Multi-Scenario Simulation of Land Use Change and Ecosystem Health Assessment in Chengdu Metropolitan Area Based on SD-PLUS-VORS Coupled Modeling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research methodology employed in this paper is relatively novel, as it combines various models, which have substantial scientific and practical implications. It provides a scientific basis for regional sustainable land use management and the protection of ecosystem health. However, there are still areas for improvement in this article. The authors are advised to make significant revisions to ensure that this paper meets the journal's publication requirements.

1. The first section is the introduction of the article. The second paragraph of the introduction is excessively lengthy; this paper focuses on the integration of three models to analyze changes in ecosystem health. Therefore, the introduction should provide a more logical overview of these three models. It is recommended that the authors include a comparison of type-coupled models in the literature review. Furthermore, the final paragraph of the introduction should emphasize the novelty and significance of the article.
2. In the methods section, a variety of models are introduced, and multi-source data are selected to construct the model framework. Additionally, a multi-scenario setting is implemented in conjunction with the actual policy context. However, this article lacks comparisons with other studies regarding model validation, and it is recommended that the authors provide further justification for their approach. Furthermore, while this paper selects several weight indicators, it does not analyze the sensitivity of different parameters. It is advisable to include parameter sensitivity tests or reference existing studies to support the reliability of the weight selection. Lastly, the selection of drivers does not clearly explain how collinearity or redundant variables are excluded, and the method for variable screening needs to be elaborated upon.
3. The calculation of ecosystem services (ES) relies on the value equivalent method, but it is not clear whether key service types (e.g., carbon sinks, cultural services) are covered, which may underestimate the contribution of ES. It is recommended to supplement the classification of services. The policy recommendations in the discussion section are more general and need to propose specific measures based on the results of scenario simulations.
4. The figures in the article need to be further optimized, as shown in Figure 1 for the study area map, the scale bar style is inconsistent, it is recommended to be consistent, and each icon is given a serial number. Because the article involves a variety of model methods, it is recommended that the author add a technical flow diagram so that readers and reviewers can have a clearer understanding of the flow of the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title of the Paper: Multi-Scenario Simulation of Land Use Change and Ecosystem Health Assessment in Chengdu Metropolitan Area Based on SD-PLUS-VORS Coupled Modeling

General Comments: The paper presents an interesting and relevant study; however, it requires some corrections to improve its clarity and structure.

It is essential to include a theoretical framework in the introduction if it is not included elsewhere. The introduction should be comprehensive and provide the necessary context to understand the study.

It is important to clarify the study's objective and research questions. This will help readers better understand the purpose and direction of the work.

In the methodology section, results have been included. It is crucial to clearly separate the methodology from the results to maintain the document's coherence and clarity.

The discussion is quite detailed but could benefit from greater clarity and conciseness. Some sentences are long and complex, which can make comprehension difficult. Consider breaking long sentences into shorter, more direct ones.

The overall structure is good, but the organization of ideas could be improved. For example, grouping ideas related to each scenario (EPS, NDS, EDS) into separate paragraphs would facilitate reading and understanding.

Although studies and data are mentioned, it would be helpful to provide more details about the sources and methodology used to obtain these results. This would strengthen the credibility of the discussion.

The use of technical terms is appropriate for a specialized audience, but make sure to clearly define any terms that may not be familiar to all readers.

The discussion describes the results well but could benefit from a deeper analysis of the implications of these results. For example, you could explore more thoroughly how specific conservation policies have influenced the different scenarios.

It would be useful to include a section of conclusions and recommendations at the end of the discussion. This would help summarize the key findings and provide guidance on possible future actions.

I hope these suggestions are helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript. I am available for any further questions.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This study integrates the system dynamics (SD) model with the patch-generating land use simulation (PLUS) model and the VORS (vigor–organization–resilience–ecosystem services) model to simulate the spatiotemporal dynamics of land use/cover change (LUCC). Additionally, the authors analyzes the ecosystem health in the Chengdu Metropolitan Area (CMA) from 2020 to 2035.  The theme of this article is highly significant, and its content is abundant. Nevertheless, I am of the view that the following issues need to be resolved prior to its publication:

(1) In the introduction, it is strongly suggested that the research gap be clearly summarized.

(2)  In Table 1, it is advisable to include data resolution details in Table 1 to ensure transparency and facilitate interpretation.

(3) It is recommended to introduce a dedicated subheading (2.3. Methods) in Section 2 and consolidate all method-related content within this section to enhance logical organization.

(4) It is advisable to include a logical account of diverse models at the commencement of the methods section. If feasible, presenting this in the form of a flowchart would be preferable.

(5) All variables within the formula should be italicized. It is advisable for the author to make the necessary modifications.

(6) In Section 2.2, the specific steps of data processing need to be elucidated. For instance, it is necessary to clarify how to deal with problems arising from different data resolutions.

(7) The content of Section 4.1 appears to be more appropriately positioned within the Results section rather than the Discussion section. 

(8) It is recommended to append a description regarding the significance of the research findings at the conclusion's end.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author's revisions have effectively addressed my concerns, and I think the current manuscript is ready to be considered for publication. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After a review, the authors have complied with the inclusion of all the suggestions requested in the previous review, so the document is accepted.            

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has addressed all the questions I raised, and the quality of the article has been significantly improved. Therefore, I recommend the publication of this article.