Spatial Pattern Reconstruction of Water and Land Resources in Coal Mining Subsidence Areas within Urban Regions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors in their submitted manuscript presented an important study on the the pattern of the urban development which is highly important. They have presented a method that first predicts the surface subsidence 24
value, and then divides the subsidence area within urban into the waterlogging area and the non-waterlogging area according to the surface subsidence value. According to the obtained results, the authors argued that the original spatial pattern of large-scale waterlogging area and abandoned land due to mining subsidence in urban areas is reconstructed into a spatial pattern integrating urban landscape, scenario living, and eco-tourism. Overall, the manuscript has potential in terms of sustainable urban development. 

I have major concerns about this work:

(1) What new in this work? The novelty is unclear, could the author please clearly describe how significant and novel is their work?

(2) Extensive English edits are required, there are several grammatical mistakes that could be improved. Please check the entire manuscript. 

(3) Could the author present the Table-1 in graphical representation?

(4) I can't see any variations in Figure 13 according to the legend presented. Could the author please reconstruct the residual subsidence contour map? Also, please provide the x, y coordinates on the map. 

(5) Figure 15 has no information except the legend and colors. Please improve the figure quality and annotate the zones, annotate the entire figure so that the reader could understand. The figure quality is also weak.

(6) The authors are advised to please provide scientific basis in the discussion part. Can add a separate paragraph about the ultimate scientific utilization of the methods used. 

 

Hope it works. Best of luck

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 I found the paper needs restructuring with a clear flow of information. For example, in the introduction section, the problem of affected areas is mentioned in page 2, the first paragraph and similar information are repeated on page 3 line 110. 

Also, the introduction section can be clearly presented with less repetitions and increased clarity about the case study details and methodology. Whether this is an experimental study or a case study the researchers employed should be clearly given. Same with the sustainability pillars, whether the given results are predicted or are based on the application of the selected method/s on experimental study/case study shall be clearly presented. 

Figures used need captions with sources that use real images. 

The conclusion is mostly developed with the latter part of the paper on sustainability pillars in a broader sense but, needs to tie with the specific technique applied to show the clear findings. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents a set of scientific and complete methods to reconstruct the spatial pattern of the water and land resources in the unstable coal mining subsidence area. Based on the analysis of surface subsidence and groundwater level, the coal mining subsidence is divided into waterlogging and non-waterlogging areas. Rational planning and assessment methods are proposed for the spatial pattern of water and land resources. The paper is well-written and logical. The study case of the Lv Jin Lake in Huaibei has embodied the proposed method. A minor modification is suggested before the acceptance of the paper, and a few comments are made below:

1)    Page 2, Lines 54, 56, 73, 74 and 75. There are some typos in numbers, such as 7×104 should be 7×10⁴. Please correct the rest typos.

2)    Page 4, Line 133. “shortens” should be “shorten”. Please proofread the whole manuscript thoroughly to rule out similar errors.

 

3)    Page 6, Line 222-223. The authors claimed that the PIM is the most used function for coal mine subsidence prediction in China. How accurate is this method as the subsidence prediction is the most significant element for the reconstruction method proposed in the paper? Are there any other methods used worldwide, which are more advanced and accurate? The PIM does not seem to consider the mechanical properties of the formation, it is more related to the geometry of the mining area. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This manuscript establishes the spatial pattern characteristics of water and land resources for coal mining subsidiary areas within urban areas. The manuscript provides an interesting topic and has interesting conclusions. The mathematical model theory of the manuscript is quite complete. The analysis results of the case study presented are valuable. The research contents, achievements and discussions of the manuscript are complete. Valuable conclusions and suggestions are put forward for the treatment of mining subsidence areas.

 Before considering publication, the manuscript needs to be improved into a publishable form. There are many mistakes in English grammar or English expressions, so this manuscript needs to be edited in English. In addition, please make sure that your manuscript fully provides that this work is fundamentally novel. It should be specifically compared with previously published materials that have similar purposes. Explain how the work has made significant progress. Please ensure that your summary and conclusion not only summarize the main findings of your work, but also explain how this work fundamentally advances the field compared with previous literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf