Review Reports - Multi-Scenario Land Use Simulation and Land Use Conflict Assessment Based on the CLUMondo Model: A Case Study of Liyang, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see my attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciated the work of the authors. The manuscript assesses the spatiotemporal patterns of Land-use conflicts based on multi-scenario land-use simulation in Liyang, China. The manuscript is well organized and presented, with convincing results. The title corresponds to the structure of the manuscript and the content of the different sections. Mathematical processes are well described. This manuscript is in very good shape. Some comments for the authors to make it better.

(1) LULC, LULC change, and CLUMondo model are frequently used concepts and models, so what is your originality as compared to previous research/other reported work? You need to mention all your contributions in the introduction section.

(2) P1, L15 and 18; P5, L264: The NGS, EDS, EPS, LUCs and GM acronyms should be totally described when first mentioned.

(3) Please review Figure 3 as it has some typos (i.e., metereologica, Reome).

(4) Please review the legend of Figure 11 (i.e., cold spot instead of hotspot)

Please think thoroughly about my observations to improve the quality.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments:

The manuscript, entitled "multi-scenario land use simulation and land use conflict assessment based on the CLUMondo model: A case study of Liyang, China” this paper simulated land use in the city in 2030 under three scenarios, namely, the NGS, EDS and EPS, using the CLUMondo model. There are some issues with this manuscript, mainly related to the readability and composition of the manuscript.

Please review the quality of your English throughout the manuscript.

Specific comments:

Point 1: Line 461 Figure 12 moves to the result section.

Point 2: Line 462 Table 6 moves to the result section.

Point 3: Line 473 Table 7 moves to result in section.

Point 4: Line 502 Figure 13 moves to the result section.

Point 5: Line 503 Figure 14 moves to the result section.

Questions:

ü What are the contributions of your research?

ü How does it improve our overall understanding of the subject material?

ü What future directions in research are suggested from your findings and conclusions?

ü How does your research complement and support the key hypotheses from the published literature on this subject?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript titled "Multi-scenario land use simulation and land use conflict assessment based on the CLUMondo model: A case study of Liyang, China" intends to diagnose the potential future land use conflicts in the region through multi-scenario land use simulation. Moreover, the manuscript proposed strategies for spatial governance and land use pattern optimization that aim at resolving and mitigating land use conflicts, with the research thus serving as a valuable reference for future research on the sustainable use of regional land resources and territorial spatial planning. The study area was the Liyang of Jiangsu Province at the junction of three provinces in the Yangtze River Delta in China.

The research is original; it could be characterized as novel and, in my opinion, important to the field; it also has an almost appropriate structure, and the language has been used well. In the meanwhile, the manuscript has a nice extent (about 8,260 words) and it is comprehensive. The tables (7), figure (14) and equations (9) make the paper reflect well to the reader. For this reason, paper has a "diversity look", not only tables, not only numbers, not only words. It is advised to revise figures, compare them, or use appendix if you agree (just to reduce the number).

The title, I think, is all right. The abstract reflects well the findings of this study. Abstracts should indicate the research problem/purpose of the research, provide some indication of the design/methodology/approach taken, the findings of the research and its originality/value in terms of its contribution to the international literature. Please, revise the abstract, it must be up to 200 words long, [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Submission Overview / Accepted File Formats - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions#submission or https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/land-template.dot)], and do not forget abstract need to encourage readers to download the paper. The Abstract needs further work.

The introduction is effective, clear, and well organized but it wasn’t introduced and put into perspective what research is negotiating. Moreover, it does not contain a clear formulation and description of the research problem. Please insert a clear description and justification of the problem the article deals with. Your literature research should be critical and more informed, rather than listing previous research.

For the Methodology chapter, the research conduct has been tested in several areas of the world, with comparable results and will probably be tested in others. Appropriate references to the methodology included in the already published bibliography but you can add 4-5 more.

Please revise the manuscript and include more references which already exist in the bibliography. I would be much more satisfied if the number of references was higher (about 65 - 75 references) and I would appreciate it if it also included data from all the world Asia, America, Europe, or Australia. In this way it is documented that a method that is tested in a place with its own characteristics can be implemented in other places around the world.

The results section is good. The argument flows and is reinforced through the justification of the way elements are interpreted. But the same does not apply to the Discussion and Conclusion. It is advised to revise the Discussion and Conclusion. Both sections should be consistent in terms of Proposal, Problem statement, Results, and of course, future work. Your conclusion section does not do justice to your work. Make your key contributions, arguments, and findings clearer. You must refer to the literature and previous studies in your discussion section.

More discussion is needed, comparing the results of this work related to attributes with those of other studies. I believe that the conclusions section or discussion should also include the main limitations of this study and incorporate possible policy implications. I think, something more should be said about practical implications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I can see the efforts made by the authors, and now it is in good shape for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript has been revised according to the first review comments. The authors carefully studied the comments and revised the manuscript by considering all the last comments. The comments are responded to the new manuscript.

Conclusions and discussion are better than the previous one, they have general logic and on justification of interpretations as the author’s attribute.

In general, the manuscript is completely different from the previous one, since all the comments of the previous review have been revised.

I believe the revised manuscript has been improved carefully and I hope the desired level of Land can be reached.