Assessing Environmental Sustainability in the Transnational Basin of the Tumen River Based on Remote Sensing Data and a Geographical Detector
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript analyses the changes in environmental sustainability in the transnational basin of Tumen River from 2000 to 2021, by means of indexes derived by satellite products, Digital Elevation Model, and geographical data. The manuscript is well organized, and the topics are stated clearly. The English might be improved with a moderate revision. I suggest for the revision to check the following specific suggestions:
Line 67: … the water quality of the TBTR has significantly decreased, with an annual average of good quality waters …
Line 95: …has become an effective tool to assess environmental sustainability, …
Lines 122: Annual average temperature and precipitation has to be reported as one number (the average) and the standard deviation (AVG±STD). Otherwise, the authors can report annual ranges of these parameters (Minimum – Maximum). Please, check if the values 2–6°C are correct, as they seem too low for an annual temperature.
Figure 1: The border between DPRK and China is not visible on this map.
Lines 172-173: the authors might provide here a web link to the documentation of United Nations Sustainability Indicator System.
Line 419: ... the most significantly improvement ….
Line 426: … the area with a serious degradation in environmental sustainability…
Figure 5: Please show on the Y-axes or on the figure legend which between histograms and lines refer to the percentage (%) and to the areas (km2).
Line 429: I think that the figure mentioned here should be the Figure 5 and not 6.
Line 506: I think that the meaning of this sentence should be: … to improve the environmental sustainability.
Line 517: However, the results of this study indicated that…
Line 525: … a significant area of the forest has been converted …
Line 573: … the most significant improvement of environmental sustainability …
Appendix: the Appendix and its content should be mentioned in the body of the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English might be improved with a moderate revision.
Author Response
Response to the Reviewers
We would like to express our respect and gratitude to the reviewers for the valuable comments and suggestions on improving the quality of the paper. We have carefully considered all the points raised by the reviewers. Our point-by-point responses are as follows. In the responses below, blue fonts are the revised texts.
Response to the Reviewer 1
Comments 1: Line 67: … the water quality of the TBTR has significantly decreased, with an annual average of good quality waters …
Response 1: Done as suggested. According to the reviewer’s comment, we have checked and revised this sentence. Please refer to the revised manuscript for details. The revised version of the Introduction (lines 67-68) is as follows:
“the water quality of the TBTR has significantly decreased, with an annual average of good quality waters of only 47.22%”
Comments 2: Line 95: …has become an effective tool to assess environmental sustainability, …
Response 2: Done as suggested. In accordance with the reviewer’s comment, we have checked and revised this sentence. Please refer to the revised manuscript for details. The revised version of the Introduction (lines 94-95) is as follows:
“Remote sensing data has become an effective tool to assess environmental sustainability”
Comments 3: Lines 122: Annual average temperature and precipitation has to be reported as one number (the average) and the standard deviation (AVG±STD). Otherwise, the authors can report annual ranges of these parameters (Minimum – Maximum). Please, check if the values 2–6°C are correct, as they seem too low for an annual temperature.
Response 3: Clarified and revised. In accordance with the reviewer’s comment, we have revised this sentence and added relevant references. Please refer to the revised manuscript for details. The revised version of the Study area and data (lines 122-124) is as follows:
“annual ranges of temperature (-23 to 34°C), and annual ranges of precipitation (0–650 mm), the TBTR boasts a moderate continental monsoon climate (Zheng et al., 2017; Xiang et al., 2018)”
References:
- Xiang, H., Jia, M., Wang, Z., Li, L., Mao, D., Zhang, D., Cui, G., & Zhu, W. (2018). Impacts of Land Cover Changes on Ecosystem Carbon Stocks Over the Transboundary Tumen River Basin in Northeast Asia. Chinese Geographical Science, 28, 973-985.
- Zheng, X.J., Sun, P., Zhu, W.H., Xu, Z., Fu, J., Man, W.D., Li, H.L., Zhang, J., & Qin, L. (2017). Landscape dynamics and driving forces of wetlands in the Tumen River Basin of China over the past 50 years. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 13, 237-250.
- Zhu, W., Miao, C., Zheng, X., Cao, G., & Wang, F. (2014). Study on ecological safety evaluation and warning of wetlands in Tumen River watershed based on 3S technology. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 34, 1379-1390.
Comments 4: Figure 1: The border between DPRK and China is not visible on this map.
Response 4: Clarified with explanation. The Tumen River is the border river between China and the DPRK. Specifically, originating at the eastern foot of the Changbai Mountain, the Tumen River flows from south to north through the cities of Helong, Longjing, Tumen, and Hunchun in China, Hamgyongbuk-do, Ryanggang-do in the DPRK, as well as the Hassan region in Russia. Then, it flows into the Japan Sea. We have revised the manuscript to more clearly illustrate that the mainstream of the Tumen River marks the border between China and the DPRK. Please refer to the revised manuscript for details. The revised version of the Study area and data (lines 124-126) is as follows:
“The Tumen River is the border river between China and the DPRK, and the mainstream of the Tumen River marks the border between China and the DPRK.”
Comments 5: Lines 172-173: the authors might provide here a web link to the documentation of United Nations Sustainability Indicator System.
Response 5: Done as suggested. In accordance with the reviewer’s comment, we have provided a web link in the manuscript. The revised version of the Introduction (lines 174-175) is as follows:
“by referring to the United Nations Sustainability Indicator System (https://sdgs.un.org/) and Sun et al. (2022)”
Comments 6: Line 419: ... the most significantly improvement ….
Response 6: Done as suggested. In accordance with the reviewer’s comment, we have revised this sentence. The revised version of the Introduction (lines 412-414) is as follows:
“The Chinese side experienced the most significantly improvement in environmental sustainability.”
Comments 7: Line 426: … the area with a serious degradation in environmental sustainability…
Response 7: Done as suggested. In accordance with the reviewer’s comment, we have revised this sentence. The revised version of the Discussion (lines 419-421) is as follows:
“Meanwhile, on the Chinese side, the area with a serious degradation in environmental sustainability was 1,185.50 km2”
Comments 8: Figure 5: Please show on the Y-axes or on the figure legend which between histograms and lines refer to the percentage (%) and to the areas (km2).
Response 8: Done as suggested. In accordance with the reviewer’s comment, we have revised this figure. The revised Figure 5 is as follows:
Comments 9: Line 429: I think that the figure mentioned here should be the Figure 5 and not 6.
Response 9: Done as suggested. In accordance with the reviewer’s comment, we have revised this sentence. The revised version of the Discussion (lines 423).
“and 20.71% lower than the Russian side (Fig.5).”
Comments 10: Line 506: I think that the meaning of this sentence should be: … to improve the environmental sustainability.
Response 10: Done as suggested. In accordance with the reviewer’s comment, we have revised this sentence. The revised version of the Discussion (lines 499-500) is as follows:
“A series of actions have been made by China, the DPRK, and the Russian Federation to improve the environmental sustainability.”
Comments 11: Line 517: However, the results of this study indicated that…
Response 11: Done as suggested. In accordance with the reviewer’s comment, we have revised this sentence. The revised version of the Discussion (lines 511-513) is as follows:
“However, the results of this study indicated that between 2000 and 2021, the TBTR’s environmental sustainability was decreasing, and the problem of environmental degradation was still serious.”
Comments 12: Line 525: … a significant area of the forest has been converted …
Response 12: Done as suggested. In accordance with the reviewer’s comment, we have revised this sentence. The revised version of the Discussion (lines 519-521) is as follows:
“On the other hand, a significant area of the forest has been converted to grassland as a result of the growth of the Russian forest business sector, and environmental sustainability has continued to deteriorate.”
Comments 13: Line 573: … the most significant improvement of environmental sustainability …
Response 13: Done as suggested. In accordance with the reviewer’s comment, we have revised this sentence. The revised version of the Discussion (lines 567-568) is as follows:
“the Chinese side has shown the most significant improvement of environmental sustainability.”
Comments 14: Appendix: the Appendix and its content should be mentioned in the body of the manuscript.
Response 14: Done as suggested. In accordance with the reviewer’s comment, we have mentioned the Appendix and its content in the manuscript. The revised version of the Methods (lines 232-236) is as follows:
“To further evaluate the environmental sustainability dynamics, the EDI was classified into five levels of significantly improved, generally improved, unchanged, generally degraded, and seriously degraded with reference to the studies of He et al. (2017) and Wang et al. (2024) (Tab SA1).”
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors present a comprehensive study of the environmental development of the transnational basin of Tumen River. This region is of high interest because it is influenced by three different countries with different political systems and different grades of awareness for sustainability, while the Tumen River affects heavily the health of the Japanese Sea. Therefore, maintaining the environmental quality of this region is a crucial issue but also technically and politically complex and delicate. The authors deserve merits for choosing this case for their study. The problem is clearly stated and starts with a comprehensive study on the literature. By the location and nature of the problem, the literature is dominated by chinese research, however, it would have been helpful to find international literature as well in particular in the development of the methodology. However, the methodology is clearly described and comprehensible. The authors concentrate on a major performance indicator EDI which is a world wide standard and show that their own indicator RSEI (taken particular from measurements) correlates significantly with the EDI which is a rather complex parameter with a lot of different influence parameters and therefore not easy to relate to particular root causes. However, the correlation shows that EDI can be referred to as an integral indicator of environmental sustainability. The authors then show the development of the EDI over time and then try to discuss the driving forces. This part of the paper is rather weak and speculative, and the use of language is rather enumeration like than a fluid and explaining text, full of numerical values of observations, which try to bridge the gap between political and scientific point of view. I recommend to rework this part of the paper to improve readability and concreteness.
In conclusion the paper is a good contribution to a better understanding of the regional sustainability development and can serve as a blueprint for many other similar geographic regions
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are several minor grammar and spelling issues in the paper. Please check carefully (e.g. land-use land-cove(r), where r is missing)
Author Response
Response to the Reviewers
We would like to express our respect and gratitude to the reviewers for the valuable comments and suggestions on improving the quality of the paper. We have carefully considered all the points raised by the reviewers. Our point-by-point responses are as follows. In the responses below, blue fonts are the revised texts.
Response to the Reviewer 2
Comments 1: The authors present a comprehensive study of the environmental development of the transnational basin of Tumen River. This region is of high interest because it is influenced by three different countries with different political systems and different grades of awareness for sustainability, while the Tumen River affects heavily the health of the Japanese Sea. Therefore, maintaining the environmental quality of this region is a crucial issue but also technically and politically complex and delicate. The authors deserve merits for choosing this case for their study. The problem is clearly stated and starts with a comprehensive study on the literature. By the location and nature of the problem, the literature is dominated by Chinese research, however, it would have been helpful to find international literature as well in particular in the development of the methodology. However, the methodology is clearly described and comprehensible. The authors concentrate on a major performance indicator EDI which is a world wide standard and show that their own indicator RSEI (taken particular from measurements) correlates significantly with the EDI which is a rather complex parameter with a lot of different influence parameters and therefore not easy to relate to particular root causes. However, the correlation shows that EDI can be referred to as an integral indicator of environmental sustainability. The authors then show the development of the EDI over time and then try to discuss the driving forces. This part of the paper is rather weak and speculative, and the use of language is rather enumeration like than a fluid and explaining text, full of numerical values of observations, which try to bridge the gap between political and scientific point of view. I recommend to rework this part of the paper to improve readability and concreteness.
In conclusion the paper is a good contribution to a better understanding of the regional sustainability development and can serve as a blueprint for many other similar geographic regions
Response 1: Done as suggested. In accordance with the reviewer’s comment, we have added some international literatures, in particular in the development of the methodology. In addition, we have rewritten section 4.3 in accordance with the reviewer’s comments to more clearly illustrate the driving forces of environmental sustainability and improve the manuscript’s readability and concreteness. Please refer to the revised manuscript (lines 377-403) for details.
References:
- Willis, K.S. (2015). Remote sensing change detection for ecological monitoring in United States protected areas. Biological Conservation, 182, 233-242.
- Lim, C.-H., Yoo, S., Choi, Y., Jeon, S.W., Son, Y., & Lee, W.-K. (2018). Assessing climate change impact on forest habitat suitability and diversity in the Korean Peninsula. Forests, 9, 259
- van Vliet, J. (2019). Direct and indirect loss of natural area from urban expansion. Nature Sustainability, 2, 755-763.
Comments 2: There are several minor grammar and spelling issues in the paper. Please check carefully (e.g. land-use land-cove(r), where r is missing)
Response 2: Done as suggested. According to the reviewer’s comment, we have revised these minor issues. Please refer to the revised manuscript for details.
