Maintenance and Optimization of Ecological Space in Natural Resource-Advantaged Cities: A Case Study in Zhangzhou, Fujian Province
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Generally, a very well-written paper; clear & succinct. The maps are well presented however some of the legends need to be spell-checked. There are a few terms which require explaining by footnotes or endnotes; in particular line 200. where the use of 'pore' is either a spelling mistake or the term needs explanation through footnotes or endnotes.
Similarly line 345 needs to explain the term "Pedal Stones".
The discussion of results refers to Table 4 which I did not locate.
Author Response
Dear judges: Thank you very much for your recognition of the content and methods of the article. At the same time, I am very grateful for your careful reading and rigorous review. Now I would like to answer the amendments you mentioned one by one: 1、I have checked the Figures of the article one by one. There are spelling mistakes in the legend of the original Figures 3 (the current Figures 2), which have been corrected. At the same time, all the image content has been spell checked and aligned. 2、You suggest that MSPA terminology needs to be explained. As a result, the landscape types I mentioned in Table 2(line 245), are defined in detail by footnotes. 3、The wrong spelling of "pore" appears in the original 200 lines, which causes the problem of understanding. After modification, I changed it to perforation at line 224 based on the actual content. 4、The professional term "pedal stones" mentioned in line 345, It is defined as” It can provide dispersal of species or flow of matter and energy, and play a role as a medium in ecological networks”. After this modification, I also explained it in the footnote at line 367. 5、Table 4 proposed in Section 2.2.2 of the article is incorrectly written in the original manuscript due to the omission of label number. After revision and review this time, the content of the article and the name of the table have been modified one by one. Thank you again for your recognition and careful review of this paper. There are many spelling and sorting problems in the article, which should not be done. I will learn from this revision and make my text more rigorous. Best wishes again!Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
If possible, it was interesting to have a more clear graphic analysis of the landscape structure.
Author Response
As for the landscape structure you mentioned, it is mainly reflected in the landscape type analysis obtained by MSPA model analysis. The focus of this study is more on the analysis of ecological corridors and their fracture points. Therefore, the concrete analysis and expression of urban landscape structure have not been studied in depth. I believe this is a good starting point for future research. Thank you very much for your guidance.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents good theoretical and empirical material that allows exploring aspects of maintenance and optimization of ecological space in natural resource-advantaged cities for an international audience. However, some relevant aspects have to be revised in order to improve the quality of the document.
Introduction
The introduction must integrate very clear the purpose of the study and the research questions, as well as what are the gaps covered by the study should be much better clarified.
Results and Analysis
The discussion of the results needs to be significantly strengthened with references that discuss important issues of the maintenance and optimization of ecological space in natural resource-advantaged cities. Here, is reinforced: What have other studies identified? What is the contribution of this work in global terms?
The methodological/research limitations or potential weaknesses must be included.
Conclusions
First, I would focus more on offering practical recommendations according to the main findings.
Then, the authors must provide some directions for further research.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear judges:
Thank you very much for your recognition of the idea and content of the article, as well as your careful reading and modification suggestions. You have provided very accurate revisions to the introduction, analysis, and conclusion of the article. It is true that some of the contents you mentioned were negligent in my elaboration, and some of them were not clear enough. Now I would like to answer the amendments you mentioned one by one:
- Introduction:
The introduction is composed of three paragraphs.The Chinese government has clearly proposed the green transformation of urban development mode, but the reality is that urban ecological patches have been heavily occupied. The significance of this paper lies in how to repair and build a stable and healthy urban ecological network.
The second paragraph includes lines 47-88. Through the study and analysis of relevant literature, the research purpose and research method basis of this paper are proposed. Among them, lines 44-56 mainly explain the definition of ecological network, as well as the contradictions between economic development and ecological network. In line 57-77, for ecological network issues, relevant experts mainly focus on natural and artificial cities, especially the central cities with large scale and high urbanization rate. In my analysis, I found that some scholars began to pay attention to the influence of natural resources such as mountains and rivers and minerals in the urban ecological network. However, they focus either on single resource factors or on their static effects.Comprehensive analysis above, at the same time supplement and improve the existing research results. The research purpose of this paper is proposed: how do small and medium-sized cities develop their regional economy based on their natural resources, and how do they maintain and optimize the ecological environment of such cities during economic development? In line 78-88, MSPA and MCR model methods commonly used in ecological network research , which can provide reference ideas for the technical route of the article.
The third paragraph ranges from lines 89 to 105. According to the above analysis conclusion, the research object, research method, research content, research results and the application of the results in this paper are summarized.
According to the questions you mentioned, this revision also elaborates the research questions, research objectives and research innovations of the paper in a more clear and orderly manner. More related research and analysis are added to consolidate the basis of literature analysis.
- Analysis and Result
You put forward specific measures to maintain and optimize the ecological space of cities with natural resources advantage in the analysis of the results. At the same time, in the conclusion, you mentioned the need for more practical suggestions. Therefore, in this revision, I combined with the actual content and your opinions, and then concentrated them in the conclusion of Section 3.1 of the article for revision. Lines 415-448 are mainly based on the analysis method for Zhangzhou city specific results and improvement measures. Line 448-462, which takes Zhangzhou as a demonstration city, and relevant cities can learn the specific management implementation steps for reference. Secondly, you also proposed the contribution of the research results as well as other uses. This part of the content, I put it in 3.2 Prospects and shortcomings of the subsection for specific elaboration.
3.conclusion
In the conclusion, you put forward the need to express the shortcomings of the paper and the direction of further research. In this revision, we added section 3.2 to elaborate the prospects and shortcomings of the article. The specific modifications are as follows: It is explained in detail that the optimization and control of ecological network space can provide reference for future urban territorial space planning, ecological red line protection and other planning measures. At the same time, it is pointed out that the analysis of ecological network space is very dependent on the integrity of the environment and can not be separated from the sorting out of the individual environmentalism. This is also the shortcomings of this paper. In the future, it is necessary to expand the research scope, analyze and explore the internal ecological pattern at a larger level from the perspective of provincial space and urban agglomeration space, so as to make our optimization strategy more accurate, effective and consistent.
Thank you again for your recognition and careful review of this paper. The paper is not clear enough in literature review, research framework and research results. Through your guidance, we have also made many corrections this time. This will further enhance our research and narrative. Thank you very much.
Best wishes again!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper used a series of quantitative tools to assess and optimize ecological space for a typical city as a case. In general, I believe it is a good work but needs some revisions:
For contents:
1. Line 32-45: The first paragraph has not shown any citations.
2. Line 66-67: ‘…not enough studies..’ is not a good excuse to avoid the review on previous studies. Please find related works and explicitly and precisely pointing out the research gap.
3. Line 85-104: authors comprehensively describe the features of the study area but forget to point out the problems in this city, which are the main reasons they conduct this study.
4. I understand authors have showed the ‘results’ and discussed the significance of this study on local land management and planning in the Results and Analysis section. However, I recommend they could add a ‘new’ section to discuss the scientific contributions, for example, 1) the advances or limits of their methodology, 2) how to apply similar framework for other regions or cities and what is its significance.
For figures and tables:
1. Many figures could be combined and showed by panels, e.g., Figure 1+2, 4+5 and maybe others.
2. As I follow, the caption should be set in the front of a table, e.g., table 2
3. Line 188-190, I do not understand authors want to show one figure (including a table) here or separately (the table has no caption)?
Author Response
Dear judges:
Thank you very much for your recognition of the idea and content of the article, as well as your careful reading and rigorous review. Next, I will answer the revised contents you mentioned one by one:
- There is no reference in the original line 32-45 you mentioned. This time, the relevant references are added according to the content of the original text. The government reports cited in the article are also explained in footnotes.
- You pointed out that the literature research content in line 66-67 of the original text is not enough. You also suggest more explicit identification of research gaps in the literature. This revision focuses on lines 57-88, mainly adding literature research on research objects and research methods of ecological network space. Especially in line 57-77, we find that relevant experts mainly focus on two kinds of natural and artificial cities, especially the central cities with large scale and high urbanization rate, for ecological network problems. Some scholars began to pay attention to the impact of natural resources such as mountains, rivers and minerals on urban ecological network. They focus either on a single resource factor or on its static effects. Based on the above analysis, we propose to supplement and improve the existing research results.
- You point out that the description of the research object in lines 85-104 lacks its current development problem. In the revision, we also found that there was much description of Zhangzhou's high-quality natural ecological resources, but the ecological and economic problems faced by Zhangzhou were not clearly defined. Therefore, this revision focuses on the contradiction between Zhangzhou natural resources protection and economic development in line 127-132.
- You proposed that the innovation and deficiency of the research should be clearly stated at the end of the paper. At the end of the paper, the significance of the research and similar applications should be clarified. These are indeed the parts of our writing that we have neglected. Therefore, in line 449-476 of the present paper, we add the discussion content in the conclusion of subsection 3. In Section 3.1, in addition to sorting out and summarizing the application measures of Zhangzhou, management opinions of cities similar to Zhangzhou are also put forward. In Section 3.2, it focuses on the application of the conclusion in ecological protection projects such as urban territorial space planning, and clearly points out the shortcomings of the existing research and the possible directions for further research in the future.
About the modification of the Figure and Table:
- Considering your advice, I combined the pictures with strong content relevance. Among them, the original figure1 and 2 are combined to generate a new figure 1, the original figure 4 and 5 are combined to generate a new figure 3, and the original figure 6 and 7 are combined to generate a new figure 4.
- Thank you for raising the question of our form format carefully. We re-checked all the tables this time and adjusted the format of the tables and their headings.
- As for the format of line 188-190, there is no additional chart content in the original text. It should be a misunderstanding caused by formatting problems. This time we also made a readjustment of the format.
Thank you again for your recognition and careful review of this paper. There are shortcomings in literature review and research conclusions. Through your guidance, we have also made more corrections this time. At the same time in the article chart format also has not rigorous place. This revision also let us learn a lesson, so that their article content can be more comprehensive, more rigorous format expression.
Best wishes again!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Authors have revised most of my concerns.
