Urban Lake Scenic Protected Area Zoning Based on Ecological Sensitivity Analysis and Remote Sensing: A Case Study of Chaohu Lake Basin, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic selection of the thesis has certain significance, but the research method is not novel, the research and analysis process is relatively rough, the index system needs to be improved, and the overall thesis needs to continue to be revised and optimized. Specifically, there are the following shortcomings:

1.        The logic of the introduction is confusing, and the classification and summary of the literature review and the review of related research are relatively lacking. It is recommended to reorganize and summarize.

2.        Ecological sensitivity refers to the sensitivity of an ecosystem to natural and human disturbances. However, in the process of constructing the index system, the article only considers the evaluation factors of the natural environment, and proposes to increase the evaluation factors of human disturbance. At the same time, the altitude range of the study area is -192-452 meters, while the index classification is 0-452 meters, and it is recommended to modify.

3.        The article lacks a description of the classification method of the index system, and there is no basis for index classification. It is suggested to supplement.

4.        The analysis of the research results is too simple and rough. The article only briefly analyzes the range and spatial distribution of different sensitivity levels, and the explanation of the mechanism and reasons behind the research results is not deep enough.

5.        There is a lack of ecological environmental protection and management zoning basis, and it is recommended to provide additional explanations.

6.        There is a lack of connection between ecological sensitivity evaluation and ecological environmental protection management zones in the article. At the same time, it is recommended to put forward ecological protection management suggestions for each sub-region in combination with the ecological sensitivity evaluation results.

7.        The conclusion of the article is not clear, and it does not reflect the main characteristics and regular findings of the research results of the paper. It is recommended to summarize again.

8.        There are certain problems in the format, language expression and charts of the article. Pay attention to the details of the article. It is recommended to check and revise carefully.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your letter and for the reviews’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Urban Lake Scenic Protected Area Zoning Based on Ecological Sensitivity Analysis and Remote Sensing: A Case Study of Chaohu Lake Basin, China”(ISSN 2071-1050). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:

Point 1: The logic of the introduction is confusing, and the classification and summary of the literature review and the review of related research are relatively lacking. It is recommended to reorganize and summarize.

Response 1: We have restructured the introduction section and added the origin and development of ecological sensitivity as well as related research directions and research methods. Relevant literature on ecological sensitivity research has been added.

Point 2: Ecological sensitivity refers to the sensitivity of an ecosystem to natural and human disturbances. However, in the process of constructing the index system, the article only considers the evaluation factors of the natural environment, and proposes to increase the evaluation factors of human disturbance. At the same time, the altitude range of the study area is -192-452 meters, while the index classification is 0-452 meters, and it is recommended to modify.

Response 2: Firstly, the selection of relevant factors we referred to the relevant literature, and secondly, the vegetation cover, water flow distribution and land use type in the area were also influenced by human activities, but indeed the selection of factors was not broad enough. We will enrich and improve them in the related studies afterwards. Meanwhile, the the altitude range of the study area has been modified.

Point 3: The article lacks a description of the classification method of the index system, and there is no basis for index classification. It is suggested to supplement.

Response 3: The methodology and basis for the classification of the indicator system is supplemented. The details are shown in the text.

Point 4: The analysis of the research results is too simple and rough. The article only briefly analyzes the range and spatial distribution of different sensitivity levels, and the explanation of the mechanism and reasons behind the research results is not deep enough.

Response 4: The mechanisms and explanations of the causes behind the research results are added in the research results section. The details are shown in the text.

Point 5: There is a lack of ecological environmental protection and management zoning basis, and it is recommended to provide additional explanations.

Response 5: The ecological environmental protection and management zoning basis were according to the analysis of the factors influencing the conservation planning of Chaohu Lake basin, combined with the results of ecological sensitivity evaluation and with reference to the corresponding provisions of the GB/T50298-2018 Master Plan Standards for Scenic Areas on the grading and classification of conservation cultivation planning, as well as the requirements for environmental protection and moderate development of urban lake-type scenic areas, the objectives of protecting and constructing large landscape ecological land, maintaining the number of patches, maintaining ecological corridors, and building a landscape ecological security pattern.

Point 6: There is a lack of connection between ecological sensitivity evaluation and ecological environmental protection management zones in the article. At the same time, it is recommended to put forward ecological protection management suggestions for each sub-region in combination with the ecological sensitivity evaluation results.

Response 6: Due to the failure to recognize the vulnerability of ecologically sensitive areas, some scenic areas are not protected by ecological sensitivity analysis when they are divided into protected areas, so that many areas with high ecological sensitivity in the scenic area are not protected. These areas would suffer damage after being stimulated by too many human activities, and more seriously, some areas will be difficult to recover once they are damaged. Once these areas are damaged, it is difficult to restore them, or even to extinguish them, thus causing a series of serious ecological problems. If this situation is not stopped in time, then the landscape wolud eventually go extinct. Therefore, in order to protect the landscape, it is necessary to protect the landscape, we must first protect these ecologically sensitive areas within the landscape. In order to ensure the sustainable use of landscape resources, it is necessary to pay attention to the protection of these ecologically sensitive areas.

Point 7: The conclusion of the article is not clear, and it does not reflect the main characteristics and regular findings of the research results of the paper. It is recommended to summarize again.

Response 7: The conclusion were summarized again. The details are shown in the text.

Point 8: There are certain problems in the format, language expression and charts of the article. Pay attention to the details of the article. It is recommended to check and revise carefully.

Response 8: We carefully checked the format, language expression and diagrams of the article, and modified the question, for example, the legend and resolution, and the details are shown in the text.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Yours Sincerely,

Guoyi Wei

Corresponding author:

Name: Shuiming Zhang

Reviewer 2 Report

Research Innovations:

(1) Previous studies related to conservation and utilization had been conducted through field surveys to adjust the ecological and planning problems of specific areas. This study started from a macro perspective and combines geographic information technology and remote sensing to discover the problems faced and the adjustments needed under the overall urban planning development.

(2) There are few such studies for the Chaohu scenic area, and they need to be added urgently

(3) The land use data used in the study were supervised and classified by ENVI, and the accuracy was confirmed by comparison with the images on Google Earth to ensure a high degree of accuracy.

Comments:

The research paper titled " Urban Lake Scenic Protected Area Zoning Based on Ecological Sensitivity Analysis and Remote Sensing: A Case Study of Chaohu Lake Basin, China” mainly focuses on the ecological sensitivity area of the Chaohu lake in china. Chaohu Lake, the fifth largest freshwater lake in the Yangtze River basin, is under pressure from various aspects such as anthropogenic disturbances and deteriorating water quality. The authors attempted to use the data of elevation, slope, land use type, watershed protection range and vegetation index to determine the ecologically sensitive area of Chaohu Lake, which is innovative to a certain extent. The study discusses an important aspect of ecological sensitivity using geospatial techniques and MCDA method. Also, the manuscript deals with a topic that is relevant with the objectives and contents of the journal. However, the paper needs to be revised accordingly before published as a productive output.

1.     The methods (AHP) section must need to be elaborated and rewritten in a step-by-step manner, as the methods section should be better explained in any scientific paper to improve the reliability of the paper.

2.     The novelty of the work is not enough. The work's novelty and main contribution must need to be elaborated in the last part of the introduction section as it deals with assessing ecological sensitivity of the region.

3.     Page 5 line 166 the authors used the term “Geography index” what do you mean by such terminology?

4.     The discussion section seems bit hazy. The authors have given the plan (section 4.2) based on three delineated ecological reserves but neglected the future perspective of conservation of Chaohu lake basin. What are the future perspective of Chaohu lake basin related to ecological sensitivity? What are the role of governmental, private and local residents in protecting the fifth largest freshwater lake of China? And what are the necessary future studies and ways to preserve the ecological beauty of the Chaohu lake?

5.     Conclusion must need to be written based on results and how it can be linked to future in order to conserve the Chaohu lake basin.

6.     Page 13-line 386-It is the limitation of the study, which can be added in conclusion section.

7.     Lastly, it is suggested to do some grammatical check and spelling check carefully before submitting the revised version.

8.     Some references should be added in the sections of Introduction and Discussions.

The dominant influencing factors of desertification changes in the source region of Yellow River Climate change or human activity？

The Changes of Spatiotemporal Pattern of Rocky Desertification and Its Dominant Driving Factors in Typical Karst Mountainous Areas under the Background of Global Change

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your letter and for the reviews’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Urban Lake Scenic Protected Area Zoning Based on Ecological Sensitivity Analysis and Remote Sensing: A Case Study of Chaohu Lake Basin, China”(ISSN 2071-1050). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:

Point 1: The methods (AHP) section must need to be elaborated and rewritten in a step-by-step manner, as the methods section should be better explained in any scientific paper to improve the reliability of the paper.

Response 1: We explained the method (AHP) in detail in four steps. (line 224-251)

Point 2: The novelty of the work is not enough. The work's novelty and main contribution must need to be elaborated in the last part of the introduction section as it deals with assessing ecological sensitivity of the region.

Response 2: As suggested by the reviewer,we have added in the last part of the introduction section.

Point 3: Page 5 line 166 the authors used the term “Geography index” what do you mean by such terminology?

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out.We have modified the term “Geography index” to be “variable

/factor”.

Point 4: The discussion section seems bit hazy. The authors have given the plan (section 4.2) based on three delineated ecological reserves but neglected the future perspective of conservation of Chaohu lake basin. What are the future perspective of Chaohu lake basin related to ecological sensitivity? What are the role of governmental, private and local residents in protecting the fifth largest freshwater lake of China? And what are the necessary future studies and ways to preserve the ecological beauty of the Chaohu lake?

Response 4: As suggested by the reviewer, we have added in the discussion section. The details are shown in the text.

Point 5: Conclusion must need to be written based on results and how it can be linked to future in order to conserve the Chaohu lake basin.

Response 5: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have added the suggested content to the manuscript in the conclusion section.

Point 6: Page 13-line 386-It is the limitation of the study, which can be added in conclusion section.

Response 6: As suggested by the reviewer,we have made changes. The details are shown in the text.

Point 7: Lastly, it is suggested to do some grammatical check and spelling check carefully before submitting the revised version.

Response 7: We carefully checked the format, language expression and diagrams of the article, and modified the question, and the details are shown in the text.

Point 8: Some references should be added in the sections of Introduction and Discussions.

Response 8: As suggested by the reviewer, we have added some references in the Introduction and Discussion section and the details are shown in the text.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Yours Sincerely,

Guoyi Wei

Corresponding author:

Name: Shuiming Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The present study entitled, 'Urban Lake Scenic Protected Area Zoning Based on Ecological Sensitivity Analysis and Remote Sensing: A Case Study of Chaohu Lake Basin, China' has carried out a zonation of the Urban Lake protected area as per the ecological sensitivity of the lake using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). The authors have done commendable work, especially identifying the urban lake's sensitivity. I believe, there are some aspects to be overlooked to enhance the readability of the present work. Please find my suggestions below:

Major comments:

1. Introduction: Add some information on how anthropogenic activities are affecting the lake ecosystem in urban areas. Cite some new studies in the introduction section highlighting the importance of remote sensing and GIS based techniques for lake ecological sensitivity analysis. 
2. Study area: This section lacks information. Add about the lake morphology, dependence of the local communities on the lake and implications of anthropogenic activities on the lake ecology.
3. Factor description: This section should be titled as the rationale for the factor selection.
4. Result and discussion: Impact should not be added in the title and it should be stated factor wise. The authors should add some policy suggestions in the discussion section.
5. Conclusion: It would be better if the authors add some suggestions and future direction for assessing lake sensitivity at spatial scales. 

Minor comments:

1. Some typos and grammatical mistakes are present in the manuscript. This should be corrected before the final publishing of the work. 
2. Map qualities are low. The authors are advised to prepare the maps on 300 dpi. Fonts and legends in the map should be enlarged.
3. Authors are advised to maintain homogeneity in the maps related to the placing of legend and other elements.
4. Tables should be prepared as per the journal’s guidelines. 
5. References should be carefully cited and prepared as per the journal’s guidelines.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your letter and for the reviews’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Urban Lake Scenic Protected Area Zoning Based on Ecological Sensitivity Analysis and Remote Sensing: A Case Study of Chaohu Lake Basin, China”(ISSN 2071-1050). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:

Major comments:

Point 1: Introduction: Add some information on how anthropogenic activities are affecting the lake ecosystem in urban areas. Cite some new studies in the introduction section highlighting the importance of remote sensing and GIS based techniques for lake ecological sensitivity analysis.

Response 1:We have restructured the introduction section and added the origin and development of ecological sensitivity as well as related research directions and research methods. Relevant literature on ecological sensitivity research has been added.

Point 2: Study area: This section lacks information. Add about the lake morphology, dependence of the local communities on the lake and implications of anthropogenic activities on the lake ecology.

Response 2: As reviewer suggested that we added this section. The details are shown in the text.

Point 3: Factor description: This section should be titled as the rationale for the factor selection.

Response 3: As reviewer suggested that we have made the corrections. The details are shown in the text.

Point 4: Result and discussion: Impact should not be added in the title and it should be stated factor wise. The authors should add some policy suggestions in the discussion section.

Response 4: As reviewer suggested that we added some content in the discussion section. The details are shown in the text.

Point 5: Conclusion: It would be better if the authors add some suggestions and future direction for assessing lake sensitivity at spatial scales.

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion.We have added in the conclusion section.

Minor comments:

Point 1: Some typos and grammatical mistakes are present in the manuscript. This should be corrected before the final publishing of the work.

Response 1: We carefully checked the format, language expression of the article, and modified the question, and the details are shown in the text.

Point 2: Map qualities are low. The authors are advised to prepare the maps on 300 dpi. Fonts and legends in the map should be enlarged.

Response 2: As reviewer suggested that we have prepared the maps on 300 dpi. The fonts and legends in the map are referenced in this article (Anh Kim Nguyen, 2016).

Point 3: Authors are advised to maintain homogeneity in the maps related to the placing of legend and other elements.

Response 3: The map was created mainly by referring to this article (Anh Kim Nguyen, 2016).

Point 4: Tables should be prepared as per the journal’s guidelines.

Response 4: The table uses a three-line table and the table description is placed centered at the top of the table.

Point 5: References should be carefully cited and prepared as per the journal’s guidelines.

Response 5: We carefully checked the format of the references, and the details are shown in the text.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Yours Sincerely,

Guoyi Wei

Corresponding author:

Name: Shuiming Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Be aware of formatting issues.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have sufficiently revised the manuscript. Thus, it may be considered for publication.