Evaluation of the Spatiotemporal Variations in the Eco-environmental Quality in China Based on the Remote Sensing Ecological Index
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, Thank you for sending the manuscript. The manuscript was extensive and required a lot of work. I would like to make the following remarks (what should be clarify and corrected)
in this manuscript the authors just developed an synthetic RSEI index using 4 indices. However, in the introduction, the authors did not provide literature evidences why e these 4 indices are the most relevant for the new synthetic index (RSEI).
Also another important note: authors must be very careful when drawing conclusions about improving eco-environment. Perhaps using some other components of the index would make the situation different. The authors must specify each time that the improvement with respect to the RSEI index used in this study.
and the overall eco- environment is gradually getting better – this is not valid hypothesis
lines from 91 to 101 are surplus
Authors must explain in the text all abbreviations they use (PCA; AHP)
In the text, the authors did not specify the methods of interpolation, ie the method of making maps and checking the accuracy of the applied mapping model.
Line 291. Table 4 DO NOT show that the ecolgy was improving. Please be very specific! table show the changes in calculated RSEI
Author Response
Dear authors, Thank you for sending the manuscript. The manuscript was extensive and required a lot of work. I would like to make the following remarks (what should be clarify and corrected)
Response: Thank you for your recognition of our work. Indeed, we have done a lot of work in the aspects of method innovation, data processing and result analysis.
in this manuscript the authors just developed a synthetic RSEI index using 4 indices. However, in the introduction, the authors did not provide literature evidences why e these 4 indices are the most relevant for the new synthetic index (RSEI).
Response: In the third part of the introduction, we discuss the existing literatures on single ecological index and synthetic index (RSEI). There are some literatures about RSEI on ecology. Of course, our literature may be a certain mismatch for the requirements of experts. One of the innovations of this paper is that the research area is all over China, and the other is to improve the weight of ecological evaluation by using granular computing.
Also another important note: authors must be very careful when drawing conclusions about improving eco-environment. Perhaps using some other components of the index would make the situation different. The authors must specify each time that the improvement with respect to the RSEI index used in this study.
Response: In the part of result analysis, we listed that the average value of China's RSEI is increasing year by year. The area proportion of ecological division 1 and 2 is decreasing, and that of ecological division 3 and 4 is increasing. In the discussion section, the results are compared with those of some researches of typical ecological regions in China. Especially in the literature [39], scholars generally agree with this conclusion.
and the overall eco- environment is gradually getting better – this is not valid hypothesis
Response: Indeed, “the overall eco- environment is gradually getting better” should be the conclusion. We revised it to “the quality of overall eco- environment presents a certain trend”.
lines from 91 to 101 are surplus
Response: After the guidance of reviewer, we think that this part of the text is redundant. We have deleted this part of the text in the revised manuscript.
Authors must explain in the text all abbreviations they use (PCA; AHP)
Response: We explained these in revised manuscript.
In the text, the authors did not specify the methods of interpolation, ie the method of making maps and checking the accuracy of the applied mapping model.
Response: We don't particularly understand what this question refers to? If the simple mapping is a very simple problem, it is only the graphics made by GIS software through the calculation results. If it refers to the accuracy of the map, it is exactly the accuracy of the calculation results. The accuracy of the calculation results is compared with those of some researches of typical ecological regions in China, and there is no precise mathematical model to describe this comparison.
Line 291. Table 4 DO NOT show that the ecolgy was improving. Please be very specific! table show the changes in calculated RSEI
Response: Thank you for your reminding. Table 4 can't be a subject, and it can not show that the ecology was improving.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article shows a timeline assessment of different satellite index in China. Briefly, the article is well written and easy to read. The introduction is short but enough, the methods and results are well explained.
In these terms, I 'm going to try to give constructivist comments:
- really is needed the discretization and granulation to get the factor weight-based? because this discretization could mean a loss of information. The authors mention the " number of values in pij tends toward infinity", but is not possible to establish intervals of possible results?
- When knowledge is used, is recommended to consider the possible inconsistency and variability. Is possible to know how the results change if the weight changes? this should show how robust are the results got.
- Finally, in the discussion are mentioned other methods additional to shown in methodology, like AHP, showing results with "quite different from the AHP result", is possible to explain why? I think that could be interesting to add this methods comparison in the methodology section
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
The article shows a timeline assessment of different satellite index in China. Briefly, the article is well written and easy to read. The introduction is short but enough, the methods and results are well explained.
Response : Thank you for your recognition of our work. I hope our work will contribute to the intersection of remote sensing applications and other disciplines
In these terms, I 'm going to try to give constructivist comments:
really is needed the discretization and granulation to get the factor weight-based? because this discretization could mean a loss of information. The authors mention the " number of values in pij tends toward infinity", but is not possible to establish intervals of possible results?
Response : In essence, granular computing draws lessons from the basic ideas of human beings in dealing with and solving complex problems: starting from the needs of practical problems, the complex problems are decomposed into several simpler problems (information granules) through information granulation, and in the process of analyzing and solving problems, by constantly adjusting the information granularity used, the problems can be simplified and the efficiency of solving problems can be improved In order to help people better analyze, understand and solve problems. Discretization is only a way of information granulation. Any method that can divide continuous data into information granules can be used, such as concept lattice, clustering, etc. It is true that discretization will lose a lot of information, and different discretization standards will get different results, but we think that the credibility of the results is very high through the comparison of the discussion part. number of values in pij is continuous data. Establishing intervals of possible results is possible, and it is also a way of information granulation. We also have related results on interval.
When knowledge is used, is recommended to consider the possible inconsistency and variability. Is possible to know how the results change if the weight changes? this should show how robust are the results got.
Response : In our proposed research framework, the result change is due to the change of index weight, and the change of weight is due to the change of information granulation method and standard. In order to get a completely credible result, the key is to find a completely credible information granulation method. In response to the previous question, we compare the results and methods of previous studies with those in the discussion section.
Finally, in the discussion are mentioned other methods additional to shown in methodology, like AHP, showing results with "quite different from the AHP result", is possible to explain why? I think that could be interesting to add this methods comparison in the methodology section
Response : This is due to the fact that AHP does not pay attention to the distribution of data itself. We have added " it respects the law of index data itself and effectively overcomes the subjectivity of experts in AHP method." to the discussion section. We don't think it is necessary to add these two methods to the methodology section, because they are mature methods and have been applied in many literatures.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
