Dynamic Evolution and Driving Mechanisms of Vulnerability in Coupled Urban Systems in Northeast China, 2000–2020
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsUrban vulnerability was investigated in the three northeastern provinces of China from 2000 to 2020. The challenges, including resource shortages, harsh environments, and inadequate education and healthcare are examined. By means of the weighted summation method and geographic detector model, the temporal and spatial evolution of urban vulnerability in 34 prefecture-level cities were analyzed. The research in this paper is meaningful, whereas some technical problems should be solved before it can be accepted for publication. The detailed comments are as follows.
1、Data from 2000-2020 were gained. However, the manuscript does not clarify whether it incorporates the impact of recent policies (e.g., the "14th Five-Year Plan" for Northeast China's revitalization) or major events (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic), which may lead to outdated conclusions.
2、The definition of "urban vulnerability" is not clarified clearly. Different studies may adopt varying indicator systems.
3、The study states that "economic vulnerability continued to rise" but does not analyze its connection to Northeast-specific issues such as single-industry structure (e.g., reliance on heavy industry) or population outflow.
4、Prefecture-level cities are used as analysis units, ignoring county-level administrative regions or urban-rural differences. How do the methods mentioned above influence the conclusions?
5、"Tailored coordinated development strategies" are proposed, but they should account for the unique characteristics of the three northeastern provinces (e.g., Liaoning's coastal economy, Jilin's agricultural foundation, Heilongjiang's ecological resources), so that the recommendations can be more actionable.
6、Many images have poor clarity and cannot recognize specific numbers and legends in the images.
7、The paper only partially adopts the template of the journal and should be written in full accordance with the journal template. Besides, why are there annotations in the paper?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript titled "Temporal and Spatial Evolution of Vulnerability of Urban Coupling System and Its Driving Force" addresses a relevant topic concerning urban system dynamics and vulnerability analysis. However, it presents several critical issues that undermine its clarity, coherence, and overall academic contribution. The following comments highlight the main concerns that should be addressed to enhance the quality and impact of the manuscript:
Title
- Since the study focuses on a specific period and region (Northeastern Chinese cities from 2000 to 2020), it is recommended that the title explicitly reflect this temporal and spatial scope to enhance clarity and relevance.
Abstract
- In the opening sentence of the abstract (“This research examines urban vulnerability in the three northeastern provinces of China from 2000 to 2020”), it is recommended to explicitly name the three provinces to improve clarity and specificity.
Introduction
- (General comment on the Introduction Section)
The Introduction section requires significant rewriting and reorganization to enhance clarity, focus, and logical flow. It is recommended to begin with a concise background that clearly defines urban vulnerability and explains why it is a critical issue for cities. The research gap, particularly the lack of studies addressing vulnerability within coupled urban systems, should be clearly highlighted. This should be followed by a brief, focused literature review limited to studies directly related to the paper aim, while avoiding excessive detail on unrelated methods. The research objectives and the unique contributions of this study should be explicitly stated. Throughout the introduction section, use clear and consistent terminology, and ensure the language is concise, precise, and free from redundancy.
- The first paragraph (lines 19–31):
4.1. The sentence “The research from a single perspective can only reflect some elements of urban vulnerability, but cannot show the overall vulnerability under the coupled system [1–2]” lacks clarity. The terms ‘single perspective’ and ‘overall vulnerability’ are ambiguous and need clearer definitions. It is recommended to rephrase this sentence using more precise terminology and improve the logical connection to the preceding sentence.
4.2. The statement “Urban vulnerability is the key to the healthy development of cities” is overly general and vague. To strengthen this claim, explain how understanding or managing urban vulnerability contributes to the healthy development of cities.
4.3. The phrase “Looking at the past literature” suggests a detailed review, which is not provided in the text. Consider replacing it with a more accurate expression, such as “Previous studies suggest that...” to better reflect the content that follows.
4.4. The contrast between “urban coupling systems” and “a certain subsystem of resources, environment, society, and economy” is unclear. These terms should be more clearly defined, and their relationship clearly stated to improve reader comprehension.
4.5. The sentence “Therefore, we should comprehensively study the urban vulnerability under the coupling system, which supplements to the single subsystem” does not clearly articulate the justification for the study. Consider rephrasing it to explicitly identify the gap in existing literature and explain how the present study addresses it.
- Second paragraph (lines 32–71):
5.1 The paragraph is too long and would benefit from being divided into at least two shorter, thematically organized paragraphs to improve readability and focus.
5.2 The sentence “The concept of 'vulnerability' originated in Western developed countries” is an overgeneralization. Since the following sentence attributes the concept to a specific French scientist, it would be more accurate to begin directly with that attribution and remove the general claim.
5.3 Avoid using the term “foreign scholars,” as it is vague and context-dependent.
5.4 The sentence “The natural vulnerability has changed from the original single dimension to analyzing the key factors causing fragility from a comprehensive perspective” is unclear. It is recommended to rephrase this sentence to clarify that it is the focus of research or methodological approach that has evolved over time, rather than the vulnerability itself.
5.5 There are several issues with writing quality throughout the paragraph:
- Many sentences are overly long, awkwardly phrased, and suffer from grammatical or structural issues.
- Transitions between ideas are weak, affecting the coherence of the argument.
- There is redundancy, and the inclusion of many detailed examples is not balanced by adequate summarization or linkage to the research problem.
5.6 After presenting various studies, the paragraph lacks a synthesis of the reviewed literature. It is recommended to add a concluding sentence that summarizes the key trends, gaps, or consensus in the literature and clearly identifies the gap that the current study aims to address. This synthesis is essential to establish the rationale for the study and position its contribution within the existing body of research.
- Third paragraph (lines 72–88):
6.1. The sentence “Compared with foreign countries, the research on vulnerability in China is later…” is grammatically awkward and unclear. The term “foreign countries” is vague and should be avoided in academic writing. A more appropriate phrasing could be: “Research on vulnerability in China began later than in some other countries.”
6.2 The phrase “At present” is repeated at the beginning of two consecutive sentences, which affects the readability and flow. Additionally, the sentence “the concept of urban vulnerability has evolved from the concept of vulnerability” should be rephrased for clarity. It is recommended to clearly explain how the general concept of vulnerability has been adapted and applied in the context of urban systems.
6.3. The categorization of urban vulnerability into internal and external types is unclear and may be confusing to readers. There appears to be overlap in the definitions; for example, natural disaster vulnerability is included under both categories. Moreover, the list of subtypes under internal vulnerability lacks clear organization. It is recommended to clarify the distinction between the two categories and present the subtypes in a more structured and coherent manner.
6.4. The sentence “Taking human social and economic activities as external disturbance factors, we pay attention to…” introduces confusion by using the first-person pronoun “we” in the context of reviewing previous studies. Since this section cites an external reference, it is unclear whether the perspective represents the authors’ own work or that of other researchers. Please revise to maintain an objective and consistent narrative voice.
- Paragraph 4 (lines 89–102):
7.1 The phrase “foreign countries” is repeatedly used throughout the introduction. In academic writing, it is preferable to use more specific or neutral alternatives such as “other countries” or to name the specific regions or countries being referenced. Rephrasing these instances would improve clarity and objectivity.
7.2 The sentence “Because urban vulnerability first started in foreign countries, it has made important contributions to the research on its concept, evaluation methods and models” is problematic in both logic and phrasing. It incorrectly implies that the act of originating in other countries is the reason for the significant contributions made to the field. However, the value of contributions arises from the depth and quality of research, not simply from being the first to study a topic.
7.3 The phrase “three northeastern provinces” is vague. It is recommended that the authors explicitly name the provinces (e.g., Heilongjiang, Jilin, and Liaoning) to improve specificity and enhance the reader’s understanding of the study’s geographic scope.
7.4. Although the paragraph implies that the study has an evaluative aim, the main research objective is not clearly stated. A concise and direct sentence clearly articulating the primary objective of the study should be added for clarity.
7.5. The statement “which is an innovative attempt...” claims novelty, but it lacks sufficient detail to substantiate this claim. The authors should explicitly identify the research gap being addressed and clearly explain what is new or distinct about their approach compared to prior studies.
7.6. It is recommended to add a brief concluding paragraph at the end of the Introduction that outlines the structure of the paper (e.g., materials and methods, results, discussion, and conclusion). Including such a transitional paragraph would help guide the reader and improve the logical flow of the manuscript.
- (Section 2.1)
8.1. The sentence "The three northeastern provinces, also known as the three northeastern provinces..." is tautological and offers no additional information. It should be revised to avoid repetition and improve clarity.
8.2. The phrase “..., including Heilongjiang Province, Jilin Province and Liaoning Province, which are different from the Northeast region” is vague and potentially misleading, as Heilongjiang, Jilin, and Liaoning are widely recognized as part of China’s Northeast. A revision is required to accurately reflect the regional classification.
8.3. The sentence “They are adjacent to South Korea and Russia” is geographically imprecise. The region borders North Korea and Russia, but not South Korea directly. It is recommended to revise this sentence for accuracy.
8.4. The claim “About 11.01 million people were lost...” is significant but lacks explanation. It needs clarification for reasons that led to this result!
8.5. Figure 1 is labeled as an administrative division map, but it appears to display elevation data instead. This inconsistency should be addressed by replacing the figure with a correct map showing administrative boundaries. Additionally, Figure 1 is not cited or discussed in the main text!
- (Section 2.2.1)
9.1 The paragraph mentions two methods for weight determination: subjective assignment and objective assignment. However, only the subjective method (expert evaluation) is explained, while the objective method is not described at all. This omission may confuse readers. Please provide a clear explanation of both methods.
9.2. This part mentions the use of the entropy method without clarifying that it is an objective weighting method. To improve clarity, please clearly state this classification. Additionally, please elaborate on why the entropy method was chosen over other objective weighting methods.
9.3. This part states that the entropy method is applied to calculate weights for four subsystems: resources and environment, economy, society, and nature. Please clarify the basis for this selection.
- (Section 2.2.2)
10.1. There are issues with how the variables in the equations are identified. For example:
where: It is the index data after data standardization. Xij′ (line 136)
where: to evaluate the number of cities, it is the natural logarithm. t ln 0 ≤ ej≤1 (line 139)
where: is the number of research objects. N (line 144)
The variable definitions should follow the format “where: [variable] is...”
10.2. Some Chinese characters appear in the explanations of equation variables, which should be written in English. For example:
- Equation 2 (line 138)
- U(A)、U(B)、U(C) 和U(D)ai、bi、ci和diαnm、βnn、γnp 和λns (lines 160 – 161)
10.3. The sentence in lines 171–172: “The larger the index, the more serious the vulnerability of the urban coupling system, and the lower the vulnerability degree”, is logically inconsistent. The first part implies that a larger index indicates greater vulnerability, while the second part suggests the opposite. This contradiction needs to be resolved for clarity.
10.4. Table 1:
- The current classification of vulnerability levels mixes absolute and comparative terms (e.g., “Low” vs. “Lower”), which creates confusion. It is recommended to use consistent terminology such as “Very Low,” “Low,” “Medium,” “High,” and “Very High.”
- The classification intervals contain logical gaps. For example, the value 0.6 is ambiguously positioned—it is both the upper boundary of (0.4, 0.6) and the lower boundary of (0.6, 0.8). To ensure full coverage of the 0–1 range and avoid ambiguity, please revise the interval definitions using clear and consistent mathematical notation (e.g., using “<” and “≤”).
- (Section 2.2.3)
The statement in lines 184–185, “There are many methods to express global spatial autocorrelation. Moran's I is chosen to measure the relationship between spatial elements in this paper,” is vague and lacks sufficient detail for a methodology section. Please provide a clear rationale for selecting Moran’s I. This addition will help readers understand the strengths of the chosen method and justify its application in your study.
- (Section 2.3)
12.1 In Section 2.3, data sources such as “National Earth System Science Data (http://www.geodata.cn/)”, “Data Center of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences (https://www.resdc.cn/)”, and “Resource and Environmental Science Data Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (https://www.resdc.cn/)” are cited directly using URLs in the text. These data sources should be properly cited using the recommended citation format, with full details included in the reference list.
- 2. There is an inconsistency in the equation numbering: equations 1–9 are followed by equations 13–15, but equations 10, 11, and 12 are missing. Please check and correct the numbering to ensure accuracy and coherence.
12.3. To enhance clarity and reader comprehension, it is strongly recommended to include a flowchart summarizing the data collection, processing, and analytical procedures. This visual representation will help illustrate the methodological structure and logical flow of the study. (This should be at the beginning of the materials and methods section.)
- (Section 3.1)
13.1. The content presented in Section 3.1, titled “Construction of Vulnerability Index System of the Urban Coupling System,” is more appropriately aligned with the Materials and Methods section rather than the Results. This section primarily discusses the conceptual framework, indicator selection, classification of subsystems, and the methodological approach (e.g., use of the entropy method for weighting). These components form part of the study’s design and methodology rather than analytical findings. To improve the logical flow and academic rigor of the manuscript, it is recommended that this section be relocated to the Materials and Methods section.
13.2 The classification of vulnerability components and their corresponding indicators lacks conceptual clarity and structural consistency. In particular, the rationale for grouping specific indicators under certain subsystems is not clearly explained. It is strongly recommended that the authors revisit and refine the overall framework to ensure that all components are logically categorized, conceptually well-defined, and accurately represented in the corresponding table.
- (Section 3.2)
Although the authors provide figures illustrating the vulnerability indices, these are presented at the level of 34 prefecture-level cities, without explicitly clarifying how these cities correspond to the three northeastern provinces under study (Heilongjiang, Jilin, and Liaoning). This lack of clear spatial context makes it difficult to follow the narrative in the results section, connect the figures to the discussed findings, and understand how the results relate to the overall research aim.
- (Section 3.3)
15.1. The spatial analysis in Section 3.3.1 frequently refers to patterns across broad national regions such as "central China," "northern and southwestern China," etc. However, the study's stated focus is on the three northeastern provinces of China, and the data used are limited to 34 prefecture-level cities within this region. The authors should revise the discussion to accurately reflect the spatial scope of the study and limit spatial descriptions to patterns within the three northeastern provinces.
15.2. The legends in the spatial distribution maps (Figures 6–10) are unclear and difficult to read. This significantly limits the reader’s ability to understand and verify the spatial patterns described in the text. It is recommended that the authors revise the legends to improve readability and ensure clarity.
15.3. The discussion in Sections 3.3.1 to 3.3.5 frequently refers to specific cities (e.g., Jixi, Heihe, Harbin, Dandong, Chaoyang, etc.) when describing hot spot and cold spot patterns. However, the corresponding maps (Figures 6–10) do not clearly display the names or boundaries of these cities, nor do they indicate which province each city belongs to. This lack of geographic labeling makes it difficult for readers to visually follow or verify the textual analysis.
- (Section 4)
16.1. The content of Section 4.1 primarily discusses the selection of indicators, data types, and analytical tools (e.g., R language, geographic detector), which are methodological elements. This information is more appropriately placed in the Materials and Methods section rather than in the Results section. To enhance the manuscript's structural clarity and logical flow, it is recommended to relocate the content of Section 4.1, or at least the parts concerning indicator selection and data preparation, to the Materials and Methods section. The Results section should focus on presenting and interpreting the analytical findings.
16.2. In Table 6 and Figures 11–20, it is recommended to clearly indicate where the definitions or descriptions of the indicators (e.g., indicator X1, X2, etc.) can be found. To improve readability and help readers interpret the results more easily, the authors could add a note at the end of each table title or figure caption such as: “See Table 5 for indicator definitions.”
16.3. The quality of Figure 12 should be improved, as the current values are difficult to read.
- (References)
17.1. In the reference list, item [42]: Zhang Wanping. Study on the vulnerability of urban social system [D]. Northwest Normal University, 2014 is incorrectly positioned between references [17] and [18]. This is inconsistent with proper reference ordering and should be removed.
17.2. Many references appear to be difficult to access or cannot be found online. It is unclear whether they are valid or properly cited. The authors should verify the accuracy and accessibility of all references. To enhance the transparency and credibility of the study, it is recommended to add valid links or DOIs related to the references, Including:
[3] Xu Jin, Huang Zhiqiang, Liu Chengdong. Analysis of spatial and temporal pattern evolution and obstacle factors of urban vulnerability in Jiangxi Province [J]. Journal of East China Institute of Technology (Social Science Edition), 2023, 42 (04): 336 343.
[4] Margat J. Vulnerability of groundwater to policy [R]. Orleans: France, 1968.
[5] He Li, Zhang Pingyu, Cheng Yeqing. The concept of vulnerability and its assessment method [J]. Advances in Geographical Sciences, 2008, (02): 18-25.
[13] Fan Rong. Study on Vulnerability of Important Node Cities along "the belt and road initiative" [D]. Shandong Normal University, 2020.
[14] Yan Wang, Fang Chuanglin, Rose Zhang. Review and prospect of urban vulnerability research [J]. Advances in Geographical
Sciences, 2013, 32 (05): 755-768
[16] Cui Lianxiang. Study on the Relationship between Spatial Polarization of Factors and Ecological Environment Vulnerability in Regional Central Cities--A Case Study of Zhengzhou City [J]. Eco-economics, 2018, 34 (11): 198-203.
[17] Ma Beibei, Zhong Kun, Li Hailing. Temporal and spatial characteristics and influencing factors of urban "socio-economic" system
vulnerability in Loess Plateau [J]. Journal of Shaanxi Normal University (Natural Science Edition), 2019, 47 (04): 1-8 +2.
[18] Lou Hongwu. Analysis of Temporal and Spatial Evolution and Influencing Factors of Headquarters of Listed Companies in China from the Perspective of Man-land Relationship [D]. Jiangxi University of Science and Technology, 2022.
[19] Wei Yuxi, Liu Xiaopeng, Feng Kangli, etc. Socio-ecosystem vulnerability and its influencing factors in poverty-stricken areas of southern Ningxia [J]. Research on Soil and Water Conservation, 2023, 30 (04): 365-372.
[20] Mao Yahui, Yu Danlin, Zheng Jianghua, etc. Research progress of urban vulnerability assessment [J]. Environmental Science and Technology, 2017, 40 (12): 97-103.
[21] Wang Baosheng, Huang Xueyuan, He Xinjun, etc. Measurement of residents' livelihood level at the county level in the Hengduan Mountain area from the perspective of urban-rural dual differences [J]. Acta Ecology, 2024, (06): 1-13.
[22] Zhang Mei, Luo Huailiang, Chen Lin. Vulnerability Assessment of Resource-based Cities Case Study of Panzhihua City [J]. Resources and Environment of Yangtze River Basin, 2018, 27 (05): 1170-1178.
[23] Feng Yingjie, Wu Xiaogen, Zhang Honglei. Temporal and spatial evolution and influencing factors of water conservancy scenic spots in Jiangsu Province [J]. Economic Geography, 2018, 38 (7): 217-224.
[24] Xu Chunguang. Measurement of coordinated development level of China's digital economy industry based on the new development pattern [J]. Statistics and Decision, 2023, 39 (18): 5-10.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript requires substantial improvement in its English language quality. The writing quality is poor. It is often vague, redundant, and lacking in clarity, which significantly affects the overall readability and comprehension. Many sentences are ambiguously phrased or unnecessarily lengthy, and the logical flow between ideas is weak. Careful proofreading and possibly professional language editing are strongly recommended to enhance clarity, coherence, and academic tone.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors-
Lack of Methodological Innovation
The paper establishes an indicator system and methodology for assessing vulnerability in urban coupled systems, employing geographical detectors for analysis. However, both the methodology and indicator application lack novelty. No substantive improvements were made to existing methodologies, nor were innovative approaches introduced in indicator design. -
Absence of Theoretical Contribution
The theoretical section devotes excessive elaboration to explaining entropy weight method and geographical detector principles without proposing original theoretical frameworks or methodological advancements. This results in insufficient theoretical significance. -
Inadequate Temporal Resolution
The evolution analysis relies on only three temporal points (2000, 2010, 2020). The excessive time span and sparse temporal resolution undermine the detection of dynamic patterns. Additional interim time points are required to validate trends. -
Unsubstantiated Indicator Selection
The rationale for selecting drivers of vulnerability in urban coupled systems lacks empirical or theoretical justification. No criteria for indicator screening or domain relevance were provided, requiring support from authoritative literature or quantitative validation. -
Overall Academic Value Concerns
The manuscript resembles a technical report rather than scholarly research due to:- Theoretical deficiencies: Failure to establish novel models or frameworks;
- Analytical limitations: Descriptive analysis confined to three discontinuous time points with inadequate temporal resolution verification;
- Questionable conclusions: Trends extrapolated from sparse temporal data require rigorous validation through expanded datasets.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll the comments have been well addressed, and the manuscript can be accepted for publication in the present form.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your positive evaluation of our manuscript revisions! We are very pleased to hear that you believe that ‘all comments have been well addressed’ and that the manuscript ‘is acceptable for publication in its current form.’We are very grateful to you and the reviewers for your valuable time and constructive comments, which have greatly improved the quality of the manuscript.
We look forward to the formal publication of the manuscript.
Once again, thank you very much!
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your efforts in addressing the previous comments. However, several important issues remain that need to be carefully addressed to improve the clarity, structure, and overall quality of the paper. Please consider the following detailed comments to further enhance the manuscript.
Writing
- The manuscript exhibits numerous and recurring issues in writing quality, including problems with grammar, sentence structure, clarity of meaning, redundancy, awkward phrasing, and inconsistent terminology. These issues significantly affect the paper’s overall quality, readability, and professional presentation. It is therefore strongly recommended that the manuscript undergo thorough language editing by a native English speaker with academic writing experience or a professional academic editor to ensure clarity, consistency, and high-quality presentation.
Abstract
- The revision addresses the original comment by naming the three provinces; however, the phrase “This study examined the urban vulnerability of China's Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning provinces from 2000 to 2020” is slightly awkward. It is recommended to rephrase this as “This study examined urban vulnerability in the three northeastern provinces of China — Heilongjiang, Jilin, and Liaoning — from 2000 to 2020” for smoother and more natural expression.
Introduction
- The introduction still requires significant restructuring to improve its writing quality, clarity, and logical coherence. The sequence of ideas lacks smooth progression, and transitions between sentences and paragraphs are often abrupt or weak. Additionally, several sentences are overly long, grammatically incorrect, or awkwardly constructed, which detracts from readability and weakens the academic tone
- Related issues to the Introduction section
a. The title of the section “Introduction” is missing.
b. The references begin from number [4], while references [1]–[3] are not present in the text.
c. The sentence “Research on vulnerability in China began later than in some other countries, and scholars pay close attention to vulnerability after the 1990s” is awkwardly phrased. The second clause is particularly unclear. A clearer version might be: “Urban vulnerability research in China began later than in some other countries, gaining momentum after the 1990s.” The sentence should be restructured for clarity.
d. The phrase “China’s urban vulnerability started late” appears twice in close succession and should be revised to avoid redundancy.
e. The paragraph beginning with “Other scholars were the first to conduct research on urban vulnerability...” is vague and confusing. It is unclear who “other scholars” refers to, and the meaning of the sentence needs clarification.
f. The final paragraph of the introduction, which outlines the structure of the paper, does not align with the actual section numbering currently used in the manuscript. For example, it refers to “Section 2” as Materials and Methodology, but this content is currently labeled as Section 1. This indicates two issues: (1) incorrect or inconsistent section numbering throughout the manuscript, and (2) a mismatch between the structural overview provided in the introduction and the actual manuscript structure. Both the section numbering and this paragraph should be revised to ensure consistency and accuracy.
- In the section “Overview of the study area,” the issue previously raised in comment 8.5 of the first-round review regarding Figure 1 remains unaddressed in the revised manuscript. The figure is labeled as an administrative division map; however, it displays elevation data instead. This inconsistency should be corrected by replacing the current figure with an actual administrative map. Furthermore, Figure 1 is still not cited or discussed in the main text, which also needs to be rectified.
- In the section "Entropy method", the issue previously raised in Comment 9.3 of the first-round review regarding the basis for the selection of the four subsystems—resources and environment, economy, society, and nature—was not fully addressed in the revised manuscript. The authors cite the source of the framework (ref. [23]) and mention that it was adjusted to fit the study. However, further clarification is needed regarding why these specific subsystems were selected and how they are appropriate in the context of the study’s objectives and the regional characteristics of the three northeastern provinces.
- The authors have not addressed the issue raised in comment 12.1 of the first-round review regarding the citation of data sources with direct URLs in the text. The URLs remain embedded within the manuscript without proper citation formatting, and no explanation or justification has been provided in the author response. Specifically, in the section Data Acquisition and Processing, data sources such as “National Earth System Science Data (http://www.geodata.cn/)”, “Data Center of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences (https://www.resdc.cn/)”, and “Resource and Environmental Science Data Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (https://www.resdc.cn/)” are cited directly with URLs in the text. These data sources should be properly cited using the recommended citation format, with full details included in the reference list.
- Figure 2 does not only illustrate data processing but encompasses the entire study workflow, from data collection through to results generation. Therefore, the figure caption should be revised to accurately reflect the full scope and content of the figure. Additionally, the steps depicted in the figure should be consistent with and aligned to the corresponding descriptions provided in the relevant sub-sections of the manuscript.
- In the results sections (sections 2.1.1 - 2.1.5), the repeated mention of each prefecture-level city’s provincial affiliation after every city name (e.g., “Shenyang (Liaoning Province)”) leads to redundancy and disrupts the readability of the text. To improve clarity and conciseness, it is recommended to provide a detailed boundary map or a table in the study area or methods section that clearly identifies all 34 prefecture-level cities along with their respective provinces. The results section can then refer to this map or table, allowing city names to be mentioned without repeatedly stating their provincial affiliations.
- The author response to Comment 16.1 of the first-round review is insufficient. Although it acknowledges that Section (Selection of driving factors) contains methodological content, it fails to address the core concern of misplacement. The rationale provided—that this section acts as a bridge—is not aligned with academic writing conventions. The content of this section remains unchanged and continues to include methodological elements (e.g., indicator selection, data types, tool description), which should be placed in the Materials and Methods section. For structural clarity and logical consistency, this section should be revised accordingly.
- Most references are originally published in Chinese. In the reference list, please indicate this by adding [in Chinese] at the end of each entry to clearly reflect the original language of the source.
The manuscript exhibits numerous and recurring issues in writing quality, including problems with grammar, sentence structure, clarity of meaning, redundancy, awkward phrasing, and inconsistent terminology. These issues significantly affect the paper’s overall quality, readability, and professional presentation. It is therefore strongly recommended that the manuscript undergo thorough language editing by a native English speaker with academic writing experience or a professional academic editor to ensure clarity, consistency, and high-quality presentation.
Author Response
请参阅附件
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The numbering of the manuscript sections needs to be revised. The Introduction should be labeled as Section 1, and the Materials and Methods section should follow as Section 2. Please ensure that all main sections and subsections throughout the manuscript are correctly renumbered. Additionally, all in-text references to section numbers must be updated to match the revised numbering. Moreover, the last paragraph of the introduction, which outlines the manuscript structure, should be updated accordingly. The current descriptions of the manuscript sections do not accurately reflect the actual content, and both the section numbering and content descriptions should be revised for consistency and clarity.
- At the end of the first paragraph of the introduction section, there is a formatting error in the sentence: “This study aims to bridge these gaps by 2 of 35constructing a coupled-system vulnerability framework...” The phrase “2 of 35” is incorrect and disrupts the sentence. Please revise this to ensure clarity and proper presentation.
- There is a discrepancy regarding the study period. While the title and analysis state that the research covers the years 2000–2020, the last two paragraphs of the introduction mention 2010–2022 as the analysis period. This inconsistency should be corrected to clearly reflect the actual study timeframe and ensure internal consistency throughout the manuscript.
- The caption of Figure 1 should be revised to: “Figure 1. Administrative division map of the study area.”
- There is a significant issue concerning the references and their citation accuracy in the revised manuscript. In multiple instances, the in-text citations no longer correspond to the sources cited in the previous version. For example, in the second paragraph of the Introduction, the sentence “The vulnerability concept, first proposed by Margat (1968) for groundwater risk assessment, has evolved into a multidisciplinary field [3].” now cites reference [3] as:
Xu Jin, Huang Zhiqiang, Liu Chengdong. Analysis of spatial and temporal pattern evolution and obstacle factors of urban vulnerability in Jiangxi Province. Journal of East China Institute of Technology (Social Science Edition), 2023, 42 (04): 336–343. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-3512.2023.04.006. [in Chinese]
In the earlier version, this information was linked to the following reference: Margat J. Vulnerability of groundwater to policy [R]. Orleans: France, 1968.
Similarly, in the third paragraph of the Introduction, the sentence “studies have generally adopted systematic research perspectives that classify urban vulnerability into two complementary dimensions [12]” is now cited as:
Arnab C, Xijing L. Exploring the heterogeneity in relationship between heat exposure and land development in Mumbai, India... Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2022, 65(2): 337–355.
In the earlier version, the same information appeared to be supported by:
Wang Y., Fang C., Zhang R. Review and prospect of urban vulnerability research. Advances in Geographical Sciences, 2013, 32(05): 755–768. DOI:10.11820/dlkxjz.2013.05.007.
These are only examples, but the issue appears throughout the references in the manuscript. These discrepancies raise concerns about the accuracy and consistency of the citations. It is unclear whether the cited references reliably support the statements made in the text, which may affect the credibility and traceability of the presented information. Additionally, some references are not readily accessible, further complicating the verification of their appropriateness.
To ensure academic integrity and transparency, a thorough review of all in-text citations and corresponding references is strongly recommended. Each citation should be carefully verified to confirm that it accurately reflects the source material.
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: Author Response.docx