Identification of Industrial Land Parcels and Its Implications for Environmental Risk Management in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Urban Agglomeration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript deals on a subject I consider relevant for publication. That is, “Identification of Industrial Land Parcels and Its implications for Environmental Risk Management”. It deals on the subject from an urban perspective by putting a focus on “the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Urban Agglomeration”. It presents and describes a method for the fast identification of industrial parcels using points of interest (POIs) and large-scale spatial data. I have read the manuscript thrice and considered the following issues for its improvement:
The introduction
Considering that the manuscript claims to introduce a renewed approach to parcel identification with environmental risk implications, they should provide strong evidence on existing methods and approach, way these methods fail or are unsuitable, and then explain why the one being proposed in the manuscript has strong potential. This section is important to justify the relevance of the manuscript. The authors have only done it scantily and should provide in-depth literature (and with citations) on these issues. If this is well done, then there is a need to deal with the structure of the entire manuscript.
Method & Result
The approach presented by the authors is new to me, so it is difficult to be very critical on this, especially as the results appear to match with the variables presented. I am also happy to see that there were efforts put to validating the results. However, the results do not really do much to link with policy issues as we know it to be the problem/challenge in Beijing. These statistics lack urban development meaning if they are not interpreted or discussed within the ambit of the many problems Beijing face today – both lack of access to land/property and environmental risk factors. Hence, there is a need to restructure the paper to fully improve it towards reflecting the theory in literature and the policy on the ground in Beijing.
The general structure of the manuscript needs improving
The manuscript is not structured in a manner that allows for grasping its relevance to urban development theory and practice. It goes straight from introduction to the methodology section and leaves a theory/literature gap on the subject it investigates. It lacks a theoretical and policy (which can be easily reflected through the discussion) sections. As a result, the authors have not been able to fully relate to readers the theoretical essence for engaging parcel identifications and its linkages to environmental risk as available in the literature. Also, as urban development/agglomeration (including urban environmental risk) is not entirely a physical issue but a hardcore policy issue, the importance of the results was not communicated well to deliver the policy implications.
A starting point (immediately after the introduction) would be to theoretically orientate the readers on the literature of parcel identification and its linkages to environmental risk. In doing this, the authors should relate it to answering the following question: What are the urban agglomeration and environmental risk (policy) situations in Beijing? This will help set the stage for problematising Beijing as an urban case in need of parcel identification, thereby, justifying the need for a new or improved approach (the authors’ proposed method). Then they can introduce their method, and then results. Then they can relate the results to policy (as already touched as part of literature). The discussion part should then embrace a presentation of policy implications. On the policy side, Why not tell us about the specific implications of the results in the urban development of Beijing – and in relation to specific agglomeration cum environmental risk challenges in Beijing?
Conclusion & other issues
The conclusion is scanty and says little about how the manuscript achieved its goal and contributed to existing knowledge on the subject researched. This needs to be improved. In addition, the following could be improved: some error messages on some citations in the paper, list of references are basically poor but this is understandable as the manuscript failed to dig deep into the literature on the subject. The authors should put more efforts to correct this.
Author Response
This manuscript deals on a subject I consider relevant for publication. That is, “Identification of Industrial Land Parcels and Its implications for Environmental Risk Management”. It deals on the subject from an urban perspective by putting a focus on “the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Urban Agglomeration”. It presents and describes a method for the fast identification of industrial parcels using points of interest (POIs) and large-scale spatial data. I have read the manuscript thrice and considered the following issues for its improvement:
# We thank the reviewer for taking the time to read our manuscript and giving the suggestions to improve the manuscript.
The introduction
Considering that the manuscript claims to introduce a renewed approach to parcel identification with environmental risk implications, they should provide strong evidence on existing methods and approach, way these methods fail or are unsuitable, and then explain why the one being proposed in the manuscript has strong potential. This section is important to justify the relevance of the manuscript. The authors have only done it scantily and should provide in-depth literature (and with citations) on these issues. If this is well done, then there is a need to deal with the structure of the entire manuscript.
# We thank the reviewer pointing out this important aspect. We have realized that the former Introduction didn’t show enough technical or knowledge gap of existing methods and approach. We have done this in the revision. We added the literature review part as a section in the manuscript (see line 59- 95) with more citations (References 17- 29). With this, we focused on the current studies about urbanization progress, land use structure and the relevant environmental effects in megacities (especially in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Urban Agglomeration). We also summarized the existing methods for land use classifications and the lack of fast identification for industrial parcels. We hope the revision can help better understand the demand for industrial parcel identification and the environmental risk implications.
Method & Result
The approach presented by the authors is new to me, so it is difficult to be very critical on this, especially as the results appear to match with the variables presented. I am also happy to see that there were efforts put to validating the results. However, the results do not really do much to link with policy issues as we know it to be the problem/challenge in Beijing. These statistics lack urban development meaning if they are not interpreted or discussed within the ambit of the many problems Beijing face today – both lack of access to land/property and environmental risk factors. Hence, there is a need to restructure the paper to fully improve it towards reflecting the theory in literature and the policy on the ground in Beijing.
# We thank the reviewer for positive comments and pointing out the necessity of restructuring the paper. We restructured the manuscript and added the “Literature review” section to deal with the challenges for urbanization progress and policy issues (especially the studies of Beijing). In the added section, we presented the characteristics of the urbanization progress and main policies in Beijing and surrounding cities (see line 60-83)
.
The general structure of the manuscript needs improving
The manuscript is not structured in a manner that allows for grasping its relevance to urban development theory and practice. It goes straight from introduction to the methodology section and leaves a theory/literature gap on the subject it investigates. It lacks a theoretical and policy (which can be easily reflected through the discussion) sections. As a result, the authors have not been able to fully relate to readers the theoretical essence for engaging parcel identifications and its linkages to environmental risk as available in the literature. Also, as urban development/agglomeration (including urban environmental risk) is not entirely a physical issue but a hardcore policy issue, the importance of the results was not communicated well to deliver the policy implications.
A starting point (immediately after the introduction) would be to theoretically orientate the readers on the literature of parcel identification and its linkages to environmental risk. In doing this, the authors should relate it to answering the following question: What are the urban agglomeration and environmental risk (policy) situations in Beijing? This will help set the stage for problematising Beijing as an urban case in need of parcel identification, thereby, justifying the need for a new or improved approach (the authors’ proposed method). Then they can introduce their method, and then results. Then they can relate the results to policy (as already touched as part of literature). The discussion part should then embrace a presentation of policy implications. On the policy side, Why not tell us about the specific implications of the results in the urban development of Beijing – and in relation to specific agglomeration cum environmental risk challenges in Beijing?
# We agree that it is important to link the urbanization progress and its environmental effects with policy issues. This is also added in the section “Literature review” (see line 59 to 95). There we answered the questions about “What are the urban agglomeration and environmental risk (policy) situations in Beijing (and also the surrounding cities)?” (see line 60-83)
Combing with the current policy situations in Beijing and surrounding cities, we added more suggestions for urban planning and environmental risk management in the discussion (see line 246-252 and line 264-271). Based on the results, we suggest to optimize the structure of urban land use, transfer the polluted industrial land inside the city, and the industrial parks should maintain a certain safe distance from urban residential areas. Soil contamination monitoring and remediation should be complimented before the reuse of the industrial parcels, and making reasonable reuse functions according to the pollution characteristics in Beijing.
Conclusion & other issues
The conclusion is scanty and says little about how the manuscript achieved its goal and contributed to existing knowledge on the subject researched. This needs to be improved. In addition, the following could be improved: some error messages on some citations in the paper, list of references are basically poor but this is understandable as the manuscript failed to dig deep into the literature on the subject. The authors should put more efforts to correct this.
# We added more about the objective, main achievements and policy issues for the urban planning and environmental risk management (see line 287-288, line 295-303). We hope the revision can clearly present our results and the suggestions for urban environmental risk management.
We corrected the errors in the citations and references (see line 244).
We added more citations to do the literature review (see References 17 to 29).
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is interesting and under the scope of the journal.
Indeed, the manuscript present relevant issues. Nonetheless, still some minor reviews should be performed.
Small changes:
The text between lines 59 to 61 is not necessary. Perhaps this text should be deleted and instead finish the introductory section explaining the main objective of the article.
Line 208-209 there is an error in the reference system. The text in the article says: "Error! 208 Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found., ”Please change this text
Author Response
The article is interesting and under the scope of the journal.
Indeed, the manuscript present relevant issues. Nonetheless, still some minor reviews should be performed.
# We thank the reviewer for taking the time to read our manuscript and the suggestions to improve the manuscript.
Small changes:
The text between lines 59 to 61 is not necessary. Perhaps this text should be deleted and instead finish the introductory section explaining the main objective of the article.
Line 208-209 there is an error in the reference system. The text in the article says: "Error! 208 Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found., ” Please change this text
# We thank the reviewer for these suggestions.
We deleted the part and added a section “Literature review” (see line 59 to 95) to deepen explaining the background, and theoretical and policy situations. In doing this, we can easily present the objective of this study.
We corrected the errors in the citations and references (Line 244).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
First of all, I commend the authors for the improvements they have made in the aspects of literature, methods, structure, discussion and introducing more literature. My two most critical concerns still need to be fully (or at least adequately, even if not fully) addressed. I am therefore stating them here and helping the authors to see (through my feedback) what the possible solutions would be.
Literature: The literature review is not really a literature review. This could be captioned a “literature overview” or “orientation on industrial land parcels and environmental risks” if the authors insist on avoiding a long and in-depth literature review.
I do appreciate that the authors have definitely put in some effort into exploring the literature around the subject further. While I do think that the paper’s scientific output has improved in literature terms, I think the author’s use of the caption “literature review” in section 2 promises more than it delivers. The current caption, “literature review”, gives the impression that the authors failed to do a rigorous literature search and synthesis – because a literature review should be in-depth and this is not. I am not trying to insinuate that the authors have to write a lot here. My point is that the current literature is insufficient as it does not deeply evoke what we know or question what is already known concerning industrial land parcel uses and environmental risks. Understanding this would be crucial for readers to fully grasp critically what makes the situation different (or unique or typical) in China later in the case study sections. Also, the section is better captioned “literature overview” or in more specific terms “orientation on industrial land parcels and environmental risks” if the authors insist with keeping it very brief (by brief I mean 2-3 page of literature-based orientations on the two key issues being investigated).
Introducing “policy discourse” (in the discussion) or “policy recommendations in the conclusion): In my previous review, I stated that “Also, as urban development/agglomeration (including urban environmental risk) is not entirely a physical issue but a hardcore policy issue, the importance of the results was not communicated well to deliver the policy implications”.
What I mean is that the key components of the research presented in the manuscript relate to planning and spatial analysis, environmental risk management and urban land-use. These are more than physical issues but policy matters. So, I expected the authors to either (1) introduce how their results would relate to policies on urban environmental risk management based on their proposed method (this can be added in the discussion and 2-3 points would be enough). Or (2) provide some policy recommendations that relate to their results to ensure its sustainable application (this can be added in the conclusion and 2-3 points would be enough).
I consider these two issues important to my decision on this manuscript. If the authors can quickly improve the manuscript based on my above suggestions, I will immediately recommend the manuscript for publication.
Author Response
Responses in BLUE
First of all, I commend the authors for the improvements they have made in the aspects of literature, methods, structure, discussion and introducing more literature. My two most critical concerns still need to be fully (or at least adequately, even if not fully) addressed. I am therefore stating them here and helping the authors to see (through my feedback) what the possible solutions would be.
The authors thank the reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions. Revisions are carefully implemented as suggested.
Literature: The literature review is not really a literature review. This could be captioned a “literature overview” or “orientation on industrial land parcels and environmental risks” if the authors insist on avoiding a long and in-depth literature review.
I do appreciate that the authors have definitely put in some effort into exploring the literature around the subject further. While I do think that the paper’s scientific output has improved in literature terms, I think the author’s use of the caption “literature review” in section 2 promises more than it delivers. The current caption, “literature review”, gives the impression that the authors failed to do a rigorous literature search and synthesis – because a literature review should be in-depth and this is not. I am not trying to insinuate that the authors have to write a lot here. My point is that the current literature is insufficient as it does not deeply evoke what we know or question what is already known concerning industrial land parcel uses and environmental risks. Understanding this would be crucial for readers to fully grasp critically what makes the situation different (or unique or typical) in China later in the case study sections. Also, the section is better captioned “literature overview” or in more specific terms “orientation on industrial land parcels and environmental risks” if the authors insist with keeping it very brief (by brief I mean 2-3 page of literature-based orientations on the two key issues being investigated).
The authors understand the reviewer’s concern for this section, and thank for the detailed constructive suggestions. The caption is changed to “Orientation on industrial land parcels and environmental risks” (line 59). The section is re-written (line 60-133), with more citations and one more figure (Fig.1), and re-organized to three paragraphs.
In the first paragraph, the background of urban land use pattern is presented, and then the characteristics of industrial parcels and their environmental risks (e.g., soil contamination) and management policies in China are introduced.
In the second paragraph, the current studies about the internal structure and mixed distribution of industrial parcels and human settlement risks are investigated. Here, some policies and plans that have been invented to mitigate urban environmental pressure and potential risks are discussed. In doing so, it is confirmed the identification of industrial parcels as a substantial requirement for an integrated management of land use and the environment. Furthermore, an analytical graph is supplemented in this section (cf. Fig.1) to explain the urban sprawl process and the distribution of industrial-residential parcels. This is expected to facilitate a deep understanding of the interrelations between industrial parcels and the environmental risks.
In the third paragraph, the most applied methods for land-use classification, and their weaknesses and some new research trends are discussed. Then, the method developed to identify land parcels using multi-source big data is proposed.
Introducing “policy discourse” (in the discussion) or “policy recommendations in the conclusion): In my previous review, I stated that “Also, as urban development/agglomeration (including urban environmental risk) is not entirely a physical issue but a hardcore policy issue, the importance of the results was not communicated well to deliver the policy implications”.
What I mean is that the key components of the research presented in the manuscript relate to planning and spatial analysis, environmental risk management and urban land-use. These are more than physical issues but policy matters. So, I expected the authors to either (1) introduce how their results would relate to policies on urban environmental risk management based on their proposed method (this can be added in the discussion and 2-3 points would be enough). Or (2) provide some policy recommendations that relate to their results to ensure its sustainable application (this can be added in the conclusion and 2-3 points would be enough).
The authors thank for the comments. In the revised manuscript, a new section captioned “Policy Implications” is added by which some policy suggestions and recommendations are presented as below (line 342-362).
First, the authors suggest that industrial parcels and their environmental risks should be paid more attention. Second, in urban agglomeration and megacities, the government should promote the relocation of the pollution intensified industrial parcels and implement much stricter supervision and monitoring on potential risks for all industrial parcels. Third, it is crucial for some heavy industry oriented cities (e.g., Tianjin, and Tangshan) to develop more integrated management towards efficient environmental risk control. For industrial parks or concentrated industrial parcels, a security distance from urban residential areas should be defined and well maintained.
I consider these two issues important to my decision on this manuscript. If the authors can quickly improve the manuscript based on my above suggestions, I will immediately recommend the manuscript for publication.
Thank for all the detailed comments. All suggestions are carefully considered and revised correspondingly in the manuscript.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have amended the 2nd section to adequately reflect its content and scope. They have also introduced a policy-relevant discourse in the conclusion of the manuscript.
I have gone through the improvements made by the authors, and now consider this manuscript suitable for publication (subject to English language and style are fine/minor spell checks during the proofing period).
