Multi-Scenario Dynamic Simulation of Urban Agglomeration Development on the Northern Slope of the Tianshan Mountains in Xinjiang, China, with the Goal of High-Quality Urban Construction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
After the hectic revisions in recent days, I have now revised your suggestion, the specific content of which is in the article I submitted. Thank you so much for being able to review my article here!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

 

 

 

The paper deals with the land development of urban agglomeration on the Northern Slope of Tianshan Mountain in three time dimensions (2010, 2020, 2030). The Authors used land use data of 2010 and 2020 as well as data of various driving factors and limiting factors are selected to simulate and forecast the land change of this urban agglomeration under environmental constraints. For the future (2030) they prepared the analysis concerning multiple scenarios (natural development scenario, cultivated land protection scenario and ecological, protection scenario).The paper is the result of original work however it seems to be like a single case study without any comparison, discussion or general remarks. The Authors do not use international scientific literature. There is an evident lack of the conceptual background which could be useful to the discussion and more complex understanding of presented concepts and results.

Aim of the paper is not clear and I strongly recommend the Authors put some research questions in the introduction.

 

In the first part of the paper the Authors need to explain or/and define some basic concept:

• please explain what the ecological concept means (in the introduction or later in chapter 2);
• high-quality urban agglomeration.

 

The Authors should better explain the different scenarios choose for the research (probably the table would be a good option).

 

Honestly speaking the figures 4, 5 and 6 seems to be the same. Probably he resolution of each figure are to low for the visibility of differences between scenarios.

The better option in this case could be to show a map with differences between scenarios.

 

Discussion is very limited and should be developed. In the discussion chapter, there is no comparison of own results with the existing

literature, which would require to expand the chapter to some extent and to cite some general, more theoretical information.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
After the hectic revisions in recent days, I have now revised your suggestion, the specific content of which is in the article I submitted. Thank you so much for being able to review my article here!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors used the modern method of spatial big data analysis to create reliable scenarios for predicting future urban development in naturally valuable areas. It is worth appreciating that they used archival data to evaluate the model, which allowed them to assess it reliably.

The manuscript is clear and presented in a well-structured manner. The cited references are primarily recent, relevant publications. However, the authors need to complete references for formulas. This manuscript is scientifically sound, and all analyses are designed appropriately. The testing of the model based on historical data is noteworthy. The developed methodology can be successfully applied to other areas.

Figures containing maps require a slight improvement in readability. These are white polygons that obscure the content of the map. Maps correctly show the data, as per the claims above. The presented diagram of the analysis methodology is easy to interpret and understand. The results are interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented

The results are described in great detail. The results support the discussion and conclusions.

Congratulations to the authors of interesting work.

 

Detailed comments:

Figure 1 - white study areas obscure the map drawing. Please,  mark the boundaries only clearly. The map labels in the upper right corner are unreadable.

Figure 4 - the ranges of the enlarged map frames shown on the main map are white rectangles and obscure the map's content.

Complete references for the formulas.

Supplement the introduction with a few sentences about what the proposed methodology brings new and what the conducted research brings in a particular way.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer：
After the hectic revisions in recent days, I have now revised your suggestion, the specific content of which is in the article I submitted. Thank you so much for being able to review my article here!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed all of my comments. But some elaboration is required regarding the contribution of the paper. Please add one paragraph about why it was necessary to combine several methods. This elaboration with justification is necessary because this is the claimed contribution of the paper. Also please separate the outline of the paper in the last paragraph (starting from "The overview of the study area and data sources of the present study are .........").  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:
Thank you very much for your suggestions on my paper, and I hope the responses from my round of review will satisfy you. Now I am sending you my second round of judging responses. See the word file for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The new version of paper is better than previous one. I think the paper is ready for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:
Thank you very much for your acknowledgment of my thesis, and I hope my previous answer will satisfy you. Now I will send you my reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx