Drivers of land-use changes in societies with decreasing populations: A comparison of the factors affecting farmland abandonment in a food production area in Japan

Yoshiko Kobayashi; Motoki Higa; Kan Higashiyama; Futoshi Nakamura

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0235846

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 25, 2020
19 Mar 2020 Decision Letter - Eda Ustaoglu, Editor PONE-D-20-05452 Drivers of land-use changes in societies with decreasing populations: A comparison of the factors affecting farmland abandonment in a food production area in Japan PLOS ONE Dear Dr Kobayashi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Specifically, the reviewers have pointed to the literature review and discussion sections to be strengthened and contributions to the existing research to be more explicitly discussed. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by 18 April 2020. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Eda Ustaoglu, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that Figure 2 and 5 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [#] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Manuscript is well written and clearly describes the factors of land use changes in Japanese Society by comparing the factors affecting the farmland abandonment. Anyhow add more citations in support of your results in discussion section. Reviewer #2: Comments - The author need to provide a section on more recent literature - In the discussion section, no comparison with the literature was developed - The paper needs to elaborate more the contribution in terms of methodology and added value to the literature Reviewer #3: This paper provides a detailed analysis of factors driving farmland abandonment in Hokkaido, Japan. Overall, i recommend that the discussion of the implications of the study be strengthened. I recommend some minor modifications: -the authors indicate that the study should be helpful to facilitate future land planning, but they say little about recommendations or policy implications of their findings and discussion. Do they have an overall assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the polices through the various periods? -as for ecological implications of farmland abandonment (and potential for recovery of ecosystems), this topic is mentioned a few times but there is no clear assessment or recommendations around this. The conclusion mentions two possible outcomes of reverting to natural ecosystems or becoming a wasteland. Could the authors comment on how common each of these is for the lands that have been abandoned to date? -Reference 13 relates to "Rewilding abandoned landscapes in Europe". Has this been explicitly attempted in Japan? -clarify why the analysis only extends to 2009 -how common is farmland abandonment in other parts of the world? What are the similarities and differences compared to the Japanese case/context? ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Steffanie Scott [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235846.r001
Revision 1
31 May 2020 Author Response Dear Prof. Eda Ustaoglu, Thank you for your letter concerning our manuscript. We received your E-mail on March 19th and have revised the manuscript. We were pleased to receive the favorable comments from the reviewers and have made revisions according to their comments. 1. We added the potential to extend our study to other studies in the Abstract. (L21 – L22. Review’s comment 4) 2. We have revised the first paragraph of the Introduction and removed Fig. 1 (Total population of the world, 1950-2010 (Estimates) and 2011-2100(Projections) provided by the United Nations (2014)). (L 30 – L33. Review’s comment 2). 3. We added an explanation on limiting the latest periods to include only the data available until 2009. (L146 – L152. Review’s comment 8). 4. We added the policy implications in the Discussion. (L393 – L401; L424 – L433. Reviewer’s comment 5) 5. We have revised the study implications in the Discussion. (L434-437. Review’s comment 4) 6. We have revised the second paragraph of the Concluding remarks. (L445 – L461. Reviewer's comment 6). 7. We have revised the third paragraph of the Concluding remarks. (L462 – L475. Reviewer's comment 7). 8. We added some recent studies to compare previous studies investigating other countries and Japan. (References 3, 6, 14, 16-21, 23, 71-91. Reviewer’s comment 1, 2, 3, 4, 9). 9. We revised some words to clarify our description. (highlighted in blue) 10. All the maps were created by our team based on data that have been made public. These public data have been referenced in our manuscript. We would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments, and we hope that the revised manuscript is acceptable for publication in PLOS ONE. Yours sincerely, The Authors Dear Reviewers Thank you for constructive comments on our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Reviewer #1 1. Comment 1: Manuscript is well written and clearly describes the factors of land use changes in Japanese Society by comparing the factors affecting the farmland abandonment. Anyhow add more citations in support of your results in discussion section. We referenced additional studies to support our results in the discussion section. In particular, we have cited studies showing the important determinants of farmland abandonment in the population decline phase. These determinants include disadvantaged geographical conditions, depopulation, and low accessibility to markets. Reviewer #2 2. Comment 2: The author need to provide a section on more recent literature We added recent literature in the Introduction, Discussion and Concluding remarks; thus, we revised the description of the world’s population dynamics (L30 – L33) and removed Fig. 1 (Total population of the world, 1950-2010 (Estimates) and 2011-2100 (Projections) provided by the United Nations (2014)) because a similar figure is found in the latest report of world population prospects provided by the United Nations (2019) (Reference 3). 3. Comment 3: In the discussion section, no comparison with the literature was developed We have referenced several studies and compared our findings with the results of previous studies in the Discussion (see the response to Comment 9 for details.). 4. Comment 4: The paper needs to elaborate more the contribution in terms of methodology and added value to the literature We have mentioned the potential and value of our results in the Abstract (L21 – L22) and Discussion (L434 – L437). Our results showing the land-use drivers associated with specific periods may provide new insights for other developed countries experiencing depopulation problems. We have also described the political implications of our results in the Concluding remarks (see the response to Comment 5 for details.). Since this is not a methodology paper, we did not discuss the methods. Reviewer #3 5. Comment 5: the authors indicate that the study should be helpful to facilitate future land planning, but they say little about recommendations or policy implications of their findings and discussion. Do they have an overall assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the polices through the various periods? We have discussed the political implications of our results (L393 – L401; L424 – L433). Our results showed that the disadvantaged farmlands, such as marginal, underproductive, narrow, and steep lands, will be continuously abandoned even in the decline phase. These geographical conditions were similar to eligible farmlands for the direct payment (DP) policy of subsidies to maintain unfavorable farmlands in place since 2000 in Japan. Thus, the current DP system might be effective even during the population decline phase. However, the population decline has become one of the determinants for farmland abandonment in recent years, and therefore, we expect that abandoned farmlands will increase in the future with depopulation. According to a previous study, population decentralization mitigates farmland abandonment even in the depopulation scenario; therefore, abandoned farmlands might be reduced using such a land management policy. The land management policy for population decentralization that was initiated in 2016 in Hokkaido would be a key policy for mitigating farmland abandonment. 6. Comment 6: as for ecological implications of farmland abandonment (and potential for recovery of ecosystems), this topic is mentioned a few times but there is no clear assessment or recommendations around this. The conclusion mentions two possible outcomes of reverting to natural ecosystems or becoming a wasteland. Could the authors comment on how common each of these is for the lands that have been abandoned to date? We have discussed the ecological implications in the Concluding remarks (L448 – L461). The previous studies showed that farmland abandonment can have either negative or positive ecological effects depending on the conservation target and regional circumstances. We have discussed previous studies to show that natural succession in abandoned farmland is considered an opportunity or a threat to regional biodiversity. 7. Comment 7: Reference 13 relates to "Rewilding abandoned landscapes in Europe". Has this been explicitly attempted in Japan? We have described attempts to rewild abandoned farmlands in Japan in the Concluding remarks (L462 – L475). In Japan, there have been very few attempts to rewild abandoned farmlands because vegetation recovery in abandoned farmlands is considered to be a threat to agrobiodiversity represented by traditional agricultural activities. However, there are several activities to restore abandoned farmlands to original natural ecosystems in areas with high potential and needs for rewilding. 8. Comment 8: clarify why the analysis only extends to 2009 We have added an explanation for why we limited the latest period to include only data available up to 2009 in the Methods (L146 – L152). In Japan, the grid square system was used as a spatial unit for statistical use and/or biodiversity surveys beginning in 1969. However, there are two geographical summary grids based on old and new Japanese geodetic reference systems. Although the Japanese geodetic reference system was changed to the new one in 2002, the land-use data and population data had been continuously released using the two grids. However, the production of population data using old grid system was ended in 2010, and only data from the new grid system has been released since then. Therefore, we have to use the land-use datasets only up to 2009 to analyze the relationship between population and land-use using the same (old) grid system. 9. Comment 9: how common is farmland abandonment in other parts of the world? What are the similarities and differences compared to the Japanese case/context? We referenced studies regarding farmland abandonment in the Discussion (L391 – L392). Our results showed that geographical conditions, such as marginal, underproductive, narrow, and steep slopes, were determinants of an increase in abandoned farmlands during the growth and the decline phases, which was a similar trend found by the previous studies in other countries conducted in the growth phase. An original finding of the present study is that social conditions, such as the distance from densely inhabited districts (DIDs) and the population, exerted opposite effects between the population growth and decline phases. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: ResponseToReviewer_PLOSONE_20200505.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235846.r002
24 Jun 2020 Decision Letter - Eda Ustaoglu, Editor Drivers of land-use changes in societies with decreasing populations: A comparison of the factors affecting farmland abandonment in a food production area in Japan PONE-D-20-05452R1 Dear Dr. Kobayashi, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Eda Ustaoglu, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Thank you for incorporating all the comments made by reviewers. Now the article is in intangible form and fulfill the creteria. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Umar Ijaz Ahmed Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235846.r003
Formally Accepted
30 Jun 2020 Acceptance Letter - Eda Ustaoglu, Editor PONE-D-20-05452R1 Drivers of land-use changes in societies with decreasing populations: A comparison of the factors affecting farmland abandonment in a food production area in Japan Dear Dr. Kobayashi: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Eda Ustaoglu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235846.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .