The Spatio-Temporal Process of Regional Cultivated Land Use Transition: An Integrated Framework of “Factor-Structure-Function”

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this paper has the potential to make an important contribution to the literature. Land change adversely impacting agricultural land is a critical global topic—particularly in China with exacerbated demand for food coupled with shrinking arable land. It is prudent that we continue to improve and critically evaluate our frameworks and methods for measuring change so that targeted policies can be developed from the real (actual) variables driving change. That being said, this paper falls short in several key areas that need to be addressed before it is ready for peer-review publication.

The main issue with the paper is that I am unsure if it is a methods paper or a case study. It cannot be both. Are the authors building a new framework and testing a proof concept with the case study? Or is the case study central and the new framework is used as a new way to investigate the case? Depending on the focus, the authors will need to revise the paper accordingly. This is an opportunity for the authors to write a future paper on the other topic. Two strong, focused papers is better than one ambiguous weaker paper :-)

I assume the focus is on the framework, in which case, conclusions should focus on the strengths and limitations of the new model. It will limit the ability to make policy-level recommendations, but will open up the discussion to focus on new insights the model itself can provide researchers, who can then make practical policy-based recommendations.

Second, the most critical missing element of the paper is that there is no core argument. What is the main thesis? Without a core argument, the paper lacks motivation and is not publishable.

Third, the results do little to go beyond summarizing the data. They are not interpreted nor are they summarized in a way that is meaningful (and ties back to the core argument). A core argument is meant to be supported by the evidence, and the evidence is meant to be interpreted in a way that relates directly back to the core argument. Without this structure, the paper lacks motivation and reads as a report.

Forth, discussion should be revised according to academic paper standards: restate the core argument/hypothesis/research question. Highlight key results and relate each back to the core argument and state if they confirm, contradict or extend the literature, summarize implications, state limitations, and question findings (how could results be interpreted differently?). As written, I am concerned that the authors explain “why” change has happened when this is a quantitative study and it is not possible to explain why—only how and when and where change is happening. Why can only be derived from qualitative data.

Other general comments:

Abstract should begin with a statement of the broader context before introducing an argument for the study topic. I also suggest using simpler language for a broad audience. Is this paper about developing a new framework (using a proof of concept case study) or is it about the case study itself? The abstract should be revised based on the focus on the paper.

The identified gap in research is stated but not described. The authors claim there is a gap but have not described the state of the research in adequate detail to show the gap.

Paragraph beginning Ln 90 is vague. What exactly is changing? What exactly is being substituted? Furthermore, why does this theory require further building upon it? What does it lack? How is it limited or biased or incomplete?

In section 2: Theoretical Framework, the authors have not explained the gap that requires a new model. They have somewhat described the theory of cultivated land utilization (with very few citations—more are needed), but have not articulated what is missing. They have not actually critically summarized the gap. Furthermore, it describes the new proposed framework before the methods have been introduced. I suggest the following:

Revise the introduction and literature review to clear synthesize and critically summarize the current state of the research on CLUT. How is it conceptualized? How is it measured? What have key finding been? What do we know? Next, state what we still don’t know—is it related to limitations of the measurements? The ways CLUT has been defined? Shortcomings in interpreting past findings? This is the gap! The authors will want to structure this around the theoretical frameworks that have been applied in the past, identify cultivated land utilization theory as the most common (or current gold standard), and clearly specify what it still lacks. And justify what we can accomplish if we fill the gap (i.e., what is significant). Then, state what is novel about developing a new framework and how it can move us forward (methodologically or practically or otherwise). This is where the core argument of the paper should be stated (if not sooner).

Next, move the theoretical framework into the methods section.

3.1 study area should first state why the site was chosen—they have not yet done this. There is a statement of why it was chosen but the statement does not actually justify why (there are many other places with similar characteristics—why this one?) (note: if this is used as a proof of concept, justification is easier). I assume it is a critical case study to be used as a proof of concept for the new framework. But the authors need to first justify why it was selected. Move sentence ln 163-4 ‘Zhejiang has long prioritized the development of high-quality agriculture, and its cultivated land use has experienced significant transitions over the past three decades.’ To the beginning of the paragraph so the audience has the relevant context first.

Section 3.2 lacks detail. Authors need to describe the development of the new framework: additional concepts, operalization, and specifically what is different from the original framework and why. Fig 1 and Table 2 require integration – how are they related? How was the weighting derived? What are the data sources? Show which variables are from which data sources in the table and remove from the text.

What is the unit of analysis – how are the different data sources comparable?

3.3 It is not necessary to provide a statistical tutorial on the models—more focus on why they were selected and what outputs they provide and how it relates to the framework and broader goal of the paper. Need to summarize how results from 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 were integrated and how they were interpreted in the context of the goal of the paper. In other words: don’t just state what statistical models were used, but explain why, what they produce and how it was interpreted.

3.3.1 While Moran’s I is an appropriate statistical model, the authors do not explain why it was selected. More summary justification is needed.

3.3.2 How do the geographic boundaries bias the results of the Ellipse calculation?

Section 4: Results should be interpreted beyond vague statements of change. Specify what changed and how.

Overall, I find the results section superficial with little interpreted analysis. It basically reports data rather than analyzing outputs in a way that is meaningful and relates back to the goal of the paper—to identify how, why and where change is happening. This section requires major revision. After reading the results, I question if the paper is about the new framework or about change in land use in Zhejiang. Once the authors decide if this is a methods or case study paper then the results should be revised to reflect what was found respectively.

4.4 Ok, so the phenomenon shifted—but what exactly do the data mean? What changed? How did it change? How do the parameters (that changed each year) bias the analytical model? I find this section to lack interpretation.  

5.1 The authors state: ‘In combination with the actual development situation of Zhejiang Province and the implementation of major policies, this study attempted to conduct an in-depth analysis of its driving mechanism.’ Is this the goal of the paper? The discussion should first summarize how the central question or hypothesis was answered. I am not sure that has been achieved here. I am confused about the alignment between the main research question (which is usually implied in a journal paper but can sometimes be explicitly stated—it is implied in this paper: how, where, and why is change happening? Or, if it is a framework paper: how can we better measure change?); the goal of the paper: which I’m not sure if it’s to measure change or to improve the methods for measuring change; and the core argument: measures of change are incomplete and require additional x variables (framework paper) OR change happens unevenly and we can best measure it by adding x variables (case study paper).

Discussion: major revision after re-structuring the paper. Discussion should summarize the high level outcome and highlight key (high-level) findings that are related back to the literature. Overall, the discussion is unrelated to the evidence presented in the results section. Much of it is background or context rather than discussion of research findings and their broader interpretation.

In terms of writing style and clarity:

I find the syntax and language somewhat overly complex especially for a broad (educated) audience. I strongly suggest a thorough copy-edit so that the concepts of the paper are clearer and more concise. The overly technical (and ambiguous) language makes it difficult to follow. For example, ln 34-35: To scientifically elucidate these spatio-temporal relationships, research on land use transition (LUT) has attracted increasing academic attention.

This could be simply written as: Research on land use transition (LUT) has increased in an effort to identify spatio-temporal relationships.

Please make major revisions to improve the writing style throughout the paper.

Specific items: 

Ln 57: Should there be a hyphen instead of x for ’43.5 x 104’?

CLUT, CLDT & CLRT are too similar and put a cognitive challenge on the reader. I suggest only using CLUT and referring to the other two as ‘dominant transition’ and ‘recessive transition’ as an abbreviated form.

Ln 74, CLRT variables are specified, but CLDT are vague: ‘The CLDT involves changes in the quantitative structure and spatial pattern of cultivated land’ – please specify to make the concepts more contrastable.

Ln 81-84: Please specify/describe what was found in the research.

Ln 71-72: What is ‘relevant empirical research’? This needs to be described in detail.

Ln 185-7: Why these years? I assume it’s linked to data availability or some major transition (land change, regulatory, etc)?

Fig 3: What is the unit of analysis? Is it the entire province or aggregated from smaller geographic units?

Paragraph starting Ln 332: this is context/methods not discussion. Is the next paragraph (starting ln 338) from the results or is this also background information?

Fig 7 is not appropriate for discussion—new information should not be introduced in the discussion as it is a place to discuss the key results and relate it back to the core argument and broader literature.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

see comments above

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript constructed a "factor-structure-function" analytical framework to explore the spatio-temporal dynamics and driving mechanisms of cultivated land use transition in Zhejiang Province, which was theoretically innovative and practically valuable. The research design is rigorous with a sufficient amount of work. I believe this manuscript is suitable for publication in Land. Meanwhile, I also have some minor suggestions for consideration.

1. Figure clarity and labeling optimization: Some figures (e.g., partial spatial pattern maps and LISA cluster maps) have blurred text labels or inconsistent legend formats. It is suggested to standardize the font size, clarity, and legend consistency of all figures to ensure that the spatial distribution information (such as city names and value ranges) is accurately and clearly presented.

2.Simplification of formula expressions: The formulas in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 have redundant formatting symbols (e.g., extra curly braces), which affects readability. It is recommended to simplify the formula expressions to the standard mathematical notation format to make them more concise and easy to understand.

3.Supplementation of indicator selection basis: In the evaluation system (Table 1), the selection basis of individual sub-indicators (e.g., why the weight of the multiple cropping index is set to 0.04) is not clearly explained. It is suggested to add 1-2 sentences in the text to briefly illustrate the rationality of the indicator weight setting, combining expert scoring results and research context.

4.Deepen the discussion: I found that there are trade-offs and synergistic relationships between some indicators within the same component. It might be necessary to further discuss these relationships in the Discussion section.

5.Unification of abbreviations: The abbreviation "CLUTI" (Cultivated Land Use Transition Index) is first mentioned in Section 3.2 but is not marked with the full name. It is recommended to supplement the full name when the abbreviation appears for the first time in the text to facilitate readers' understanding.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article makes a significant contribution to the study of transitions in cultivated land by proposing an integrated analytical framework based on the relationship between factors, structure and functions, and by applying this framework to Zhejiang using a long-term spatial and temporal approach. The framework's main value lies in its ability to articulate the combined effects of urbanisation, territorial policies, induced factor substitution, and the evolution of agricultural land's economic, ecological, and social functions within a single scheme. Using weighted indicators, spatial analysis and multiscale evaluation methods enables north-south redistribution patterns to be identified and reveals dynamics that would not be visible using conventional tools. Overall, the study strengthens our understanding of agrarian transition processes in regions under strong urban pressure, and provides a theoretical and methodological foundation that can be expanded upon or compared in national and international contexts. However, some issues should be considered in a future revision.

The introduction provides a convincing global overview of land use change, drawing on widely recognised references in the literature. However, the discussion could benefit from a more strategic structure to guide the reader more directly to the central research question. Currently, the review of the global context, while relevant, occupies considerable space before explicitly presenting the theoretical and methodological gap that the research seeks to address. One improvement would be to reorganise the content so that the argument progresses from the global need to study land-use transitions, to cultivated land in particular, and finally to the inadequacy of existing analytical frameworks. It would also be valuable to introduce the specific challenges of China and the Zhejiang case earlier, presenting them as illustrative examples of the topic's urgency rather than as subsequent justifications.

While the theoretical framework clearly explains the logic of the 'factor–structure–function' model, there is scope for further conceptual development. Firstly, while the article successfully establishes the basis of the approach using induced technological innovation theory, it could provide more detail on how this theory has been applied in the study of agricultural land use in different contexts, and the challenges identified in its implementation. In this regard, a review of the study 'Land use transitions: Socio-ecological feedback versus socio-economic change (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.09.003) would reinforce the conceptual need for the 'factor–structure–function' approach. This is because the Zhejiang framework lies precisely at the intersection of urbanisation-induced transformations, the reorganising of productive factors and the resulting functional changes (economic, social and ecological). This would provide a more nuanced view of the conceptual framework. Secondly, the interrelationships among the three components should be explored further, as the current explanation is linear despite the article itself acknowledging the existence of feedback loops. A more explicit representation of these dynamics, for example through causal loops or reinforcement and compensation cycles, would establish the model as systemic rather than merely descriptive. Furthermore, the justification of the empirical indicators could be incorporated here, rather than being relegated to the methodology section. This would demonstrate how each measured element translates theoretical concepts into practice. This bridge between theory and indicators would increase the framework's credibility and facilitate its replication in other studies. Finally, a discussion of possible limitations would offer a more balanced and transparent perspective.

Although the methodology is clearly described, it could be significantly strengthened to enhance transparency and reproducibility. While the article indicates that five years were selected as representative moments in the transition process, it does not sufficiently explain why these years are key. It would be advisable to explicitly justify whether these dates correspond to public policy milestones, structural breaks in the data or changes in statistical availability. While the use of an expert-based weighting method is appropriate for the indicator system, crucial information is missing regarding the number of participants, their level of experience, the evaluation procedure used and whether consensus techniques such as Delphi or AHP were applied. This information would enable the robustness of the weightings to be assessed. Additionally, the description of how missing data was treated could be improved by analysing how this imputation might affect temporal variability and noting whether sensitivity tests were conducted. Regarding spatial methods, although the equations are explained, it would be valuable to include a brief discussion of why Moran's I and standard deviation ellipses were chosen over alternative approaches and the limitations this entails.

The results present the temporal and spatial evolution of the CLUTI index and its components in an orderly manner. However, the section could be improved by disaggregating trends further. For instance, the marked decline of the 'factor' component could be analysed by separating the contributions of labour, mechanisation, fertilisers and cultivated area, which would allow abrupt changes, inflection points or differences between periods to be identified. In the spatial analysis, north–south trends are mentioned, but the magnitude of change could be quantified more precisely, for example by using metrics such as percentage variation or dispersion levels between cities. Furthermore, the interpretation of spatial clusters could be enhanced by demonstrating whether patterns of statistical significance were consistent, or if some municipalities repeatedly changed categories. This would help to detect regions that are unstable or in transition. Regarding centres of gravity, it would be useful to complement the analysis with indicators of speed and direction for each period. These could be compared with socioeconomic data to determine whether shifts reflect structural changes or specific events. This expansion would enable the results to be more closely linked to observable processes within the territory.

While the discussion effectively integrates the findings with social, economic and political factors, it could benefit from a more in-depth critical analysis. While the differentiated effects of policies such as cultivated land compensation and the 'Mountain-Sea' cooperation project are acknowledged, it would be beneficial to explicitly question the extent to which these policies achieved their intended objectives. For instance, the study acknowledges that the balance between land occupation and compensation has preserved the total area, but not the quality, of the land. This critique could be expanded upon by examining whether the quality assessment mechanisms are adequate, or if institutional incentives perpetuate low-quality compensation. Similarly, contrasting the discussion of the southward shift of agricultural value with studies from other provinces or countries would highlight similarities and differences in transition patterns. In this regard, the Urban Horizons in China study (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-8776-0_6) is recommended, as it contextualises the patterns detected in Zhejiang's CLUT within national urbanisation and demographic redistribution dynamics. Based on over five thousand urban entities and two decades of census data, this work examines how Chinese state policies have reconfigured population density, territorial mobility, and urban land expansion. This perspective directly complements the findings of the present study, particularly with regard to the relationship between Zhejiang’s north–south gradient, the substitution of productive factors and the increasing pressure on cultivated land. By comparing the two, the authors can demonstrate that the transitions observed in Zhejiang are not isolated phenomena, but rather regional manifestations of broader structural trends associated with hukou reform, balanced urbanisation programmes and rural–urban integration policies. It would also be appropriate to address potential biases or limitations in the study, such as the reliance on aggregated municipal data, which may obscure local dynamics, and the lack of direct soil quality indicators. Addressing these issues would strengthen the rigour of the analysis and provide a clearer direction for future research.

Although the conclusions adequately summarise the main findings, the methodological, theoretical and empirical contributions could be more clearly distinguished. One improvement would be to include a paragraph dedicated exclusively to the theoretical implications of the 'factor–structure–function' framework, emphasising which previous gaps have been addressed and how this approach could be adapted to study other types of agrarian or territorial transition. A more reflective conclusion that explicitly acknowledges the study's limitations would also be useful, such as reliance on secondary data, difficulty in capturing short-term dynamics and the impossibility of including more detailed biophysical indicators. Furthermore, the conclusions could offer more specific recommendations for future research, such as integrating the model with predictive analyses, conducting comparative studies across provinces, or incorporating data obtained directly from producers. These suggestions would expand the article’s relevance and reinforce its standing as a valuable contribution to the field.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While the English is understandable, several sentences would benefit from stylistic refinement to improve precision and readability. Polishing the language will help communicate the study’s strengths more effectively to an international readership.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made substantial revisions to the paper. However, there are several issues that are not well-resolved and still need to be improved. One major item is that the paper is still trying to be both a methods/theory paper and a case study while doing neither successfully. Limit aims to #1&2 or #3&4 and revise the entire paper based on that.

Abstract: It is still unclear if the focus of the paper is on the framework or the case study. It is likely many readers with only see the abstract (and not read the entire paper) so this needs to be clear rather than ambiguous.

There are several line items that were not addressed for example: line 60, adding characteristics of CLDT, etc. Review and revise or comment why revision doesn't make sense in this case.

I still find the literature review on CLUT metrics superficial. What metrics have been used? What are the variables that have been measured? What is specifically still missing? Please review my original comments on this section. This can be used to organize the results (see my comment below)

2.1 Is written in the style of a report and lacks scientific details related to reliability, validity, sampling, etc.

The authors have done little to address my comments related to methods and analysis.

Results section: the additional text goes too far in interpreting the findings (over-reach) and should instead synthesize the data in a way that is meaningful to the reader.  I am struggling with how to advise revision in a more clear way. If this is indeed a paper about the framework, then the results should focus on how this framework provides new and useful data. Show the results based on the existing framework (what others typically use) and then what the added variables in this new framework give us. This provides evidence that the framework is useful, needed, and can readily be adopted. This section requires total revision. 

If the paper is instead about the case study, more background (and methods) need to be summarized about the context and previous studies' conclusions about CLUT here--so that we can see how this new framework gives us new data (and potential insights) on what is happening here. 

Discussion section: The first paragraph is summarizing data. Why isn't this in the results? New information should not be introduced in the discussion. Overall, the discussion is still poorly related to the results. It also does not tie back to the literature. 

While a great deal of effort has been taken to revise the paper, I unfortunately do not see much improvement. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I still find the language obtuse. I gave an example of a sentence to illustrate how improve the syntax but the authors did not edit it and in fact added another unnecessary word. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the article shows significant progress in several of the areas highlighted in the final recommendations. In the introduction, the authors have strengthened the contextualisation of the Zhejiang case by incorporating updated figures and recent official references, which improves the clarity of the problem and its territorial relevance; however, there is still some lengthiness that could be further adjusted to lead more directly to the theoretical gap that motivates the ‘factor-structure-function’ framework. The theoretical framework reflects a substantial improvement: it now incorporates a more detailed description of the induced substitution mechanism and develops more clearly the connections between factors, structure and functions, even including a graphic representation of the conceptual scheme. However, a more in-depth explanation of the feedback loops, a key recommended element, is still lacking.

In terms of methodology, there has been a considerable improvement: the authors have added precise information on the selection of experts, their background, their level of training, and how the weightings were averaged, which strengthens the transparency of the indicator system. The choice of the years analysed is also justified more explicitly, linking them to public policy milestones. Even so, a more explicit methodological commentary on the limitations of the spatial methods used and on the possible effects of data imputation on temporal variability would be desirable.

In the results section, the presentation is more comprehensive and now describes in greater detail ranges of variation, indicator trajectories and differentiated regional behaviours, which adequately responds to the recommendation to enrich the disaggregation and interpretation.

The discussion incorporates new elements, especially a more in-depth analysis of induced substitution mechanisms and regional dynamics, although it could still include more explicit comparisons with national cases or studies from other provinces, as recommended. Another pending issue in the revised version of the manuscript is the failure to incorporate the Urban Horizons in China study, whose inclusion had been recommended to strengthen the discussion and place the results in the broader context of national urbanisation and demographic redistribution dynamics. This work provides large-scale empirical evidence—based on thousands of urban entities and two decades of census data—that would allow for contextualising the shift in centres of gravity, the substitution of productive factors, and the north-south differences observed in Zhejiang as part of structural trends characteristic of China's urban transformations. By failing to include this reference, the discussion remains anchored mainly in the provincial case and misses the opportunity to show how the patterns identified are part of multiscale processes associated with hukou reform, urban expansion, and rural-urban integration strategies. Incorporating this reference would enrich the interpretation, broaden the comparative validity of the study, and reinforce the argument that the transitions observed are not isolated phenomena, but rather regional manifestations of a deeper territorial reconfiguration at the national level.
Finally, the conclusions section has been expanded and presents a more orderly synthesis of the contributions, although a more explicit discussion of limitations—particularly the reliance on secondary data and the absence of direct biophysical indicators—could reinforce the final strength of the manuscript.

Overall, the revisions show significant progress, especially in methodological clarity and the articulation of the analytical framework, although there are still opportunities for improvement in conceptual depth and comparative discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf