Review Reports - Optimisation of Ecological Leisure Industrial Planning Based on Improved GIS-AHP: A Case Study in Shapingba District, Chongqing, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Methods

The motivation for this topic is clearly presented, the research goal is well specified. Based on the literature, the Authors located flaws in the GIS-AHP method, and decided to repair these flaws. However, the way of achieving the research goal is quite chaotic. While the final effect (Figure 6) is clear, the road leading to it is not.

The Authors stated that the LIDES model was created, but apart from the abstract and conclusions, there is no mention of the model. Was the supplement to the GIS-AHP method treated as the creation of a new model presented in Figure 2? This must be clarified.

The Authors write about choosing indices for AHP analysis, but it is not clearly presented in the article. Are, among others, "suitable land" and "park plaza" from Figure 2 these indices? Indices should be clearly highlighted and accurately described. A list of all indices needs to be included, with the rejected ones and the reason for rejection (177-178, 302).

Statements „filtered out following discussion with experts” or „expert scoring method” are highly non-scientific, this needs to be clarified. Why the experts chose to filter some indices out? By basing almost all analysis on unclear and vague "expert scoring", Authors lose credibility. Why were indices not determined, described and rejected on the basis of separate research or statistics?

Editing/formatting

Changing the personal form to impersonal in the whole article is needed (e.g. “Space syntax method was used” or “Authors used Space syntax method” instead of “we used Space syntax method”).

The article is stylistically underdeveloped, even messy in several places (122-123). Certain paragraphs appear twice in an article (257-264 and 267-275; 288-299 and 320-331). The description of the structure of the article (65-71) was included by accident in this article, because it concerns completely different studies. The language of the article requires moderate correction.

The article contains many incorrect phrases ("nuclear density" instead of "kernel density"), sometimes more colloquial than scientific ("pixel size" instead of "raster cell size").

The Authors are inconsistent in describing phenomena - e.g. "space syntax" and "spatial syntax"; "indexes" and "indices".

Map quality needs to be improved, some maps are illegible. Raster cell size needs to be reduced, why was it set to such a large size? Each map figure should contain north direction, legible legend and scale. Data sources on the Figure 1a must be precisely identified.

Sections needs to match the "Sustainability" template – so “Literature review” should be put in “Introduction”. According to the template, space should be put before quoting - in many places in the article this is done incorrectly.

The formatting of the tables is inconsistent. In Table 6, commas are replaced with other characters, in Table 5 the Authors forget to add spaces after the decimal point.

Author Response

Dear Editors

On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Optimisation of Ecological Leisure Industrial Planning Based on Improved GIS-AHP: A Case Study in Shapingba District, Chongqing, China”. (sustainability-633831).

We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision, which marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.

We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you. Here below is our description on revision according to the reviewer one’s comments.

Methods

Response to comment' The Authors stated that the LIDES model was created, but apart from the abstract and conclusions, there is no mention of the model. Was the supplement to the GIS-AHP method treated as the creation of a new model presented in Figure 2? This must be clarified'.

Response: LIDES model was explained in the 3.2.1. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model part. And I clarify constructing an analytic hierarchy process model(Fig 3), let readers to know the analytic hierarchy process model is Fig 3. Besides, you are right, I should state the supplement to the GIS-AHP method treated as the creation of a new model presented in Figure 2. I add this sentence in this paragraph.

Among others, "suitable land" and "park plaza" from Figure 2, these are indices.

Response: Indices be clearly highlighted and accurately described in 3.2.1. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model part. I added the literature for the index selection reference.

Response to comment' filtered out following discussion with experts” or ‘expert scoring method”

Response: The statements of filtered out following discussion with experts” was deleted and expert scoring method were corrected in line 468 and referring to related paper. The expert screening indicator was asked about the opinions of experts on WeChat three years ago.

Editing/formatting

Response: I had revised this.

Response: We are very sorry for our negligence of correct this paragraph. I had revised this paragraph.

The article contains many incorrect phrases ("nuclear density" instead of "kernel density"), sometimes more colloquial than scientific ("pixel size" instead of "raster cell size").

Response: I had revised this.

The Authors are inconsistent in describing phenomena - e.g. "space syntax" and "spatial syntax"; "indexes" and "indices".

Response: We are very sorry for that. I had revised this.

Response: figures had already be improved and changed. Data sources on the Figure 1a, it is draw by myself in GIS, so it is not exist sources.

Response: Thanks very much of your suggestion, I had already summarized this part and to integrate it within the Introduction.

The formatting of the tables is inconsistent. In Table 6, commas are replaced with other characters, in Table 5 the Authors forget to add spaces after the decimal point.

Response: I had revised this.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Tongyun Du

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The present work provides a detailed example of the use of GIS and data analysis from multiple sources to improve ecological leisure planning in a developing district of Chongqing (China). The authors show an extensive knowledge of ecological leisure planning and the use of state-of-the-art tecniques to improve the sustainability of that planning. The methods are sound; the case study disentagle the contribution of the main components involved in the prediction of areas with diverse potential for ecological leisure use. The structure of the manuscript, however, suffers from some important flaws that must be addressed by the authors before the article is suitable for publication. Below, I provide some general comments that may help the authors to improve the quality of their work.

Introduction section:

In its present form, this section is quite well structured (but see my comments to the next section), although the last paragraph should be improved.

Lines 65-71: a brief definition of what means social capital should be already included in this section. The idea of social capital does not show up during the introduction and the presence of this new concept in the last paragraph of the section is unexpected.

Literature review section:

Lines 73-147: in my opinion, this section should be integrated in the introduction of the manuscript. Although the authors present this section as a specific piece of the work, the main idea underlying the structure in three subsections -the evolution of the concept of ecological leisure industry planning- belongs typically to the content of an introductory section. In my opinion, the authors should try to summarize this part and to integrate it within the Introduction.

Material and Methods section.

This is the best section of the study, very detailed.

Figure 1: please provide spatial scales in the picture of figure 1(a) and in the map of figure 1(b).

Figure 2: please replace the term "prophase research" with "preliminary research".

Lines 224-226: please rephrase this part (and omit the last sentence, which seems to be a repetition).

Lines 267-275: this part is a repetition of the previous subsection Points of interest (POI).

Results section:

In general, table and figure captions should be autoexplicative. A complex figure needs proper explanation in order to make results understandable. See, as an example, the caption of figure 4. Frequently (see, e.g., lines 312-316) detailed information that should be part of the figure or table caption/head is included in the main text. Such information should be properly summarized and added to the corresponding table/figure.

Please note that some parts of this section should instead be part of the Material and Methods section. Paragraph from lines 320-331 is a clear example of this. In the Results section, the authors should try to state with concise sentences the main results of the analyses carried out according to the methods described in the M&M section (e.g., relative percentage of suitable land in each selected area).

Table 6: please use commas or semicolons (not other symbols) to separate numbers.

Discussion section:

Overall, the authors must try to summarize the results of their analyses and to separate them from the discussion part. This will significantly improve the clearness of the text. To make the text lighter will also have an effect on the conclusions section. This last part should be also summarized in order to offer clear and concise statements regarding the main findings of the study.

Some minor comments that may be useful:

Lines 40 and 45: omit "However".

Line 51: Rephrase: "This paper focuses on the planning of the ecological leisure industry".

Line 51: omit "In this paper".

Line 53: replace "to provide" with "to carry out".

Line 57: remove "and".

Line 58: remove "own".

Line 59: "leisure industry using point of interest data".

Line 77: replace "individual" with "author".

Line 105: Introduce here the meaning of the term "industrial ecology" (definition from lines 108-109).

Line 110: replace "aspects" with "points of view".

Line 122: replace "(2001)" with the proper reference call.

Lines 121-128: please, rewrite the paragraph.

Line 157: replace "however, and" with "although".

Line 351: please replace "impressive" by "main".

Author Response

Dear Editors

Introduction section:

Lines 65-71

Response: We are very sorry for our negligence of correct this paragraph. I had revised this paragraph.

Literature review section:

Lines 73-147: in my opinion, this section should be integrated in the introduction of the manuscript.

Response: Thanks very much of your suggestion, I had already summarized this part and to integrate it within the Introduction.

Material and Methods section.

Figure 1: please provide spatial scales in the picture of figure 1(a) and in the map of figure 1(b).

Response: figure 1(a) these three picture have spatial scales, I did it in GIS to make it correct. figure 1(b) is source from shapingba government, they did not provide spatial scales.

Figure 2: please replace the term "prophase research" with "preliminary research".

Response: I try to change it. However, the new Font is different with the previous one.

Lines 224-226: please rephrase this part (and omit the last sentence, which seems to be a repetition).

Response: I rephrased this part

Lines 267-275: this part is a repetition of the previous subsection Points of interest (POI).

Response: I deleted this part

Results section:

See, as an example, the caption of figure 4. Frequently (see, e.g., lines 312-316) detailed information that should be part of the figure or table caption/head is included in the main text.

Response: I add this part in fig 4 and change into more clear figures. Now I believe it can be autoexplicative.

Paragraph from lines 320-331 should instead be part of the Material and Methods section.

Response: As for this, I had added them to the Material and Methods section.

Table 6: please use commas or semicolons (not other symbols) to separate numbers.

Response: I rephrased this part

Discussion section:

In general, the discussion should be rewritten in order to place the results in the results section and to provide a proper discussion based not only on the interpretation of the obtained results, but also on the findings of other authors. The first subsection (5.1, lines 352-376) is a good example of this flaw: no references to the work of other authors were included. In the whole discussion section, the authors cited only four works (refs. 59-61).Overall, the authors must try to summarize the results of their analyses and to separate them from the discussion part. This will significantly improve the clearness of the text. To make the text lighter will also have an effect on the conclusions section. This last part should be also summarized in order to offer clear and concise statements regarding the main findings of the study.

Response: I have to admit it is the best suggestion I received. However, it is hard for me to change. I agree I shoud summarize the results of mine analyses and to separate them from the discussion part. I tried that. However, I found if I put some detailed results in the results part, it is quite wired to do just discuss part in discussion section. Because you do not have the phenomenon to explain. The detailed results is combined with the reason. However, I summarize the general results of analyses in the results parts. I do not know if it is the best way to resolve, if it doesn’t, please tell me the better solution. Thank you very much.

Some minor comments that may be useful: I changed all based on your comments, except Line 59

Lines 40 and 45: omit "However".

Response: I changed it.

Line 51: Rephrase: "This paper focuses on the planning of the ecological leisure industry".

Response: I changed it.

Line 51: omit "In this paper".

Response: I changed it.

Line 53: replace "to provide" with "to carry out".

Response: I changed it.

Line 57: remove "and".

Response: I changed it.

Line 58: remove "own".

Line 59: "leisure industry using point of interest data".

Explain: This paper contributes to the definition of the ecological leisure industry and using point of interest data (POI) and spatial syntax to solve these two problems separately in this paper and improve the GIS-AHP method (Fig.2). Not all the leisure industry use point of interest data

Line 77: replace "individual" with "author".

Response: I changed it.

Line 105: Introduce here the meaning of the term "industrial ecology" (definition from lines 108-109).

Response: I add meaning of the term "industrial ecology" in line 84 and referring 34.

Line 110: replace "aspects" with "points of view".

Response: I changed it.

Line 122: replace "(2001)" with the proper reference call.

Response: I changed it.

Lines 121-128: please, rewrite the paragraph.

Response: I changed it.

Line 157: replace "however, and" with "although".

Response: I changed it.

Line 351: please replace "impressive" by "main".

Response: I changed it.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Tongyun Du

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents an interesting methodology which practical implications. It would be interesting to see results from implementation in practice.

Author Response

Dear Editors

We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Tongyun Du

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I am very glad that my comments have contributed to improving the quality of the article. Despite the changes, the article still needs to be improved.

The article is still stylistically underdeveloped. Some errors have been corrected, but new ones have been added.

17 I 264 – “S patial” instead of “Spatial”

20 – “Acomparative” instead of “A comparative”

Lines 217 and 218 repeat

131-141 - incorrect text formatting is used (chapter title instead of text)

In several places, the citations are still incorrect (for example 34, 40, 66 - 76)

In the added text, there are no spaces before the commas in some places.

308-310 incorrect formatting

The captions under the features are chaotic (for example 342-344 “…the rest of figures, they all are the left one is linear calculation and right one is kernel density layout”)

365-369 - editorial chaos

There are many grammatically incorrect or colloquial phrases (for example 382 „This study did discussion”)

The abstract should be rewritten to not include numeration.

Some phrases regarding the influence of experts on the choice of indicators have been removed from the text, which does not change the fact that it is part of the methodology. I believe that basing the methodology on experts' opinions gives a lot of room for manipulation of results, but I leave the decision to the Editor.

The quality of the figures is not improved. Poor map quality and compression losses (probably from JPG format) are still visible. I recommend using the PNG format with a minimum resolution of 300 dpi.

Figure 1a - I assume that the administrative division was not redrawn from memory by the Authors. In this case, the source designation should be "own elaboration based on XXXXX".

The Authors did not refer to recommendations regarding the size of the raster cell. I understand that reducing the raster cell size would require doing all of the research again, but in its current form figures are very illegible. I leave the decision to the Editor.

The language of the article has not been corrected. Many phrases are grammatically incorrect (as indicated above). The article requires major language corrections.

Author Response

Thanks for your reply. As I mentioned, I reduce the raster cell size as reviewer one required, and it needs to do all of research again. The data of road we used to use can not find it, so we use spatial syntax do it again. We set Global integration radius is 1600 now. As the traffic data changed, the overall result changed. I am not sure which result is better in this paper, so I write to ask your opinion. There are two plans we can choose:

remaining the old results which use 200*200 raster, and to revise all the comments. 2. using the new results, it will change the whole results and discussion paper, it will need more time to do. And in this way, we also need to explain for two reviewers. I attach it for you. I am looking forward to hear your opinion and to do the next step.

Best

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This new version of the manuscript includes some rough modifications of the previous one, mainly regarding the transfer of entire paragraphs from the former Literature Review section into the new Introduction section. Considering the paragraph from lines 147-153 as part of this new Introduction section, the new version of this part of the manuscript consists of eight paragraphs (with a very large fifth paragraph) as compared to the four original ones. This is not in compliance with my original recommendation ("In my opinion, the authors should try to summarize this part and to integrate it within the Introduction"), which actually was omited from the author's response to the comments to the manuscript.

In general, the authors omit significant parts of the reviewer comments to the manuscript and do not respond in a proper way to most of the other comments. In this way, in the M&M section they do not provide spatial scales to the maps as requested; they do not carry out even a specific requested change in figure 2; they do not rephrase sentences although they claim so. In the Results section, the authors did not improve the quality of the figure legends and table headings, did not move/omit parts corresponding to the M&M section as requested, they omited the comments about stating as concisely as possible the main results and did not modify the way they present their results in order to improve the clearness of the section.

Unexpectedly, the authors refused to modify the discussion section as requested, directly challenging the opinion of the reviewer without providing further explanations, e.g. "I have to admit it is the best suggestion I received. However, it is hard for me to change. I agree I shoud summarize the results of mine analyses and to separate them from the discussion part. I tried that. However, I found if I put some detailed results in the results part, it is quite wired to do just discuss part in discussion section.". Even if the authors consider that a kind of Results & Discussion section would be more suitable for the presentation of their work, they should rewrite the entire two sections in order to merge their main results and the discussion part in a proper and shorter way avoiding accessory information when possible.

Regarding the minor comments to the first version, many of them have not been addressed, even if the authors claim so. This fact, together with some clear editing problems scattered throughout the text, suggests that this new version provided by the authors is not at all the corrected one but just a draft sent to the journal, maybe by mistake.

Some examples of editing issues can be seen in lines 106-109 (incomplete sentence and unclear corrections), lines 142-146 (a piece of M&M section in the middle of two corrected/added paragraphs), line 217 (subsection 2.2 and following sub-subsections after subsection 2.3), line 218 (partially repeated subsection heading), lines 308-310 (unclear mix of sentence and section heading), lines 366-367 and 368 (italics editing and splitted sentence).

Author Response

Dear Editors

We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision. I am sorry for that there are so many parts need to be revised, some part of them I forgot to use revised check, which marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.

Introduction section AND Literature review section:

Response: I try to summarize this part and to integrate it within the Introduction

Material and Methods section.

Response: in the M&M section, I provide spatial scales to the maps as requested these time; I carry out even a specific requested change in figure 2. I am sorry for that I forgot to change these points. I do rephrase sentences.

In the Results section, I improve the quality of the figure legends and table headings, move/omit parts corresponding to the M&M section as requested, I modify the way they present their results as you suggested in order to improve the clearness of the section. It really help a lot, thanks for your helping.

Results section:

Response: I rewrite main results and the discussion part in a proper and shorter way. You can check if it is good enough this time. Thanks for your suggestions for that.

In the end, I did major language corrections. Thank you for your efforts to improve the quality of this article.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Tongyun Du