The Evolution of Land Resource Carrying Capacity in 35 Major Cities in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study assesses the land resource carrying capacity of 35 cities in China from 2012-2017. The actual research measures the land resource moving status or level of cities determines their high and low levels through horizontal comparisons and conducts analysis. The following are a few comments and questions.

1. The abstract section should clarify where the value of the research lies, and the research results can be clearer.
2. The literature citation interval "" should be "-."
3. How is the weight ω determined in equation (2)? Need to be clarified.
4. What is the difference in site type between ρ2-1 and ρ7-1?
5. Is the ρ5-4 storage land supporting the development of the tertiary industry? Or is it the secondary industry? Does this indicator fit the actual situation in China?
6. The land resource carrying level of each city in Figure 4 is determined based on the average level of 35 cities in that year. Is it appropriate to compare the land resource carrying level in the time series? Should it be based on the situation from 2012-to 2017 to determine the city land resource carrying capacity level?
7. The second paragraph of "3.2 Determination of carrying status interval of land resources by Boxplots" suggests reorganizing the relationship between economic and social development and the carrying capacity of land resources, regardless of whether the carrying level of land resources is excessive or not. Whether the carrying status interval of land resources is extreme or not, the goal of urban development should be to balance economic and social development and the carrying function of land resources, not just one aspect, according to the thesis of the study.
8. The 35 cities selected are places with sound economic and social development in China, and some cities with poor economic conditions are ignored; and there are also differences among cities of different levels in the selected sample, and the study can further explore the characteristics of of disagreements in land bearing capacity levels among cities of different levels.
9. In the discussion section, the horizontal comparison with the better developed cities in the world can be added to illustrate the development differences between Chinese cities and international cities by comparing evidence and summarizing possible experiences and patterns.
10. Since land resource carrying capacity is a frequently discussed topic, it is strongly recommended that the authors add the discussion between land resource carrying capacity and other ecological issues, such as urban heat island (Niu et al.).

 

Niu L, Zhang Z, Peng Z, et al. Identifying Surface Urban Heat Island Drivers and Their Spatial Heterogeneity in China’s 281 Cities: An Empirical Study Based on Multiscale Geographically Weighted Regression[J]. Remote Sensing, 2021, 13(21): 4428.

Author Response

The detailed response and revised manuscript in attached files.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper is really interesting, but should be add hypothesis and more clear the purpose of research.

When the hypothesis will be added, the discussion part should be modificated. The plan of discussion should be look like as answers for hypothesis, including Yours results of researches and the others authors.

Author Response

Thanks for the reviewer’s comments.

The authors have clarified the purpose of research in Line 85-87.

The authors wish to draw the reviewer’s kind attention that this research is designed to explore and describe the evolution of land resource carrying capacity in 35 major Chinese cities. Different from general econometric model, there are 35×6 different LRCC values (corresponding to 35 different Chinese cities) for each individual year (2012-2017) by using the index system method. So, the authors consider that a research hypothesis can not be designed to address 35 different coefficients produced from the index system method in this study.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report