Temporal and Spatial Differentiation and Formation Mechanisms of Island Settlement Landscapes in Response to Rural Livelihood Transformation: A Case Study of the Southeast Coast of China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper highlights the impact of livelihood transformation on the spatial morphology of villages, which is practically relevant. However, the manuscript suffers from major flaws in writing, structure, and methodology. Main concerns include:

1. The study uses only three villages as cases, which is far from sufficient to support a mechanism-based investigation.
2. The proposed “coupling mechanism” between livelihood transformation and landscape morphology remains descriptive, lacking a clear, testable theoretical model.
3. The indicator system is loosely constructed without theoretical support. For instance, it is unclear why “color complexity” is included as a 3D spatial metric. The basis for indicator selection, data sources, and technical processing should be explicitly clarified.
4. The discussion section is poorly organized. It does not articulate the study's contribution or compare findings with existing research.
5. Reference formatting is incorrect and needs to be revised thoroughly.Inconsistent and nonstandard English expression throughout.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to improve our submitted manuscript [Temporal and Spatial Differentiation and Formation Mechanisms of Island Settlement Landscapes in Response to Rural Livelihood Transformation: A Case Study of the Southeast Coast of China]. We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ constructive and insightful comments. In response, we have carefully addressed all of the comments and suggestions provided. We hope that the revised manuscript now meets the publication standards of your journal.

All changes have been highlighted in red text for your convenience.
On the following , we provide our point-by-point responses to each of the reviewers’ queries.

1、Comments 1: [The study uses only three villages as cases, which is far from sufficient to support a mechanism-based investigation.]
Response 1: [Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We have carefully revised the "2.2 Three Typical Cases of Livelihood Transformation" section of the paper by updating the original case introduction, adding the rationale for case selection, and further clarifying the typical characteristics of each case village (please see lines 116–145 in the revised manuscript for details). The three villages selected for this study reflect three representative livelihood transformation models commonly found in rural areas along China’s southeast coast: aquaculture-based, tourism service-oriented, and migrant worker-driven development. Statistical analysis confirms that these three types are the most prevalent in the region. Therefore, conducting an in-depth analysis of these representative cases offers meaningful insights with broader applicability.]

2、Comments 2: [The proposed “coupling mechanism” between livelihood transformation and landscape morphology remains descriptive, lacking a clear, testable theoretical model.]
Response 2: [We sincerely appreciate your valuable insights into this issue. Based on your suggestions, we have made corresponding revisions in the "5 Discussion" section (please see lines 464–549 in the revised manuscript for details). As the main focus of this paper is "the differentiation characteristics of settlement landscapes under the background of livelihood transformation", the core of our discussion centers on the differences in the two-dimensional and three-dimensional forms of settlements. Regarding the "coupling mechanism", due to space constraints and the current scope of research, we have not yet developed a complete theoretical model. However, we have provided a preliminary explanation on this topic within the discussion section. We also fully agree that it is a promising direction for future research, and we hope to explore it more systematically through testable modeling in the days to come.]

3、Comments 3: [The indicator system is loosely constructed without theoretical support. For instance, it is unclear why “color complexity” is included as a 3D spatial metric. The basis for indicator selection, data sources, and technical processing should be explicitly clarified.]
Response 3: [We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful suggestions regarding the indicator construction. Based on your feedback, we have added explanations regarding the significance and theoretical basis for the selected indicators in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of the revised manuscript. The indicator system has been developed based on existing literature (please refer to lines 171, 183, 191, 208, 216, and 261 in the revised version for details). As for the inclusion of color mixture degree in the three-dimensional indicators: In the field of landscape aesthetics, the vertical color distribution of building facades—such as roofs, walls, and pedestals—is considered a key factor in three-dimensional visual perception. When high-saturation colors are concentrated in vertical spaces, they may cause visual conflicts—for example, the red roofs of high-rise buildings in Qida Village contrasted with the gray facades of traditional stone houses. Therefore, we have introduced this as a quantitative indicator of "visual coordination" in three-dimensional space. Additional references have been included to support this; please see line 261 of the revised manuscript for more details.]

4、Comments 4: [The discussion section is poorly organized. It does not articulate the study's contribution or compare findings with existing research.]
Response 4: [We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestions regarding the discussion section. We have carefully reorganized this part, clarified the contributions of our study, and carried out a comparative analysis between our key findings and the existing literature. You can find the revised content in lines 464–549 of the updated manuscript. ]

5、Comments 5: [Reference formatting is incorrect and needs to be revised thoroughly.]
Response 5: [ We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused. We have carefully reviewed and revised the references in accordance with the formatting guidelines of your journal ‘land’. Additionally, we have also polished the English expressions throughout the paper to ensure consistent terminology and more standardized sentence structures, aiming to improve the overall language quality and academic clarity (please see the revised reference section at the end of the text for details).]

6、Comments 6: [Inconsistent and nonstandard English expression throughout.]
Response 6: [ Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the language and expression in our manuscript. We sincerely apologize for the inconsistencies and nonstandard English in the earlier version.

In response to your comment, we have thoroughly revised the entire manuscript with a strong focus on improving language consistency, clarity, and academic tone. We also sought assistance from native English-speaking colleagues to further polish the text and ensure that it meets the required linguistic standards.

We hope that the revised version demonstrates significant improvement in readability and expression, and we greatly appreciate your time and effort in helping us enhance the quality of our paper.]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript investigates the spatiotemporal differentiation of landscapes in island settlements, focusing on three case studies from Fuzhou City, China. The study offers originality and fills a gap in the literature by incorporating three-dimensional indicators such as height difference, building volume, and coastal interface occlusion rate. Overall, the research is valuable and relevant to the field; however, several minor improvements could strengthen the manuscript:

• In the introduction, the section title is missing and should be added, with the numbering of subsequent sections adjusted accordingly. The introduction is also heavily loaded with references (21 citations in approximately 60 lines) and contains long, complex sentences that may hinder readability. I recommend retaining only the most essential references and restructuring long sentences into shorter, clearer ones.
• In the portion of the introduction that critiques previous studies, the originality and novelty of the present research could be emphasized more clearly.
• While the methodology is comprehensive and detailed, certain parts lack critical discussion regarding measurement accuracy and uncertainty.
• The conclusions are generally supported by the data, but some generalizations are insufficiently substantiated.
• The analysis does not include sensitivity testing or statistical significance evaluation for the proposed indicators. Incorporating these analyses would improve robustness.
• In Table 2, the presentation of units and decimal precision should be consistent, using the same number of decimal places throughout.
• The discussion section repeats a substantial portion of the results rather than focusing exclusively on interpretation and comparison with the international literature.
• In the conclusions, it would be beneficial to include specific policy recommendations applicable to other geographic contexts beyond China.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to improve our submitted manuscript [Temporal and Spatial Differentiation and Formation Mechanisms of Island Settlement Landscapes in Response to Rural Livelihood Transformation: A Case Study of the Southeast Coast of China]. We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ constructive and insightful comments. In response, we have carefully addressed all of the comments and suggestions provided. We hope that the revised manuscript now meets the publication standards of your journal.

All changes have been highlighted in red text for your convenience.
On the following , we provide our point-by-point responses to each of the reviewers’ queries.

1、Comments 1:[ In the introduction, the section title is missing and should be added, with the numbering of subsequent sections adjusted accordingly. The introduction is also heavily loaded with references (21 citations in approximately 60 lines) and contains long, complex sentences that may hinder readability. I recommend retaining only the most essential references and restructuring long sentences into shorter, clearer ones.]

Response 1: [ We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful suggestions. In response, we have added a clear chapter title to the "Introduction" section and updated the numbering of the following chapters accordingly. Additionally, we have streamlined the number of literature citations in the introduction and refined the sentence structure, aiming to improve readability while preserving academic precision. For your reference, the revised sections can be found in lines 34–93 of the updated manuscript.]"

2、Comments 2:[ In the portion of the introduction that critiques previous studies, the originality and novelty of the present research could be emphasized more clearly.]

Response 1: [We truly appreciate your valuable feedback, which has helped us improve our work. Following your suggestions, we have revised the introduction section. In particular, in the fourth paragraph, we have provided a clearer explanation of the innovation and academic significance of this study from three perspectives: research methods, theoretical framework, and the representativeness of the cases involved (please see lines 75–93 in the revised manuscript for details).

3、Comments 3:[ While the methodology is comprehensive and detailed, certain parts lack critical discussion regarding measurement accuracy and uncertainty.]

Response3: [ We sincerely appreciate your careful review of this section. We have thoroughly verified the accuracy of all data included in the article to ensure that all measurements are precise and reliable.]"

4、Comments 4:[ The conclusions are generally supported by the data, but some generalizations are insufficiently substantiated.]

Response4: [Thank you so much for your valuable feedback. We have carefully reviewed the supplementary content in the discussion section based on your suggestion, to ensure that the conclusion aligns well with the data analysis.  ]"

5、Comments 5:[ The analysis does not include sensitivity testing or statistical significance evaluation for the proposed indicators. Incorporating these analyses would improve robustness.]

Response5: [We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback regarding the importance of sensitivity and significance analysis. We completely recognize the critical role such analyses play in strengthening the robustness of research arguments. While the current stage and data limitations of this study have not yet allowed for a systematic implementation of this aspect, we have made efforts to address your concern by adding multiple references in Section 3.2 "Indicator Construction" (please see lines 171, 183, 191, 208, 216, and 261 in the revised manuscript). These additions provide further support for the applicability and calculation basis of the indicators used. Additionally, we have identified sensitivity and statistical significance testing as key directions for our future in-depth research. ]"

6、Comments 6:[ In Table 2, the presentation of units and decimal precision should be consistent, using the same number of decimal places throughout.]

Response6: [We truly appreciate your thoughtful feedback. As part of our thorough review of the manuscript, we have carefully revised the data presentation format throughout the text. Specifically, we have adjusted the number of decimal places in Table 2 to ensure consistent numerical precision and formatting across the entire table. You can find the relevant changes in lines 305–318 of the revised manuscript. ]"

7、Comments 7:[ The discussion section repeats a substantial portion of the results rather than focusing exclusively on interpretation and comparison with the international literature.]

Response7: [ We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful feedback on the discussion section. Based on your valuable suggestions, we have carefully revised the "Discussion" section and included a comparative analysis with relevant international literature. You may find the revised content in lines 464–549 of the updated manuscript.]"

8、Comments 8:[ In the conclusions, it would be beneficial to include specific policy recommendations applicable to other geographic contexts beyond China.]

Response8: [We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestions. We fully agree with your perspective and have incorporated relevant discussions in the conclusion section, highlighting the potential applicability of this study’s findings to other regions beyond China with similar socioeconomic and geographical conditions. This addition aims to enhance the generalizability and reference value of our research. You can find the revised content in lines 490–495 and 502–505 of the revised manuscript. ]"

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Since China has a sizable population, we may greatly benefit from market research. This report also reflects this, despite its focus on smaller towns.

This subject is fascinating, particularly the issue raised in this manner.

Although the authors have worked very hard, there are certain points in this research that need elaboration.

Some tables and Figures need to be visually corrected for the final version.

Abstract:

Apart from the title, it should also be mentioned in the abstract in which country the villages are located that are being researched.

Literature citations should be corrected according to the journal's request.

Line 41/102

Title is missing.

Since there is no title, it is not clear what this text represents.

Line 400

It would be beneficial for the authors to explain more on the significance of displaying the building height difference ratio for sustainable spatial development.

Conclusion

Authors should add a separate section explaining the obstacles they encountered during their research. In addition, it would be good to highlight their further research on the topic they are addressing in this paper.

Literature

In addition to the cited authors, it is necessary to use new literature. To improve the quality of the work, broaden the literature to include renowned authors who have written about this subject.

 

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to improve our submitted manuscript [Temporal and Spatial Differentiation and Formation Mechanisms of Island Settlement Landscapes in Response to Rural Livelihood Transformation: A Case Study of the Southeast Coast of China]. We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ constructive and insightful comments. In response, we have carefully addressed all of the comments and suggestions provided. We hope that the revised manuscript now meets the publication standards of your journal.

All changes have been highlighted in red text for your convenience.
On the following , we provide our point-by-point responses to each of the reviewers’ queries.

1、Comments 1:[ Some tables and Figures need to be visually corrected for the final version..]

Response 1: [We truly appreciate your thoughtful suggestions. In accordance with the requirements of the journal ‘land’, we have carefully revised and adjusted all the tables and illustrations in the manuscript to improve their clarity, visual appeal, and overall presentation. ]"

2、Comments 2:[ Abstract: Apart from the title, it should also be mentioned in the abstract in which country the villages are located that are being researched.]

Response2: [Thank you sincerely for your detailed suggestions regarding the abstract section. We have added information about the country where the case village is located to enhance the completeness and clarity of the background details (please see line 14 of the revised draft for the updated content).  ]"

3、Comments 3:[ Literature citations should be corrected according to the journal's request.]

Response3: [We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused. We have carefully reviewed and revised all the references in the article to ensure they meet the citation format requirements of your journal ‘land’. Additionally, we have thoroughly polished the English language throughout the manuscript, aiming to standardize terminology and sentence structures to enhance the overall language quality and academic clarity of the paper. ]"

4、Comments 4:[ Line 41/102--Title is missing. Since there is no title, it is not clear what this text represents..]

Response4: [We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience this oversight may have caused to your reading experience. To help clarify the main idea of this section, we have added a corresponding title. You can find the revised content in line 34 of the updated draft.  ]"

5、Comments 5:[ Line 400

It would be beneficial for the authors to explain more on the significance of displaying the building height difference ratio for sustainable spatial development.]

Response5: [We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful suggestions. Based on your feedback, we have further clarified the importance of the building height difference ratio as an indicator in our research on sustainable spatial development in Section 4.2(2), aiming to enhance the depth and practical relevance of this discussion. You may find the revised content in Lines 406–409 of the revised manuscript. ]"

6、Comments 6:[ Conclusion

Authors should add a separate section explaining the obstacles they encountered during their research. In addition, it would be good to highlight their further research on the topic they are addressing in this paper.]

Response6: [We sincerely appreciate your constructive suggestions regarding the conclusion part. Based on your feedback, we have added a separate explanation of the challenges encountered during the research process and clearly outlined potential research directions that could be explored further under this theme. These additions aim to enhance the overall completeness and forward-looking perspective of the study (please refer to lines 534–549 in the revised manuscript for the updated content) ]"

7、Comments 7:[ Literature

In addition to the cited authors, it is necessary to use new literature. To improve the quality of the work, broaden the literature to include renowned authors who have written about this subject.]

Response7: [We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has helped us improve our work. During the revision process, we added and referenced the contributions of several representative scholars in the field, aiming to broaden the scope and enhance the academic foundation and quality of the paper. ]"

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The objective of your manuscript seems to me to be relevant enough to be considered for publication. However, I think it is important to address some observations made while reading your research:
1) The abstract is a bit long. Remember that the journal suggests a maximum of 200 words, and I think you have exceeded this limit, so I suggest removing some sentences. Also, remember that it should be written in a single paragraph, and you have presented it separated in approximately two halves.
2) From sections 2 to 4, I believe you should make better use of generic names: Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion for the beginning of the sections.
3) Indicate the software used to take the satellite images or their source in the figure caption for each one, not just at the end. Also, in some figure captions or table captions, you mention demographic data; please include the source of this data.
4) I think the results are well written and appropriate; I have no comments on this section.
5) The discussion is interesting; however, I believe that comparisons with published works should be used. I understand that your work is new and unknown, but it should be compared with similar works in other regions, in addition to citing some data that you assume to know when writing the discussion. Discussion with other documents is very important as it reinforces the impact of your results and ensures that your conclusions can be applied to similar cases.
5) The conclusions are adequate. Just check whether anything you add to the discussion would change any of your conclusions or recommendations.
Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to improve our submitted manuscript [Temporal and Spatial Differentiation and Formation Mechanisms of Island Settlement Landscapes in Response to Rural Livelihood Transformation: A Case Study of the Southeast Coast of China]. We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ constructive and insightful comments. In response, we have carefully addressed all of the comments and suggestions provided. We hope that the revised manuscript now meets the publication standards of your journal.

All changes have been highlighted in red text for your convenience.
On the following , we provide our point-by-point responses to each of the reviewers’ queries.
1、Comments 1: [The abstract is a bit long. Remember that the journal suggests a maximum of 200 words, and I think you have exceeded this limit, so I suggest removing some sentences. Also, remember that it should be written in a single paragraph, and you have presented it separated in approximately two halves.]
Response 1: [We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestions regarding the abstract. As per the journal’s guidelines, we have condensed the abstract to within 200 words and combined it into a single paragraph, aligning it more closely with the formatting and academic standards of ‘land’. You can find the revised content in lines 11–30 of the updated manuscript. ]

2、Comments 2: [From sections 2 to 4, I believe you should make better use of generic names: Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion for the beginning of the sections.]
Response 2: [ Thank you so very much for your thoughtful suggestion regarding the section titles. We have carefully followed your guidance and revised the titles of Sections 2 to 4 to "Materials and Methods", "Results", and "Discussion", respectively, to better reflect the structure and improve the overall clarity of the paper.]

3、Comments 3: [Indicate the software used to take the satellite images or their source in the figure caption for each one, not just at the end. Also, in some figure captions or table captions, you mention demographic data; please include the source of this data.]
Response 3: [ Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. Following your guidance, we have carefully reviewed and improved all the figure captions in the text. Specifically, we have clearly indicated the source of each image and added detailed data sources in the captions of figures related to population data. This ensures that all information sources are clear and traceable. You may find the revised content in the charts within the updated manuscript.]

4、Comments 4: [I think the results are well written and appropriate; I have no comments on this section]
Response 4: [We truly appreciate your kind words of affirmation and encouragement regarding the results section. It means a great deal to us and we feel sincerely honored. ]

5、Comments 5: [The conclusions are adequate. Just check whether anything you add to the discussion would change any of your conclusions or recommendations.]
Response 5: [We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful feedback on the discussion section. Based on your suggestions, we have revised and reorganized this part. In particular, we have added a comparison with existing studies and included additional analysis of similar cases from other regions. We believe these additions can help position our research within a broader academic context and enhance the general applicability and reference value of our findings. You can find the revised content on lines 586–515 of the updated manuscript. ]

6、Comments 6: [The conclusions are adequate. Just check whether anything you add to the discussion would change any of your conclusions or recommendations.]
Response 6: [We are extremely grateful for your recognition of the conclusion part. At the same time, we sincerely thank you for the valuable suggestions you put forward. In accordance with your reminder, we have carefully checked the content added to the discussion part and evaluated one by one its possible impact on the conclusion and suggestions. After verification, the existing conclusion and suggestions still hold and do not need to be modified for the time being. Thank you again for your review and guidance.]

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has addressed all the reservations raised, and I wish him good luck with his future research work.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After a review focused on the observations from the first round, I find a better-written manuscript, starting with a more concise abstract that is more appealing to readers and an improved methodology that makes the study easier to understand. Above all, the discussion reads better and compares the results obtained with similar studies, the figure captions are clearer and include the sources of the information. Finally, the conclusions are better related to the results. I believe the authors took the time to address the concerns raised in the first round, and I am therefore pleased to approve this version of the manuscript.