Site Selection of Affordable Housing in Direct Management Area under Jiangbei’s New District in Nanjing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Notes to the Authors

 

 

 

In relation to the different Sections of the manuscript, I have some minor concerns that can be addressed in order to improve the work.

 

 

1. Introduction

In the Introduction Section, before line number 63-65, I suggest to move paragraphs 2.2.2 “Comparison of different analysis methods” and 2.2.3 “Process of analysis methods”, which then become 1.1 e 1.2, respectively. In this way, line number 63-65 could become paragraph 1.3 "Objectives of the work".

Line number 63-65: The objectives of the work should be stated more clearly. In fact, the sentence is incomplete. Even a brief description of the methodological approach chosen is suggested. In particular, it is necessary to stress the reason why AHP was chosen among all the methods analyzed. With reference to the above objectives, it is useful to briefly specify how the paper is structured in the subsequent sections.

 

2. Study Area

In my opinion, paragraph 2.1 "Study area" could become Section 2, in order to emphasize the case study, which is also referred to in the title of the paper.

Line number 80: The image quality in Figure 1 needs to be improved.

Line number 86: Figure 2 is not present. It must be added, as it is also referred to in the text (line number 89).

 

3. Model construction

In order to enhance the work, I suggest dedicating section 3 to the methodological proposal. In this way, the articulation of Section 3 could be as follows:

3.1 “Modelling of site selection assessment”

3.2 “Preliminary selection of influential elements”

        3.2.1 “Analysis of relevant influential elements”

        3.2.2 “Screening and supplement of influential elements”

3.3 “Finalization of influential elements”

 

 

4. Results

This section is well structured. It is advisable to improve the quality of the images in Fig. 4-5-6-7-8-9-10, enlarging the legends and inserting the measured grid around the maps, in order to make explicit the local reference frame. 

 

5. Discussion and Conclusion

In the discussion, it is necessary to compare the work presented with previous studies, cited in the literature analysis. In this way, it is possible to stress the novelty of the paper with respect to these studies.

If the authors were able to enrich this part, the Discussion could be an independent section. In that case the Discussion would become Section 5, while the Conclusion would be Section 6.

The Conclusion should report a brief summary of the results obtained, in addition to the limitations and uncertainties of the work. Finally, the possible transferability of the proposed method to other geographical contexts should be highlighted.

 

General recommendations

A final English language check throughout the article is recommended.

A check of the style of bibliographic references is also suggested.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate the Reviewer’s valuable comments. In this file, we respond to each comment of the reviewer.Please see the attachment.

Generally, we have improved the figure quality and adjusted the structure of the ‘Model construction’ section as you suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing such an interesting manuscript. Authors provided the approach for relieving the residential stress of moderate and low-income citizens. The results confirm the relevance of the proposed methodology as an instrument for land management.

The manuscript’s strengths. The general approach of the manuscript is especially good. The manuscript is informative and good structured. The title matches the content. The topic fits the Land journal scope and the case is relevant. The introduction provides sufficient background and includes sufficient references. Research methods were described exactly. The analysis has been performed reliably and the results have been presented in a clear manner. The conclusions match the research idea. Overall, the work deserves a high rating.

The manuscript’s weaknesses are given in the attached file.

Best regards,
Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate the Reviewer’s valuable comments. In this file, we respond to each comment of the reviewer.Please see the attachment.

Generally,we have improved the figure quality and given the sub-names,but if they are unclear, please let us know and we are happy to provide the original drawings.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

the corrections are sufficient for acceptance in this form

Author Response

Dear reviewer：

Thanks for your suggestion and the Discussion and Conclusion section has  been separated. Meanwhile, the limitations and uncertainties of the work has been removed the the Conclusion section. We also compare the work presented with previous studies in Discussion section and add a brief summary in Conclusion Section.

Thanks again and best regards.