Spatial-Temporal Driving Factors of Urban Landscape Changes in the Karst Mountainous Regions of Southwest China: A Case Study in Central Urban Area of Guiyang City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

This paper mainly studies the spatio-temporal variation characteristics of landscape types and landscape patterns in Guiyang city center, and discusses the spatio-temporal driving factors of landscape pattern changes based on geographic detector and stepwise multiple linear regression method. This study provides some reference for landscape pattern planning in karst area. But there are the following problems:

1. Line56-63 in the introduction mentioned that there are many methods to analyze the size of driving force. What is the reason for the author to choose such methods as geographic detector?

2. 2.2 Data Acquisition and Processing Only introduces the source and pre-processing of land use Data and DEM Data, and other Data (GDP, population density, road Data, etc.) in this paper are not explained.

3. How do you put different data at the same level with the geolocation approach?

4. Figure 7 the data in the figure is fuzzy, please improve the quality of the picture.

5. The discussion section only focuses on the causes of landscape changes without adding specific protection measures. It is suggested to add feasible landscape pattern planning suggestions based on the research results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Although the paper is well structured, deals with an issue, urban landscape change in karst regions, that might be of interest to readers of the Journal, and presents empirical evidence based on correctly used spatial metrics, my most important problem, from the beginning to end, is: why this article? what is new that contributes to the international literature?

In its present form, the paper does not do enough theoretically, methodically, or substantively to go beyond what is primarily a local case study. The authors do not engage in a theoretical discussion of the rapid urbanization, planning politics, and specific physical framework of karst landscape change. This becomes obvious in the literature used, which primarily relates to local examples.

Accordingly, I suggest a major revision of the manuscript. Therefore, my advice would be to rely on broader literature and consider how the case would fit into the literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The whole article is good, (Landscape Metrics, Dynamic Change Transfer Matrix of Landscape Types, etc.), but I have trouble understanding how you did 2.3.3 Stepwise Multiple Linear Regression. 1. Line 174: probably not the "remaining path coefficient", but the Residual effect, or I'm wrong. Could you better describe the method "The remaining path coefficient", what you state (formula (2) and lines 176-178) is not the same as in the article [45]. That your relationship - is it the square root of unexplained variation? 2. How did you do Multiple Linear Regression? Did you have random points or did you evaluate the relationship between raster cells? How did you get the slope raster and the land cover raster you described, but what about the others? How did you get e.g. "Ratio of tertiary industry structure"? What is it? What is the accuracy? Describe the individual variables in Table 2 in more detail. And did you make these variables a raster with the same cell size as the DEM? Or? How did you create a set of dependent variable values ​​and independent variables that entered the SPSS 22 software? What software did you use to derive the Spatial driving factor FIG. 2 slightly larger numbers in the graph

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has made modifications according to the revision suggestions. I agree to publish.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made changes according to the previous comments. Therefore, I only have one more suggestion. When you mention „few studies on the spatial-temporal changes of landscape patterns in karst mountainous cities” (lines 166-168), my strong recommendation is to consult and include the following reference: Lukić Tanović, M., Golijanin, J., & Šušnjar, S. (2019). IMPACT OF POPULATION ON THE KARST OF EAST SARAJEVO (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA). Journal of the Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić” SASA, 69(2), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.2298/IJGI1902095L

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I still think that the procedure for calculating "The residual path coefficient" is not sufficiently described. I still think it's the square root of unexplained variation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx