Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Article on "Identification of Ecological Management Zoning on Arid Re-gion from the Perspective of Risk Assessment": Using remote sensing monitoring data of land use, the ecological risk status and spatial heterogeneity of typical arid areas in the Hexi region are examined from a space-time perspective to identify key areas of ecological risk management. The study has been extensively studied and presented in a very understandable structure and language. Minor correction suggestions have been made.

 

·         In Figure 3, Figure 6 and Figure 7 the maps should be more visible. Arranging land type legends, scale, and north arrows together will make maps more visible.

·         It will be more effective for the readers to present the change areas visible on the map.

·         Some paragraphs in the article are too long. It will be more understandable to shorten these paragraphs.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments about our manuscript entitled “Identification of Ecological Management Zoning on Arid Region from the Perspective of Risk Assessment” (ID: sustainability-2382701). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have finished the corrections. We hope it meets with approval. 

Please see the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have evaluated the manuscript entitled: "Identification of Ecological Management Zoning on Arid Region from the Perspective of Risk Assessment".

The manuscript is well-written and introduces important findings. However, the manuscript needs minor revision before publication. My comments are as follows:

- The global nature should be highlighted in this manuscript. Authors should highlight ecosystem monitoring and risk assessment management in several arid regions around the world.

- Line 18 " identified.."

- Please change the key-words (not the same wording of the title).

- Please illustrate the importance of this study and its novelty aspects.

- Please include these papers introducing some ecologically fragile areas:

* 10.3390/su132011282

* 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121739

- Lines 258-262, please rephrase this sentence.

- Please illustrate methods of statistical analysis.

- I recommend improving the presentation of Fig. 5.

- The manuscript contains 12 figures and 6 tales. In my opinion, this is a high number. I suggest adding some of them to supplementary materials.

- Authors should avoid redundancies in several parts of the manuscript to improve the readability of the manuscript.

The quality of English writing is acceptable. However, more tuning English is appreciated.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments about our manuscript entitled “Identification of Ecological Management Zoning on Arid Region from the Perspective of Risk Assessment” (ID: sustainability-2382701). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have finished the corrections. We hope it meets with approval.

Please see the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I agree that the article is interesting and has a strong potential. The authors should make an effort to clean up their manuscript from errors and inconsistencies before submitting a final version that can be accepted. Language usage is rather flaw and needs revision. Longer phrases should be removed.

Literature review is mainly concentrated on specific geographical ambits and should be enhanced with a broader, international perspective.

The representativeness of the case study (Gulang) to broader contexts should be discussed more explicitly.

The appropriateness of this manuscript to Sustainability MDPI should be discussed more explicitly. At the moment I see it appropriate for Land or Environments MDPI.

Novelty of the approach is a bit obscure. Can you clarify?

I don't see a clear indication for policy implementation. I think data and results of this paper can provide enough recommendations that can be discussed a bit more in this paper.

Finally, future studies can benefit from the main results of this paper. Can you work further on this aspect for improving and enriching it?

Thank you for your work.

Some revisions necessary at this stage.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments about our manuscript entitled “Identification of Ecological Management Zoning on Arid Region from the Perspective of Risk Assessment” (ID: sustainability-2382701). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have finished the corrections. We hope it meets with approval. 

Please see the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is acceptable for publication in its current  form

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing the manuscript again! We are grateful for your efforts.

Kind regards,
Dr. Xuebin Zhang

E-Mail: zhangxb@nwnu.edu.cn

College of Geography and Environmental science, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070, China

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors should make an effort to clean up their manuscript from errors and inconsistencies before submitting a final version that can be accepted.

I agree that the article is interesting and has a strong potential.

Language usage is rather flaw and needs revision. Longer phrases should be removed.

Literature review should be enhanced significantly.

The representativeness of the case study to broader contexts should be discussed more explicitly.

The appropriateness of this manuscript to Sustainability MDPI should be discussed more explicitly.

Novelty of the approach is a bit obscure, especially in respect with the last literature (in part cited even in the present version of the manuscript. Can you clarify?

I don't see a clear indication for policy implementation. I think data and results of this paper can provide enough recommendations that can be discussed a bit more in this paper.

Future studies can benefit from the main results of this paper. Can you work further on this aspect?

Language usage should be extensively polished throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing again! We have made every effort to modify your questions and suggestions. May our efforts meet your expectations. We hope it can be approved. The main corrections and responses to your comments in the paper are marked in the attachment!

Kind regards,
Dr. Xuebin Zhang

E-Mail: zhangxb@nwnu.edu.cn

College of Geography and Environmental science, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070, China

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Good revisions overall. Standard paper.

Some moderate revisions (internal) needed.