Spatial Sustainable Development Assessment Using Fusing Multisource Data from the Perspective of Production-Living-Ecological Space Division: A Case of Greater Bay Area, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Good revision overall. The manuscript now reads better. Thank you for your work on this text.

Reviewer 2 Report

I maintain a good opinion of this article. The authors introduced changes that were suggested and supplemented the deficiencies reported by other reviewers, which further improved the quality of the text. In my opinion, it is suitable for publication.

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.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Spatial divisions and land-use issues are particularly interesting. The use of remote sensing is of sure interest in this topic. The article is interesting, but I would see authors more carefully discussing these issues, especially in light of the ecological niche theory if possible. Thsi theory can be mentioned when discussing the mechanisms underlying spatial divisions among land-use. Another issue that merits some revisions in the text is the internationalization aspect. The study should be generalized to broader contexts, but, as it is now, it is not ready to satisfy such target, simply because it is very locally oriented. Authors should clarify why their study area is so important and representative of more general dynamics in the continent and possibly world-wide.

An enriched literature review is necessary, focusing and scrutinizing truly international references.

Language usage can be checked for clarity and brevity.

The specific contribution of remote sensing and future approaches should be discussed better at the end of the contribution.

Reviewer 2 Report

I read the article with interest. In my opinion, it is composed very well. References to the literature were made correctly. The method is described in an accessible way. Although the weights from table 1 can be questioned, they have been selected in a methodical manner and are defensible. The data and research area were described correctly. The results and the discussion after them also do not raise my doubts. Few technical errors (no spaces) between the parenthesis preceding the abbreviation and the last word can be easily eliminated at the editing stage (e.g. line: 187, 356, 367, 368, 371). Additionally, there are some minor editing errors in lines 446 and 449. In one sentence, congratulations on a well-written text.

Reviewer 3 Report

Generally, the Authors tend to write very long sentences (e.g. L45-49; L428-432; L456-464!) which makes the manuscript hard to read; on the other hand, L70 contain incomplete sentence. To be more specific (for example) L 142 propose 3 large types & 8 small types – could those “small types” be named “sub-types” to make the division clear? Summing up the manuscript should be carefully rewritten to improve the style of writing and clearness.
The manuscript structure could also be improved – for example, L135 belongs to the introduction, not the method section. 
The manuscript contains a lot of acronyms, mostly refereed to economic indicators. I would like to advise to list and briefly explain all the indicator acronyms at the end of the manuscript (supplement)
Finally, the manuscript introduction provides a good background of sustainable development indicators, however, completely missed the remote sensing in this field. As the manuscript is submitted to the Remote Sensing journal, the audience would expect not only the economic research background. Sadly, the method does not incorporate any remote sensing techniques, it uses land used national database (www.resdc.cn ) which is hardly interesting from the remote sensing point of view, therefore I recognize this study as an economic, not a remote sensing one. A good starting point for the revised version of the manuscript could be the 4.2 section, however, the provided information cannot be so generalized.