Spatiotemporal Analysis of Eco-Geological Environment Using the RAGA-PP Model in Zigui County, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript attachment uploaded by the author should be wrong. I can't see where the modifications have been made.

Author Response

For research article

 

 

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the revised file.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Must be improved	[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below]
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes
Is the research design appropriate?	Must be improved
Are the methods adequately described?	Must be improved
Are the results clearly presented?	Must be improved
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Must be improved
3. General comments

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: The manuscript attachment uploaded by the author should be wrong. I can't see where the modifications have been made.

 

Response: We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Please accept our apologies for any confusion caused by the previous submission. The current version you are reviewing contains all the modifications we have made in response to your valuable comments. Below we provide a detailed account of the revisions implemented in this new version:

 

Abstract: We have enhanced the abstract by incorporating a concise conclusion summary in lines 20-28 to better reflect the key findings and implications of our study.

 

Introduction：We have substantially revised this section to address all raised concerns:

1) Three Gorges Reservoir Specificity: We have significantly enhanced the description of the eco-geological environment's particularity in the study area (now in Lines 34-43), emphasizing its unique hydrological conditions, geological vulnerabilities, and ecological sensitivities that justify the research urgency.

2) Literature Review Restructuring: The research status review (now Lines 59-73) has been completely reorganized to follow a progressive structure: (a) conventional methods, (b) their limitations, (c) emerging approaches.

3) Innovation Clarification: The research innovativeness is now explicitly stated in the closing paragraph (Lines 74-83).

These revisions have reduced redundant connectives while improving logical coherence, we believe the restructured introduction now better establishes the scientific foundation and novelty of our study while maintaining appropriate focus. We are grateful for the reviewer's suggestions that helped us achieve these improvements.

 

Study Area and Data Sources: We have added relevant information on precipitation and temperature in the study area in lines 91-94, and standardized all data citations in the revised manuscript, and added Table 1 to clearly specify the temporal coverage and access dates for each dataset.

Table 1. Data sources.

Data Type	Data Sources	Times
STRM30 m DEM	http://www.gscloud.cn/ (accessed on 13 March 2023 )	2022
Disaster point data	http://www.yichang.cgs.gov.cn/ (accessed on 13 March 2023 )	2022
Landsat8 data	http://www.gscloud.cn/ (accessed on 13 March 2023 )	2022
Geological maps	http://www.ngac.cn/ (accessed on 15 May 2023 )	2023
Ecological and environmental data	http://ids.ceode.ac.cn/ (accessed on 15 May 2023 )	2023
Social and environmental data	https://www.stats.gov.cn/ (accessed on 23 May 2023 )	2000-2020
Land cover	http://www.globallandcover.com/ (accessed on 23 May 2023 )	2000-2020
Road and river data	https://www.openstreetmap.org/ (accessed on 23 May 2023 )	2000-2020

To improve the logical flow of our methodology, we have reorganized the content into two distinct sections: (1) Selection of Evaluation Factors (now in Section 2.3) and (2) Eco-Geological Environment Assessment Factors (now in Section 4.1). This separation ensures clearer presentation of the workflow—first establishing the theoretical basis for factor selection, followed by the technical details of data preparation. We believe this structure better aligns with standard methodological practices in remote sensing applications.

 

 

Methods: We have carefully revised the “3. Methods” section to ensure that all formula symbols are explicitly defined and correspond precisely to the specific parameters used in our study. Additionally, we have included the detailed parameter settings for RAGA-PP in line 349-360 to enhance methodological transparency. These modifications improve the clarity and reproducibility of our approach.

 

Results: We have made substantial revisions to improve the clarity, depth, and scientific rigor of our analysis. Specifically:

1) We have restructured the original Section 4.1 by separating the indicator processing results (retained in Chapter 4 Results) from the indicator selection (moved to 2.3).

2) We have conducted a systematic comparative analysis of all four evaluation methods (AHP, CV, AHP-CV, and RAGA-PP) in Section 4.2. Through both quantitative metrics and qualitative assessment of ecological-geological pattern recognition, our results suggest that RAGA-PP appears to demonstrate certain advantages in capturing the spatial heterogeneity of our study area. However, we recognize that each method has its own strengths and limitations, and the optimal approach depends on specific research contexts and data characteristics.

3) To address spatial applicability, we have included a detailed township-level statistical analysis of the 2020 RAGA-PP results in Section 4.3, providing practical insights for regional environmental management.

4) We present a complete spatiotemporal evaluation (2000-2020) in Section 4.4 using the selected RAGA-PP method, which reveals long-term environmental trends and further validates our methodological approach.

 

Discussion: We have revised "5. Discussion" section. The revised discussion now includes comprehensive comparisons with 3 additional peer studies (references [20-22]) that examine similar eco-geological evaluations in reservoir regions, allowing for more robust contextualization of our findings. We have strengthened the methodological reflection by adding detailed analysis of RAGA-PP's advantages and limitations compared to conventional approaches, particularly in addressing spatial heterogeneity in eco-geological systems. The section has been reorganized to focus more clearly on interpreting results rather than restating them, with added emphasis on the practical implications for environmental management in reservoir areas.

 

References: We added 4 articles for reference [15, 20-22]:

1. Bai, Z.F., Han, L., Liu, H.Q., Li, L.Z., Jiang, X.H., 2024. Applying the projection pursuit and DPSIR model for evaluation of ecological carrying capacity in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. http://doi,org/10.1007/s11356-023-31357-z.
2. Chen, L., Wei, W., Tong, B., Chen, L.D., 2025. Ecosystem services and their drivers under different watershed- management patterns in the western Chinese Loess Plateau. Ecological Indicators 172, 113321. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113321.
3. Yu, S.W., Hou, J.D., Lv, j., Ba, G.Z., 2015. Economic benefit assessment of the geo-hazard monitoring and warning engineering system in the Three Gorges Reservoir area: a case study of the landslide in Zigui. Natural Hazards 75, S219-S231. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1112-9.
4. Wu, X.L., Z, Y.H., 2023. Coupling analysis of ecological environment evaluation and urbanization using projection pursuit model in Xi'an, China. Ecological Indicators 156, 111078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.111078.

 

In addition, we have modified all figures in the manuscript to meet standardization requirements. Should you have any further questions or suggestions, we would be happy to address them.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript takes the Zigui County in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area as the study area and uses the methods of RAGA-PP and spatial autocorrelation analysis. A comprehensive assessment of the regional Eco-Geological Environment was conducted by establishing an evaluation index system. Overall, the article involves a certain amount of work. However, the logical structure of the article is chaotic, and its scientificity and rigor need to be further examined. The following are the specific review opinions.

 

1. Line40: The references in the manuscript are marked in yellow. Please correct the format.
2. In the second paragraph of the introduction chapter, the article points out that the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) shows a high degree of subjectivity and the determination of weights is not objective enough. However, the manuscript still uses the Analytic Hierarchy Process as an important research method. This leads to a contradiction between the expression and application of the article.
3. Regarding Figure 1, it is more suitable to be elaborated in the chapter on research methods rather than in the introduction.
4. Regarding Figure 2, it is suggested that the author follow strict cartographic standards and reasonably add the compass and longitude and latitude grids in the subfigure (a). Furthermore, in (a), the river in the legend does not appear in the figure. Please modify it carefully. In (b), Yichang City is also shown in the figure. Meanwhile, I don't understand what the large green area that appears in Figure (b) is trying to express. Is it the altitude? Such a drawing is very imprecise.
5. For Chapter 2.1, detailed climatic conditions of the study area need to be supplemented, including specific introductions such as precipitation and temperature.
6. Line134-142: The article points out that AHP and CV have obvious limitations, so RAGA-PP is cited in the manuscript for research. Given its limitations, why is it still included in this manuscript for analysis? Does such an approach aim to highlight the advantages of RAGA-PP? However, the superiority or inferiority of research methods is never absolute. The behavior of highlighting one method by criticizing another is not reasonable. In contrast, the criterion for evaluating the superiority or inferiority of a research method is its suitability. Different research methods will produce different effects for different research areas and contents. Different research methods should be evaluated scientifically and reasonably.
7. For RAGA-PP, relevant references should be supplemented in the manuscript to introduce what conclusions other scholars have reached by applying this method.
8. How are the positive/negative influences of the indicators in Table 1 determined? This lacks detailed explanations and unified evaluation criteria in the manuscript. In addition, the types of impact of Engineering geological strata and Landuse have not been determined. Please ask the author to further explain why.
9. Regarding Section 4.1. It should be regarded as the content of the data processing and index determination process in the research method rather than the research result. It is unreasonable to place this chapter here.
10. The font of the Figure 4 figure title has been highlighted in yellow. I don't know what the significance of doing this is. Meanwhile, Figure 4 is not cited in the manuscript text.
11. Regarding Figure 5, only the three methods of AHP/CV/AHP-CV were evaluated, and RAGA-PP was missing. And LINE 376-377 is expressed as "4" methods. This confusing expression makes it very difficult to believe in the rigor and scientific nature of this research.
12. Regarding Figure 6, the manuscript was evaluated only based on the situation of the year 2020, which raises doubts about the rigor of the manuscript. Since the article uses data from over 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015, a comprehensive evaluation should be conducted from the perspective of multiple years.
13. For Figure 5 and Figure 7, the indicators expressed by numbers should correspond to which indicators in the text one by one, clearly expressed to avoid obstacles in understanding for readers and enhance the readability of the figures.
14. The result analysis section of the article lacks summary and conciseness.
15. For Figure 9/10/11, the sub-figure names are incomplete.
16. The entire fourth chapter: The discussion section should be incorporated as the research conclusion into the content of the third chapter. This does not seem like the content of a regular discussion. It lacks an assessment and verification of the accuracy of the research conclusions, as well as a horizontal comparison with the research results of others. Moreover, there is no sufficient discussion on the research methods.

Author Response

For research article

 

 

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the revised file.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Must be improved	[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below]
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes
Is the research design appropriate?	Can be improved
Are the methods adequately described?	Can be improved
Are the results clearly presented?	Must be improved
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Can be improved
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: Line40: The references in the manuscript are marked in yellow. Please correct the format.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have made the correct modifications.
Comments 2: In the second paragraph of the introduction chapter, the article points out that the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) shows a high degree of subjectivity and the determination of weights is not objective enough. However, the manuscript still uses the Analytic Hierarchy Process as an important research method. This leads to a contradiction between the expression and application of the article.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have revised the introduction section and pointed out the advantages and limitations of AHP and CV methods in line 59-65. Therefore, it is necessary to compare the research results to determine the optimal experimental method.   Comments 3: Regarding Figure 1, it is more suitable to be elaborated in the chapter on research methods rather than in the introduction.   Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have moved this image to the research methods chapter (Figure 2).   Comments 4: Regarding Figure 2, it is suggested that the author follow strict cartographic standards and reasonably add the compass and longitude and latitude grids in the subfigure (a). Furthermore, in (a), the river in the legend does not appear in the figure. Please modify it carefully. In (b), Yichang City is also shown in the figure. Meanwhile, I don't understand what the large green area that appears in Figure (b) is trying to express. Is it the altitude? Such a drawing is very imprecise.   Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have modified this image (Figure 1), follow strict cartographic standards and reasonably add the compass and longitude and latitude grids in the subfigure (a). The green background has been removed from (b).

Comments 5: For Chapter 2.1, detailed climatic conditions of the study area need to be supplemented, including specific introductions such as precipitation and temperature.

 

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added relevant information on precipitation and temperature in the study area in lines 91-94.

 

Comments 6: Line134-142: The article points out that AHP and CV have obvious limitations, so RAGA-PP is cited in the manuscript for research. Given its limitations, why is it still included in this manuscript for analysis? Does such an approach aim to highlight the advantages of RAGA-PP? However, the superiority or inferiority of research methods is never absolute. The behavior of highlighting one method by criticizing another is not reasonable. In contrast, the criterion for evaluating the superiority or inferiority of a research method is its suitability. Different research methods will produce different effects for different research areas and contents. Different research methods should be evaluated scientifically and reasonably.

 

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable feedback. In response, we have revised the Introduction section to include a more detailed discussion of the AHP and CV methods, highlighting their respective advantages. Based on our experimental results, the RAGA-PP model demonstrates greater suitability for ecological and geological environment evaluation in the study region. Compared to the AHP-CV method, the RAGA-PP model yields a higher Moran’s index, indicating superior spatial consistency and a more robust evaluation framework. These findings support the conclusion that the RAGA-PP approach provides a more reliable and methodologically sound assessment for this research context. 

 

Comments 7: For RAGA-PP, relevant references should be supplemented in the manuscript to introduce what conclusions other scholars have reached by applying this method.

 

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We have incorporated relevant literature on the RAGA-PP method in the revised manuscript. These additional references provide further support for our methodological approach by drawing upon prior research findings and conclusions established by other scholars using this technique.

 

1. Bai, Z.F., Han, L., Liu, H.Q., Li, L.Z., Jiang, X.H., 2024. Applying the projection pursuit and DPSIR model for evaluation of ecological carrying capacity in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research.
2. Ji, J., Chen, J., 2022. Urban flood resilience assessment using RAGA-PP and KL-TOPSIS model based on PSR framework: A case study of Jiangsu province, China. Water science and technology 86 (12), 3264-3280. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2022.404.
3. Wu, X.L., Z, Y.H., 2023. Coupling analysis of ecological environment evaluation and urbanization using projection pursuit model in Xi'an, China. Ecological Indicators 156, 111078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.111078.

 

Comments 8: How are the positive/negative influences of the indicators in Table 1 determined? This lacks detailed explanations and unified evaluation criteria in the manuscript. In addition, the types of impact of Engineering geological strata and Landuse have not been determined. Please ask the author to further explain why.

 

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. Positive indicators reflect supportive effects on the eco-geological environment, while negative indicators demonstrate inhibitory effects. In 2.3, for each indicator, we have explicitly specified its directional influence (positive/negative). However, for engineering geological factors and land use types - which represent non-linear categorical data - directional classification was not applicable. Instead, these parameters were weighted based on their differential impacts on the eco-geological environment according to their respective categories.

 

Comments 9: Regarding Section 4.1. It should be regarded as the content of the data processing and index determination process in the research method rather than the research result. It is unreasonable to place this chapter here.

 

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. To improve the logical flow of our methodology, we have reorganized the content into two distinct sections: (1) Selection of Evaluation Factors (now in Section 2.3) and (2) Eco-Geological Environment Assessment Factors (now in Section 4.1). This separation ensures clearer presentation of the workflow—first establishing the theoretical basis for factor selection, followed by the technical details of data preparation. We believe this structure better aligns with standard methodological practices in remote sensing applications.

 

Comments 10: The font of the Figure 4 figure title has been highlighted in yellow. I don't know what the significance of doing this is. Meanwhile, Figure 4 is not cited in the manuscript text.

 

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have correctly modified Figure 4 and cited it in the text.

 

Comments 11: Regarding Figure 5, only the three methods of AHP/CV/AHP-CV were evaluated, and RAGA-PP was missing. And LINE 376-377 is expressed as "4" methods. This confusing expression makes it very difficult to believe in the rigor and scientific nature of this research.

 

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have added the analysis of RAGA-PP in Figure 5 and removed the expression of method "4" from lines 376-377.

 

Comments 12: Regarding Figure 6, the manuscript was evaluated only based on the situation of the year 2020, which raises doubts about the rigor of the manuscript. Since the article uses data from over 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015, a comprehensive evaluation should be conducted from the perspective of multiple years.

 

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's insightful comment regarding the temporal scope of our evaluation. First, this specific year was selected to enable a rigorous and controlled comparison of the four assessment methods (AHP, CV, AHP-CV, and RAGA-PP) under identical temporal conditions, which was essential for determining the optimal methodology. Second, given that the Three Gorges Reservoir began impoundment in 2003 and reached full operational capacity by 2008, the 2020 data provides a sufficiently long post-impoundment period (17 years) to observe more pronounced and stabilized eco-geological changes. We fully acknowledge the value of multi-year analysis, so we selected RAGA-PP to evaluate the eco-geological environment from 2000 to 2020, in order to obtain spatiotemporal analysis.

 

Comments 13: For Figure 5 and Figure 7, the indicators expressed by numbers should correspond to which indicators in the text one by one, clearly expressed to avoid obstacles in understanding for readers and enhance the readability of the figures.

 

Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. In response, we would like to explain that all numerical indicators shown in these figures correspond precisely to the definitions provided in Table 2 of our manuscript. While we recognize the importance of clear indicator labeling, we opted to use numerical codes in the figures themselves due to space constraints and visual clarity considerations - including full indicator names would have resulted in overcrowded and less readable figures. However, to enhance understanding, we ensured that all subsequent analyses in the text consistently use the full indicator names rather than numerical codes. We believe these modifications will significantly improve readability while maintaining the visual quality of the figures.

 

Comments 14: The result analysis section of the article lacks summary and conciseness.

 

Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's constructive feedback regarding the presentation of our results. In response to this valuable comment, we have revised the Results section to improve its clarity and conciseness.

 

Comments 15: For Figure 9/10/11, the sub-figure names are incomplete.

 

Response 15: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the sub-figure names of the figure in the upper left corner.

 

Comments 16: The entire fourth chapter: The discussion section should be incorporated as the research conclusion into the content of the third chapter. This does not seem like the content of a regular discussion. It lacks an assessment and verification of the accuracy of the research conclusions, as well as a horizontal comparison with the research results of others. Moreover, there is no sufficient discussion on the research methods.

 

Response 16: Thank you for pointing this out. In response, we have made substantial revisions to improve the clarity, depth, and scientific rigor of our analysis. Specifically:

1) We have restructured the original Section 4.1 by separating the indicator processing results (retained in Chapter 4 Results) from the indicator selection (moved to 2.3).

2) We have conducted a systematic comparative analysis of all four evaluation methods (AHP, CV, AHP-CV, and RAGA-PP) in Section 4.2. Through both quantitative metrics and qualitative assessment of ecological-geological pattern recognition, our results suggest that RAGA-PP appears to demonstrate certain advantages in capturing the spatial heterogeneity of our study area. However, we recognize that each method has its own strengths and limitations, and the optimal approach depends on specific research contexts and data characteristics.

3) To address spatial applicability, we have included a detailed township-level statistical analysis of the 2020 RAGA-PP results in Section 4.3, providing practical insights for regional environmental management.

4) Responding to the reviewer's previous comment about temporal analysis, we now present a complete spatiotemporal evaluation (2000-2020) in Section 4.4 using the selected RAGA-PP method, which reveals long-term environmental trends and further validates our methodological approach.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study selects Zigui County in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area as the research area and constructs a comprehensive evaluation system covering three dimensions—geology, ecology, and socioeconomic—with a total of 16 indicators. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Coefficient of Variation (CV), and Real Coded Accelerating Genetic Algorithm-Projection Pursuit (RAGA-PP) model, it deeply analyzes the spatiotemporal evolution law of the eco-geological environment from 2000 to 2020. With the aid of multi-source remote sensing data and GIS technology, the study reveals that the eco-geological quality of Zigui County shows an improving trend. The research methods are novel and the data are diverse, which provides certain reference value for ecological monitoring in similar regions worldwide. However, there are still several key areas in the manuscript requiring improvement: First, the writing logic of the introduction needs to be reorganized; second, the description of data sources and research methods should be supplemented and refined; third, the discussion dimension needs to be deepened. Currently, the overall quality of the manuscript has a large gap from the requirements of the Remote Sensing journal. It is recommended that the authors supplement and improve the manuscript, and then the feasibility of manuscript acceptance will be re-evaluated based on the quality of revisions. Specific comments are as follows:

1. Lines 24–28: The summary of conclusions in the abstract is insufficiently in-depth.
2. The overall writing quality of the introduction section is subpar. The elaboration on the particularity of the eco-geological environment of the Three Gorges Reservoir remains superficial, failing to fully highlight the necessity and urgency of selecting this region as the research object. Especially in lines 36–37, the author’s language logic is abrupt, lacking necessary transitional expressions, which urgently needs optimization. In lines 46–82, the literature review of research status lacks progressive reasoning and has chaotic overall logic, with incomplete comparative analysis. Additionally, the discussion of cutting-edge theories of the RAGA-PP model is insufficiently deep. Moreover, the excessive use of logical connectives results in unclear focus of the discussion. Most importantly, the current introduction does not clearly articulate the innovativeness of this study. In summary, the author needs to re-examine the introduction section for comprehensive and systematic improvement.
3. It is recommended to change the scale unit in the manuscript’s images from "Miles" to "km" commonly used in academic journals; additionally, figures such as Fig 4 are roughly drawn. It is suggested to integrate them into group figures, move subfigure numbers (e.g., "(a) DEM") to the upper left corner of subfigures, the north arrow to the upper right corner, the legend to the lower left corner, and the scale to the right side; Fig 9 even lacks subfigure numbers.
4. Lines 118–132: The description of data sources and preprocessing in the manuscript is insufficiently detailed. It is recommended to standardize the citation format, clarify the time range and access dates of each dataset, and supplement detailed explanations of preprocessing for different data formats or resolutions.
5. It is suggested to adjust the descriptive details in the "3. Methods" section to make the meanings of formula symbols correspond one-to-one with the specific parameters in this study.
6. Lines 278–279: How did the author determine the positive and negative orientations of the indicators?
7. Line 378: Why not plot the importance of the 16 factors derived from the RAGA-PP method in Fig 5?
8. By comparing Table 3 and Table 4, it can be seen that the comparative results of the four factor importance evaluation methods in the manuscript are based on 2020 data. Has the author considered the impact of data differences across different years on the current comparative results of different methods?
9. The content in the current discussion section of the manuscript is more appropriately categorized under "4. Results," and the author does not mention the methodological principles of spatial autocorrelation analysis and hotspot analysis in the "3. Methods" section.
10. The current writing quality of the "5. Discussion" section is low, with overall shallow discussion and a lack of interactive discussion and analysis with peer literature, which is the most prominent issue in the manuscript. The author needs to re-examine the overall structural arrangement of the article and rewrite the "5. Discussion" section.

Author Response

Comments 1: Lines 24–28: The summary of conclusions in the abstract is insufficiently in-depth..

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have enhanced the abstract by incorporating a concise conclusion summary in lines 20-28 to better reflect the key findings and implications of our study.

Comments 2: The overall writing quality of the introduction section is subpar. The elaboration on the particularity of the eco-geological environment of the Three Gorges Reservoir remains superficial, failing to fully highlight the necessity and urgency of selecting this region as the research object. Especially in lines 36–37, the author’s language logic is abrupt, lacking necessary transitional expressions, which urgently needs optimization. In lines 46–82, the literature review of research status lacks progressive reasoning and has chaotic overall logic, with incomplete comparative analysis. Additionally, the discussion of cutting-edge theories of the RAGA-PP model is insufficiently deep. Moreover, the excessive use of logical connectives results in unclear focus of the discussion. Most importantly, the current introduction does not clearly articulate the innovativeness of this study. In summary, the author needs to re-examine the introduction section for comprehensive and systematic improvement.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. In response to these valuable suggestions, we have substantially revised this section to address all raised concerns: 1)     Three Gorges Reservoir Specificity: We have significantly enhanced the description of the eco-geological environment's particularity in the study area (now in Lines 34-43), emphasizing its unique hydrological conditions, geological vulnerabilities, and ecological sensitivities that justify the research urgency. 2)     Literature Review Restructuring: The research status review (now Lines 59-73) has been completely reorganized to follow a progressive structure: (a) conventional methods, (b) their limitations, (c) emerging approaches. 3)     Innovation Clarification: The research innovativeness is now explicitly stated in the closing paragraph (Lines 74-83). These revisions have reduced redundant connectives while improving logical coherence, we believe the restructured introduction now better establishes the scientific foundation and novelty of our study while maintaining appropriate focus. We are grateful for the reviewer's suggestions that helped us achieve these improvements.   Comments 3: It is recommended to change the scale unit in the manuscript’s images from "Miles" to "km" commonly used in academic journals; additionally, figures such as Fig 4 are roughly drawn. It is suggested to integrate them into group figures, move subfigure numbers (e.g., "(a) DEM") to the upper left corner of subfigures, the north arrow to the upper right corner, the legend to the lower left corner, and the scale to the right side; Fig 9 even lacks subfigure numbers.   Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have modified all figures in the manuscript to meet standardization requirements. For Figure 4, merging into a group image proved unsatisfactory, so we retained the subfigure format. We have added subfigure numbers to Figure 9.   Comments 4: Lines 118–132: The description of data sources and preprocessing in the manuscript is insufficiently detailed. It is recommended to standardize the citation format, clarify the time range and access dates of each dataset, and supplement detailed explanations of preprocessing for different data formats or resolutions.   Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We appreciate the reviewer's valuable suggestion regarding data description. In response, we have standardized all data citations in the revised manuscript, and added Table 1 to clearly specify the temporal coverage and access dates for each dataset. Table 1. Data sources. Data Type Data Sources Times STRM30 m DEM http://www.gscloud.cn/ (accessed on 13 March 2023 ) 2022 Disaster point data http://www.yichang.cgs.gov.cn/ (accessed on 13 March 2023 ) 2022 Landsat8 data http://www.gscloud.cn/ (accessed on 13 March 2023 ) 2022 Geological maps http://www.ngac.cn/ (accessed on 15 May 2023 ) 2023 Ecological and environmental data http://ids.ceode.ac.cn/ (accessed on 15 May 2023 ) 2023 Social and environmental data https://www.stats.gov.cn/ (accessed on 23 May 2023 ) 2000-2020 Land cover http://www.globallandcover.com/ (accessed on 23 May 2023 ) 2000-2020 Road and river data https://www.openstreetmap.org/ (accessed on 23 May 2023 ) 2000-2020

Comments 5: It is suggested to adjust the descriptive details in the "3. Methods" section to make the meanings of formula symbols correspond one-to-one with the specific parameters in this study.

 

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. In response, we have carefully revised the “3. Methods” section to ensure that all formula symbols are explicitly defined and correspond precisely to the specific parameters used in our study. Additionally, we have included the detailed parameter settings for RAGA-PP in line 349-360 to enhance methodological transparency. These modifications improve the clarity and reproducibility of our approach.

 

Comments 6: Lines 278–279: How did the author determine the positive and negative orientations of the indicators?

 

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. Positive indicators reflect supportive effects on the eco-geological environment, while negative indicators demonstrate inhibitory effects. In 2.3, for each indicator, we have explicitly specified its directional influence (positive/negative). However, for engineering geological factors and land use types - which represent non-linear categorical data - directional classification was not applicable. Instead, these parameters were weighted based on their differential impacts on the eco-geological environment according to their respective categories.

 

Comments 7: Line 378: Why not plot the importance of the 16 factors derived from the RAGA-PP method in Fig 5?

 

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have added the analysis of RAGA-PP in Figure 5.

 

Comments 8: By comparing Table 3 and Table 4, it can be seen that the comparative results of the four factor importance evaluation methods in the manuscript are based on 2020 data. Has the author considered the impact of data differences across different years on the current comparative results of different methods?

 

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's insightful comment regarding the temporal scope of our evaluation. First, this specific year was selected to enable a rigorous and controlled comparison of the four assessment methods (AHP, CV, AHP-CV, and RAGA-PP) under identical temporal conditions, which was essential for determining the optimal methodology. Second, given that the Three Gorges Reservoir began impoundment in 2003 and reached full operational capacity by 2008, the 2020 data provides a sufficiently long post-impoundment period (17 years) to observe more pronounced and stabilized eco-geological changes. We fully acknowledge the value of multi-year analysis, so we selected RAGA-PP to evaluate the eco-geological environment from 2000 to 2020, in order to obtain spatiotemporal analysis.

 

Comments 9: The content in the current discussion section of the manuscript is more appropriately categorized under "4. Results," and the author does not mention the methodological principles of spatial autocorrelation analysis and hotspot analysis in the "3. Methods" section.

 

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We appreciate the reviewer's constructive feedback regarding the manuscript structure. In response, we have (1) reorganized the content by moving results-oriented discussion to Results, (2) added detailed methodological descriptions of spatial autocorrelation and hotspot analysis in 5.1-5.2, and (3) strengthened the discussion section to focus on interpretation and broader implications. These modifications ensure proper separation between results presentation.

 

Comments 10: The current writing quality of the "5. Discussion" section is low, with overall shallow discussion and a lack of interactive discussion and analysis with peer literature, which is the most prominent issue in the manuscript. The author needs to re-examine the overall structural arrangement of the article and rewrite the "5. Discussion" section.

 

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have revised "5. Discussion" section. The revised discussion now includes comprehensive comparisons with 3 additional peer studies (references [20-22]) that examine similar eco-geological evaluations in reservoir regions, allowing for more robust contextualization of our findings. We have strengthened the methodological reflection by adding detailed analysis of RAGA-PP's advantages and limitations compared to conventional approaches, particularly in addressing spatial heterogeneity in eco-geological systems. The section has been reorganized to focus more clearly on interpreting results rather than restating them, with added emphasis on the practical implications for environmental management in reservoir areas.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' comments, and the paper's quality has been significantly improved. I recommend its acceptance for publication.