The Synchronous Development Pattern and Type Division of Functional Coupling Coordination and Human Activity Intensity Based on the “Production–Living–Ecological” Space Perspective: A Case Study of Wanzhou District

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper explores the coupling coordination degree of the evaluation results of production, life, and ecological function and its synchronous development state with the index of human activity intensity, and carries out a detailed study with Wanzhou District in Chongqing, the study has certain significance, but the paper still has the following problems.

1. What is the basis for establishing a 300m*300m grid in this paper? Is there an optimal grid scale considered, please add?

2. The human activity intensity index proposed in this paper is calculated based on the area of land use types and the equivalent conversion factor of built-up land. Therefore, the magnitude of the index depends on two variables, i.e., area and coefficient. Although the construction land equivalence coefficients for cropland, forest land, grassland and water are low, the large area base of these land types may lead to the possibility that their calculations may be higher than those for construction land. What is the logic or basis for setting the equivalent conversion factors for all land classes of construction land? Why are the coefficients for each land category set in this way? The establishment of the index lacks the description and basis of objectivity. Is the human activity intensity index different from the evaluation of living functions in the previous section?

3. The simultaneous development model constructed in this paper is the difference between coupled coordination and human activity index, and the difference is simply divided and set the corresponding type, what is the basis of the type division? And why the type of development corresponding to this threshold is defined in this way, is there a scientific explanation?

4. The writing needs to be further condensed in the conclusion section, which is currently slightly redundant, mostly repetition of results and lacking the support of primary data. Therefore, the conclusion section of this paper needs to be further revised. In addition, the discussion section should further elaborate the scientific value of the relevant indices and the grid scale evaluation proposed in this paper, and the relevant literature should be cited to support the relevant ideas.

Author Response

Point 1: What is the basis for establishing a 300m*300m grid in this paper? Is there an optimal grid scale considered, please add?

Response 1: Thanks for your suggestions. In general, samples are systematically sampled at equal intervals based on two to five times the average area of landscape patches. However, in order to more accurately identify the land types and evaluate the "production-living-ecological" function. Based on the existing research [1] and the actual situation of the research area, the fishing net tool in ArcGIS10.6 is used to determine the 300m*300m grid as the evaluation unit.

Reference:

[1] Chen, H.; Yang, Q.; Su, K.; Zhang, H.; Lu, D.; Xiang, H.; Zhou, L. Identification and optimization of production-living- ecological space in an ecological foundation area in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River: a case study of Jiangjin district of 627 Chongqing, China. Land, 2021, 10, 863.

 

Point 2: The human activity intensity index proposed in this paper is calculated based on the area of land use types and the equivalent conversion factor of built-up land. Therefore, the magnitude of the index depends on two variables, i.e., area and coefficient. Although the construction land equivalence coefficients for cropland, forest land, grassland and water are low, the large area base of these land types may lead to the possibility that their calculations may be higher than those for construction land. What is the logic or basis for setting the equivalent conversion factors for all land classes of construction land? Why are the coefficients for each land category set in this way? The establishment of the index lacks the description and basis of objectivity. Is the human activity intensity index different from the evaluation of living functions in the previous section?

Response 2: Thanks for your suggestions. Firstly, about the logic or basis for setting the equivalent conversion factors for all land classes of construction land. We refer to the existing research and adopt the measurement method of the human activity intensity proposed by Xu Yong et al [2]. That is, the equivalent of construction land, the land use type with the highest effect of human social and economic activities on the land surface, is taken as the basic measurement unit. The areas of different land use types are converted into corresponding construction land equivalents according to their conversion coefficients of construction land equivalents. Then the human activity intensity is calculated according to the sum of construction land equivalents of different regional land use types. The conversion coefficient is determined based on whether the natural cover changes under different land use types and whether air, heat, water and nutrients can be normally exchanged. Form two levels of 8 feature marks and the corresponding feature values, and take this as the calculation standard. The final equivalent conversion coefficient of construction land is shown in the literature [2]. The calculated results can not only reflect the comprehensive effect degree of human social and economic activities on land resources, but also enhance the comparability of research results of the human activities intensity in different regions. The calculation results of grassland and cultivated land that you are worried about may be higher than those of construction land, which does not exist in our study. Because we are based on the same size grid as the evaluation unit for calculation. Secondly, about the difference between the human activity intensity and the evaluation of living functions in the previous section. In our consideration, the human activity intensity reflects the utilization degree and disturbance intensity of human to land resources. The living function reflects the ability of various land resources to provide security for human survival and development. Therefore, we believe that they are not only fundamentally different but also closely related.

Reference:

[2] Xu Yong, Sun Xiaoyi, Tang Qing. Human activity intensity of land surface: Concept, method and application in China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2015, 70(7): 1068-1079.

 

Point 3: The simultaneous development model constructed in this paper is the difference between coupled coordination and human activity index, and the difference is simply divided and set the corresponding type, what is the basis of the type division? And why the type of development corresponding to this threshold is defined in this way, is there a scientific explanation?

Response 3: Thanks for your suggestions. Firsly, the synchronous development model and threshold setting used in this paper are references to previous studies [3,4]. This model can be used to analyze the synchronization characteristics of the two systems under the overall coupling coordination degree, that is, the lead or lag state of the two systems. If T > 0.1, the coordination degree of PLEF is relatively higher than HAI. HAI is the side of lagging, which is defined as the development lagging type. In this type, HAI did not hurt the coupling and coordinated development of PLEF. If -0.1≤T≤0.1, the difference between them is slight. Keep in a more balanced, defined as the development of the synchronous type. In this type, HAI and the coupling coordination development of PLEF are basically synchronous coordination; If T<-0.1, it means that HAI is relatively higher than the CCD of PLEF. HAI is the side of leading development, defined as the leading type of development. This type of HAI has hurts on the coupling and coordinated development of PLEF. Secondly, about the basis of the type division. Also referring to Professor Wang Cheng's idea of the type devision [3], we considered that regulating the synchronous development index is the key to promoting the coordinated development of regional man–land relations. Therefore, we use the synchronous development index to classify the study area into three types: negative, positive, and synchronous type.

Reference:

[3] Wang, C.; Ji, M.Z.; Dai, R.L.; Chen, J.; Shen, Y. Coupling and coordination pattern and type division of village and town construction land expansion and ecological environment effect: A case study of Rongchang District, Chongqing Municipality. 676 Progress in Geography, 2022, 41(3): 409-422.

[4] Sun Yongsheng, Tong Lianjun. Spatio-temporal coupling relationship between development strength and eco-environment in the restricted development zone of Northeast China. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2021, 41(4): 684-694.

 

Point 4: The writing needs to be further condensed in the conclusion section, which is currently slightly redundant, mostly repetition of results and lacking the support of primary data. Therefore, the conclusion section of this paper needs to be further revised. In addition, the discussion section should further elaborate the scientific value of the relevant indices and the grid scale evaluation proposed in this paper, and the relevant literature should be cited to support the relevant ideas.

Response 4: Thanks for your suggestions. We have revised both the conclusion and the discussion. The discussion section is modified as follows:

“It has become one of the critical issues for regional sustainable development to promote the coupling and coordinated development of regional PLEF. To clarify the relationship between HAI and the CCD of PLEF. This paper has the following advantages. Firstly, compared with previous studies [47], we use 300m*300m grid as the evaluation unit to make the evaluation result more accurate. This provides more accurate location information for land-use decisions and land management. Secondly, we refer to the existing research [37], calculate the HAI according to the sum of construction land equivalents of different regional land use types on the grid scale. The calculated results can not only reflect the comprehensive effect degree of human social and economic activities on land resources, but also enhance the comparability of research results of the human activities intensity in different regions. Thirdly, exploring the relationship between the HAI and the coupling coordination of PLEF is a point that has been easily neglected in previous studies. In this study, we try to use the synchronous development model [45,46] to discuss and classify the development relationship preliminarily. Fourthly, based on analyzing the level of HAI and the CCD of PLEF. This paper scientifically discriminates the factors restricting the synchronous development and divides the regions into different types. The differentiation promotion strategy is put forward, which provides a theoretical and practical references for regional sustainable development.”

The conclusion section is modified as follows:

“The methods of CCD model, human activity intensity model, and synchronous development model are used in this paper. This paper calculates and analyzes the evolution characteristics of the CCD of PLEF and the intensity of human activities in Wanzhou District from 2000 to 2020, as well as the types of their development relations. The following conclusion can be obtained:

• In Wanzhou District, the PLEF shows significant spatial distribution differences, and evident spatial complementarity. The spatial distribution of production function is higher in the west than in the east. The living function shows the spatial distribution characteristics of higher in the middle. The ecological function showed the spatial distribution characteristics of higher in the east and lower in the west.
• From 2000 to 2020, the coupling degree of PLEF in the Wanzhou District decreased, and the interaction became weak. The CCD of PLEF is at a good coordination level, but there is also a downward trend. The coupling coordination of the living- production function is poor, which is the critical direction for future optimization.
• The HAI in Wanzhou District showed an increasing trend, and formed a high concentration in the central town and its surrounding areas. The development type of most regions in Wanzhou District is positive.
• In Wanzhou District, the "good coordination–lagging development" type is the dominant type, but the ratio of area decreased. And the proportion of "dysregulation recession–advanced development" is increasing. We propose different regulation strategies for different development types to improve the regional CCD of PLEF. And the harmonious development of regional man-land relationships can be guided.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The contribution proposes the joint use of three models for the representation of the coupling coordination degree (CCD) of land-use production, living and ecological function in a vast territorial area in China.

The study is of interest from the point of view of evidence, and lends itself to further integration and investigation. In particular, the HAI is measured by the equivalent of construction land, while other socio-economic and environmental factors could have been taken into consideration, especially, as the authors state, for the contribution to the direction of territorial policies that this study intends to provide.

The manuscript needs to be extensively revised. Especially in the first part the writing is not very clear (lines 17-18; 27; 44; 80, 139 and 140 typos; 149; 160, and so on). Line 166 please add a literature reference;

The results should be presented in a clearer form as the maps are very small and do not represent the interesting results on the cities mentioned by the authors.

The description of the method should be more extensive

 

Author Response

Point 1: The manuscript needs to be extensively revised. Especially in the first part the writing is not very clear (lines 17-18; 27; 44; 80, 139 and 140 typos; 149; 160, and so on). Line 166 please add a literature reference.

Response 1: Thanks for your suggestions. According to your comments, we have rechecked the grammar errors and revised the our paper, especially in the first part and the quality of my english throughout the manuscript.

Point 2: The results should be presented in a clearer form as the maps are very small and do not represent the interesting results on the cities mentioned by the authors.

Response 2: Thanks for your suggestions. According to your comments, we have tried to add the name of the town to the image. But the picture effect is not very clear, mainly because the map is very small (As shown in the figure below). However, we need to reflect the changes from different years and different aspects, so each group of pictures contains a little too many pictures. Therefore, from the perspective of typesetting, we need to reduce the pictures and combine them into one picture. We also took this defect into consideration, and added the town name to the study area overview map to facilitate the clearer presentation of the following results map.

Point 3: The description of the method should be more extensive.

Response 3: Thanks for your suggestions. I don't quite understand that the description of the method you say should be more extensive. For the description of the method, we mainly refer to the following literature:

Reference：

• Wang, D.; Jiang, D.; Fu, J.; Lin, G.; Zhang, J. Comprehensive assessment of production–living–ecological space based on the coupling coordination degree model. Sustainability, 2020, 12, 2009.
• Yang, Y.Y.; Bao, W.K.; Liu, Y.S. Coupling coordination analysis of rural production-living-ecological space in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. Ecol. Ind. 2020, 117, 106512.
• Wei, L.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, L.; Mi, X.; Wu, X.; Cheng, Z. Spatiotemporal Evolution Patterns of “Production- Living-Ecological” Spaces and the Coordination Level and Optimization of the Functions in Jilin Province. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13192.
• Wang, M.; Qin, K.; Jia, Y.; Yuan, X.; Yang, S. Land Use Transition and Eco-Environmental Effects in Karst Mountain Area Based on Production-Living-Ecological Space: A Case Study of Longlin Multinational Autonomous County, Southwest China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7587.
• Zhang, Y.; Yang, Q.Y.; Min, J. An analysis of coupling between the bearing capacity of the ecological environment and the quality of new urbanization in Chongqing. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2016, 71(5): 817-828.
• Zhao, Y.; Hou, P.; Jiang, J.; Zhai, J.; Chen, Y.; Wang, Y.; Bai, J.; Zhang, B.; Xu, H. Coordination Study on Ecological and Economic Coupling of the Yellow River Basin. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10664
• Liao, G.; He, P.; Gao, X.; Deng, L.; Zhang, H.; Feng, N.; Zhou, W.; Deng, O. The Production–Living–Ecological Land Classification System and Its Characteristics in the Hilly Area of Sichuan Province, Southwest China Based on Identification of the Main Functions. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1600.
• Fan, J.; Li, P.X. The scientific foundation of major function oriented zoning in China. Journal of Geographical Sciences,2009, 19(5): 515-531.
• Xu, Y.; Sun, X.Y.; Tang, Q. Human activity intensity of land surface: Concept, method, and application in China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2015, 70(7): 1068-1079.
• Li, Q.Y.; Fang, C.L.; Wang, S.J. Quality evaluation of provincial territorial space utilization in China: based on the spatial perspective of "production-living-ecological." Regional Research and Development, 2016,35(05):163-169.
• Han, M.; Zhang, C.; Lu, G.; Liu, Y.B.; Yu, H.Z. Response of wetland landscape pattern gradient to human activity intensity in Yellow River Delta. Transactions of the CSAE, 2017, 33(6): 265－
• Sun, Y.S.; Tong, L.J. Spatio-temporal coupling relationship between development strength and eco-environment in the Restricted Development Zone of Northeast China. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2021, 41(4): 684-694.
• Wang, C.; Ji, M.Z.; Dai, R.L.; Chen, J.; Shen, Y. Coupling and coordination pattern and type division of village and town construction land expansion and ecological environment effect: A case study of Rongchang District, Chongqing Municipality. Progress in Geography, 2022, 41(3): 409-422.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

thanks for paper, it looks interesting for me. i would like only recommend to add chapter about technical solutions, which platform you used, how data was proceed. This is only, what is missing for me

Author Response

Point 1: I would like only recommend to add chapter about technical solutions, which platform you used, how data was proceed.

Response 1: Thanks for your suggestions. We have added a technical solution in the introduction. As follows:

“Wanzhou District is located in the central area of the Three Gorges Reservoir Region (TGRR) and is the financial center of TGRR. The ecological environment in this area is fragile and highly sensitive to human activities [38]. Therefore, we took ArcGIS 10.4 as the technology platform, adopted the land–use raster datas. The technical solution for this paper is shown in Figure 1. We aimed to study the evolution characteristics of CCD and its relationship with HAI in Wanzhou District from 2000 to 2020. This reveal the evolution of the man–land relationship in Wanzhou District. The results of this study will contribute to the adjustment and optimization of various ecological policies in the hinterland of the TGRR. We provided a typical example for the study of sustainable development in the reservoir area of central and western China, mountainous areas, and similar areas in developing countries. The objectives of this paper include the following four:

(1)Quantitatively evaluate the CCD of PLEF;

(2) Calculate the spatio–temporal evolution characteristics of HAI in Wanzhou District;

(3) The synchronous development model was used to explore the response process of HAI to the CCD of PLEF.

(4) Divide the development types and put forward different regulation strategies.”

 

Figure 1. The basic step of technical solution

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been revised and it can be accepted in the present form.