Spatial-Temporal Evolution Characteristics and Mechanism Analysis of Urban Space in China’s Three-River-Source Region: A Land Classification Governance Framework Based on “Three Zone Space”

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer Comments

This paper has chosen Three-River Source Region in Qinghai Province as case study and analyzed the long-term spatiotemporal evolution characteristics and inherent driving mechanisms of Three Zone Space. Over all, for the journal, it is an appropriate and meaningful topic which has important value both to theory and to practice in sustainable urban development.

However, there are some issues that need to be improved or revised.

1. The Abstract and Keywords should be clearer and more objective.

(1) It is too long about Background in Line 10-21.

(2) The research topic of the paper, “Three Zone Space”, should be expressed clearly in the Abstract and should be added as a key word.

2. The statements of the Introduction is with slightly poor logics, and the research purposes, research ideas and research innovation are not clear.

(1) Three Zone Space is the research topic of this paper, however, it's only mentioned twice in the Introduction. For the moment, the content of “Three Zone Space” is not clearly stated, and I don't know which methods will be adopted to solve this academic topic preferably and what is the differences and advantages of the methods compared with other methods.   

(2) The second paragraph is too long and illogical. It is suggested that the second paragraph and the third paragraph can be mixed together, and condensed into a few sentences with logics.

(3) In the third paragraph, the application of the GeoDetector tool should be considered to explore the impacts of policy and cultural factors on urban space evolution, why? The narratives in Line 117-121 are not text coherent. Please explain!

(4) The Autocorrelation methods in the Materials and Methods of 2.3.4 should perhaps be reviewed in the introduction.

(5) In the current statements of the Introduction, the authors didn't clarify the research methods, and I can't find new innovation of this topic. Please revise this paragraph, states explicitly the research thoughts and research innovation in this study compared with previous studies and explain which methods will be adopted to solve which academic topic preferably and what is the differences and advantages of your methods compared with other methods.

3. There some issues in the statements of Materials and Methods that need to be improved.

(1) There is no caesura sign in English. They are always replaced by commas. Please check Tab.1 carefully.

(2) In Line 184-185, you mentioned“Three Zone Space” . You should explain the method more clearly, because that's the topic!

4. In Results,

(1) “The towns of Jiegu and Dawu” in Line 265 appears for the first time in the paper and is not introduced in Fig.1 and Fig.2. For readers, “The towns of Jiegu and Dawu” is unfamiliar. The same error appears on Line 277-278 and 291.

(2) Fig.3 and Fig.4 can be further refined.

(3) Why is the study period divided into three phases and whether the division of three phases (1992-2005, 2005-2015 and 2015-2020) is reasonable in Tab.3?

(4) Tab.3 can be further refined in the format.

(5) What are the spatio-temporal characteristics of the Three Zone Space, and What is the relationship between the spatio-temporal characteristics of the Three Zone Space and spatial autocorrelation analysis for the transformation of Three Zone Space?

(6) Where are Table 8-10 in Line 335?

5. In Discussion,

(1) What is the Qingnan area in Line 488?

(2) What are the similarities and differences between this study and other research result and what is the application and reference value of this study in other research cases?

6. In Conclusions is still illogical and need to be revised.

The narratives of Conclusions in Line 506-520 are too long.

Some narratives still need to be consolidated into compound and concise expressions，and restructure your sentence for logical readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is relevant for the journal presenting ecologic vulnerability at the nature-human interface. 

The abstract summarises well the article.

The structure of the article is very good. There are some minor issues to fix. For example the description of the zone is repeated in the introduction and at material and methods. In the introduction it is recommended not to focus on the case study which exemplifies the method but rather discuss the global relevance of the latter. In the same line of thought the general method has to be highlighted.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

We can see the revised Manuscript have been a more appropriate and meaningful topic which has important value both to theory and to practice in ecosystem management and land spatial planning.

However, there are some issues that need to be improved or revised.

1. The Abstract should be clearer and more logical.

 (1) In my last reply, I suggested that the “Three Zone Space” should be explained clearly, so is it more appropriate to write like this in Line 12-13: The changes in the "Three Zone Space," including ecological space, production space and living space, derived from land use abstractions, reflect the extent and manner of human activities' impact.

(2) The sentence in Line 19-20, “However, …, in this area” should be moved before the word “Therefore” in Line 25, or deleted.

2. The statements of the Introduction is with slightly poor logics, and the research purposes and research innovation are not clear.

(1) The position of these sentences in the fourth paragraph in Line 173-184 seems inappropriate. They should be placed after sentences in the second paragraph in Line 76-77. These can be mixed together in in the second paragraph, and condensed into a few sentences with logics.

 (2) The statement of this sentence in Line 129-130 is vague, I do not understand, can you explain it properly?

(3) At present, the research review of spatial autocorrelation and GeoDetector is not enough and needs to be further deepened.

(4) The position of these sentences in the third paragraph in Line 137-140 and 143-148 seems to be out of place and should be placed in the objectives of this study in the fifth paragraph.

3. There some issues in the statements of Materials and Methods that need to be improved.

(1) The words on Figure 1 are too small to read clearly, you can change the notation form in Figure 1, or list a table for the county and town of the study area.

(2) A Chinese character appears in Table 3, perhaps you should be more careful！

4. In Results,

(1) Many words in Figure 2 and Figure 5 are difficult to see, please improve it.

(2) I still stick to my last point, Figure 3 and Table 4 still need to be further modified in terms of format and aesthetics.

5. In Reference

There is a problem with the format of reference 3. In addition, please carefully check the format of other references as required by the journal.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx