Integrating Ecological Footprint into Regional Ecological Well-Being Evaluation: A Case Study of the Guanzhong Plain Urban Agglomeration, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well researched and presented.  Overall, the paper is very good on the level of detail although I cannot check the numbers in this case.  Assuming the facts and figures are correct, I only have one major concern. The paper considers only the sustainability of the supply of basic material and biological resources for production purposes.  It does not really consider ecological sustainability or biodiversity: the ability of those ecosystems to sustain themselves in the context of unpredictable local and global forces. 

The programs that have improved or expanded various biologically productive uses, such as grasslands, timberlands and waterways, may have provided for the sustainable yield of supplies.  That is not the same as the sustainability of those land uses into the future in conditions of climate change.  Since the world has lost over 70% of its biodiversity in under 70 years, while toxins and plastic pollution is spreading everywhere, etc., etc., the suggestion that there is a net sustainability gain is not very credible.  For example, ecological sustainability (as opposed to sustainable yield) would require an increase in appropriate biodiversity among other things to prevent (or at least be resilient to) fires, floods, heat waves, tornadoes and so on.

One way the paper appears to gaslight the reader is by conflating ecological carrying capacity with human carrying capacity.  Ecological carrying capacity must mean the ability of nature or ecosystems to support pre-industrial levels of biodiversity.  Human carrying capacity must mean the ability of the environment to support the human population, which is currently still mushrooming.  Future demand for resources is entirely unpredictable given the accelerating rate of innovation, pandemics or diseases, and other exogenous forces such as international economic crises.

The paper implies that net sustainability has been achieved in some instances.  Sustainability is achievable with current forms of biophysical development. While the project uses ecological footprint analysis, it does not adequately account for cumulative impacts.  These include the pervasive and cumulative impacts of toxins and pollutants such as ‘forever chemicals’ or nano-plastics, etc., on nature’s ability to perpetuate itself.  Even the most ‘green’ development projects so far have a net negative impact on the nature environment as well as its ability to produce resources for human consumption.  Sustainability will require changing the nature of development on all scales. 

The paper does not have to go into ecological sustainability since the subject area is biological or material productivity.  However, it needs to state up front that it is not dealing with the ecological dimension or clarify the claims better.  The paper states what it does do more than once, but in a manner that conceals what it does not do.  In summary, it is misleading by appearing to deal with complexity but excludes essential components. The easiest way to rectify this is to add a paragraph in the beginning stating what the report does not do and a paragraph at the end stating what needs to be done next. 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The paper is well-researched and well-presented. Overall, it provides a strong level of detail, although I cannot verify the accuracy of the figures. Assuming the data is correct, I have one major concern: the paper focuses solely on the sustainability of material and biological resource supplies for production but does not adequately address ecological sustainability or biodiversity - specifically, the capacity of ecosystems to sustain themselves amid unpredictable local and global forces.

Programs that have improved or expanded biologically productive land uses, such as grasslands, timberlands, and waterways, may ensure a sustainable yield of resources. However, this is not the same as ensuring the long-term sustainability of those land uses in the face of climate change and geo-political uncertainty. Given that the world has lost over 70% of its biodiversity in less than 70 years - while toxins, plastic pollution, and other environmental threats continue to escalate - the claim of a net sustainability gain is questionable. Ecological sustainability, as opposed to sustainable yield, would require an increase in (appropriate) ecosystems, species and biodiversity to enhance resilience against fires, floods, heat waves, tornadoes, and other destabilizing events.

One way the paper misleads the reader is by conflating ecological carrying capacity with human carrying capacity. Ecological carrying capacity refers to nature’s ability to sustain pre-industrial levels of biodiversity, while human carrying capacity refers to the environment’s ability to support a growing human population. Future resource demand remains highly unpredictable due to accelerating technological innovation, pandemics, and external economic disruptions.

The paper also misleads by suggesting that net sustainability has been achieved in some cases and that sustainability is possible within current biophysical development models. However, while it employs ecological footprint analysis, it does not fully account for cumulative impacts - particularly the long-term effects of new toxins, pollutants (such as ‘forever chemicals’ and nano-plastics), and other environmental stressors that compromise nature’s regenerative capacity. Even the most ‘green’ development projects to date have a net negative impact on the natural environment and its ability to provide resources for human use. Achieving true sustainability will require fundamentally reshaping development at all scales.

The paper is not required to delve into ecological sustainability, as its focus is on biological and material productivity. However, it should explicitly acknowledge this limitation upfront or clarify its claims more transparently in an actual sustainability context. While the paper reiterates what it does cover, it does so in a way that obscures what it omits. As a result, it presents a misleading impression that it addresses complexity while excluding essential components. The most straightforward way to correct this would be to add an introductory paragraph stating what the report does not cover and a concluding paragraph outlining what further work is needed to provide a whole-system analysis.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Dear Authors, Your paper presents valuable research, but some key revisions are needed to enhance its clarity, structure, and overall impact before it can be considered for publication. Please consider the following suggestions:

1. The abstract should be rewritten to provide a more comprehensive overview of your study. It should clearly include the research context, the literature gap that highlights the novelty of your work, the methodology used, the main findings, and the future directions of your research.
2. The introduction would benefit from a more detailed state-of-the-art review to better position your study within existing literature and to clearly emphasize the research gap it aims to fill. Please consider incorporating the following references: 10.3390/su13105562, 10.1016/j.still.2022.105418. 
3. Include a Study Limitations Section to provide a clearer perspective on areas that require further investigation.
4. A thorough revision is recommended to correct any typographical errors, grammatical inconsistencies, and formatting issues to ensure that the manuscript meets publication standards.

With best wishes Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language must be improved

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study established a comprehensive framework for assessing regional ecological well-being by integrating ESV and EF consumption. Overall, the research content is rich and the method is reliable. However, there are some problems in the expression of the whole text. Specifically:
(1) In the first paragraph of the introduction, reduce the expression of "Chinese President Xi Jinping" and the like, because as an international journal, readers are not very interested in these contents. Therefore, the first paragraph as an introduction to the topic needs to be more concise and direct.
(2) The abbreviation (GPUA) in the second paragraph needs to be in full name, because the abstract and the main text are two independent parts. In addition, the second paragraph introduces the research area too early, and needs to enhance the international perspective.
(3) In the introduction, the author summarizes the literature and then proposes the research objectives of this paper, but the following content is very strange and should not appear in the introduction. It is recommended that the author delete it or move it to other subsections.
(4) Figure 1 needs to be optimized and is not clear. For example, the subtitle does not need to be placed in the figure, the three sub-figures need to be (a), (b) and (c), and the map of China should be simplified.
(5) In the section 2.2.2 EF supply and demand, it should be made clear what supply and demand are. Can ecological footprint and carbon emissions represent supply and demand? In addition, expressions such as "Based on existing academic studies" need to be cited.
(6) In the section 3.1. Land use change analysis, Figure 2 is a spatial distribution map of land use. There is no statistical analysis data. Can the corresponding data content in the text be obtained?
(7) The language expression of the whole text may need to be carefully polished, such as "land type" in Table 2.
(8) Line 306-307, the division of stages can be moved to the method.
(9) In the discussion, the author needs to discuss the reasons for the spatiotemporal heterogeneity of ESV and strengthen the comparison with previous related studies.
(10) The conclusion should be greatly reduced.
(11) It is recommended to move section 5.2 to the discussion, and the content needs to be refined.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The language expression of the whole text may need to be carefully polished, such as "land type" in Table 2.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates the integration of ecological footprint into regional ecological well-being evaluation, with a specific focus on the Guanzhong Plain Urban Agglomeration. It proposes a comprehensive framework for assessing net ecological well-being by combining ecosystem service value (ESV) and ecological footprint (EF) consumption. However, several critical issues need to be addressed. Therefore, major revisions are necessary before this manuscript can be considered for publication in Land.

1. I suggest briefly introducing the background of the research at the beginning of the abstract. 
2. Line 37-38: When describing ecosystems, please include necessary references.  
3. Line 39: The logic here is not rigorous enough. In fact, the ecological and environmental challenges China faces are the reasons for the proposal of ecological civilization.  
4. Please improve the clarity of all images.  
5. In section 2.2.1, please list the coefficient of ESV for each land use type.  
6. The formatting of the formulas needs to be corrected, please check them carefully.  
7. I recommend adding a comparison with the results of other similar studies in the discussion section.  
8. Section 5.2 is more suitable to be placed in the discussion, rather than in the conclusion section.
9 I suggest adding more references, as many parts of the manuscript where citations are needed are currently not referenced.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The new version of your manuscript is good and ready for publication. Best wihes 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

The revision seems properly addressed my recommendations. I have no further suggestions, and the paper can be considered for publishing.

With best regards

The reviewer