Assessing Suitability of Human Settlements in High-Altitude Area Using a Comprehensive Index Method: A Case Study of Tibet, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of the manuscript “Assessing Suitability of Human Settlements in High-Altitude Area Using a Comprehensive Index Method: A Case Study of Tibet, China”
Presented article is overall interesting and it refers to a topic, which is both timely and original. The authors clearly state the purpose of the article.
1. The novelty of the article should be written more clearly. Proposed in the article method (called in GIS multicriteria analysis) is often used in the analysis of suitability in various fields, e.g.:
- Bober A., Calka B., & Bielecka E. (2016). Application of state survey and mapping resources for selecting sites suitable for solar farms. Proceedings of the 16th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConferences SGEM, ISBN 978-619-7105-58-2 / ISSN 1314-2704, June 28 - July 6, 2016, Book2 Vol. 1, 593-600 pp. DOI: 10.5593/SGEM2016/B21/S08.074
-Zolekar, Rajendra & Bhagat, Vijay. (2015). Multi-criteria land suitability analysis for agriculture in hilly zone: Remote sensing and GIS approach. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 118. 300-321. 10.1016/j.compag.2015.09.016.
I think the authors should mention this in the introduction and highlight the novelty of using these GIS methods in assessing suitability of human settlements.
2. In line 454 authors state: “A total of 21 individual indicators covering the natural environment, infrastructure, and public services (Table S2) were selected to evaluate the residents’ satisfaction with the human settlement environment in 12 communities (Table S3). “
Where is Table S2 and S3?
3. All tables and figures should be referenced in the text. I don't see a reference to Figure 4b and 4c.
4. In Table 4 there is : “Comparatively area”, should be “Comparatively suitable area”.
5.English language minor spell check required.
6. Please include suggestions for further studies in the discussion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
-Line 83: "Although there are many studies on the assessment of human settlements..." cite examples
-Line 88-90: Are there any studies that support this? Cite it.
-Line 121: the national average GDP per capita is missing
-Some of the tables and figures are not indicated in the text. Check
-Objective: to improve the description of the objective and highlight it in the text.
-It is not clear how the different levels of settlement were established in section 3.3
-Lack of mapping. In the results section different counties and districts are named, but not located on a map. Furthermore, it would be appropriate to add mapping of the Rivers. This is necessary to understand the results, as the authors speak of human settlements according to the sections of the rivers, but without including a cartography to support this.
-Questionnaire
What type of questionnaire has been completed?
How many questions?
How were they carried out?
Was the population selected for the surveys?
These types of questions should be included in the article's methodology, as the questionnaire should be reproducible.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors present a very interesting research about the adaptability of human settlements to harsh natural environment considering also the infrastructure and services systems as key elements for this target. The quantitative and objective evaluation is consistent and well-organized; the using of subjective assessment underlines the importance given to this aspect for the study and analyses of a given territory considering all the involved aspects (human being point of views and objective data).
The paper is well-written and structure; below some minor comments and suggestions:
- in the abstract, please insert just after line 20 or 22 the geographical reference to Tibet regions (the specific names of rivers or districts are not worldwide known);
- please insert a reference in line 50 (new urban agenda or similar);
- in section 2.2, considering table 1, please explain (just few words) the structure and the meaning of each column (especially weight and indicator attribute);
- RDLS (Degree of relief of land surface) has a negative indicator attribute: please explain;
- I suggest to organize sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 as section 2.2.1 and explain all the indicators separately;
- in relation to "public restrooms" parameter, authors insert it in the infrastructure system. In my opinion, it is a public service system's element. But if it is related to the technological infrastructure/network (water supply system, waste management system and so on), it could be insert in this section. Please explain and/or add references;
- in sections 3.2 and 3.4 authors use the "we" form. I do not agree with such phrase constructions for a scientific Journal. Please revise;
- Authors do not make explicit the 21 "individual indicators" for the questionnaire; it could be interesting show them;
- please insert in the text (lines 467-473) the reference to figure 7(b);
- in the conclusion paragraph, I suggest to insert more comments related to urban/regional/territorial policies since that authors insert this idea in the abstract and because it is a natural consequence of an evaluation process with such structure and aim.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
