and diffusion. This approach is akin to the Tyson polygon principle. In regions where consistent historical, cultural, and socio-economic data are lacking, the quantitative method proposed in this study offers a means to gather relevant data, thus overcoming the limitation of point data, which often cannot be used as clustering variables in parameterization methods. Finally, area-based statistical variables prove more effective than the traditional 0/1 classification in retaining landscape details. The advantage of this method is that it can convert nominal variables into continuous numerical variables, while allowing each landscape sample to contain multiple variables in a single landscape element. As a result, it reduces the impact of grid resolution lower than the base datasets.

4.4. Limitations and outlook

The study does have certain limitations. First, as additional settlements are discovered, the list of traditional settlements will change, which in turn will alter the data on cultural elements, making the results non-unique. As appropriate regional data continue to develop, the accuracy of classification results in future studies can be further improved. Second, the k-means algorithm used in this study has its limitations, including sensitivity to initial cluster centers and the potential for local convergence, which may lead to imperfect clustering outcomes. To enhance accuracy, alternative models in MATLAB and Python could be employed, with the most suitable one selected through comparison. Finally, due to the challenge of obtaining consistent basic data across the entire region, the landscape character elements used in this study are not exhaustive. However, as data sources become more consistent and relevant stakeholders are involved, a more comprehensive landscape classification will be possible in the future. While this study does have limitations in methodology and data processing, these should not detract from its scientific value. Rather, they highlight opportunities for methodological advancements in future research.

(You can see these revisions in lines 522-632 of the new version of the manuscript.)

The following are the newly added references：

53. Yang X, X. J., Wang H, Quan H, Yu H, Luan J, Wang D, Li Y, Lv D. Vertical distribution characteristics of soil organic carbon and vegetation types under different elevation gradients in Cangshan, Dali. PeerJ 2024, 12:e16686. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.16686.
54. Liu, L.; Jing X Fau - Wang, J.; Wang J Fau - Zhao, C.; Zhao, C. Analysis of the changes of vegetation coverage of western Beijing mountainous areas using remote sensing and GIS. Environmental monitoring and assessment 2009, 1-4 (1573-2959 (Electronic)), 339-349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0360-0.
55. Da, L.-J.; Kang, M.-M.; Song, K.; Shang, K.-K.; Yang, Y.-C.; Xia, A.-M.; Qi, Y.-F. Altitudinal zonation of human-disturbed vegetation on Mt. Tianmu, eastern China. Ecological Research 2009, 24 (6), 1287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-009-0613-6.
56. Liu, Y.; Huang, H.; Meng, L.; Liu, M.; Wu, Z.; Liu, T.; Labat, D. Spatial-temporal evolution of vegetation coverage and its relationship with terrain and human factors in the upper reaches of Ganjiang River Basin, China. Frontiers in Earth Science 2023, Volume 10 - 2022, Original Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.1043403.
57. Chen, Y.; Xu, N.; Yu, Q.; Guo, L. Ecosystem Service Response to Human Disturbance in the Yangtze River Economic Belt: A Case of Western Hunan, China. Sustainability 2020, 12 (2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020465.
58. Yu, L.; Li, Y.; Yu, M.; Chen, M.; Yang, L. Dynamic Changes in Agroecosystem Landscape Patterns and Their Driving Mechanisms in Karst Mountainous Areas of Southwest China: The Case of Central Guizhou. Sustainability 2023, 15 (12). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129160.
59. Liu;, Z.; Zhen;, C.; Fang, J. The Relationship Between the Distribution of Major Vegetation Types and Topography in Xiaowutai Mountain, Hebei Province: An Analysis Based on Remote Sensing Information. Biodiversity 2004, 01, 146-154.
60. Coleman, K.; Müller, J.; Kuenzer, C. Remote Sensing of Forests in Bavaria: A Review. Remote Sensing 2024, 16 (10). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16101805.
61. Zhen;, Z.; Zhuang;, L.; Liao;, G.; Liu;, H.; Cheng;, Z.; Li;, W.; Shang;, R.; Guan;, P.; Chen;, J. Altitudinal distribution characteristics and spatio-temporal dynamics of forests in subtropical China from 2000 to 2019. Earth science 2024, 8 (1674-7240), 2404-2424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1360/SSTe-2023-0106.
62. Foster, D. R.; Orwig, D. A. Preemptive and Salvage Harvesting of New England Forests: When Doing Nothing Is a Viable Alternative. Conservation Biology 2006, 20 (4), 959-970. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00495.x.
63. Zhang, Y.; Yin, H.; Zhu, L.; Miao, C. Landscape Fragmentation in Qinling-Daba Mountains Nature Reserves and Its Influencing Factors. In Land, 2021; Vol. 10.
64. Yang, Z.; Hong, Y.; Guo, Q.; Yu, X.; Zhao, M. The Impact of Topographic Relief on Population and Economy in the Southern Anhui Mountainous Area, China. Sustainability 2022, 14 (21). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114332.
65. DONG Yong, Z. L., GAO Hong, WANG Bao. Detection and Spatial Heterogeneity Analysis of Terrain Fragmentation on the Loess Plateau. Journal of Geo-information Science 2023, 25 (8), 1625-1636. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12082/dqxxkx.2023.220892.
66. Chen;, W. A Study on the Changes in Ethnic Relations in Southwest Hubei Before and After the Land Reform. Xinchu culture 2025, (10), 4-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20133/j.cnki.CN42-1932/G1.2025.10.001.
67. Dong, D. An Investigation into the Ming and Qing Dynasties' “Expulsion of the Miao People for Land Development” Incident. Guizhou Ethnic Studies 2006, (06), 128-133.
68. Zhang;, K. A Brief Analysis of the Transformation of Military Settlements into Self-cultivating Farmers at the End of the Ming Dynasty. Ming History Research Collection 2004, 00, 459-485.

Response 15: Thank you very much for your suggestions. The discussion section of the manuscript does indeed have these problems. We have now rewritten the entire discussion section, with the following main changes:

1. We have taken your advice and divided the discussion into four subsections: differences in landscape character under natural conditions, differences in landscape character under historical institutions, implications of LCA research in multi-ethnic areas, and limitations and prospects.
2. We adjusted the structure of the discussion, devoting more space to exploring the factors that influence the differences in landscape character in the Miao Frontier Corridor rather than discussing the innovative points of the study.
3. We added more evidence to illustrate the causes of the differences in landscape character in the Miao Frontier Corridor.

First, in the first section, we discussed the impact of natural factors on the differences in landscape character in the Miao Frontier Corridor, mainly focusing on the two most basic factors of altitude and relief amplitude, because other natural factors such as vegetation and land cover are indirectly or directly affected by altitude and relief amplitude. In this section, we explained the relationship between these factors, so we did not mention the impact of other natural factors on the landscape in the text. Second, in writing the second section, we incorporated the suggestions of another reviewer in addition to your advice. He noted that the discussion section of my previous draft implicitly assumed that living in mountainous areas was a voluntary choice for certain ethnic minorities like the Miao, rather than a forced allocation under historical political systems. This assumption might obscure the unequal distribution of land and resources among ethnic groups in the past. Therefore, we should clarify in the manuscript how historical systems influenced the settlement locations of various ethnic minorities. we very much agree with your and his views, so in the second subsection, we discussed several key historical systems that led to the migration and movement of various ethnic groups and their impact on the living environment and land use patterns of each ethnic group. Based on this, we discussed the impact of the practices of various ethnic groups under these systems on the overall landscape of the Miao Frontier Corridor. Finally, we reduced the length of the discussion of the innovative points of the article and explained some of the limitations of the research methods in the last subsection. We hope these changes meet your requirements.

2.     Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing out the language issues in the manuscript. We have contacted a friend whose native language is English, and with his help, we have polished and revised the language throughout the entire text. We hope that the revised language will better explain the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is an interesting analysis conducted here. It represents a snapshot of the current situation of communities in the Miao Frontier Corridor, the different landscapes in which they dwell and the varying landuse types derived therefrom. Although I find the complex quantitative analysis unnecessary -- most landscape characterisation in Europe is undertaken also on the basis of observation and experience rather than map work alone -- the results are convincing.

There is an issue relating to the 'snapshot' nature of the work however. It assumes the reality and appropriateness of the ethnic classifications applied. It is not clear who applies the ethnic classifications to particular communities: are these emic or etic in nature? Similarly there seems to be an assumption that the landscapes occupied by the different groups are choices of those groups: the possible (possibly likely) role of Han colonisation in relegating other groups to particular areas and therefore to particular landscape types is ignored by you. And I note you cite the agricultural nature of Han occupation positively but not the different ways the other groups use their land.

This kind of work and the manner in which it is conducted and presented supports a status quo  that may mask past and present inequalities built in to classing the settlements of minority (quite likely Indigenous) populations as 'historic' or 'cultural'. Some recognition of this by you would be appropriate. In particular, you could (and I think should) indicate how the current land distribution came about, how the different ethnicities are distinguished and who by, and the consequences for the people of the corridor of this distribution of land. 

Author Response

1.     Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: There is an interesting analysis conducted here. It represents a snapshot of the current situation of communities in the Miao Frontier Corridor, the different landscapes in which they dwell and the varying landuse types derived therefrom. Although I find the complex quantitative analysis unnecessary -- most landscape characterisation in Europe is undertaken also on the basis of observation and experience rather than map work alone -- the results are convincing.

There is an issue relating to the 'snapshot' nature of the work however. It assumes the reality and appropriateness of the ethnic classifications applied. It is not clear who applies the ethnic classifications to particular communities: are these emic or etic in nature? Similarly there seems to be an assumption that the landscapes occupied by the different groups are choices of those groups: the possible (possibly likely) role of Han colonisation in relegating other groups to particular areas and therefore to particular landscape types is ignored by you. And I note you cite the agricultural nature of Han occupation positively but not the different ways the other groups use their land.

This kind of work and the manner in which it is conducted and presented supports a status quo  that may mask past and present inequalities built in to classing the settlements of minority (quite likely Indigenous) populations as 'historic' or 'cultural'. Some recognition of this by you would be appropriate. In particular, you could (and I think should) indicate how the current land distribution came about, how the different ethnicities are distinguished and who by, and the consequences for the people of the corridor of this distribution of land.

Revision 1:

4.2. Differences in landscape character caused by historical institutions

The formation of landscapes is deeply intertwined with human culture. Landscapes are undoubtedly the result of the dynamic interaction between natural and cultural factors, and this concept has gained multidisciplinary and comprehensive significance [14]. Historical institutions play a crucial role in shaping the landscape character of corridors. Beginning in the Ming Dynasty, large-scale migration of Han Chinese from the Central Plains to the southwest took place through the Miao Frontier Corridor. Research indicates that landscape character areas with a significant presence of Han Chinese cultural units are primarily located along river valleys and plains, such as in types 4, 6, and 15. In contrast, areas dominated by ethnic minority cultural units tend to be situated in mountainous and high-altitude regions, such as types 12, 24, and 26. These areas have developed distinct landscape characters over time due to the long-standing practices of different ethnic groups. This is because the existence of the government and military during the Ming and Qing dynasties introduced various institutions, such as the “Expulsion of the minorities for Land Development” institution in the Ming Dynasty, and the “replacing local chieftains with imperial officials” insti-tution during the Qing Dynasty [66, 67]. The implementation of these institutions led to the Han Chinese encroaching on areas with more favorable farming conditions, while ethnic minorities were pushed to marginal lands. This displacement forced many ethnic minorities into mountainous areas, where they adapted their lifestyles and production methods to the local environment based on the natural conditions. These adaptations, in turn, influenced the local natural landscape. The findings suggest that historical systems have indeed played a significant role in shaping the landscape character of the Miao Frontier Corridor.

Additionally, the establishment of the Miao Frontier Corridor provided a vital communication channel between ethnic groups, facilitating trade, cultural exchanges, and other interactions within the corridor and its surrounding regions. In the Hunan section of the corridor adjacent to the Central Plains, Han Chinese cultural units were prevalent in landscape character types 4, 6, 7, 9, and 17, accounting for 81.8% of the total landscape character types in this region. Entering Guizhou and Yunnan sections, the presence of Han Chinese cultural units has diminished, appearing only in types 15 and 20. However, cultural units blending Han-minority integration are abundant in types 2, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 33, and 35. The deployment of the military changed the ethnic composition of many traditional settlements, transforming them into mixed settlements. At the same time, in landscape character areas where Han-minority integration cultures mix, agricultural landscapes account for a significant proportion, such as types 1, 4, and 20. This suggests that, over the 700 years since the establishment of the Miao Frontier Corridor, Han culture spread along this ancient postal route to the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau, facilitating cultural and technological ex-changes between Han commoners and indigenous peoples. This exchange led to the formation of a small portion of traditional settlements which are Han-minority integration, while also trans-forming local agricultural landscapes and environments. However, a more profound impact stemmed from the Ming Dynasty's military garrison institution, which led to the establishment of numerous “military settlements” within the Miao Frontier Corridor [68]. At the same time, the forced introduction of Han Chinese farming techniques significantly altered the lifestyles and land use practices of the indigenous peoples, thereby having a profound impact on the overall land use and landscape of the Miao border corridor.

(You can see these revisions in lines 548-596 of the new version of the manuscript.)

The following are the newly added references：

66. Chen;, W. A Study on the Changes in Ethnic Relations in Southwest Hubei Before and After the Land Reform. Xinchu culture 2025, (10), 4-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20133/j.cnki.CN42-1932/G1.2025.10.001.
67. Dong, D. An Investigation into the Ming and Qing Dynasties' “Expulsion of the Miao People for Land Development” Incident. Guizhou Ethnic Studies 2006, (06), 128-133.
68. Zhang;, K. A Brief Analysis of the Transformation of Military Settlements into Self-cultivating Farmers at the End of the Ming Dynasty. Ming History Research Collection 2004, 00, 459-485.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. They are very helpful to us. Based on your comments, we have reviewed the entire article and made some revisions: we have added a discussion in the discussion section about the impact of historical institutions on the living environment and land use patterns of the ethnic groups in the Miao Frontier Corridor and how this has affected the landscape. We apologize for overlooking this issue in our previous manuscript. The ethnic minorities in the Miao Frontier Corridor have indeed been forced to change their places of residence or production methods to varying degrees due to historical systems, and these changes have also had an impact on the landscape of the Miao Frontier Corridor. We have listed some of the effects of these systems on the ethnic minorities in the Miao Frontier Corridor in the revised discussion section. Secondly, regarding the issue of ethnic classification, our classification of ethnic groups refers to China's official ethnic classification list, which was compiled by Chinese scholar Xiaotong Fei and initiated in 1980. At the time, China urgently needed an official list to distinguish between different ethnic groups and their cultures. The principles of ethnic classification and naming are based on respect for the cultures of each ethnic group, the recognition of their own cultures by China's ethnic minorities, their self-designations, and the cultural differences between them. Additionally, during our research on the ethnic composition of traditional settlements, we found that a small number of villagers referred to their own ethnic group as “Ge Jia.” This name is not included in the official ethnic classification list. Out of respect for their culture, we assigned this group a separate category in our ethnic classification research, namely “Ge Jia.” Furthermore, during our research, we observed that many traditional settlements have multiple ethnic groups living together, including cases where the “Ge Jia” group coexists with other ethnic groups. In such cases, we did not use the official ethnic list as the standard for naming these groups but instead referred to them as Han-minority integrated or minority-minority integrated groups. Based on the above explanations, our ethnic classification and naming methods are relatively fair. However, there may be cases where certain ethnic groups were forced to alter their ethnic culture or names under past oppressive systems, which requires further historical research and can be improved upon in future studies. 

2.     Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your recognition of the linguistic quality of this manuscript. However, based on the suggestions of another reviewer, I have polished the language of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made acceptable revisions on their manuscript and addressed most of my concerns. I think this work has improved a lot after revision, I have no further comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing my main concern. I am happy to see this published now.