Multi-Objective Spatial Optimization of Protective Forests Based on the Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II Algorithm and Future Land Use Simulation Model: A Case Study of Alaer City, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The title of your manuscript suggests that the focus of the study is on protective forests. However, the introduction does not provide basic information regarding the concept of protective forests, their purpose, or what can be achieved through their establishment. The manuscript fails to mention existing regions that are currently designated as protective forests worldwide. As a result, a reader who reads up until the end of the introduction would feel that they are reading about a topic unrelated to the title. The references provided between lines 8-22 are not focused on the concept of protective forests. The first sentence of the second paragraph, "Research on the spatial optimization of protective forests..." suggests that references related to protective forests should follow. However, the references do not align with this focus. Additionally, the last paragraph of this section only includes technical statements that are not centered on the concept of protective forests. Consequently, the introduction is completely disconnected from the focus of the paper and should be entirely rewritten to focus on protective forests.
In the second section, the portion between lines 89-95 is the most noteworthy, as it explains why the study focuses on protective forests. This part strengthens the reasoning behind the creation of the manuscript more effectively than the introduction.
The section between lines 100-106 is quite striking. I strongly recommend that you carefully consider the advice given here and I support the points made. Initially, I had difficulty understanding why these points were included in your manuscript, but then I realized I should laugh at it, and I found it rather amusing.
Line 108-110: What coordinate system(s) before the transformation did you have? Why did you choose this coordinate system for transformation? And, why did you need to transform?
Line 113-118: Why did you use data that was divided into nine classes? How did you reduce the number of classes to five? Does ArcGIS Pro have an automatic tool for this?
Line 120-129: Could you consider explaining the source of your DEM data? Is "Geospatial Data Cloud" an open international spatial data warehouse? Can everyone download any data they need from there? Can ArcGIS Pro automatically generate the other derived data (i.e. slope and aspect) using DEM? Could it be that the "Geospatial Data Cloud" does not provide processed versions of the other data? Could the international academic community have decided that these should be generated using ArcGIS Pro instead?
Line 138: Was it difficult to collect GPS data? Did you use GPS to verify the "land-use data" you collected for control purposes? Were the height data from GPS consistent with the elevation data of DEM? Can you explain the five sampling points you could not verify? Could GPS have provided faulty signals? I have heard that GPS signals can sometimes be lost in forested areas or indoor environments. Is that true?
Figure 2: What do you expect the reader to understand from this roadmap? Do you consider providing some explanation to make your manuscript more valuable?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript tackles a critical and timely subject by applying advanced computational models—NSGA-II and FLUS—to optimize protective forest allocation in Alaer City, China. The integration of ecological and socio-economic factors into spatial optimization is innovative, reflecting a comprehensive approach to sustainable land management in arid regions.
The study stands out for its methodological rigor, clear articulation of goals, and practical significance. However, the presentation can be improved in some sections, particularly regarding equation clarity, visualization, and in-depth discussion of results.
At first, there are issues in the equation formatting. Some equations are difficult to interpret due to poor formatting. Ensure proper typesetting using LaTeX or equivalent tools, and provide a detailed explanation of variables and parameters.
Secondly, while the study mentions critical parameters for NSGA-II and FLUS (e.g., mutation rate, crossover rate), the rationale behind these values is unclear. Explain the basis for these selections, referencing previous studies or pilot experiments.
The manuscript evaluates trade-offs between ecological and economic objectives but does not delve deeply into their implications. Discuss potential conflicts or synergies more thoroughly. Also, while the study is technically sound, the policy recommendations are underdeveloped. Expand on how these findings can guide local governments or stakeholders in practical decision-making.
Some minor issues are the consistency in terminology (terms like "protective forests," "shelterbelts," and "afforestation zones" are used interchangeably; use consistent terminology throughout), and the fact that some references lack contextual integration. For example, citations [27], [31-32] are mentioned without explaining their relevance. Briefly describe how each cited work contributes to the study. You will also have to change the references section to follow the journal's format.
Last but not least, delete Lines 101-106.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Quite an interesting research work. The article has a clearly expressed methodological character. The specific results only illustrate the work of the described modeling methods. The authors do not offer their own methods, but use existing ones. I think the main goal of the article is to draw attention to these methods. But it is worth noting that the example for demonstrating these methods is chosen well.
The topic of the publication is modeling and optimization of land use. The authors focused on only one type of land: forests. But the methods and data used are universal and can be used for any type of land use.
A number of minor edits need to be made to the text:
1) Explain the term "chromosomes" (line 283). What does it mean in the context of your research? I (and many of your future readers) are familiar with this term only from biology.
2) Subsection 3.1 needs some text added (briefly describe the process and data flow). This subsection currently only contains Figure 2.
3) The text needs to be carefully reread and checked for typos. I will not list all the typos. I will only point out the largest one - line 100-106. Here you forgot to remove the explanatory text from the template.
4) Figure 4. There are many small details in your image. They are hard to see. I advise placing the halves of the drawing (a and b) not on the left and right (horizontally), but on the top and bottom (vertically). And stretch the drawings across the page margins.
5) Specify what software you used. Did you use only MATLAB at all stages of the work? Or did you also use some GIS for preliminary processing of spatial data and cartography?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,
The presented study is relevant, has a practical focus for achieving sustainable development goals.
The authors have sufficiently described the data sample and the results obtained. The manuscript contains a comparison with the results of previously conducted studies. It is recommended to expand this comparison.
It is recommended to expand the literature review in the introduction to substantiate the concept of the study, to substantiate key metrics of Optimization Results of Quantity Structure.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Previously, I expressed that the article was not suitable for acceptance in its current form. Upon review, I observed that the concerns I raised have been addressed to a limited extent. In particular, the introduction section appears to have been somewhat enhanced, reflecting a step forward. However, I did not observe significant progress in the other sections of the text where I had identified critical issues.
The response letter you provided seems to have been crafted primarily to persuade me rather than to substantively address the concerns raised. What was expected, however, was a thoughtful revision of the manuscript that directly addressed the highlighted issues and resolved potential ambiguities that could arise for future readers. In light of this, I believe the manuscript remains insufficiently prepared for publication in Forest.
Note: Please ensure that all corrections are explicitly marked in the revised manuscript, with line numbers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In academic writing, references to figures should be made clearly and consistently. The word "Figure" is capitalized and followed by the corresponding number. It can be cited either in parentheses (Figure 1) or naturally within the flow of the sentence. For example, ".... is shown in Figure 2,"
Author Response
- Summary
First of all, please allow me to express my sincerest gratitude to you! Your valuable feedback in each round of revisions has pointed me in the right direction. Your rigorous requirements for research methods, precise guidance on data analysis, and meticulous polishing of paper structure and language expression have all benefited me greatly. Thank you again for your careful guidance and support!
Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for your suggestion on the citation of figures. We have checked and verified the figure citations that appear in the paper to ensure that they are correct.
In lines 78-80, Quote Figure 1
In lines 144-146,Quote Figure 2
In lines 170,Quote Figure 3
In lines 378-379,Quote Figure 4
In lines 412-415,Quote Figure 5
