Landscape Health Assessment of Suburban Forest Parks with Different Land Use Intensities and Grid Scales

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review comments are provided in the document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1

This study evaluates the landscape health of suburban forest parks under different land useintensities and proposes an analytical framework from a multifunctional perspective that integrates ecological protection and recreational use. The authors establish an index system using the entropy weight method and apply a multi-scale grid sampling approach to systematically analyze two representative forest parks: Xiqiao Mountain National Forest Park and Yunyong National Forest Park.

Overall, the paper is well-structured and methodologically sound, with certain practical implications. However, there is still room for improvement in terms of clarity, scientific rigor, and depth of discussion. Revisions are recommended based on the following comments:

Response to reviewer's comments:

We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightful comments. After studying these comments carefully, we have made revisions accordingly.

 

1. It is suggested that the introduction should include a clear definition of“landscape health,” asthe entire paper revolves around this concept. The current introduction does not specify its connotation or dimensions of measurement. Please supplement the definition of landscape health, including whether it encompasses structural integrity, functional diversity, human perception, Briefly review the main current assessment methods and clarify the unique perspective or method adopted in this study.

A: Thanks for pointing this out. We have supplemented the definition of landscape health, reviewed the main current assessment methods and clarified the unique perspective adopted in this study. Please refer to Line 49-72 for details.

 

Landscape health refers to the self-sustaining capacity of structures, functions, and processes among ecosystems [8]. Landscape health assessments evaluate the structural components, ecological processes, and functions of landscapes based on systematic classification [9] and are crucial for balancing conservation and land use. Various approaches have been applied for assessing landscape health, including geostatistics, participatory geographical information systems (GIS), and landscape pattern analysis [10,11,12]. In such studies, indicator systems are constructed using frameworks such as Vigor-Organization-Resilience (VOR) and Pressure-State-Response (PSR), while methods such as Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), entropy weight method, Technique for  Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method, and combination weighting method are applied to determine indicator weights to assess landscape health condition. Particularly, the entropy weight method has been widely applied due to its advantages of a simple calculation process, high accuracy, and strong objectivity. The VOR model emphasizes the integrity and sustainability of eco-system structures, focusing on the assessment of the ecosystem's natural attributes and integrity [13], while the PSR model focuses on the causal relationship between ecosystems and human activities and establishes an assessment system from social, economic, ecological, and other aspects [14]. However, most GIS-derived indicators used in these two models (e.g., productivity, diversity, connectivity, and ecosystem recovery or its economic, resource, and environmental dimensions) exhibit a degree of subjectivity and uncertainty [15]. More importantly, indicator classification methods that link landscape function to land use remain limited. Developing evaluation systems from a land-use-based functional perspective can provide a more objective assessment of landscape health and better reflect the interactions between human activities and land. 

 

2. In line 76 of the third paragraph ofthe introduction, it is recommended to add a discussion on the limitations of using a landscape-scale approach in practical research.

A: Thanks for your great suggestions. We have added discussion on the limitations of using a landscape-scale approach in practical research. Please refer to Line 87-89 for details.

 

However, in practical research, the variability in spatial analysis results caused by the subjective selection of sampling units at the landscape scale has been overlooked. Although different grid sizes are used as basic sampling units to evaluate landscape health conditions in each sampling area, most research focuses on a single grid scale.

 

3. The introduction should concisely state the regional representativeness of the two selectedparks, emphasizing their typicality within the suburban forest park system in South China or China as a whole. This would help strengthen the persuasiveness of the research.

A: Thanks for your great suggestions. We have stated the regional representativeness of the two parks. Please refer to Line 105-110 for details.

 

These parks are exemplary suburban forest parks that integrate ecological protection, science and education, and leisure. They serve not only as important spaces for leisure and entertainment but also as important biodiversity conservation areas in urban ecosystems. Given the significant difference in land use intensity between the parks, evaluating their landscape health can provide reference data for productive planning and functional enhancement of other suburban forest parks.

 

4. In line 224 on page 11, the choice of a 0.5 weight appears somewhat arbitrary. Is this amethodological limitation of the study? Should a sensitivity analysis be considered to validate this choice?

A: Thanks for pointing this out. The choice of a 0.5 weight was based on the comprehensive function containing both ecological protection and recreational use functions. This weight value was also adopted in our previous research [1]. Sensitivity analysis will be conducted in future research to further validate this choice. In addition, for different types of patches and corridors with comprehensive function, the weights of its comprehensive function score will be clarified. We have added relevant explanations in the “4.4. Limitations and Future Research”. Please refer to Line 510-514 for details.

[1] Luo, H.; Zhao, Q.; Zhang, L.; Gao, C.; Wu, X.; Nie, Y. Landscape health assessment of suburban forest park: A case study based on multiple sampling units and functional characteristics. Forests 2023, 14, 2237. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14112237

 

Additionally, the fixed weight of 0.5 for the comprehensive function score requires validation. In the future, the weights of the comprehensive function scores for different types of patches and corridors with comprehensive functions should be further clarified and sensitivity analysis conducted for validation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article explores the ecological concept of landscape health assessment in suburban forests parks from China. Using satellite analysis the authors studied the dynamics and pressures assured to these ecosystems. I have no major concerns with this article, and my only recommendation is to do minor revisions to the English language in the manuscript. Congratulations to the authors for their work.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

This article explores the ecological concept of landscape health assessment in suburban forests parks from China. Using satellite analysis the authors studied the dynamics and pressures assured to these ecosystems. I have no major concerns with this article, and my only recommendation is to do minor revisions to the English language in the manuscript. Congratulations to the authors for their work.

Response to reviewer's comments:

We sincerely appreciate your praise for this article. Thanks for pointing out that the quality of the English language needs to be improved. We have improved the overall clarity and quality of the manuscript with the help of native English speakers who work on landscape architecture.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Landscape health assessment of suburban forest parks with 2 different land use intensities and grid scales “advances novelty in land use planning and landscape health assessments.  Addressing the stated the comments hereunder could improve the manuscript further

 

There is a need to use short concise sentences. Some of the identified sentences and comments for your attention are highlighted throughout the attached manuscript. Grammar also needs attention. Critical areas for your attention include.

 

1. It is recommended that you merge the results and discussion section to reduce unnecessary repetitions
2. The methodological choices need to be improved (what are the existing methodological approaches, strengths and weaknesses and the reason for choosing whichever method you have decided to use in your study (Entropy weight method and TOPSIS have been used jointly in some of the past studies in addressing methodological weakness). Though you talked about Vigor-Organization-Resilience (VOR) and Pressure-State-Response (PSR) models you have not elaborated on their strength and weaknesses
3. The use of many limitations without elaborating how you addressed them tends to undermine the validity of the study. Focus on a few limitations (maximum 3)
4. Data presentation and visualization could be improved, i.e. use of whisker plots. The visualizations should also be integrated within the discussion and not lumped together away from the text.

   The article “Landscape health assessment of suburban forest parks with 2 different land use intensities and grid scales “advances novelty in land use planning and landscape health assessments.  Addressing the stated the comments hereunder could improve the manuscript further

   There is a need to use short concise sentences. Some of the identified sentences and comments for your attention are highlighted throughout the attached manuscript. Grammar also needs attention. Critical areas for your attention include.

    

   1. It is recommended that you merge the results and discussion section to reduce unnecessary repetitions
   2. The methodological choices need to be improved (what are the existing methodological approaches, strengths and weaknesses and the reason for choosing whichever method you have decided to use in your study (Entropy weight method and TOPSIS have been used jointly in some of the past studies in addressing methodological weakness). Though you talked about Vigor-Organization-Resilience (VOR) and Pressure-State-Response (PSR) models you have not elaborated on their strength and weaknesses
   3. The use of many limitations without elaborating how you addressed them tends to undermine the validity of the study. Focus on a few limitations (maximum 3)
   4. Data presentation and visualization could be improved, i.e. use of whisker plots. The visualizations should also be integrated within the discussion and not lumped together away from the text.

      The article “Landscape health assessment of suburban forest parks with 2 different land use intensities and grid scales “advances novelty in land use planning and landscape health assessments.  Addressing the stated the comments hereunder could improve the manuscript further

       

      There is a need to use short concise sentences. Some of the identified sentences and comments for your attention are highlighted throughout the attached manuscript. Grammar also needs attention. Critical areas for your attention include.

       

      1. It is recommended that you merge the results and discussion section to reduce unnecessary repetitions
      2. The methodological choices need to be improved (what are the existing methodological approaches, strengths and weaknesses and the reason for choosing whichever method you have decided to use in your study (Entropy weight method and TOPSIS have been used jointly in some of the past studies in addressing methodological weakness). Though you  talked about Vigor-Organization-Resilience (VOR) and Pressure-State-Response (PSR) models you have not elaborated on their strength and weaknesses
      3. The use of many limitations without elaborating how you addressed them tends to undermine the validity of the study. Focus on a few limitations (maximum 3)
      4. Data presentation and visualization could be improved, i.e. use of whisker plots. The visualizations should also be integrated within the discussion and not lumped together away from the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Major improvement on grammar required 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The article “Landscape health assessment of suburban forest parks with 2 different land use intensities and grid scales “advances novelty in land use planning and landscape health assessments.  Addressing the stated the comments hereunder could improve the manuscript further.

There is a need to use short concise sentences. Some of the identified sentences and comments for your attention are highlighted throughout the attached manuscript. Grammar also needs attention. Critical areas for your attention include.

Response to reviewer's comments:

We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightful comments. We have improved the overall clarity and quality of the manuscript with the help of native English speakers who work on landscape architecture.

 

1. It is recommended that you merge the results and discussion section to reduce unnecessary repetitions.

A: Thanks for your suggestions. We have streamlined the results and discussion sections to reduce unnecessary repetition. In the results section, we have streamlined the descriptive text with repetitive statements and data listing, highlighting the research focus. We also removed some of the repeated expressions in the conclusion section. Please refer to Line 310-339, 349-363, 425-430 for details.

 

2. The methodological choices need to be improved (what are the existing methodological approaches, strengths and weaknesses and the reason for choosing whichever method you have decided to use in your study (Entropy weight method and TOPSIS have been used jointly in some of the past studies in addressing methodological weakness). Though you talked about Vigor-Organization-Resilience (VOR) and Pressure-State-Response (PSR) models you have not elaborated on their strength and weaknesses.

A: Thanks for your great suggestions. In the introduction section, we have elaborated on the existing methodological approaches, the reasons for choosing the entropy weight method, and the strength and weaknesses of VOR and PSR models. Please refer to Line 52-70 for details.

 

Various approaches have been applied for assessing landscape health, including geostatistics, participatory geographical information systems (GIS), and landscape pattern analysis [10,11,12]. In such studies, indicator systems are constructed using frameworks such as Vigor-Organization-Resilience (VOR) and Pressure-State-Response (PSR), while methods such as Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), entropy weight method, Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method, and combination weighting method are applied to determine indicator weights to assess landscape health condition. Particularly, the entropy weight method has been widely applied due to its advantages of a simple calculation process, high accuracy, and strong objectivity. The VOR model emphasizes the integrity and sustainability of eco-system structures, focusing on the assessment of the ecosystem's natural attributes and integrity [13], while the PSR model focuses on the causal relationship between ecosystems and human activities and establishes an assessment system from social, economic, ecological, and other aspects [14]. However, most GIS-derived indicators used in these two models (e.g., productivity, diversity, connectivity, and ecosystem recovery or its economic, resource, and environmental dimensions) exhibit a degree of subjectivity and uncertainty [15]. More importantly, indicator classification methods that link landscape function to land use remain limited.

 

3. The use of many limitations without elaborating how you addressed them tends to undermine the validity of the study. Focus on a few limitations (maximum 3).

A: Thanks for your great suggestions. We have elaborated on how to address these limitations in future research. Please refer to Line 498-532 for details.

 

This study adopted a multi-functional perspective to classify patch-corridor landscapes, construct an indicator-based evaluation system, and conduct a comparative analysis of suburban forest parks under varying land use intensities and grid scales to enhance the accuracy of landscape health assessments. However, several study limitations should be acknowledged:

1. The evaluation results were not evaluated. Although grid-based and interpolation methods can effectively and comprehensively reflect the spatial distribution of landscape health within the study area, the accuracy of the calculated results still requires verification [46]. Future studies shouldincorporate orthophotography images obtained using drones and overlay them with the spatial distribution maps of landscape health to verify the results and further improve the scientific rigor and reliability of the overall assessment process. Additionally, the fixed weight of 5 for the comprehensive function score requires validation. In the future, the weights of the comprehensive function scores for different types of patches and corridors with comprehensive functions should be further clarified and sensitivity analysis conducted for validation.
2. The evaluation results were not compared longitudinally. The spatial differentiation of landscape health is a dynamic process and relative health can only be determined using a comparison approach [55]. However, the landscape health assessment presented in this study was static. Future studies should focus on long-term dynamic monitoring to further explore the driving factors and mechanisms influencing landscape health.Then, through appropriate interventions and management, the landscape health of suburban forest parks can be maintained sustainably.
3. Multi-scale evaluations were lacking. This study analyzed landscape health using five different grid scales, which improved data processing efficiency, error reduction, and fine-scale representation [41]. However, grid-based units cannot determine the overall features. Future work should apply landscape feature unit scales as the evaluation unit to comprehensively reflect the overall landscape background and the spatial relationships of the patches and corridors. Specifically, future research should dividelandscape character units based on the landscape character assessment (LCA) method and consider combining grid-based scales with landscape feature unit scales to develop a more comprehensive, multi-scale evaluation framework. 

 

4. Data presentation and visualization could be improved, i.e. use of whisker plots. The visualizations should also be integrated within the discussion and not lumped together away from the text.

A: Thanks for your great suggestions. We have changed Tables 2 and 3 into whisker plots Figure 6 and 7, respectively. Please refer to Line 364 and 367 for details. Moreover, in the text of the discussion section, we have added the serial numbers of the relevant pictures from the results section to strengthen the connection between the results and discussion sections. Please refer to Line 376, 399, 424, 467, 469, 487 for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the landscape health assessment system, the article compares and analyses the landscape health characteristics of parks under different land use intensities and grid scales, with detailed data, abundant graphs and charts, and a clear overall structure. It is suggested to further optimise the textual expression and logical connection of the results and discussion section to highlight the research focus and enhance the rationality and persuasiveness of the discussion.

chapter 3.2: The analysis in this paragraph involves multiple scales and functional types, and the data are detailed, but the presentation of the text seems to be stacked with data. At the same time, most of the data are declarative, without explanatory analyses or side-by-side comparisons between different types of data. It is recommended that the descriptive text be streamlined to highlight key points and increase the depth of the text.

chapter 3.3: The text in this chapter is the same as the previous one, with repetitive statements and data listing. It is recommended to highlight the main characteristics of each type of change, enhance the rationality of the analysis, and enrich the sentence structure.

Line 459: The inference that "low land intensity areas are more suitable for larger grid scales" is too brief, and it is suggested that further explanation should be provided to strengthen the logical connection.

Line 499: The expression "trade-off" is too vague. Suggest adding analysis and description.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

Based on the landscape health assessment system, the article compares and analyses the landscape health characteristics of parks under different land use intensities and grid scales, with detailed data, abundant graphs and charts, and a clear overall structure. It is suggested to further optimise the textual expression and logical connection of the results and discussion section to highlight the research focus and enhance the rationality and persuasiveness of the discussion.

Response to reviewer's comments:

We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightful comments. We have optimised the textual expression and logical connection of the results and discussion sections. In the results section, we have streamlined the descriptive text and highlighted the research focus. In the discussion section, we added explanations to enhance the rationality and persuasiveness. Moreover, in the discussion section, we have added the serial numbers of the relevant pictures from the results section to strengthen the connection between the sections.

 

1. chapter 3.2: The analysis in this paragraph involves multiple scales and functional types, and the data are detailed, but the presentation of the text seems to be stacked with data. At the same time, most of the data are declarative, without explanatory analyses or side-by-side comparisons between different types of data. It is recommended that the descriptive text be streamlined to highlight key points and increase the depth of the text.

A: Thanks for your great suggestions. We have added the side-by-side comparison between different types of data and streamlined the descriptive text. Please refer to Line 310-339 for details.

 

In Xiqiao Mountain National Forest Park, the variation in the total area ratio of very poor and poor landscape health levels under different grid scales was relatively small for ecological protection, recreational use, and comprehensive functions (Figure 4-a, 4-b, and 4-c). In addition, the variation in the total area ratio of very good and good landscape health levels for ecological protection was relatively small, whereas very good and good areas exhibited higher levels of variation for recreational use and comprehensive functions. As can be seen from Figure 4-b, the area ratio of very good and good landscape health levels increased significantly (2.13) when the grid scale increased from 1.0× to 1.5× sampling units but decreased slightly when scaling from 1.5× to 2.0× (0.56). Notably, the area ratio of very good and good landscape health levels increased significantly (3.44) when scaling from 1.5× to 2.0× sampling units but decreased slightly when scaling from 2.0× to 3.0× (0.34) (Figure 4-c). Overall, sampling units at grid scales of 0.5× , 1.0× , and 1.5×had less variation for ecological protection, recreational use, and comprehensive function, whereas those at 2.0× and 3.0×had higher variation levels. Therefore, the 1.5× sampling unit (54 × 54 m) is considered more appropriate for analyzing landscape health in Xiqiao Mountain National Forest Park.

In Yunyong National Forest Park, the variation in the total area ratio of very poor and poor landscape health levels for ecological protection, recreational use, and comprehensive functions under different grid scales was relatively low (Figure 5-a, 5-b, and 5-c). In addition, the variation in the total area ratio of very good and good landscape health levels for ecological protection was relatively low, whereas the very good and good areas exhibited higher levels of variation for recreational use and comprehensive functions. As can be seen from Figure 5-b and 5-c, the area ratio of very good and good landscape health levels increased significantly (2.59 and 3.00, respectively) when the grid scale increased from 2.0× to 3.0×. Overall, the sampling units at 0.5× , 1.0× , 1.5× , and 2.0× grid scales had a lower impact on ecological protection, recreational use, and comprehensive function than at the 3.0× grid scale, which significantly impacted the recreational use and comprehensive function. Thus, the 2.0× sampling unit (66 × 66 m) is more suitable for assessing landscape health in Yunyong National Forest Park.

 

2. chapter 3.3: The text in this chapter is the same as the previous one, with repetitive statements and data listing. It is recommended to highlight the main characteristics of each type of change, enhance the rationality of the analysis, and enrich the sentence structure.

A: Thanks for your great suggestions. We have reduced the repetitive statements and data listing and highlighted the main characteristics of each type of change. Please refer to Line 349-363 for details.

 

In Xiqiao Mountain National Forest Park, increasing landscape health levels were associated with a decreasing forest/non-forest area ratio. This trend was observed for the ecological protection function under the 18 × 18 m and 36 × 36 m grid scales, recreational use function under all five scales, and comprehensive function under the 36 × 36 m, 72 × 72 m, and 108 × 108 m grid scales (Figure 6). Under the optimal grid scale of 54 × 54 m, landscape health levels of ecological protection, recreational use, and comprehensive functions were the highest when the forest/non-forest ratio was 4.46–7.22, 0.11–0.40, and 4.46–5.81, respectively.

In Yunyong National Forest Park, increasing landscape health level were also associated with a decreasing forest/non-forest area ratio. Ecological protection, recreational use, and comprehensive functions all showed a decreasing trend under the five different grid scales (Figure 7). Furthermore, under the optimal grid scale of 66 × 66 m, landscape health levels of ecological protection, recreational use, and comprehensive functions were the highest when the forest/non-forest ratio was 2.16–2.86, 0.69–0.87, and 0.79–0.87, respectively.

 

3. Line 459: The inference that "low land intensity areas are more suitable for larger grid scales" is too brief, and it is suggested that further explanation should be provided to strengthen the logical connection.

A: Thanks for your great suggestions. We have added the explanation to this inference to strengthen the logical connection. Please refer to Line 442-450 for details.

 

This difference likely reflects the slower transition rate between various types of land-scapes and the relatively low landscape richness and fragmentation in parks with lower land use intensities [45]. If the grid size is too small, the connected landscape within each grid will be overly fragmented, reducing assessment accuracy [46]. Conversely, larger grid scales can capture internal spatial information within grid units [47] and maintain spatial continuity and integrity [48], making them more suitable for landscape health analysis. Therefore, the optimal grid analysis scale for Yunyong National Forest Park (lower land use intensity) is slightly larger than that for Xiqiao Mountain National Forest Park (higher land use intensity).

 

4. Line 499: The expression "trade-off" is too vague. Suggest adding analysis and description.

A: Thanks for your great suggestions. We have added analysis and description for the term 'trade-off'. Please refer to Line 483-489 for details.

 

The optimal forest/non-forest ratios to achieve very good or good landscape health in terms of ecological protection and recreational use did not overlap between the two parks, and the gap between them was significant. For instance, for ecological protection function, the threshold ranges of the forest/non-forest area ratio to achieve very good and good landscape health levels in the Xiqiao Mountain and Yunyong National Forest Parks (4.46–7.22 and 2.16–2.86, respectively) significantly exceeded those for recreational use function (0.10–0.37 and 0.69–0.87, respectively) (Figures 6 and 7). This difference in the overlap degree of the threshold ranges indicates mutual restriction between the two functions. The trade-off between ecological protection and recreational use in both parks is substantial, with weak synergies between the two functions. This could be a factor contributing to the relatively low landscape health observed at both sites.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic in the field of urban ecology and landscape planning: the spatial evaluation of suburban forest park landscape health using multi-scale grid analysis. While previous research has recognized the forest/non-forest area ratio as a key factor, this study fills important gaps by examining the threshold range of this ratio and by testing the influence of different grid scales on landscape health assessment under varying land use intensities.

The research is methodologically well grounded and makes a valuable contribution by exploring the limitations of single-scale grid analysis, which has been the dominant approach in similar studies. The comparative assessment of two suburban forest parks with differing land use intensities is thoughtfully designed and clearly articulated.

The method is complex yet appropriate, combining spatial metrics and multi-scale evaluation. Moreover, the authors demonstrate awareness of methodological limitations, particularly in their acknowledgment of the need for validation of the results. The suggestion to incorporate drone-based orthophotography for future verification adds depth to the study’s outlook.

Two very important results of this paper are:

1. planning and arrangement through large-scale, single- type forest landscapes are not enough to achieve park landscape health. 
2. the landscape health of forest parks with high and low land use intensity may be more precisely assessed by dividing the park using 1.5× (54 × 54 m) and 2.0× (66 × 66 m) sampling units.

The limitation section is well-developed, especially regarding the lack of empirical validation. However, one area that would benefit from further elaboration is the integration of landscape health evaluation into land use planning. While the authors state the importance of this integration, they do not provide a clear methodological or procedural framework for how this should be operationalized in planning practice. A discussion of specific planning tools, policy instruments, or spatial modeling techniques would strengthen this aspect of the paper.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 5

The manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic in the field of urban ecology and landscape planning: the spatial evaluation of suburban forest park landscape health using multi-scale grid analysis. While previous research has recognized the forest/non-forest area ratio as a key factor, this study fills important gaps by examining the threshold range of this ratio and by testing the influence of different grid scales on landscape health assessment under varying land use intensities.

The research is methodologically well grounded and makes a valuable contribution by exploring the limitations of single-scale grid analysis, which has been the dominant approach in similar studies. The comparative assessment of two suburban forest parks with differing land use intensities is thoughtfully designed and clearly articulated.

The method is complex yet appropriate, combining spatial metrics and multi-scale evaluation. Moreover, the authors demonstrate awareness of methodological limitations, particularly in their acknowledgment of the need for validation of the results. The suggestion to incorporate drone-based orthophotography for future verification adds depth to the study’s outlook.

Two very important results of this paper are:

1.planning and arrangement through large-scale, single- type forest landscapes are not enough to achieve park landscape health. 

2.the landscape health of forest parks with high and low land use intensity may be more precisely assessed by dividing the park using 1.5× (54 × 54 m) and 2.0× (66 × 66 m) sampling units.

The limitation section is well-developed, especially regarding the lack of empirical validation. However, one area that would benefit from further elaboration is the integration of landscape health evaluation into land use planning. While the authors state the importance of this integration, they do not provide a clear methodological or procedural framework for how this should be operationalized in planning practice. A discussion of specific planning tools, policy instruments, or spatial modeling techniques would strengthen this aspect of the paper.

 

Response to reviewer's comments:

We sincerely appreciate your positive affirmation of this article in terms of its innovative points, methodological reliability, significant results and research outlook. We would also like to thank the reviewer for the insightful comments. In the discussion section, we have added methods for integrating land use planning with landscape health assessment in planning practice. Please refer to Line 415-419 for details.

 

Prediction models, such as CA-Markov [35], FLUS [36], and PLUS [37], can be applied to simulate the changes in landscape health under different land use development scenarios, analyze more healthy and reasonable land use planning methods, and provide a decision-making basis for the land use planning of suburban forest parks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The raised issues have adequately been addressed