A Comprehensive Framework for Monitoring and Providing Early Warning of Resource and Environmental Carrying Capacity Within the Yangtze River Economic Belt Based on Big Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this manuscript, a comprehensive framework for resource and environmental carrying capacity (RECC) monitoring and early warning for the Yangtze River Economic Belt (YREB) was developed and an empirical analysis based on Big Data was conducted. The research in this article is important for understanding and improving the sustainable development of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, especially in terms of resource management and environmental protection. To improve the quality of the article, the authors may use the following notes.
(1) Introduction
It is recommended that the authors describe the Socio-economic context of the Yangtze River Economic Belt in more detail in the introduction section so that readers can better understand the significance and urgency of the study.
The research gap should be clearly presented.
(2) Methodology
It is recommended that authors detail the rationale for selecting specific indicators and explain how these reflect the full range of RECC.
Further explanation of how the indicator weights were determined.
To improve the reproducibility of the work, the authors are recommended to complete the process of data preprocessing.
(3) Results
In the results section, it is recommended that more graphs and charts be used to illustrate the spatial and temporal changes in RECC, especially in the comparative analysis of the different city groups.
For the statistical analysis of RECC, it is recommended to provide more descriptive statistics, such as mean and standard deviation, to help the reader better understand the data.
The article provides an analysis of spatial and temporal changes in RECC from 2010 to 2020, and the results show that RECC has an overall upward trend, but with considerable spatial heterogeneity. It is recommended that the authors further investigate the possible reasons for these trends and patterns and their potential implications for policy.
(4) Discussion
In the discussion section, the authors should explain the specific implications of the findings for policy making in both the short and long term.
The article could be further compared with the existing literature, especially in terms of differences and similarities in RECC assessment methods and results.
The article uses a comprehensive evaluation methodology that combines several dimensions of indicators to evaluate RECC. It is recommended that the authors further discuss the applicability and limitations of the chosen methodology as well as comparisons with other methods.
It is recommended that the authors discuss the limitations of the study, including biases in data sources, choice of methodology, etc., and suggest possible directions for future research.
Author Response
In this manuscript, a comprehensive framework for resource and environmental carrying capacity (RECC) monitoring and early warning for the Yangtze River Economic Belt (YREB) was developed and an empirical analysis based on Big Data was conducted. The research in this article is important for understanding and improving the sustainable development of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, especially in terms of resource management and environmental protection. To improve the quality of the article, the authors may use the following notes.
General response: Thank you very much for your detailed review and valuable suggestions. We sincerely appreciate your insights and positive feedback, which will help us improve the quality of our manuscript.We will respond to each of your suggestions individually and make the necessary revisions accordingly.
Comment 1:(1) Introduction
It is recommended that the authors describe the Socio-economic context of the Yangtze River Economic Belt in more detail in the introduction section so that readers can better understand the significance and urgency of the study.The research gap should be clearly presented.
Response：Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised the introduction section to provide a more detailed description of the socio-economic context of the Yangtze River Economic Belt (YREB). This includes a discussion of the region's economic significance, its strategic role in national development, and the challenges it faces due to rapid growth and imbalanced resource and environmental management. Additionally, we have made the research gap clearer by emphasizing the limitations of previous studies, particularly the lack of comprehensive spatio-temporal assessments of the entire YREB and the insufficient focus on the unique territorial characteristics of the three urban agglomerations.The revised introduction section now reads as follows:"Despite these efforts, the evaluation of RECC in the YREB faces several challenges. Most research has been limited to select particular provinces and cities within the YREB based on a rough scale of spatial analysis, making the elaborative spatio-temporal assessment of the entire belt’s RECC variations impossible. Additionally, the focus on the YREB’s unique territorial characteristics, especially the three urban agglomerations, is still lacking, failing to offer specialized analysis and recommendations for the upper, middle, and lower river basins.To address the current research gap, the primary contributions of this study are outlined as follows: (1) Unlike previous studies that evaluated the RECC in the YREB on regional or panel scales, this study calculates the RECC at a more granular pixel scale; (2) It conducts a thorough evaluation of the RECC across three dimensions, i.e., urban development, ecological environment, and water and land resources based on multi-source geo-big data; and (3) It introduces risk warnings for the three urban agglomerations by examining key indicators to provide specific policy recommendations."
Comment 2:
(2) Methodology
It is recommended that authors detail the rationale for selecting specific indicators and explain how these reflect the full range of RECC.Further explanation of how the indicator weights were determined.To improve the reproducibility of the work, the authors are recommended to complete the process of data preprocessing.
Response: We appreciate your suggestion to provide a more detailed rationale for selecting the specific indicators and explaining how they reflect the full range of RECC. In response, we have included further clarification in the Methods section on the criteria and process for selecting the indicators. These indicators were chosen to comprehensively capture the socio-economic, ecological, and resource-environmental dimensions of the RECC. The selection process aimed to ensure that the indicators cover all relevant aspects of the region's sustainability and development capacity.Additionally, as per your recommendation, we have provided further explanation in the Methods section regarding the determination of indicator weights. We employed the entropy weight method, an objective approach that assigns weights to each indicator based on its dispersion across the study area. This ensures that the weights reflect the relative importance of each indicator in evaluating RECC. Regarding data preprocessing, we have clarified the preprocessing steps in the revised manuscript to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the work. These steps included the standardization of raw data and the spatialization of indicators, ensuring consistency and reliability in the analysis. We hope these revisions provide a clearer understanding of the rationale and methodology used in our study. Thank you again for your valuable suggestions.
Comment 3:
(3) Results
In the results section, it is recommended that more graphs and charts be used to illustrate the spatial and temporal changes in RECC, especially in the comparative analysis of the different city groups.For the statistical analysis of RECC, it is recommended to provide more descriptive statistics, such as mean and standard deviation, to help the reader better understand the data.The article provides an analysis of spatial and temporal changes in RECC from 2010 to 2020, and the results show that RECC has an overall upward trend, but with considerable spatial heterogeneity. It is recommended that the authors further investigate the possible reasons for these trends and patterns and their potential implications for policy.
Response: This revised section now provides additional explanations on the reasons behind the spatial and temporal trends, as well as their potential implications for policy, addressing the reviewer's suggestion.
Comment 4:
(4) Discussion
In the discussion section, the authors should explain the specific implications of the findings for policy making in both the short and long term.The article could be further compared with the existing literature, especially in terms of differences and similarities in RECC assessment methods and results.The article uses a comprehensive evaluation methodology that combines several dimensions of indicators to evaluate RECC. It is recommended that the authors further discuss the applicability and limitations of the chosen methodology as well as comparisons with other methods.It is recommended that the authors discuss the limitations of the study, including biases in data sources, choice of methodology, etc., and suggest possible directions for future research.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added a section in the discussion to address the limitations of the study and outline directions for future research, as you suggested.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments to authors
Major comments and recommendations:
1. The paper needs a paragraph in the discussion which acknowledges the major limitations of the data and methods; e.g., using the maximum annual NDVI value ignores the information that can be obtained from examining seasonal and year-to-year variation based on monthly time steps; using a spatial resolution of 1km.
2. Components of the methods need further explanation for the reader, with references. If necessary, some of these additional details could be placed in Supp Mat.
a. L132 Please explain joint inversion techniques
b. L206 Further explanation is needed of the entropy weight method. I don't understand it based on the information provided here and I doubt many readers will. Can the authors please provide further details including translating the entropy terminology into what this means with respect to the normalized indicator values. As written, it is not clear what the weightings represent in reality.
c. L254 Please explain what the natural break method is.
3. There are major limitations with reducing the 20 indictors into a one-dimension index as the rich information is hidden from sight as are possible tradeoffs between the socio-economic, ecological, and resource dimensions. Therefore, I recommend the authors provide an additional analysis e.g., through a spider chart, such as used by the Planetary Boundaries (https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html), to provide a more granulated insight into how the focal regions within the YREB vary with respect to all the indicators. So doing will also provide evidence in support of many instances in the section where RECC and risk results are discussed (e.g. L320-323, L334-340, paragraph starting L349.
Minor queries and grammatical corrections:
L74 “...resources, population...” should read ““...resources and population...”
L105 Please clarify what defines the boundary of the YREB. For example, is it a water shed boundary defined by administrative boundaries?
L108 “Its gross domestic product (GDP) is...” should read “It supports a gross domestic production (GDP) of approximately...”
L112 Please clarify what you mean by “Except for the entire TREB region”
L144 and 145 “data” is actually the plural form of datum (singular). So, these sentences should read “These data are’’ and “These data were”.
L148 Provide a reference for WorldClim dataset.
Table 1 There are three indicators which are called “rates” but they are defined as ratios (Urbanization rate; Rates of rivers and lakes; Rate of ecological land error. They should all be called ratios, not rates.
Table 1 I think the indicator called “Prone to soil erosion” would be more accurately called an index potential soil erosion.
L188 “subsequently conducting” as input to the subsequent”
L232 Define the acronym SDE in this sentence.
L268 “suffer” is not an appropriate word to use as it is normative, e.g. reduced population density is neither good or bad per se. Replace with “exhibit”.
L339 “As a result, this study evaluates” should read “
L372 Better to write in the active sense. So, “the study suggests” should read “We suggest”
L291-293 I can’t follow the logic here. The three factors mentioned do not necessarily result in soil erosion. Please clarify.
Author Response
Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have taken to review our manuscript and provide valuable feedback. Your insights have helped us identify areas for improvement, and we will address each point carefully to enhance the clarity and quality of our study.In particular, we will make revisions to clarify the limitations in data and methods, as well as to expand on the methodology details, referencing where necessary. We will also consider incorporating additional analysis, such as a spider chart, to present a more detailed view of the indicators and their variations across focal regions within the YREB. Additionally, we will address minor language corrections and clarify specific terms and phrases to improve readability. Once again, thank you for your valuable input. We will respond to each of your points in detail in our response document.
Comment 1: 1. The paper needs a paragraph in the discussion which acknowledges the major limitations of the data and methods; e.g., using the maximum annual NDVI value ignores the information that can be obtained from examining seasonal and year-to-year variation based on monthly time steps; using a spatial resolution of 1km.
Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have carefully considered your comments regarding the limitations of our data and methods, specifically concerning the use of maximum annual NDVI values and the 1 km spatial resolution. In response, we have added a dedicated paragraph in the discussion section that addresses these limitations in detail. Please see Section 5.2.
Comment 2: 2. Components of the methods need further explanation for the reader, with references. If necessary, some of these additional details could be placed in Supp Mat.
- L132 Please explain joint inversion techniques
Response: Thank you for your comment regarding the clarification of "joint inversion techniques" in our study. We would like to explain that in this context, joint inversion techniques refer to the approach of spatializing original statistical data by integrating multiple remote sensing datasets. Specifically, this involves using nighttime light remote sensing data to enhance the spatial resolution of GDP and population data, transforming them into kilometer-level gridded spatial data. To more accurately reflect the approach used in our study, the phrase "joint inversion techniques" has been modified to "Multi-source data fusion methods." This change more accurately reflects our approach of integrating statistical data with nighttime light remote sensing data. We have provided a more detailed explanation in the revised manuscript, including references to the relevant literature that outlines the methodologies employed for this process. We hope this clarification addresses your concerns and enhances the understanding of our approach.
- L206 Further explanation is needed of the entropy weight method. I don't understand it based on the information provided here and I doubt many readers will. Can the authors please provide further details including translating the entropy terminology into what this means with respect to the normalized indicator values. As written, it is not clear what the weightings represent in reality.
Response：Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your suggestion to clarify the entropy weight method and its application in our study. In response, we have expanded the explanation in the methods section to provide a more detailed description. We now include an explanation of how the entropy weight method works in the context of normalized indicator values, highlighting how it measures the degree of variation in each indicator. Specifically, indicators with higher variability (and thus more information content) are assigned greater weight, while those with less variation receive lower weight. This approach ensures that indicators with more dynamic behavior contribute more significantly to the overall assessment, offering a clearer reflection of the indicator's impact in the real-world context of our study. We believe this additional explanation makes the application of the entropy weight method more accessible to readers, and we thank you for prompting us to enhance this aspect of the manuscript.
- L254 Please explain what the natural break method is.
Response: The natural breaks method, also known as the Jenks optimization algorithm, is a commonly used data classification method. Its core idea is to divide the data into several categories in such a way that the differences within each category are minimized, while the differences between categories are maximized. This method effectively highlights the inherent structure of the data, facilitating visualization and analysis. The natural breaks method employs clustering thinking; however, unlike clustering, it also considers the range and number of elements in each group to be as similar as possible. It posits that there are natural (non-arbitrary) turning points and breaks between any sequence of numbers, and these natural breaks are statistically significant. These turning points can be used to group the subjects of study into categories with similar characteristics. We have made modifications and additions in the revised text.
Comment 3:
- There are major limitations with reducing the 20 indictors into a one-dimension index as the rich information is hidden from sight as are possible tradeoffs between the socio-economic, ecological, and resource dimensions. Therefore, I recommend the authors provide an additional analysis e.g., through a spider chart, such as used by the Planetary Boundaries (https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html), to provide a more granulated insight into how the focal regions within the YREB vary with respect to all the indicators. So doing will also provide evidence in support of many instances in the section where RECC and risk results are discussed (e.g. L320-323, L334-340, paragraph starting L349.
Response：Thank you for the valuable suggestion. We understand the concern regarding the potential loss of important information when reducing the 20 indicators into a single-dimensional index, especially with respect to the trade-offs between socio-economic, ecological, and resource dimensions. However, most of the indicators used in this study are spatially processed and represented in pixel format, and they also possess temporal sequences, meaning they are three-dimensional indicators in time series. This allows us to capture not only spatial distribution but also dynamic changes over time. Due to space limitations in the manuscript and the challenges posed by the differing dimensions of the indicators, it is difficult to directly apply a spider chart or similar methods to represent the data. The varying units of measurement across indicators make it challenging to compare them on a unified scale, and the large volume of data would significantly increase the complexity of the analysis if spatial visualization were to be included. That being said, we will consider this suggestion for future work, and aim to optimize our data visualization methods to better illustrate the relative changes and interrelationships between the indicators. We appreciate the reviewer’s in-depth understanding of the study and their constructive feedback for further improvements.
Comment 4:
L74 “...resources, population...” should read ““...resources and population...”
Response：I have modified the expression based on your suggestion.
Comment 5:
L105 Please clarify what defines the boundary of the YREB. For example, is it a water shed boundary defined by administrative boundaries?
Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s request for clarification. In our study, the boundary of the Yangtze River Economic Belt (YREB) is defined based on administrative divisions, aligning with the region's economic and policy frameworks rather than its hydrological or watershed boundaries. This approach enables a more consistent analysis within the context of regional planning and development policies. We have revised the manuscript to clarify the definition of the Yangtze River Economic Belt (YREB) boundary as requested (see line 105).
Comment 6:
L108 “Its gross domestic product (GDP) is...” should read “It supports a gross domestic production (GDP) of approximately...”
Response: We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions in the revised manuscript.
Comment 7:
L112 Please clarify what you mean by “Except for the entire TREB region”
Response: Thank you for your comment. To clarify, we mean that, in addition to examining the entire Yangtze River Economic Belt (YREB) region, our study places particular emphasis on the three major urban agglomerations within the YREB: the Upper Yangtze River (Chengdu-Chongqing), Middle Yangtze River (Hunan-Hubei-Jiangxi), and Lower Yangtze River Delta regions. These urban clusters serve as the primary focus areas in our research, as indicated in Fig. 1.
Comment 8:
L144 and 145 “data” is actually the plural form of datum (singular). So, these sentences should read “These data are’’ and “These data were”.
Response: We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions in the revised manuscript.
Comment 9:
L148 Provide a reference for WorldClim dataset.
Response: We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions in the revised manuscript.
Comment 10:
Table 1 There are three indicators which are called “rates” but they are defined as ratios (Urbanization rate; Rates of rivers and lakes; Rate of ecological land error. They should all be called ratios, not rates.
Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have made the necessary revisions based on your suggestions.
Comment 11:
Table 1 I think the indicator called “Prone to soil erosion” would be more accurately called an index potential soil erosion.
Response: We appreciate your insightful comment regarding the terminology. We have revised the indicator from 'Prone to soil erosion' to 'Potential soil erosion' to more accurately reflect its meaning and implications.
Comment 12:
L188 “subsequently conducting” as input to the subsequent”
Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised the sentence to clarify the process of using the normalized values in the statistical analysis.
Comment 13:
L232 Define the acronym SDE in this sentence.
Response: We have defined the acronym "SDE" in the manuscript as "Standard Deviational Ellipse."
Comment 14:
L268 “suffer” is not an appropriate word to use as it is normative, e.g. reduced population density is neither good or bad per se. Replace with “exhibit”.
Response: We agree that the term "suffer" is normative and may imply a negative connotation regarding reduced population density. In the revised manuscript, we have replaced "suffer" with "exhibit" in line 268 to reflect a more neutral description.
Comment 15:
L339 “As a result, this study evaluates” should read “
Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the sentence as suggested. The revised sentence now reads: "This study evaluates the urban drainage capacity in the midstream cluster through indicators such as the rate of ground hardening and the length of drainage pipes.
Comment 16:
L372 Better to write in the active sense. So, “the study suggests” should read “We suggest”
Response: We have revised the sentence to reflect an active voice.
Comment 17:
L291-293 I can’t follow the logic here. The three factors mentioned do not necessarily result in soil erosion. Please clarify.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We also recognize that the statement regarding challenging terrain, sparse population, and an underdeveloped economy contributing to soil erosion may not be entirely justified. Therefore, we have revised the manuscript to remove this sentence to avoid any confusion.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I appreciate as particularly valuable the research that analyses and deals with the problem of resources and environmental transport capacity (RECC) in the Yangtze River Economic Belt (YREB), emphasizing the dynamics of its evolution between 2010 and 2020. It is worth noting that the research covers a ten-year period, involving an integrated framework that combines remote sensing, geographic information and social statistical data to provide a detailed and accurate picture of spatial and temporal changes in the region. Overall, the study makes a valuable contribution to the understanding of socio-ecological sustainable development in YREB, but also presents certain methodological and interpretive limitations.
The use of an integrated analysis framework, which combines remote sensing data with geographic information and social statistical data, is a strength of the study. This technique approach ensures a rigorous and comprehensive analysis, allowing the authors to identify not only the surface changes of RECC, but also to link socio-economic and environmental factors. Thus, the analysis framework proves appropriate for complex studies involving large-scale data and spatial variability.
The study manages to highlight the spatial heterogeneity within the YREB, showing how RECC is unevenly distributed, with notable declines in the western regions, in contrast to relative stability in the eastern and central areas. These results are substantiated by analysis using the standard deviation ellipse (SDE) method, which clearly highlights spatial trends.
Another valuable aspect is the practical applicability of the study, especially through the introduction of risk monitoring indicators and optimized strategies based on early warning levels. This aspect turns research into a useful tool for local and regional authorities, offering practical solutions to prevent the degradation of environmental resources and promote more balanced development.
Some recommendations
Although the study identifies a number of clear trends and spatial patterns, there is not a sufficiently detailed analysis of the causes of these changes. For example, it would have been useful to explore more to what extent specific economic policies, accelerated urbanization or industrialization contributed to the decline of RECC in certain regions. A stronger link between the causal factors and the evolution of RECC would have added value to the study.
Although the analysis provides a broad view of the entire YREB region, it can be seen as too general. Details are lacking on specific economic sectors or types of natural resources (eg water, soil, air) that contribute differently to RECC. A more thorough analysis of local factors could have provided a more nuanced perspective on regional issues.
The study focuses on the period 2010-2020, which is useful to understand past and present dynamics. However, I would suggest a chapter dedicated to future projections would have been beneficial to provide a clearer view of future environmental and economic challenges in the YREB. Projections based on statistical models would have provided a solid basis for assessing future risks and planning long-term mitigation measures.
Overall, the study provides a valuable contribution to the literature on the relationship between economic development and environmental sustainability in the YREB. The innovative methodological approach and detailed results emphasize the importance of integrated analyzes for understanding the dynamics of resources and the environment. However, the limitations of the study, such as the lack of in-depth causal analysis and the absence of future projections, leave room for improvement in future research. The study should be considered a starting point for further analyses that explore in depth the specific factors that influence long-term regional sustainability and development.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
I appreciate as particularly valuable the research that analyses and deals with the problem of resources and environmental transport capacity (RECC) in the Yangtze River Economic Belt (YREB), emphasizing the dynamics of its evolution between 2010 and 2020. It is worth noting that the research covers a ten-year period, involving an integrated framework that combines remote sensing, geographic information and social statistical data to provide a detailed and accurate picture of spatial and temporal changes in the region. Overall, the study makes a valuable contribution to the understanding of socio-ecological sustainable development in YREB, but also presents certain methodological and interpretive limitations. The use of an integrated analysis framework, which combines remote sensing data with geographic information and social statistical data, is a strength of the study. This technique approach ensures a rigorous and comprehensive analysis, allowing the authors to identify not only the surface changes of RECC, but also to link socio-economic and environmental factors. Thus, the analysis framework proves appropriate for complex studies involving large-scale data and spatial variability. The study manages to highlight the spatial heterogeneity within the YREB, showing how RECC is unevenly distributed, with notable declines in the western regions, in contrast to relative stability in the eastern and central areas. These results are substantiated by analysis using the standard deviation ellipse (SDE) method, which clearly highlights spatial trends. Another valuable aspect is the practical applicability of the study, especially through the introduction of risk monitoring indicators and optimized strategies based on early warning levels. This aspect turns research into a useful tool for local and regional authorities, offering practical solutions to prevent the degradation of environmental resources and promote more balanced development.
Some recommendations
Although the study identifies a number of clear trends and spatial patterns, there is not a sufficiently detailed analysis of the causes of these changes. For example, it would have been useful to explore more to what extent specific economic policies, accelerated urbanization or industrialization contributed to the decline of RECC in certain regions. A stronger link between the causal factors and the evolution of RECC would have added value to the study.Although the analysis provides a broad view of the entire YREB region, it can be seen as too general. Details are lacking on specific economic sectors or types of natural resources (eg water, soil, air) that contribute differently to RECC. A more thorough analysis of local factors could have provided a more nuanced perspective on regional issues.The study focuses on the period 2010-2020, which is useful to understand past and present dynamics. However, I would suggest a chapter dedicated to future projections would have been beneficial to provide a clearer view of future environmental and economic challenges in the YREB. Projections based on statistical models would have provided a solid basis for assessing future risks and planning long-term mitigation measures.Overall, the study provides a valuable contribution to the literature on the relationship between economic development and environmental sustainability in the YREB. The innovative methodological approach and detailed results emphasize the importance of integrated analyzes for understanding the dynamics of resources and the environment. However, the limitations of the study, such as the lack of in-depth causal analysis and the absence of future projections, leave room for improvement in future research. The study should be considered a starting point for further analyses that explore in depth the specific factors that influence long-term regional sustainability and development.
Response：Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and constructive comments. I have carefully considered your suggestions and made the following revisions to address the points you raised:
In-depth Causal Analysis: I agree that a more detailed exploration of the causes behind the changes in RECC would strengthen the study. While the focus of this study is on spatial patterns and trends, I have now expanded the discussion section to include a more thorough consideration of potential causal factors such as economic policies, urbanization, and industrialization, especially in relation to the decline of RECC in certain regions. I believe this will provide a clearer understanding of the driving forces behind the observed trends.
Specific Economic Sectors and Natural Resources: Your suggestion to delve deeper into specific economic sectors and natural resources is well taken. I have enhanced the analysis by incorporating a discussion of how different sectors (such as agriculture, industry, and services) and natural resources (water, soil, air) contribute differently to RECC. This addition aims to provide a more nuanced perspective on the regional variations in RECC.
Future Projections: As you suggested, a chapter dedicated to future projections would provide valuable insights into the long-term environmental and economic challenges of the YREB. I have now included a section in the discussion that outlines potential future trends, based on statistical models, to assess the risks and challenges the region may face in the coming decades. This section aims to provide a foundation for future research and policy development.
I believe these additions address your concerns and contribute to a more comprehensive analysis of RECC in the YREB. I hope the revised manuscript meets your expectations, and I appreciate your time and effort in reviewing my work.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLand-3283360
A comprehensive framework for monitoring and providing an early warning of resource and environmental carrying capacity within the Yangtze River Economic Belt based in big data
This is a very well written research article, but this reviewer recommends a few changes to improve the article.
English usage needs some editing particularly in the abstract and introduction.
Introduction -lines 96 to 102- the study objectives are clearly stated but what do the authors hope to find. Are there any hypotheses?
Methodology – line 162- please spell out SDE method here.
Results and Discussion
Authors should consider splitting Optimization strategies at line 371 into a separate discussion section.
Conclusion- authors need to address study limitations, method generalizability to other regions and future research needed.
Author Response
A comprehensive framework for monitoring and providing an early warning of resource and environmental carrying capacity within the Yangtze River Economic Belt based in big data
This is a very well written research article, but this reviewer recommends a few changes to improve the article.
General response: Thank you very much for your detailed review and valuable suggestions. We sincerely appreciate your insights and positive feedback, which will help us improve the quality of our manuscript.We will respond to each of your suggestions individually and make the necessary revisions accordingly.
Comment 1:English usage needs some editing particularly in the abstract and introduction.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have revised and refined the English usage in both the abstract and introduction to improve clarity and readability
Comment 2:
Introduction -lines 96 to 102- the study objectives are clearly stated but what do the authors hope to find. Are there any hypotheses?
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. Regarding your question, this study does not explicitly propose hypotheses, as it is an exploratory study aimed at addressing gaps in the existing literature. The main contributions of this study are as follows:
Granular Spatial Scale: Unlike previous studies that evaluated RECC at regional or panel scales, this study calculates RECC at a more granular pixel scale.
Comprehensive Evaluation: It conducts a thorough evaluation of RECC across three dimensions—urban development, ecological environment, and water and land resources—using multi-source geo-big data.
Risk Warnings and Policy Recommendations: By examining key indicators for the three urban agglomerations, this study provides specific risk warnings and policy recommendations.
These contributions highlight the study's efforts to fill existing research gaps and innovate RECC assessment methods. Future research will aim to further refine and test the hypotheses related to these findings.
Comment 3:
Methodology – line 162- please spell out SDE method here.
Response: I have now spelled out the SDE method in line 162 as requested. The term "SDE" is now fully explained for clarity.
Comment 4:Results and Discussion
Authors should consider splitting Optimization strategies at line 371 into a separate discussion section.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have split the "Optimization strategies" section at line 371 into a separate discussion section, as recommended.
Comment 5:
Conclusion- authors need to address study limitations, method generalizability to other regions and future research needed.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have added a new subsection in the discussion section addressing the study's limitations and future directions, as recommended.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors addressed all my comments. I have no further comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have done a satisfactory job in revising the document to take into account my earlier comments and recommendations. The paper is readu for publication.
