Assessment of Land Ecological Security Based on the Boston Model: A Case Study from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Thanks to the authors for carefully addressed all the revisions. The manuscript was improved substantially since its last version. The paper needs some minor edition to polish the language and avoid grammatical mistakes. Other than that, I believe is ready for going to publication.

The paper needs some minor edition to polish the language and avoid grammatical mistakes. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer：

Thank you very much for your recognition of our previous work on the manuscript revisions. According to your feedback, we have conducted another round of language polishing for the entire manuscript and highlighted the changes in red. Please see the attachment.

We would appreciate it if you could reconsider our revised manuscript.

Best wishes to you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Although the re-submission has been greatly improved, some minor questions still exit, especially English expression. Accordingly, the text editing should be revised and sentences be polished again. 

It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.

Author Response

Dear reviewer：

Thank you very much for your recognition of our previous work on the manuscript revisions. According to your feedback, we have conducted another round of language polishing for the entire manuscript and highlighted the changes in red.

We would appreciate it if you could reconsider our revised manuscript.

Best wishes to you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Manuscript ID: land-2440369
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Assessment of Land Ecological Security Based on the Boston Model: A
Case Study from China
Authors: Yingchao Li *, Zhongkang Lian, Tianlin Zhai, Xiaotong Xie, Yuchen
Wang, Minghui Li
Submitted to section: Land Environmental and Policy Impact Assessment,
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/sections/land_environmental_policy_impact_assessment
Agriculture, Forestry, Land Allocation and Environmental Sustainability
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/special_issues/B2J11I3M82

 

Summary of the manuscript:

 

The purposes of this study are to assess and analyze the land ecological security status of Nanyang City from 2006 to 2020 and to identify and diagnose the obstacle factors affecting land ecological security in Nanyang City. Many of the obstacle factors result from urbanization of agricultural land. The subject is especially relevant given rapid worldwide urbanization and climate change. The strength of the paper is the attempt to combine quantitative methods to provide a comprehensive understanding of landscape change over a period of fourteen years.

 

General comments:

 

This study synthesizes a great amount of data using several methods to reach conclusions about landscape change over time. Assuming the base data is reliable, this synthesis could be helpful to inform policy makers. As written, it is difficult to connect the enormous amount of methodological information with the context. In other words, it is difficult to answer the “so what?” question.

 

The manuscript would be strengthened by stating not only the general problem (it does this well), but also how the information in the study addresses that problem. It would be helpful to clarify the purpose of the study (see specific comments below) and locate it toward the beginning of the Abstract and at the end of Section 1.1 Background. It is difficult to understand the relevance of the Section 1.2 Literature Review without this context. By including several sentences toward the beginning of Section 1.1 that clarify  how this study addresses the problem, the authors could set the tone of the study. With this change, the remainder of information in Section 1.1 and al of Section 2.2 would make more sense. This would also provide an opportunity to restate the general problem, purpose of the study, and how that purpose relates to the problem in Section 4. Conclusions and policy implications, with special attention to the policy implications.

 

In summary, clarifying the connection between the data synthesis and how that synthesis is relevant (so what?) would greatly strengthen this manuscript.

 

Specific comments:

 

Purpose of the study:

Currently two related, but differing purposes are stated. This should be resolved.

·      Lines 26 through 28: “This study provides a theoretical basis for the construction of the land ecological security system, sustainable utilization of land resources and regional sustainable development in the China.”

·      Lines 160 through 162: “The purpose of this study is twofold, (1) assess and analyze the land ecological security status of Nanyang City from 2006 to 2020;(2) identify and diagnose the obstacle factors affecting land ecological security in Nanyang City.

 

Do you mean the following? “This study provides a theoretical basis for the construction of the land ecological security system, sustainable utilization of land resources and regional sustainable development in the China based upon (1) assess(ment) and analy(sis) the land ecological security status of Nanyang City from 2006 to 2020;(2) identify and diagnose the obstacle factors affecting land ecological security in Nanyang City.”

·      If so, the study doesn’t really change the theoretical basis. Rather it simply informs policy making by providing important data. That is important in and of itself and justifies an article.

Or do you meant the following? “This study (1) assess(es) and analyze(es) the land ecological security status of Nanyang City from 2006 to 2020, and (2) identif(ies) and diagnose(s) the obstacle factors affecting land ecological security in Nanyang City in order to provide a theoretical basis for the construction of the land ecological security system, sustainable utilization of land resources and regional sustainable development in the China.

·      If so, this combination of methods is the emphasis of the study. In other words, this is a new combination of methods that provides a theoretical basis or framework. Therefore, much more emphasis needs to be placed on how this framework is different from previous frameworks. The conclusions can then emphasize the new opportunities for policy makers.

Either approach is legitimate, but both can’t be the purpose of the study. Again, this needs to be clarified.

 

Rating the Manuscript

• Novelty: Is the question original and well-defined? Do the results provide an advancement of the current knowledge?
• They could with significant revisions.
• Scope: Does the work fit the journal scope*?
• Yes.
• Significance: Are the results interpreted appropriately? Are they significant? Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results? Are hypotheses carefully identified as such?
• As currently presented, no. Clarification of the purpose would solve this.
• Quality: Is the article written in an appropriate way? Are the data and analyses presented appropriately? Are the highest standards for presentation of the results used?
• Yes..
• Scientific Soundness: Is the study correctly designed and technically sound? Are the analyses performed with the highest technical standards? Is the data robust enough to draw conclusions? Are the methods, tools, software, and reagents described with sufficient details to allow another researcher to reproduce the results? Is the raw data available and correct (where applicable)?
• The challenge is making the data relevant.
• Interest to the Readers: Are the conclusions interesting for the readership of the journal? Will the paper attract a wide readership, or be of interest only to a limited number of people? (Please see the Aims and Scope of the journal.)
• Not as written. The subject is valuable. With significant revisions it could be interesting.
• Overall Merit: Is there an overall benefit to publishing this work? Does the work advance the current knowledge? Do the authors address an important long-standing question with smart experiments? Do the authors present a negative result of a valid scientific hypothesis?
• It could with significant revisions.
• English Level: Is the English language appropriate and understandable?
• Generally, yes. There are several sentences that are confusing. A final edit would be helpful. Examples:
• “ for grain. Must vigorously develop agriculture to solve the domestic population food.” line 57.
• “The evaluation of ecological security by foreign scholars mainly focuses on industrial mining such as soil health[30], human living environment in urban suburbs[31], river health[32], and agricultural production such as the aftereffect of pesticide use on the environment[33] and the availability of water resources[34]. Lines 79 - 82

§  I think you mean focuses on the impacts of industrial mining such as…?

§  “The evaluation of ecological security by foreign scholars mainly focuses on industrial mining such as soil health[30], human living environment in…”        Lines 104 to 120 refer to foreign and domestic scholars.

§  Is this an international journal? If so, the use of “international” and “Chinese specific” scholars – or something like that - should be used.

 

Overall Recommendation

• Reconsider after Major Revisions: The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point-by-point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. A maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript is normally provided. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within ten days and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments. If the required revision time is estimated to be longer than 2 months, we will recommend that authors withdraw their manuscript before resubmitting so as to avoid unnecessary time pressure and to ensure that all manuscripts are sufficiently revised.

• English Level: Is the English language appropriate and understandable?
• Generally, yes. There are several sentences that are confusing. A final edit would be helpful. Examples:
• “ for grain. Must vigorously develop agriculture to solve the domestic population food.” line 57.
• “The evaluation of ecological security by foreign scholars mainly focuses on industrial mining such as soil health[30], human living environment in urban suburbs[31], river health[32], and agricultural production such as the aftereffect of pesticide use on the environment[33] and the availability of water resources[34]. Lines 79 - 82

§  I think you mean focuses on the impacts of industrial mining such as…?

§  “The evaluation of ecological security by foreign scholars mainly focuses on industrial mining such as soil health[30], human living environment in…”        Lines 104 to 120 refer to foreign and domestic scholars.

§  Is this an international journal? If so, the use of “international” and “Chinese specific” scholars – or something like that - should be used.

Author Response

Dear reviewer：

Thank you very much for your recognition of our previous work on the manuscript revisions. According to your feedback, we have conducted another round of language polishing for the entire manuscript and highlighted the changes in red. And we have systematically reviewed the references throughout the entire manuscript.

We would appreciate it if you could reconsider our revised manuscript.

Best wishes to you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

All comments have been appropriately addressed. This is now a stronger paper.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study provides a framework for Land Ecological Security Assessment combining land ecological risk assessment with land ecological health assessment, which is based on a case study of Nanyang City in China. In my view, the topic of this manuscript falls into the scope of LAND and should be of interest to its readership. I therefore recommend that the manuscript be accepted with a minor revision. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper stablished an index system for assessing land ecological risk and ecological health to assess the land ecological risk and ecological health in Nanyang. The obstacle degree model was used to identify and analyze the factors that hinder the improvement of land ecological safety. The research is interesting. However, the selection of indicators in the land ecological risk index system are not appropriate. In my opinion, there are some major issues need to be addressed before further consideration.

(1) The abstract is too lengthy and needs to be compressed.

(2) The literature review on land ecological health assessment needs to be described in the introduction.

(3) Line 185-186, “making them vulnerable to external factors that can influence their accuracy” What are the main external factors?

(4) In section 2.1, the location of the study area in China should be provided in the form of pictures for international readers.

(5) In section 2.2, “The primary data used in this study consists of land use data, agricultural production factor input data, natural disaster data, and other related data.” What are the other related data? The data source should be given for each dataset.

(6) Equation (5)-(6), What do the variables U_ij and u_ij represent?

(7) The selection of indicators in the land ecological risk index system are not appropriate in Table 1. The risk sources index is not comprehensive, and urbanization is also the main risk source. In my opinion, the proportion of agricultural land and construction land should be added. The indicators of risk receptors are not appropriate. The indicators of risk receptors should reflect the stability and anti-interference of land ecosystems. A series of indicators of land spatial structure related to spatial tolerance of risk receptors, such as landscape diversity index, dominance index, fragmentation index and ecosystem service value, can be selected.

(8) Some references are not appropriately cited, such as reference [47].

Reviewer 3 Report

Peer Review for Assessment of Land Ecological Security Based on the Boston Model: A Case Study from China

Summary:

This paper presents and index-based analysis of Nanyang city in Henan Province and the city’s progress with respect to a variety of environmental investments. The author(s) find that several of the indices have in fact increased over time, which the authors attribute to improving administration of the region. The paper is generally well-written. Though the paper covers a timely and interesting topic, it unfortunately suffers from several fatal flaws that have prevented me from suggesting publication in this outlet. First, there is a serious lack of citations and overabundance of speculation. The authors take on a very challenging and complicated set of analyses; however, the methods they use are not described sufficiently to replicate or adequately investigate whether they are appropriate. In several cases, there are aspects of the methods that seem to be introduced at random. I sympathize that the authors are working with what is likely a very large and complicated set of analyses; however, it is very important that the methods are described appropriately. Furthermore, the results section is very speculative, with the interpretations of the changes in index values having interpretations that are not based on either statistical or literature-based evidence. As ambitious as this project seems to be, I unfortunately must reject the manuscript, but wish the authors well in their continued work.

 

 

Major comments:

The introduction is severely lacking in the amount of citations it has. There are a lot of very strong statements and not very many citations that back up the claims. In addition, the research aims of the paper are not well stated, and placed at the end. Overall, the introduction needs extreme revision and a massive overhaul with respect to the quantity of citations. There needs to be many more citations, far fewer strong, unsupported statements, and a more focused presentation of the research paper’s goals. One way to accomplish this might be to create a separate “background” section, and put some of the background information there. 

There are no data citations, which would make replication impossible. You need to add citations for your data.

The methods section is not sufficiently developed. It appears as if there is an intricate modeling pipeline; however, all of the methodology is presented almost exclusively as descriptions of the method itself rather than how the method relates to the work. Further, why these specific methods are used is not discussed at all.

The interpretations of your results do not seem to be backed up by evidence. The speculative content is not supported by any citations or statistical testing, and so I have very serious concerns about their validity.

The conclusion, suggestions, and deficiencies section should be merged together.

Additional major/minor comments:

Abstract

The abstract is far too long. Please make it much shorter and much more concise

 The first sentence is very confusing. Why would you prevent ecological safety issues?

Risk receptor – there is no introduction for this term and it is not common in the literature. You need to do a better job of setting up the paper here.

 

Introduction

Line 50: It’s not clear what you mean by ecological civilization. Is there a citation for this? If so I suggest you add it.

Line 52: This is an odd sentence. Though I agree you need ecological prosperity, this statement is a strong one to make without citations.

Lines 50 – 70: There are a lot of very strong statements in this first paragraph and very little citations to back it up. This discussion needs to be better connected with the literature. As it stands now, there is not as much connection with academic research.

Line 72: “The Party and the State” is not a commonly understood term, and needs to be clarified.

Line 74: This is just a statement and not backed up by any sort of news article or other citation. That is absolutely needed here.

Line 71-85: This paragraph has a lot of policy and news content and absolutely no citations. It is absolutely crucial to track your statements with the relevant citations here.

Line 86: This isn’t necessarily true, agriculture can be environmentally beneficial or destructive depending on the practice.

Line 89: is exploration the right word here?

Figure 1: Did this come from another source?

Line 110: I think this might be true for some areas but not others. Again, this is a set of very strong statements that need to either be tempered, edited, or given a much larger set of citations to back up your claims.

 

Line 116: Who says that this is imperative. It’s not that I don’t agree it’s that these strong statements require more citations.

Line 145: What is a risk receptor? This is not a common phrase and either a new term must be used or a definition must be used.

Line 147: This citation needs to be edited.

Line 152: This also needs a citation.

Line 162: The grey system model is not well known and needs to be expanded on.

Line 192-201: This is not a clear depiction of what the research is doing.

 

2. Materials and Methods

Line 203: “subsection” is probably the wrong title for this

Line 203-215: This needs a greater discussion regarding the importance of this region.

Line 216: You need to cite your data. Is this the total amount of data used? This needs to be far more descriptive.

Line 223: Why are weights important? This is not in context of any method, or the method is not introduced. It is not clear at all why determining weights is necessary.

Line 230: The entropy method needs a citation. Please add a citation for the entropy method.

Line 231: The discussion regarding the combination of weights is very confusing. Also, is there a reason why you do this? There doesn’t seem to be a reason you have stated.

Line 233: There is no citation for the TOPSIS model.

Line 246: The authors missed a citation here.

Line 251: You are assuming the reader knows how you derived this matrix. You must explain it.

Line 254: The discussion of the entropy model is also lacking in the same way as above. There is no mention of how you derived the matrix from which you are calculating these variables.

Line 271: This sentence must be edited for clarity

Line 312: This is the first mention of the boston method, except for in the abstract. This must be introduced earlier.

Tables 1,2, and 3: These all require better formatting, it is very hard for readers to see these tables.

Assessment results and obstacle factors analysis

Line 387: This is material that needs to be in the methods section.

Line 393: Please provide a more intuitive interpretation for the risk coefficients you are reporting.

Line 406: How do you know enthusiasm has increased? A citation is needed here.

Line 412: This sentence is confusing, please revise for clarity.

Line 458: The ideal solution results seem out of place. I know it was discussed in the section on the TOPSIS model but there is no good explanation for what this is or how it relates to the interpretation of the results.

Line 460: Refer to appendix A4 for more details on what?

Line 469: This sentence is unclear, please edit

Line 479: How are you testing these mechanisms? From what I can tell, it seems like all the results give you are the changes in the values of the indicator. These results don’t seem to be based on any evidence from your modeling.

Line 545: How do the risk receptors relate to this?

Line 578: The ranking exercises in these tables is not discussed in the results section or in the introduction. This should be introduced.

Line 593: This sentence needs to be edited for clarity.

Line 620: This needs a citation.

Line 625: It sounds like you are trying to say it exhibits a Kuznets curve? If so, more citations are needed.