Assessing Ecological Restoration in Arid Mining Regions: A Progressive Evaluation System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Ecological restoration, the process of repairing sites in nature whose biological communities (that is, interacting groups of various species in a common location) and ecosystems have been degraded or destroyed. Any degraded ecosystem including agricultural areas, savannah, wetlands, protected wildlife reserves, fisheries, managed plantations, riversides, coastal areas and many others may offer opportunities for improvement through restoration. Ecosystem restoration could focus on re-establishing ecological integrity on a hillside or a sea grass bed to the large-scale landscape restoration of a plateau or mountain range. In many ecosystems, humans have altered local native populations of plants and animals, introduced invasive species, converted natural communities to extractive use (such as agriculture or mining), fouled waters, and degraded soil resources. Ecological restoration focuses on repairing the damage human activities have caused to natural ecosystems and seeks to return them to an earlier state or to another state that is closely related to one unaltered by human activities. Ecological restoration is distinguished from the practice of conservation, which is primarily concerned with preventing further losses to ecosystems. As such, this study aims to delineate the ecological restoration process in arid mining regions into three phases: "Artificial Reconstruction", "Auxiliary Ecological Restoration", and "Natural Recovery". 

I think this study is little progress by focusing on ecological restoration in arid mining regions. Generally, some revision suggestions are listed below:

1) It's better to add results in your ABSTRACT. Without your research analysis, your ABSTRACT would remain an empty slogan, such as 'These strategies are intended to enhance the evaluation and planning framework for ecological restoration initiatives in arid mining regions, while also providing theoretical and technical assistance for research on ecological restoration evaluation and engineering acceptance in such regions.'.

2) It's better to add scientific aspects of your work in '1. Introduction'. Without a solid science issue, your presentation is more like a textbook rather than a scientific paper.

3) It is very weak for '5.Discussion' due to lack of a solid science issue. Global knowledge contribution is not clear. What new global knowledge can this paper contribute to the existing international literature? How transferability is good enough? How to apply the findings and conclusions in this paper for other regions' ecological restoration? In present form I think it would not be suited to the journal Sustainability. 

Author Response

Thank you for providing constructive feedback. We have fully revised our manuscript (2874464) and added new analyses to further strengthen our work. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present an interesting paper, actually a review, of the restoration of an evaluation system of areas mined/disturbed for human purposes. They discuss artificial restoration versus natural recovery. This is an interesting topic of great importance.

I found the paper to be well written, the flow is ideas are well formulated, and the paper well written.

Some minor corrections in text:

Fig.1. Prefect should read Perfect?

Please verify that for all organisms, the species name is not capitalized. Correct throughout the manuscript. - Fructus Hippophae should be Fructus hippophae

Note that all Latin names in Discussion should be italicized.

Line 504 - Change the word “article” to paper or study.

Line 506 – insert space between first two words

Author Response

Thank you for providing constructive feedback. We have fully revised our manuscript (2874464) and added new analyses to further strengthen our work. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

What is the main question of the study?

The article is theoretical and empirical in nature, presenting a stepwise model for assessing ecological restoration related to the process of renturization of the mining area in the Aksu area of ​​Xinjiang in northwestern China.

The main aim of the article is presented only in the conclusions. The article does not precisely present the research question(s).

Is it relevant and interesting?

The issues raised are very timely and very interesting, as they show the problem of restoring the value of areas degraded by mining.

Is the text original?

The text is original.

Is the article well written?

The article is written correctly.

Is the article clear and easy to read?

The article is easy to read.

Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments?

The conclusions, or rather observations, are very general and should be made more specific and related to practice.

Do the conclusions relate to the main question asked?

As noted in the introduction, the authors did not present the main question, so it is only up to the individual interpretation of the reader.

1. The abstract and the introduction should present its purpose and the research question or questions, because in the article it is not entirely clear what its purpose is, as the term "goal" appears several times in a different wording.

2. In the article, the authors wrote (line 309) that "representative indicators were selected", what does this mean and what method was this selection made?

3. The article does not provide a precise period of research and observations, only that in 2021 a protection initiative was initiated in the analyzed region.

4. The discussion is, to some extent, a general summary and not a discussion relating to the results of own research on the reclamation of mining areas and their confrontation with other authors in other regions of the world.

5. The conclusions should present a specific approach and practical recommendations.

Author Response

Thank you for providing constructive feedback. We have fully revised our manuscript (2874464) and added new analyses to further strengthen our work. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has been substantially revised. Accept in present form.