Assessment of the Implementation Effects of Main Functional Area Planning in the Yangtze River Economic Belt

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The authors should highlight the academic value of the research paper as much as possible in the introduction, and the innovation of the paper needs to be prominently presented in this part.

2. The Fig.1 only displays the assessment of the implementation effects of the principal functional area, but the content of this paper only contains the assessment contents may appear relatively thin. It is necessary to enrich the research content framework, and clearly state the purpose and foothold of the evaluation.

3. What is the relationship between the third and fourth parts? The hierarchy of the structure of this paper needs to be clarified.

4. The main content of the paper is only evaluation the assessment of the implementation effects of the principal functional area using simple indicators, more like a report than an academic paper. The academic rationality of the paper needs to be strengthened.

5. The research methods are too simple and lacks academic value.

6. The English language should be checked and improved in whole parts of the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language should be checked and improved in whole parts of the paper.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Attached file with comments

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the extensive research and analysis presented in the manuscript, it is evident that the green and high-quality development of the Yangtze River Economic Belt is a complex and multifaceted endeavor. The authors have effectively highlighted the importance of functional zoning strategies and the need for coordinated regional development. The use of indicators such as the Single Land Use Dynamics Index and Relative Land Use Change Rate adds depth to the assessment of land space protection and development. Moving forward, it would be beneficial for the authors to delve deeper into the potential challenges and opportunities associated with implementing these strategies, as well as provide practical recommendations for policymakers and stakeholders.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see document attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English quality is okay.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the paper according to the comments. The current version of the paper is recommended for publication

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Comment: The authors have revised the paper according to the comments. The current version of the paper is recommended for publication. Minor editing of English language required.

Response: Thank you very much for your recognition. We have made some modifications to optimize the language.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

N/A

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recognition. We have made some modifications to optimize the language.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the comments from the previous round of reviews.

The figures have been improved, however, the labels of the provinces are still fairly difficult to see. Consider either adding a halo around the labels, or placing them outside the map with arrows pointing to the correct province. The same comment applies to all maps that have the province labels listed.

Figure 3b the classifications in the legend seem inconsistent. While the classifications in Figure 3a are correct in terms of the way the classes are structured. Two consecutive classes cannot start and end with the same number.

In the text specify that they year 2016 is not counted twice. 

Author Response

Comments 1: The figures have been improved, however, the labels of the provinces are still fairly difficult to see. Consider either adding a halo around the labels, or placing them outside the map with arrows pointing to the correct province. The same comment applies to all maps that have the province labels listed.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. In the relevant figures, we have increased the font size of the labels and added a halo around them. Considering the beauty of the figures and the unobstructed information, we hope that this adjustment meets your expectations.

 

Comments 2: Figure 3b the classifications in the legend seem inconsistent. While the classifications in Figure 3a are correct in terms of the way the classes are structured. Two consecutive classes cannot start and end with the same number.

Response 2: Thank you for your reminder. We have corrected the legend in Figure 3b.

 

Comments 3: In the text specify that they year 2016 is not counted twice.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added a sentence in section 3.1.1 (line 227-230) to illustrate this point: “It should be noted that the year 2016 will not be counted twice because when we use 2011-2016, we calculate the growth rate rather than the total amount, which is the difference between the 2016 and 2011 data, and the same goes for 2016-2021.”