Land Use Change and Landscape Ecological Risk Prediction in Urumqi under the Shared Socio-Economic Pathways and the Representative Concentration Pathways (SSP-RCP) Scenarios
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has simulated the land use changes under different SSP scenarios, it is significant for local land use plans and sustainability development. But these still have some aspects need be improved, the detailed suggestions are as below:
1. Lines 67-70, the full name of these models should be given when they first appeared in the manuscript.
2. Lines 129-133, the temporal scale of the temperature, precipitation, and runoff data should be introduced.
3. Line 136, “All data variants are labeled "r1i1p1f1".”, this sentence should be further introduced.
4. The abbreviations were too many in this manuscript, a table that contains all abbreviations and their full names is required to benefit the readers.
5. The figure 3 is unclear. Some descriptions should be provided for better understanding.
6. In Table 2, the original values of the area of each land use type should be provided, it is important to present how much the land use changed during these periods to prove the performance of the SD model.
7. Line 229, the Kappa index was used to evaluate the performance of the PLUS model, the calculation method of the Kappa index should be provided. In addition, the comparison of the predicted land use map and actual land use map should be analyzed in spatial.
8. Lines 305-307, How are the intervals divided? Is there any reference or reason?
9. In Figure 7, it seems that the differences in the ecological risk regions between different SSPs were limited. Please mark the regions where authors think they are varied under different SSPs.
10. Lines 423-427, This sentence is too long to understand, please reorganize.
11. Section 4.2, in my view, different suggestions should be provided for all three SSPs for the department to choose. This would make this study more significant.
Moderate English editing is needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This study tries to evaluate the impacts of LUCC on landscape ecological risks in Urumqi. Various models have been applied. It is innovative to discuss the scenario with the rise of temperature. However, whether the temperature status in 2100 is instructive, and whether the temperature will rise linearly before 2100, is worth discussing. In detail, the following adjustments are suggested and quite some questions need answers:
1. All abbreviations should be specified the first time they appear.
2. In the introduction section, it would be beneficial to clearly explain the knowledge gap and main contributions of the work. Specifically, what differentiates this study from existing literature and what methods have been introduced.
3. Core concepts, such as SSP, RCP, GHG, etc. should be introduced in detail. The detailed division standards of SSP126, SSP245 and SSP585 should be explained. Why these scenarios are chosen for analysis?
4. It seems the design of land use demand scenarios in this article is too simple. Generally, there are different types of policy scenarios, resource limitation scenarios, extensive management scenarios, etc. Please consider them comprehensively.
5. As we all know, the speed of China's economic development has slowed down significantly since the mid-2010s, and the population growth is already negative in 2022. Using the development speed of 2000-2020 to predict future land use demand may result in a large error. 2021 and 2022 must be included in the SD model.
6. How Parameter settings for different SSP-RCP scenarios (Table 3) were derived?
7. The SD model and the plus model are independent of each other and lack connection. The author uses the plus model and new data to infer future land use changes, so what is the significance of the SD model?
8. After the simulation, there will be a large amount of unused land around Urumqi, which does not conform to the general law of land use. The basic setting of land transfer may need a serious review.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper used CMIP6 multimodal ensemble data, coupled system dynamics model and patch generation land use simulation model to study the future trends of land use change and landscape ecological risk in Urumqi under different climate scenarios in the future 2020-2060. The paper was well structured and clearly written, which helped to study the trends and risk magnitude of different land uses under different climate scenarios, and provided a reference for land conservation and development strategies. However, there are some major shortcomings in this paper, which were revised before this paper could be published in Sustainability:
1. Figure 6: Please explain in detail how the figure 6 (a)、(b) and (c) show the differences and shifts between different land uses so that the reader can understand;
2. Line 299: Presence of two "...", please check the symbols carefully;
3. Lines 266-268: The description does not match the results of Figure 4, and the trends in unused land for SSP126 and SSP245 should be consistent;
4. The results and discussion mention many special locations in Urumqi, such as the Haxiongou Scenic Area, the Tianshan 1 glacier and the Tien Shan Grand Canyon Forest Park. Perhaps you need to think about labelling these locations on the map so that readers can understand;
5. In 4. Discussion, many of the points lack sufficient literature and data to support them, which makes it difficult for the reader to believe your point of view. For example, the ideas that carbon dioxide concentrations in the SSP126 scenario favour vegetation growth by reducing transpiration rates and increasing water use in dry areas (line 386-388), and that high concentrations of CO2 increase increased soil acidity and decreased soil fertility (line 408-409) are not backed up by the literature, and there are many places where you may need to add your data results and relevant literature;
6. Line 398-399: Why is SSP 245 considered a development pattern that continues historical regional development trends? Please add your explanation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper conveys an exciting phenomenon regarding land use change, has novelty, and is very useful for stakeholders as material for consideration in spatial planning and related decision-making. Some things need to be fixed, especially in the method chapter:
Line 68-69: Acronyms should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract, the main text, and the first figure or table.
120: natural data? There should be more precise terminology to describe this data set.
163-166: Each scenario of SSP and RCP must be mentioned, and the authors should convey the justification for choosing each of the three scenarios (in total, there are six elected scenarios combined into three designs)
170-171: The author should explain the justification or basis for the method in determining the 4 subsystems and their variables that affect land use demand.
196: (Figure 3) Please add dividing lines in the causal loop showing the division of the four subsystems (climate, economy, population, and land).
198: (Table 2) Column "Simulation Error", what is meant by "Absolute Mean Error"? Provide an additional explanation about the author's method used in the validation model.
203-233: Oddly, there is no citation.
237-238: How do the authors categorize the degree of landscape disturbance in assessing ecological risk? Which limit can still be tolerated?
251: (Table 4) Each formula must be accompanied by citation/s.
Need a moderate editing of English. It is recommended to use professional English services
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been improved significantly after the first round of revision, hence, I suggest accepting it for publication in Sustainability in its present form.
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. What differentiates this study from existing literature still need to be specified in the abstract and introduction.
2. Better separate the introduction and the literature review.
3. When I asked “how Parameter settings for different SSP-RCP scenarios (Table 3) were derived”, I means the sources or reasons for the parameter settings should be provided.
4. Changes that cannot be made should be reflected in the discussion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have improved the paper according to suggestions and corrections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
