Spatial and Temporal Evolution Assessment of Landscape Ecological Resilience Based on Adaptive Cycling in Changsha–Zhuzhou–Xiangtan Urban Agglomeration, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Method section

In lines 150-152..the authors mention: In this region, land use is classified into forest, grassland, water body, construction land, bare land and cultivated land…however no mention as it is obtained the classics….what type of satellite images used? What algorithm is used for classification? Please report the result of the confusion matrix 

this information is vital and the authors need to aggregate it

Figure 2
I suggest change Landuse type by Landuse

This shows the map that shows the elevation by please indicate the elevation in meters..for example Elevation (m)

In table 1 we mention data and materials..without however the authors do not mention the source of information which contains the Landa cover, NDVI, soil type..digital elevation model…etc..
Please request that authors add a column to this table that mentions the satellite sensor/image that is used to obtain this information.

Table 2. It is necessary that the authors explain how to obtain the values ​​of AHP weight and Weight

Figure 6. The graphic is blurred by please change

Figure 10. Graphics are not readable

Section of discussion

Lines 536:537…please expand your discussion “the 536 uncontrolled expansion of construction land resulted in reduction in vegetation cover”…..

Please you review the following article: Sandoval, S., Escobar-Flores, J. G., & Badar Munir, M. (2023). Urbanization and its impacts on land surface temperature and sea surface temperature in a tourist region in Mexico from 1990 to 2020. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment, 32, 1010

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript, "Investigating the Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Driving Factors of Landscape Ecological Resilience from the Perspective of Adaptive Cycling in Changsha-Zhuzhou-Xiangtan Urban Agglomeration, China," explores an important and relevant topic in urban resilience. However, the study is difficult to follow due to unclear conceptual framing, insufficient methodological justification, and a lack of synthesis in key sections. These issues affect the  readability of the paper, making it challenging to assess its contributions. Below are my comments

Title

The title is overly long. Consider revising.

Abstract

The abstract is complex and difficult to follow, with long, convoluted sentences (e.g., Lines 19–24). There is unnecessary repetition, for example in the explanation of the two frameworks, which need to be more clearly distinguished. The conclusion does not clearly articulate the study’s practical contributions

Introduction

The introduction nees restructuring to bring a better/clearer structure and logical progression. The literature review is fragmented, presented as a list of studies rather than a synthesized discussion of key contributions and gaps. Additionally, the research gap is not explicitly stated, and the study’s objectives are unclear, making it difficult to understand how the research fits within the broader field. Key terms (e.g., urban agglomeration) are inconsistently defined.  

Methods

The study area is well described, but its relevance to landscape ecological resilience is not justified, remember is for readers that do not necessarily know the area. The data sources lack explanation, and potential limitations are not presented anywhere. The methodology section is highly technical, yet key analytical choices, parameter selection, and validation are not sufficiently justified. The ecological risk assessment framework and resilience calculation model need clearer rationale for indicator selection. Additionally, the adaptive cycling theory and Risk-Potential-Connectivity model are not introduced systematically, making their application unclear. Providing a structured justification for these methodological choices and ensuring transparency in parameter selection and validation is essential to bring the rigor and reproducibility of the study.

Results

The results are primarily descriptive, lacking synthesis and interpretation. The spatial patterns (e.g., ecological risk, potential, connectivity) is presented as numerical reporting rather than a comparative analysis. Statistical results (e.g., resilience indices, Moran’s I) are included but not sufficiently contextualized in terms of their significance or broader implications. The classification of resilience stages in the adaptive cycling analysis is also not well justified. Authors should workn on strengthening the interpretation of key trends and the discussion of influencing factors

Discussion

The discussion needs revision, restructuring but mostly rewritting since largely repeats the results instead of engaging in critical analysis. The text does not sufficiently explore underlying mechanisms that might explain observed resilience patterns (e.g., governance structures, policy interventions, environmental factors). Additionally, the manuscript can better articulate its contributions to other urban resilience research. This section needs also a stronger focus on comparisons with existing literature and a more analytical discussion of findings

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As already mentioned partly before, the manuscript suffers from grammatical errors, awkward sentence structures, and excessive verbosity, which reduce readability and overall clarity. Many sentences are overly long and fragmented, making it difficult to follow (e.g., Lines 48–50). There is inconsistency in terminology, such as multiple, unclear definitions of "urban agglomeration," this is confusing and need clarification. The use of complex, long, redundant phrases makes the text harder to follow, and transitions between sections are abrupt, disrupting logical progression. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached my comments. Introduction still needs extensive work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Still long phrases and complex sentences

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf