Modelling Impact of Urban Expansion on Ecosystem Services: A Scenario-Based Approach in a Mixed Natural/Urbanised Landscape
and Egle Tumeliene 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General Comments: In this sense, the present study aims at predicting future LULC and quantifying and mapping ESs of water yield, outdoor recreation opportunity, and food production in current and future landscape. Comparing the results can contribute to propose the most effective policy related to landscape-cover changes and sustainable urban development policies and also achieve sustainable city in the study area.
Specific Issues:
1. The quality of all the figures is poor and should be improved English should be improved by further proofreading the paper and removing the typos and grammatical errors from the text. There are also some complex sentences that do not read well.
2. The introduction section needs to be updated using more recent references. Authors should enrich the introduction section such as the paragraph “Meanwhile, since changes in ecological parameters are not tangible to most humans” by using article - ;Artificial ecosystem optimization with Deep Learning Enabled Water Quality Prediction and Classification model; An artificial intelligence-based solar radiation prophesy model for green energy utilization in energy management system
Similarly the paragraph “Urban expansion, resulting in the development of human activities” should be more elaborate and can enrich by using papers - Machine Learning Model for Nutrient Release from Biopolymers Coated Controlled-Release Fertilizer; Moving Boundary Problem for Modeling of Nutrient Release from Double Coated Urea
2. Abstract is not meeting journal standard must be revised completely and briefly focus on these points :
Purpose: Clearly define the purpose and importance of your research. This includes a statement of the problem or issue.
Methodology: State the research methods used to answer your question.
Results: Summarize the main research results.
Conclusion: What are the implications of your research?
3. Please eliminate multiple references such as "far away from urban areas [12,20,21].". After that, please check the manuscript thoroughly and eliminate ALL the lumps in the manuscript. This should be done by characterizing each reference individually and by mentioning 1 or 2 phrases per reference to show how it is different from the others and why it deserves mentioning. Multiple references are of no use for a reader and can substitute even a kind of plagiarism, as sometimes authors are using them without proper studies of all references used. In this case, each reference should be justified by it is used and at least short assessment provided.
4. Too many non-content words may indicate wordiness. Consider rewriting to avoid some of these words: the, for, of, into, via, as well as, their, with, are, also, which. For the text clarity would you refrain from using additional words, mostly meaningless filler words, which can be omitted or some archaic words see e.g. "respectively", "thus", "hence", therefore", "furthermore", "thereby", "basically,", "meanwhile"," wherein", "herein", "hitherto", "Nonetheless", "Perceivably" , "whereas",etc. ?
Would you closely follow the ISO symbols presentations:
- 3 must be in superscript
/m3)
and some others
as 20mm which shall be 20 mm
Please carefully check the complete manuscript including the pictures
5. “Table 3 and Table 4. Remoteness/accessibility (proximity) parameters” move to appendix.
6. The originality of the paper needs to be stated clearly. It is of importance to have sufficient results to justify the novelty of a high-quality journal paper. The Introduction should make a compelling case for why the study is useful along with a clear statement of its novelty or originality by providing relevant information and providing answers to basic questions such as: What is already known in the open literature? What is missing (i.e., research gaps)? What needs to be done, why and how? Clear statements of the novelty of the work should also appear briefly in the Abstract and Conclusions sections.
Author Response
Thanks for your valuable comments. We tried to modify the structure and text of the manuscript based on your excellent comments, which has definitely increased its richness. Please note that the line and page numbers have been changed due to added text in the manuscript as recommended by you. All changes made in the article are marked in green color.
- The quality of all the figures is poor and should be improved English should be improved by further proofreading the paper and removing the typos and grammatical errors from the text. There are also some complex sentences that do not read well.
Answer. Thank You. We did correction, and do change the resolution. We have chosen the most acceptable resolution for printing. If the editor wishes, the resolution can be increased later. The proof reading for this article was done. Certificate attached. Fixed typos throughout the text and improved English quality.
- The introduction section needs to be updated using more recent references. Authors should enrich the introduction section such as the paragraph “Meanwhile, since changes in ecological parameters are not tangible to most humans” by using article - Artificial ecosystem optimization with Deep Learning Enabled Water Quality Prediction and Classification model; An artificial intelligence-based solar radiation prophesy model for green energy utilization in energy management system
Similarly, the paragraph “Urban expansion, resulting in the development of human activities” should be more elaborate and can enrich by using papers - Machine Learning Model for Nutrient Release from Biopolymers Coated Controlled-Release Fertilizer; Moving Boundary Problem for Modeling of Nutrient Release from Double Coated Urea
Answer. Thank You for the offer articles. The introduction section has been updated using newer sources. These articles were used according to suitability in the materials and methods section (Lines 302 to 303). Please see to lines 53 to 55 and 58 to 61, and the reference list.
- Abstract is not meeting journal standard must be revised completely and briefly focus on these points:
Purpose: Clearly define the purpose and importance of your research. This includes a statement of the problem or issue.
Methodology: State the research methods used to answer your question.
Results: Summarize the main research results.
Conclusion: What are the implications of your research?
Answer. Thank You. The abstract section was rewritten and the aim, the methodology, the results and Conclusion are presented. Please see the lines 18 to 23 and 28 to 31.
- Please eliminate multiple references such as "far away from urban areas [12,20,21].". After that, please check the manuscript thoroughly and eliminate ALL the lumps in the manuscript. This should be done by characterizing each reference individually and by mentioning 1 or 2 phrases per reference to show how it is different from the others and why it deserves mentioning. Multiple references are of no use for a reader and can substitute even a kind of plagiarism, as sometimes authors are using them without proper studies of all references used. In this case, each reference should be justified by it is used and at least short assessment provided.
Answer. Thank You. Multiple references were removed and the manuscript was thoroughly revised.
- Too many non-content words may indicate wordiness. Consider rewriting to avoid some of these words: the, for, of, into, via, as well as, their, with, are, also, which. For the text clarity would you refrain from using additional words, mostly meaningless filler words, which can be omitted or some archaic words see e.g. "respectively", "thus", "hence", therefore", "furthermore", "thereby", "basically,", "meanwhile"," wherein", "herein", "hitherto", "Nonetheless", "Perceivably" , "whereas",etc. ?
Would you closely follow the ISO symbols presentations:
- 3 must be in superscript/m3) and some others
as 20mm which shall be 20 mm. Please carefully check the complete manuscript including the pictures
Answer. Thank You. Rewriting done. The manuscript was carefully checked.
- “Table 3 and Table 4. Remoteness/accessibility (proximity) parameters” move to appendix.
Answer. Thank You. Table 3 and Table 4 moved to appendix. Page 21 and 22.
- Clear statements of the novelty of the work should also appear briefly in the Abstract and Conclusions sections.
Answer. Thank You. Please see Conclusions (lines 913-918 and 927-934) and Abstract
Thanks to honorable reviewer 1, we hope that the amendments made will be accepted.
Submission Date
12 December 2022
Date of this review
19 Dec 2022 11:02:52
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is well organized, and although there are some minor problems, I think it can be published in a journal after minor revisions.
Although some abbreviations have been explained in the abstract, such as ecosystem services (ESs), since the abstract and the text are two independent links, they need to be described in the text again.
Line138, Title should be left aligned, as well as the others section.
In Figure 1, In order to better know the detailed location of the study area, it is suggested to add the country name and province name on the submap.
In Figure 2, Some text is not displayed correctly, such as, Water component.
Line 278, The variables in the formula should be explained in detail.
Line365-367, The format of the formula is a bit confusing, moreover, There is a difference between the variables in the formula and the form in the text. For example the Ai.
Line 596, Figure4 Figure 4 obscures part of the text.
In Figure 5, In thematic maps, some necessary elements should not be omitted, such as scale bar.
Similar research will publish in many papers in 2022. It is recommended to choose to compare in the section of Introduction or Discussion to prove that the research in this paper is not a simple repetition of recent research, but has certain specificity and innovation. Such as, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14061452 ; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104055 ; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14030402, but not limited to this.
Author Response
Thanks for your valuable comments. We tried to modify the structure and text of the manuscript based on your excellent comments, which has definitely increased its richness. Please note that the line and page numbers have been changed due to added text in the manuscript as recommended by you. All changes made in the article are marked in red color.
- Although some abbreviations have been explained in the abstract, such as ecosystem services (ESs), since the abstract and the text are two independent links, they need to be described in the text again.
Answer. Thank You for this observation. Abbreviations are corrected in the entire text. Please see line
- Line138, Title should be left aligned, as well as the others section.
Answer. Thank You for this observation. We did correction.
- In Figure 1, In order to better know the detailed location of the study area, it is suggested to add the country name and province name on the submap.
Answer. Thank You for this observation. The name of the country and the name of the province were added. Please see Figure 1.
- In Figure 2, Some text is not displayed correctly, such as, Water component.
Answer. Thank You for this observation. We did correction, and do change the resolution. Please see Figure 2.
- Line 278, The variables in the formula should be explained in detail.
Answer. Thank You for this observation. Formula variables were explained. Please see the lines 286-289.
- 6. Line365-367, The format of the formula is a bit confusing, moreover, there is a difference between the variables in the formula and the form in the text. For example the Ai.
Answer. Thank You for this observation. The formula was corrected. Please see the lines 377-385.
- Line 596, Figure4 Figure 4 obscures part of the text.
Answer. Thank You for this observation. We did correction. Please see the line 596.
- In Figure 5, In thematic maps, some necessary elements should not be omitted, such as scale bar.
Answer. Thank You for this observation. Added scale bar. Please see Figure 5
- Similar research will publish in many papers in 2022. It is recommended to choose to compare in the section of Introduction or Discussion to prove that the research in this paper is not a simple repetition of recent research, but has certain specificity and innovation. Such as, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14061452 ; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104055 ; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14030402, but not limited to this.
Answer. Thank You for this recommendation. The comparison was made in the discussion section. Please see lines 735, 738 to 741, and the reference list.
Thanks to honorable reviewer 2, we hope that the amendments made will be accepted.
Submission Date
12 December 2022
Date of this review
19 Dec 2022 15:54:50
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
