Simulating Urban Agglomeration Expansion in Henan Province, China: An Analysis of Driving Mechanisms Using the FLUS Model with Considerations for Urban Interactions and Ecological Constraints
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for all your work, this research is interesting and comprehensive. The rapid progress of urbanization and significant urban expansion are affected by complex and changeable social, economic, natural and policy factors. The author synthesizes the impact of intercity interaction and ecological environment, and analyzes their comprehensive impact on the expansion of urban agglomeration. A new method combining gravity field model, ecological constraints and future land use simulation (FLUS) model is also proposed. The research has practical and academic value. However, there are still some issues that need to be revised before publishing. Here are my comments for reference.
1. Lines 9-26. The abstract of the article is the eye of the article. The author must introduce key points and innovations, rather than repeat the analysis of results. It needs to be streamlined.
2. The introduction introduces a lot of contents, including concepts, research methods and refined research directions. At the end of the introduction, the author tries to introduce the innovative points of this article, but it is not obvious and does not highlight the key points.
3. Lines 48-70 introduce a lot of methods, including CA, ANN, etc., but it is better not to list them. It needs to be summarized and refined. Some new content should be added. You should consider the expression of references， https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101347
4. 2.2.1 RSEI, 2.4 The OPGD model. The RSEI and OPGD model introduced in this section is too detailed, and the method only needs to be described briefly. The author can refer to this document.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117080
5. There are many pictures in the article, but the sizes are different. It is better to unify them.
6. It would be better if there were some prospects for the discussion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We wish to thank you for your insightful comments. These have greatly helped us to improve the quality of our manuscript.
In accordance yours comments, we have made the following main changes:
Point 1: Lines 9-26. The abstract of the article is the eye of the article. The author must introduce key points and innovations, rather than repeat the analysis of results. It needs to be streamlined.
Response 1: We have rephrased the abstract and highlighted key points and innovations.
Point 2: The introduction introduces a lot of contents, including concepts, research methods and refined research directions. At the end of the introduction, the author tries to introduce the innovative points of this article, but it is not obvious and does not highlight the key points.
Response 2: The last paragraph of the introduction has been rephrased with a view to highlighting key points and innovations.
Point 3: Lines 48-70 introduce a lot of methods, including CA, ANN, etc., but it is better not to list them. It needs to be summarized and refined. Some new content should be added. You should consider the expression of references， https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101347.
Response 3: In accordance with your suggestion, the expression of listing various methods has been revised, and it has been summarized and improved, and new content has been added.
Point 4: 2.2.1 RSEI, 2.4 The OPGD model. The RSEI and OPGD model introduced in this section is too detailed, and the method only needs to be described briefly. The author can refer to this document. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117080.
Response 4: Some descriptions of RSEI and OPGD have been removed to make it more concise without affecting the reader's reading comprehension.
Point 5: There are many pictures in the article, but the sizes are different. It is better to unify them.
Response 5: Resized the images in the article to make them look better.
Point 6: It would be better if there were some prospects for the discussion.
Response 6: The discussion section has been revised to include an explanation of some of the findings, the limitations of the adopted models, and prospects for future work.
Reviewer 2 Report
Based on my knowledge and expertise, in my opinion this paper met all the criteria required to be published in this journal. The paper is overall well written and use various methods in this study. The discussion is presented well and detailed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your recognition of our work and we wish you all the best.
Reviewer 3 Report
Line 14 - who are they ?
Line 18 - please rephrase. The experiment was conducted in the province.....
Line 19 - which are those factors
Line 19 - based on
Line 21 - please rephrase
Line 21 - Among the factors affecting the expansion of the urban agglomeration scale, it was highlighted that....
Line 24 - The conclusion is general and does not reveal the studies carried out. Why the intercity interactions and ecological constraints are important? How do they influence the future of the cities
Line 32 - please rephrase. The definition of urban agglomeration
Line 33 - Who is an agglomerated radial area?
Line 34 - split socio - economic, not soci - oeconomic
Line 36-38 - please rephrase. The high expansion affects the urban landscape, especially.....
Line 46 - the mechanisms of urban expansion
Line 55 - driving forces - it is proper used in this context?
Line 60-62 - references
Line 78 - socioeconomic
Line 99-100 which are the results of those studies
Line 101-103 - please rephrase, the subject is not exactly understood
Line 136 - socie-ty
Line 146 - We
The conclusion must be improved and correlated with the study
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We wish to thank you for your insightful comments. These have greatly helped us to improve the quality of our manuscript.
In accordance yours comments, we have made the following main changes:
Point 1: Line 14 - who are they?
Response 1: “they” refers to most studies. Changed “they” to “most studies”.
Point 2: Line 18 - please rephrase. The experiment was conducted in the province.....
Response 2: Already rephrased.
Point 3: Line 19 - which are those factors.
Response 3: These factors refer to basic spatial variables (for example, dem, distance to city center, etc.), urban gravitational field and ecological constraint, etc. The details have been revised.
Point 4: Line 19 - based on.
Response 4: The details have been revised.
Point 5: Line 21 - please rephrase.
Response 5: The sentence has been rephrased.
Point 6: Line 21 - Among the factors affecting the expansion of the urban agglomeration scale, it was highlighted that....
Response 6: The details have been revised.
Point 7: Line 24 - The conclusion is general and does not reveal the studies carried out. Why the intercity interactions and ecological constraints are important? How do they influence the future of the cities.
Response 7: Line 24 - The conclusions were restated and explain how intercity interactions and ecological constraints affect urban expansion.
Point 8: Line 32 - please rephrase. The definition of urban agglomeration.
Response 8: The sentence has been rephrased.
Point 9: Line 33 - Who is an agglomerated radial area?
Response 9: Urban agglomeration is an agglomerated radial area, the details have been revised.
Point 10: Line 34 - split socio-economic, not soci-oeconomic.
Response 10: The original word in this sentence is "socioeconomic" and is not split; the "-" is a hyphen in the manuscript format that automatically branches.
Point 11: Line 36-38 - please rephrase. The high expansion affects the urban landscape, especially.....
Response 11: The sentence has been rephrased.
Point 12: Line 46 - the mechanisms of urban expansion.
Response 12: Removed "driving".
Point 13: Line 55 - driving forces - it is proper used in this context?
Response 13: This statement was made with reference to literature 15, and I modified the overall statement in this section to make it more appropriate for the overall context.
Point 14: Line 60-62 – references.
Response 14: Modified this sentence and added a reference.
Point 15: Line 78 – socioeconomic.
Response 15: Removed the "-".
Point 16: Line 99-100 which are the results of those studies.
Response 16: Revised expression.
Point 17: Line 101-103 - please rephrase, the subject is not exactly understood.
Response 17: The sentence has been rephrased.
Point 18: Line 136 - socie-ty.
Response 18: The original word in this sentence is " society" and is not split; the "-" is a hyphen in the manuscript format that automatically branches.
Point 19: Line 146 – We.
Response 19: Revised.
Point 20: The conclusion must be improved and correlated with the study.
Response 20: The conclusions were revised to be more relevant to the topic.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has been improved and can basically be published with minor modifications. However, in order to further improve the quality of the article, the introduction still needs to be improved.
1,Introductin section Introduces a lot of methods, including CA, ANN, etc., but it is better not to list them. In addition, the background introduction in this section is not rich enough, and some supporting literature needs to be supplemented. For example：LINE, 38-41, However, the high expansion affects the urban landscape, especially the dramatic reduction of ecological and productive space, leading to serious ecological and environmental problems, leading to serious ecological and environmental problems[1-3]. The author should consider supplementing and referencing these references.
[1].https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081303
[2].https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116804
[3].https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117195
2.The conclusion still needs further improvement and simplification.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for the very relevant comments that helped us improve our manuscript.
In accordance with your comments, we have made the following main changes:
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Introduction section Introduces a lot of methods, including CA, ANN, etc., but it is better not to list them. In addition, the background introduction in this section is not rich enough, and some supporting literature needs to be supplemented. For example：LINE, 38-41, However, the high expansion affects the urban landscape, especially the dramatic reduction of ecological and productive space, leading to serious ecological and environmental problems, leading to serious ecological and environmental problems [1-3]. The author should consider supplementing and referencing these references.
[1].https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081303
[2].https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116804
[3].https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117195
Response 1: Thank you for this comment. We've taken your suggestion and modified the expression. References added.
Point 2: The conclusion still needs further improvement and simplification.
Response 2: The conclusion section has been revised and simplified.
In addition, we checked the article throughout and corrected some of the misrepresentations.
