Spatial Heterogeneity of Sustainable Land Use in the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area in the Context of the Carbon Cycle: GIS-Based Big Data Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript titled "Spatial heterogeneity of sustainable land use in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area in the context of carbon cycle: GIS-based big data analysis" evaluate sustainable land use in Guangdong. The language needs significant improvement. The manuscript is poorly structured. Some sentences are too long and difficult to understand as the structure is not well organized. For example in the abstract, the first two sentences are too long and the design is too complex to understand. Also, in the abstract, the authors mainly discuss the method part, this should be very brief in the abstract. Also, there should also be at least one sentence each to cover the research gap and novelty in the abstract. part of the method is described in the results. Discussion and conclusion are merged and surprisingly discussion section comes after the conclusion which should be in reverse order.
The background information (introduction) is not well constructed. It would improve the readability if the introduction and literature review sections are merged, I suggest doing so. It is not clear why the authors selected Guangdong as the study area?
Section 5.1 does not fit in the results section. It is more suitable for the method section.
The first paragraph in the conclusion section is a repetition and should be removed as it is already discussed in the abstract and method. The rest of the conclusion is the description of a list of results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below.
- Correction:Modified (shortened) Introduction, adding the sentence to cover the research gap and novelty in the abstract.
- Correction: In order to improve the readability，the introduction and literature review sections are merged.and explain the necessity of selecting the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area as the research area.
- Correction: Section 5.1,Mainly to explain：Results and analysis of spatio-temporal evolution of land sustainable development.Changes have been made to the relevant headings.
|
5.1.1 In terms of time characteristics, the level of sustainable land development in the Greater Bay Area continues to improve. 5.1.2 In terms of spatial characteristics, the center of gravity of the horizontal space ofsustainable land use shifted from north to south. 4.Correction: The first paragraph in the conclusion section is a repetition and have been removed. The conclusion has been modified. 5.Correction:Dr. Li Huachao (Professor) from Macao Polytechnic University helped with the article's structure and English. （We were really sorry for our careless mistakes. Thank you for your reminder.） |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a paper that addresses the issue of the spatialization of sustainability in a significant and densely populated area in China. The work is based on an evaluation using GIS, to which an algebra of maps is applied for several indicators for two time periods.
On line 42 - change "other creatures" to biodiversity. The term "other creatures" is a term that refers to the times of religiosity; it is a non-scientific term.
On line 44 - I suggest citing the paper> https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109841
between lines 50 and 70, I suggest authors read and cite this critical work published in Sustainability > https://doi.org/10.3390/su12073057
On line 64, "Water and soil erosion, land 64 pollutions, and land pollution have occurred in the process of land use." I suggest presenting some examples like what the authors can find in this paper>https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2022.2130345
On line 65, "Extensive use, land 65 quality decline and other issues seriously restrict the sustainable use of land resources." cite some current examples.
On line 88, between the words "weighting," spelling punctuation is missing.
Please, what does prefecture mean? Are they subdivisions directly related to the federal government, as in Japan? Or do you refer to municipalities as federations? Explain this better to the reader.
The entire paper has many typing problems, such as a lack or excess of space and the wrong word breaks to form a new paragraph. Therefore, authors need to do a thorough revision of the text.
Important issue
Please explain in the methodology how weights were weighted and why the authors did not seek input from stakeholders to assign these weights.
Much research currently has endeavored to involve stakeholders in evaluating the indicators; the attribution of weights presented here seems to me to be arbitrary; I do not see the involvement of stakeholders and not even a literature review that serves as the basis for this decision-making.
For the Layer of the criterion "Land ecological environment protection" why did the authors not use indicators such as % of native vegetation cover, species richness, presence, or % of protected areas? In my opinion, "Land ecological environment protection" is underrepresented. - I suggest the authors look for more information that represents biodiversity conservation.
In item 4.1.1, I would like to suggest to the authors a reference that also used positive and negative indicators, which could be a reference paper.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333674003_PRIORITY_ACTIONS_MAPS_OF_MUNICIPAL_PUBLIC_SERVICES_WITH_GEOSPACE_APPLICATION
On line 210, you can use "overlap" instead of 'superposition.'
The results are consistent, and the discussion, although based locally on Chinese issues, is acceptable given the relevance of the study area.
The conclusions are consistent and demonstrate that the paper's objectives were successfully achieved.
I just found it strange that the discussion came after the conclusion. The editor can recommend the best way for authors.
I recommend acceptance of the paper with minor revisions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revision has improved the manuscript and is acceptable.
