Review Reports - Ecological Disturbance of Rural Settlement Expansion: Evidence from Nantong, Eastern China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article quantitatively analyzed the extent and distribution pattern of RSEEL in Nantong, and explains the magnitude of the impact of different rural settlement encroachment types on ecological disturbance, which has some significance for the planning of rural settlements and the construction of ecological civilization. However, at the same time, there are some comments.

First，according to Figure 1, I think there should be a considerable part of ecological space undisturbed by the expansion of rural settlements, such as the northeastern belt of Rudong and Qidong. However, almost all of the areas in Figures 5, 7, 8, and 10 are affected by the expansion of rural settlements. This should include human disturbances or natural impacts from other causes, which should not be partly caused by the direct encroachment of settlement expansion. Should this part be excluded from the graphical representation, or calculation methods, or should the contribution of other disturbances causing ecological space reduction be minimized?

Second，the article used Pearson correlation analysis to test the correlation, but no significant correlation was obtained. However, there is a statistically significant correlation, whether other geostatistics methods, spatial analysis and other means of correlation analysis may be more suitable.

Third，the article analyzes the reasons behind the spatial disturbance effects of different expansion patterns, but it is rather superficial and requires a more detailed analysis of the distribution and clustering patterns of several patterns at the spatial level (or county level) and their causes, as well as the underlying causes of the ecological effects, such as socio-economic factors, policies and institutions, or topographical conditions.

Fourth, pay attention to the accuracy of language expression.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, because some of the contents of the manuscript revision response cannot be displayed in the response box of the system, please see the attached file of "Response to Reviewer #1" for details, thank you, and best wishes to you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article takes Nantong City, China, as an example to explore the ecological disturbance of rural settlement expansion. It is a meaningful topic. Because rural settlements are undergoing a reconstruction process in the context of rapid urbanization, which has a significant impact on ecological land. However, rural settlements encroaching on ecological land and its associated ecological effects have been widely ignored. The content of this article is relatively substantial and the logic is relatively clear. I have the following suggestions to discuss with the author. I believe that the quality of the article will be better after minor revision.

In the "Introduction" section, the academic research gap is mentioned. It is suggested to further highlight the research contribution of this paper, which can be properly summarized.

Line 50: The word expressions in this article need to be further checked, such as singular and plural problems and other minor problems, to enhance the readability of the article.

Lines 72, 74: The expression “Some scholars” only refers to one article, but the content is relatively rich. It is suggested that the author check the quoted content. If only the content in this article is quoted, it is suggested to use the author's name and other relevant expressions directly, or add relevant literature references. The author is suggested to make reasonable modifications according to the actual situation of the content.

Line 83, 88: There may be a problem with the expression "hu-man-land" and "eco-logical discrepancy". It may be that the author did not pay attention to typesetting according to the journal format. The author is required to carefully check and modify relevant expressions. The correct expression should be "human-land" and "ecological discrepancy".

Lines 111-133: It is suggested that the author can further explain the reasons for choosing the Nantong City of China as the study area and whether there is any specific representation.

Lines 134-135: If the figure in Figure 1 is placed behind the first paragraph of "2.1. Study area", the overall effect will be more beautiful and the readability will be improved.

Lines 184-190: Some statements or formulas in this article need additional evidence or references. For example, the content related to the formula of the "ecological discrepancy index" needs accurate literature reference.

Line 205: The expression "1.79% of the level of 2009" may be more accurate if replaced by "1.79% of the level in 2009".

Lines 239, 306: The picture definition of Figure 5 and Figure 8 can be improved a little. Especially, the font size of the legend of these two figures is different from that of other figures. It is recommended to unify the standard and re-create high-quality figures.

Line 461: The literature in the References section can appropriately increase the high cited high-quality journal literature, to enhance the credibility and influence of the article. In addition, attention should be paid to the correct reference format.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper need some minor adjustments

1. In the introduction please refers to the wider literature on rural restructuring and ecological consequeces.

Please introduce the objectives clearly

2. In the methods section. Need some critique to quantitative approach in favor qualitative case studies.

3. The conclusion is very short. Please insert in the world or Asian context with mote clear political recommendations for the future.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf