Impact of Regional Differences in Risk Attitude on the Power Law at the Urban Scale
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
By applying computer simulation technology, the paper explores the influence of regional differences in risk attitudes of micro decision-makers on the power law through setting scenarios of quantitative differences in the same attitudes and mixed multi-attitudes. Six provinces have been selected to develop the case study.
Considering the complexity of the interactive decision-making process regarding land use transformation, adequate models are needed to fill the gap in interpreting micro decision-making behaviors.
This study, based on the setting of regional differences in risk attitudes through the computer simulation technology, can be interesting and sound for the scientific audience.
Nonetheless, the abstract and the introduction need to be revised in order to better clarifying the contents.
The analysis of the simulation results is poor and lacks in complexity, betraying the premises.
The discussion can be improved by presenting the regional scenario in a critical perspective.
The conclusions needs to be reorganized in order to better explain the logical chain of the paper and the potential follow-ups.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is interesting and important, but there are problems and gaps in the processing that should be replaced and improved. The abstract is too long and needs to be shortened. Neither the introduction nor the conclusions reveal exactly what lessons can be learned from the research in other parts of the world. International aspects must be included, otherwise, the article will remain uninteresting for the wider readership. Chinese literature is overrepresented in the article's references. It is striking that in the literature there are only older references from authors outside of China. References should definitely be updated and balanced with published articles from other regions. The study focuses on the problem, but in some places it is extensive, but at the same time it does not place the topic in a wider socio-environmental context. In addition, it approaches the direction of several scientific fields: urban studies, regional and rural studies, geomorphology, sociology, and mathematical modeling. The reviewer welcomes the interdisciplinary approach, but it would still be necessary to clarify the main direction and the reason for choosing the methods necessary for it. The recommendation is a 10% abbreviation and a more systematic description of the results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been adequately revised. A few editing actions are needed.
Reviewer 2 Report
The corrections made the article acceptable.
