Influence Mechanism of Production-Living-Ecological Space Changes in the Urbanization Process of Guangdong Province, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article examines spatial changes in a province of China from 1990 to 2017 considering factors of production - living - ecological. In my opinion in the article is not made explicit the objective that you want to achieve and the question that you want to answer with this research. What is the innovative character? In the abstract there is no mention of the specific methodology used, only the tools are indicated and above all the problem is not focused in a specific context. In fact, the results obtained are immediately described in a very extensive way. In the abstract should be reported the main results of the paper in order to curiously interest the reader who will consequently read the paper.

I don't agree much with the use of terms like "production space", "living space", "land wast", "construction land"; they are not very usual terms to describe urbanization processes (in my opinion). However, if the authors decide to use them, it is necessary that they be made explicit the first time they are used in the introduction with the appropriate bibliographical references. For other terminology of urbaniztion process you can see: 

• https://doi.org/10.13128/BSGI.V8I2.339
• https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2014.994567
• https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010097
• https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093274

In L 62-66 the terms living, production, and ecological space are made explicit but it is unclear if these concepts are considered equally in the paper. If this is the case, according to my point of view, the explicitation of the concepts should be moved to the beginning of the introduction or, in any case, before we start talking about these concepts.

In general, the methodology is not clear, consider including a flow chart that outlines the entire process. The images in the results are not very readable (but perhaps this depends on the draft version of the article). 

L 42-45 requires bibliography. The statement is full of meaning
I would avoid concepts like "beautiful" which are only qualitative and not usual for scientific articles. They are not measurable adjectives except by perceptual methods that are consequently extremely subjective.

L 42-45 requires bibliography. The statement is full of meaning
I would avoid concepts like "beautiful" which are only qualitative and not usual for scientific articles. They are not measurable adjectives except by perceptual methods that are consequently extremely subjective.

L 160-164 it is not clear based on what methodology the score is assigned. This seems to me to be an extremely subjective method. No indicators were used to evaluate these scores.

L 172-182 I do not understand the need to name the software used. The software represents the means to achieve the result, it is important, instead, to understand the methodology used to obtain this grid which I personally am not clear on.

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

1. In my opinion in the article is not made explicit the objective that you want to achieve and the question that you want to answer with this research.

Response：The research goal of this paper is to discover the temporal and spatial evolution characteristics of production-living-ecological space, and to explore its influencing factors and mechanisms. In L129-L138, the revised version supplements and improves the goals and innovations of the study.

2. What is the innovative character?

Response：Existing research mainly focuses on the description and summary of the pattern and evolution characteristics of these spaces, while research on the quantitative factors affecting the evolution of space patterns and driving mechanisms is insufficient. There is also a scarcity of research on the basic theory and scientific support for the pattern optimization and coordinated development of production-living-ecological spaces.

Our study attempts to reveal the process, spatial characteristics, and the quantitative driving factors of the evolution of the production-living-ecological spaces in order to supplement the deficiency of existing research about its influence factors and attribution mechanisms.

This paper presents an in-depth summary of the influence mechanisms of the changes of production-living-ecological spaces in order to enrich the existing research content filling the gap of its framework. The study also provides a scientific basis for optimizing the layout and scientific governance of these spaces, and supports economic, social, and ecological development that is comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable.

These are the innovation points of our paper.

3. In the abstract there is no mention of the specific methodology used, only the tools are indicated and above all the problem is not focused in a specific context. In fact, the results obtained are immediately described in a very extensive way. In the abstract should be reported the main results of the paper in order to curiously interest the reader who will consequently read the paper.

Response：In this paper, we used three methods: a production-living-ecological land use classification system referencing from Liu et al., a 1 km × 1 km grid unit analysis, and a multiple linear regression model. We have supplemented the methodology in the abstract as follow: Referencing the land use classification system of the “production-living-ecological” space and using 1 km × 1 km grids, this study examines the spatial pattern changes of “production-living-ecological” space in Guangdong Province, China, from 1990 to 2017. In the study, a multiple linear regression analysis model was constructed to explore the influence factors and attribution mechanism of the changes.

We also supplemented the result in the abstract as follow to be more specific and attractive: The results showed that (1) between 1990 and 2017, the production spaces were mainly distributed in the Pearl River Delta and other coastal areas, showing a slight expansion trend. The expansion of production spaces mainly gathered in the Pearl River Delta, while the reduction was characterized by point-type dispersed. Living spaces were mainly distributed in the Pearl River Delta, the Shantou-Shanwei-Chaozhou-Jieyang urban agglomeration, and the Zhanjiang-Maoming-Yangjiang urban agglomeration along with other rapidly urbanized areas. They showed a spatial pattern of "large scale agglomeration and small scale dispersion" with an expansion trend. Living spaces in urban agglomerations such as the Pearl River Delta showed a large-scale expansion from the core to the periphery area, while expansion in other areas was small-scale and point-type. The reduction of living spaces was point-type dispersed. The ecological spaces were mainly distributed in mountainous and hilly areas in eastern, western, and northern Guangdong and showed a "regional agglomeration and partial fragmented" spatial pattern. Ecological spaces in urban agglomerations showed large-scale and regional reductions, while reductions in other areas were small-scale and point-type. Ecological space expansions were point-type dispersed. (2) Human, natural, and especially land-use type factors drove the changes of Guangdong's production-living-ecological spaces. (3) The changes of the production-living-ecological space pattern resulted from the interaction of human society, nature, and politics.

4. I don't agree much with the use of terms like "production space", "living space", "land wast", "construction land"; they are not very usual terms to describe urbanization processes (in my opinion). However, if the authors decide to use them, it is necessary that they be made explicit the first time they are used in the introduction with the appropriate bibliographical references. For other terminology of urbaniztion process you can see:……

In L 62-66 the terms living, production, and ecological space are made explicit but it is unclear if these concepts are considered equally in the paper. If this is the case, according to my point of view, the explicitation of the concepts should be moved to the beginning of the introduction or, in any case, before we start talking about these concepts.

Response：We have studied the four literatures the reviewer referred to carefully and added them into the reference in order to enrich our understanding of urbanization process in the paper. (L49, L53/ references 9-10, 17-18) Meanwhile, we move the definition of the production-living-ecological space to the beginning of the introduction with the bibliographical references when we first mentioned these concepts. (L56-L61) Also, we changed the word "land waste" to "the excessive consumption of land resources" in order to more explicitly reflect the phenomenon in the rapid urbanization.( L47)

 

5. In general, the methodology is not clear, consider including a flow chart that outlines the entire process.

Response：We have added some details to make the methodology more clear to the readers.

6. The images in the results are not very readable (but perhaps this depends on the draft version of the article).

Response：We have revised and changed the images in our paper .

7. L 42-45 requires bibliography. The statement is full of meaning.

Response：We have added bibliography to the sentence. This statement came from reference 19: Liu, Y. On the logical structures, checks and balances mechanisms and development principles of "production-living-ecological spaces". Hubei Social Sciences2016,351(3): 5-9. 2016, 351, 5-9. (In Chinese).

8. I would avoid concepts like "beautiful" which are only qualitative and not usual for scientific articles. They are not measurable adjectives except by perceptual methods that are consequently extremely subjective.

Response：We have deleted the word "beautiful" to be more scientific. (L73)

 

9. L 160-164 it is not clear based on what methodology the score is assigned. This seems to me to be an extremely subjective method. No indicators were used to evaluate these scores.

Response：We referenced the production-living-ecological land use classification system from Liu et al.. In the paper, researchers scored different land use types for their strength of function (production, living, ecological). They classified functional strength into four grades. The strongest function is 5 points, medium is 3 points, and the weak function is 1 point, while the lack of this function is 0 points.

We have added some details to illustrate this method. As follows:

This paper references the production-living-ecological land use classification system from Liu et al. [23]. According to the classification system above, land has multi-functional attributes, and a land use type can have multiple land use functions, but its functions will be different in strengths. Table 1 evaluates them according to their respective function grades [23] and a few adjustments have been made according to the situation in Guangdong Province (Table 1). The evaluation rules are as follows (take production function land for example): the strongest function of production land is scored at 5 points, the medium function at 3 points, the weak function at 1 point, and the non-production at 0 points [23]. The scoring rules of living function land and ecological function land are the same. Production land mainly includes cultivated land and other construction, urban, and rural residential lands, which also have medium production function. Living land mainly includes urban land and rural residential land. Other construction land also has weak living functions. Finally, the ecological land includes all land types except for urban and rural, industrial and mining, and residential; cultivated land also has a medium ecological function.

 

10. L 172-182 I do not understand the need to name the software used. The software represents the means to achieve the result, it is important, instead, to understand the methodology used to obtain this grid which I personally am not clear on.

Response：We have added some details to illustrate the process of generating the grid units. As follows:

This study used the ArcGIS 10.5 software platform to score vector data values of land use status in Guangdong Province in 1990, 2000, 2013, and 2017 according to the scoring criteria in Table 1. The specific process is as follows: the original land use data are scored according to the scoring criteria in Table 1; a 1 km × 1 km vector grid is made to cover the entire study area and divides the land use data into grid units; Based on a 1 km × 1 km vector grid unit, the production, living, and ecological function scores of each grid are counted respectively, and the spatial pattern maps of production, living, and ecological space in Guangdong Province are illustrated. The corresponding grids of 1 km × 1 km grid for spatial data in 1990 and 2017 were subtracted to obtain the change values of this period. The evolution results of the spatial pattern of production-living-ecological spaces in Guangdong Province from 1990 to 2017 were obtained by dividing the above change values into three types (narrowing, stability, and expansion) using the natural breakpoint method.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this article the authors examined the change of spatial pattern of the “production-living-ecological” space (PLES) in Guangdong Province, China. This paper first investigated the spatial pattern changes of PLES. Then using multiple regression modelling, the paper identified the several factors that contributed to the spatio-temporal changes of PLES. Although the methodological direction is at its right path, however, some correction and improvement are necessary. Discussion section should be supported by findings of this study. Before publishing the paper following comments should be addressed.

 

My specific comments are as follows.

Title:

What I understand, the main focus of the paper is to a) examine the changes of spatial patter of PLES and b) to identify the factors contributing to those changes. I did not understand why the “Evolution” was used in the title. I think this word is not suitable for the title. Authors could rethink about the title.

Section 2.4:

The authors used 32 indicators (Table 2) as influencing factor for PLES (Production-Living-Ecological Space). But there is no description or justification of selecting those variables. Whether these variables were used in other studies or not. Some kind of justification/reference required. Author should also check if there exist collinearity among the variables, since existence of collinearity reduces the statistical significance of the result. Although the authors mentioned collinearity in section 3.3, but I think that development of regression model should be described in method section.  

 

Section 2.5:

Source of land use data is not clear. It seems that the authors themselves derived land use data Landsat images. It is true, they authors should describe the methods how did they derive the land uses. If land use data was collected from secondary source, it should be clearly mentioned with reference. I am not clear about 25 second-level land use categories. What they actually mean? Are the 25 categories used in this study or six categories were used? Source of SRTM data is not correct. Please correct it.

 

Section 3.1

Line 227 and 227: spatial pattern of production remained same? But in the next couple of sentence, it seems that spatial pattern of production was spatial changed? Could you please explain?

 

Section 3.3

 Table 3: Through regression modelling, the authors tried to identify the factors influencing PLE. However, I can see from table 3 that variables X29, X30, and X31 are directly related to land and itself they are part of PLES (dependent variables). So, is it justified to select those three variables as independent variables?

Line 405-406: “The most influential factor on all the three dependent variables was land use type”-this findings need further explanation. Land use change is the dependent variable. So how it could be influential factor (independent variable)?

 

Section 4.

line: 480-481: “Population growth was the second external driving factor for the evolution of the production-living-ecological space pattern”-is it findings from your study? In discussion section, the author should, first, discuss their own finding and then other study findings can be referenced to support your own findings

 

Figures

A good location map of the study area is required showing its location with respect to China. The quality of the figures is not so good. Proper scale, north arrow should be used. Map graticule is also necessary. Since, English is the language of this paper, Chinese letter should be removed unless necessary. Resolution should be improved.

 

References

In some places referencing format is not correct (Line 78, 157, 220)

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

1. Title: What I understand, the main focus of the paper is to a) examine the changes of spatial patter of PLES and b) to identify the factors contributing to those changes. I did not understand why the “Evolution” was used in the title. I think this word is not suitable for the title. Authors could rethink about the title.

Response：We have revised the title by changing the word from "Evolution" to "Changes". Also we add the word "Process" to the title to be more specific. The title has been changed as follows:

Influence Mechanism of Production-Living-Ecological Space Changes in the Urbanization Process of Guangdong Province, China

 

2. Section 2.4: The authors used 32 indicators (Table 2) as influencing factor for PLES (Production-Living-Ecological Space). But there is no description or justification of selecting those variables. Whether these variables were used in other studies or not. Some kind of justification/reference required.

Author should also check if there exist collinearity among the variables, since existence of collinearity reduces the statistical significance of the result. Although the authors mentioned collinearity in section 3.3, but I think that development of regression model should be described in method section. 

Response：We have added supplementary explanations on the selection of indicators in the article and added references. As follows:

This evolution is influenced by social, economic, institutional, political, technical and natural factors [42-44]. These are divided into human, natural, and political factors in this study. As some influence factors are difficult to quantify, such as political and institutional factors, these factors were not included in the model for regression analysis. However, land use area is an important factor influencing the production-living-ecological functions. Therefore, according to the actual situation of the evolution of this particular space pattern in Guangdong Province, with prefecture-level cities as units, the paper selected 32 indicators (Table 2) as the influencing factors of the independent variables following the principles of objectivity, scientificity, and feasibility.

 

We have also added some illustrations for the collinearity in Section 2.4. As follows:

When there are 32 independent variables, there is collinearity in the above model. The study repeated screening the influence factors through the regression model, and excluded the variables that caused multicollinearity. As a result, there is no collinearity in the final model.

 

3. Section 2.5: Source of land use data is not clear. It seems that the authors themselves derived land use data Landsat images. It is true, they authors should describe the methods how did they derive the land uses. If land use data was collected from secondary source, it should be clearly mentioned with reference. I am not clear about 25 second-level land use categories. What they actually mean? Are the 25 categories used in this study or six categories were used? Source of SRTM data is not correct. Please correct it.

 Response：We have revised Section 2.5 to make it clearer to explain the source of the data. Meanwhile, we have supplemented what exactly are the six first-level and 25 second-level land use categories. In the study, we actually used the 25 second-level land use categories to score their strength of functions (production, living, ecological). The revisions are as follows:

The land use data of Guangdong Province in 1990, 2000, 2013, and 2017 were Landsat remote sensing images with a scale of 1:100,000 which were downloaded from the Geospatial Data Cloud (https://www.gscloud.cn/). The data were classified into six first-level categories including cultivated land, forest land, grassland, waters, construction land, and unused land, and 25 second-level land types including paddy field, dry land, forest land, shrub land, sparse forest land, other forest land, high, medium, and low coverage grassland, canals, lakes, permanent glaciers, snowfields, tidal flats, beaches, reservoir and pond, urban land, rural residential land, other construction land, sandy land, gobi, saline-alkali land, marshland, bare land, bare rock texture, and other land. The economic and social development data of influence factors were taken from the Guangdong Statistical Yearbook of 2001 and 2018 [45]. Further, the meteorological data was taken from the official websites of municipal governments and the height data were downloaded from the Resource and Environment Science and Data Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (https://www.resdc.cn). The height data came from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) data from the American Space Shuttle Endeavour (2000).

 

4. Section 3.1: Line 227 and 227: spatial pattern of production remained same? But in the next couple of sentence, it seems that spatial pattern of production was spatial changed? Could you please explain?

Response：We have revised as follows:

Line 271: In 1990, 2000, 2013, and 2017, the spatial pattern of production in Guangdong Province was almost the same with just a little changes:

Line 297:  In 1990, 2000, 2013, and 2017, the spatial pattern of living in Guangdong Province changed a little bit with the number of grids with living function score greater than 1.0 based on 1 km × 1 km grid unit increasing from 5.4% to 8.8%, and the distribution of living space area distinctly expanding (Figure 2).

Line 319: In 1990, 2000, 2013, and 2017, the spatial pattern of ecological in Guangdong Province was basically the same with a little changes along with the production and living space:

 

5. Section 3.3: Table 3: Through regression modelling, the authors tried to identify the factors influencing PLE. However, I can see from table 3 that variables X29, X30, and X31 are directly related to land and itself they are part of PLES (dependent variables). So, is it justified to select those three variables as independent variables?

Line 405-406: “The most influential factor on all the three dependent variables was land use type”-this findings need further explanation. Land use change is the dependent variable. So how it could be influential factor (independent variable)?

Response： In our regression model, the dependent variables are the change values of PLE function between 2000 and 2017. The variables X29, X30, and X31 are the change areas of the cultivated land, urban land, and rural residential land in the period. The values of PLE function are scored by the production-living-ecological land use classification system from Liu et al. [23] which are graded and evaluated by the type of the land. Therefore, land area changes are not the same factors as changes of PLES function score. The areas of different land use type have an important influence on the PLES function scores. In a certain region, land use with different area combinations will have different function scores. According to our regression model analysis, the variables of land use area did have the greatest impact on the dependent variables. So we make a conclusion that “The most influential factor on all the three dependent variables was land use type.”

 

6. Section 4. Line : 480-481: “Population growth was the second external driving factor for the evolution of the production-living-ecological space pattern”-is it findings from your study? In discussion section, the author should, first, discuss their own finding and then other study findings can be referenced to support your own findings

Response： In Section 3.3, the results of regression models (4) showed the change value of living function score were positively influenced by the changes of employees in the secondary industry. So in the discussion, we made the point that “Population growth was another external driving factor for the evolution of the production-living-ecological space pattern”. This point is based on our model finding and some other references [34,48-50]. We have supplemented more data in Section 4.1 to make it more explicit to discuss the influence of population growth on the changes of PLES pattern. As follows:

Population growth was another external driving factor for the evolution of the production-living-ecological space pattern [34,48-50]. As the population grew, more land was needed to meet more food and housing needs, so a large number of ecological spaces were developed for production and living spaces. In addition to the natural population growth within the province, the urbanization and industrialization of Guangdong Province also attracted a large number of migrants from other provinces [31]. In 2000–2017, the resident population of Guangdong Province increased from 8.65 × 10³ million to 1.12 × 10⁴ million, an increase of 29 %. The employed population in the three industries changed from 1.59 × 10³, 1.11 × 10³, and 1.28 × 10³ million to 1.36 × 10³, 2.54 × 10³, and 2.44 × 10³ million. The employed population in the primary industry declined, while the employed population in the secondary and tertiary industries rose continuously. In the same period, the total area of forest land, grassland, waters, and unused land in Guangdong Province decreased by 1267.4 km².

 

7. Figures: A good location map of the study area is required showing its location with respect to China. The quality of the figures is not so good. Proper scale, north arrow should be used. Map graticule is also necessary. Since, English is the language of this paper, Chinese letter should be removed unless necessary. Resolution should be improved.

Response：We have revised and changed the images in our paper

8. References: In some places referencing format is not correct (Line 78, 157, 220).

Response：We have revised the referencing format in line 88, line 93, and line 263.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author addressed all of my comments and the content has been improved.