Study on Spatial and Temporal Evolution of Carbon Stock in East Coastal Area of Zhejiang Based on InVEST and GIS Modeling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an analysis on the spatio-temporal evolution of carbon storage in the eastern coastal region of Zhejiang using the InVEST model and GIS. However, there are areas for improvement in the clarity of the interpretation of results and the justification of certain statements. The topic is worthy of research; however, it has several major changes that need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication.

General comments

C1. The manuscript is well organized, but there are some sections that could benefit from a better structuring of ideas, especially in the introduction and discussion.

C2. The main concern is that the novelty of the research is not fully clear. If such novelty is not clearly highlighted, the risk is that the manuscript looks more a simple case study rather than a research paper.

C3. What are the major contributions of this study? should be carefully mentioned in the discussion section.

C4. Greater clarity in the justification for the use of the InVEST model and the selection of the study area.

C5. More detailed interpretation of Moran's I and Local Moran's I results.

C6. Include a more detailed discussion of the implications for land use change and carbon storage.

C7. The conclusion should provide practical recommendations based on the study findings.

*The answer to these questions should be reflected in the manuscript.

Specific comments

Line 37: What does 1719 mean?

Line 41: What is 206014?

Lin 34-41: The authors do not mention previous studies from other regions with similar conditions. Include comparisons with studies to improve the justification of the work.

Line 77-82: How does the InVEST model address the impact of land use change on carbon storage?

Line 64-86: Several studies are mentioned without a discussion of their strengths and weaknesses. Why was this approach selected over other models available to estimate carbon (e.g., carbon flux models or neural networks)?

Line 104-106: You do not specify why this particular region was chosen. Is it representative of other coastal areas in China?

Line 130: Change “KM” to “km”.

Line 134-139: No mention of whether accuracy validations were performed for the classification data. How was the quality of the land use data checked, or where can information on its accuracy be found?

Line 148-150: The carbon density estimate is based on previous literature, but there is no mention of whether adjustments were made for local conditions. The assumption that carbon density is constant over time is an important limitation. Since carbon density may vary due to climatic and soil management differences, it should be clarified whether adjustments or validations were made with field data, as the results of this study depend on it. It should be discussed how this assumption could affect the results and whether sensitivity analyses were performed to assess its impact.

Line 199-224: The description of Moran's I and Local Moran's I analysis is technical and lacks interpretation. It is recommended to add a brief explanation of what a high or low value means in the context of carbon dynamics in the region.

Line 228-278: The section on land use changes lacks a discussion of the possible socioeconomic factors that drove these changes. Are there policies or economic trends that explain the reduction in agricultural land?

Line 306: Change in figure “body of water” to “water bodies”.

Line 310-320: No explanation of what could have caused the decrease in carbon.

Line 333: It is mentioned that the forest is the main reservoir of carbon, which is a bit obvious. It is not discussed whether there are reforestation or conservation programs in the region that could be influencing this dynamic.

Line 366: Why does high agglomeration remain stable in some areas while others show reduction? Strengthen the analysis.

Line 418: It is mentioned that land use changes were “drastic”, but the reduction in carbon storage does not seem to be as severe. The authors should review and correct the consistency in the presentation of results and conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well-organized and well-written, making it an engaging piece. However, to improve the quality of the paper, the following minor suggestions should be considered:

1- The Introduction should emphasize the importance of the topic and the gap in the literature.

2- Consider including a figure that outlines the various steps of the "Methods" section to aid reader understanding.

3- It would be beneficial to include a figure summarizing the key findings at the end of the "Results" section.

4- Consider splitting the "Results and Discussion" section into two separate sections: "Results" and "Discussion and Practical Implications".

5- Ensure that policy implications are derived from the research findings.

6- Please ensure to include a "Limitations and directions for improvement" subsection in the "Conclusions" section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article Study on Spatial and Temporal Evolution of Carbon Stock in the East Coastal Area of Zhejiang Based on InVEST and GIS Modeling is interesting and covers many cities in Zhejiang Province using the InVEST model and GIS modeling. However, I have several concerns:

1. The presentation and writing of the paper are not well articulated. There are many writing and grammar issues. The authors should read scientific papers to understand how to write and follow the universal IMRAD rule for abstracts.

2. The novelty and contribution are not clearly explained.

3. In the introduction, the previous works are not cited properly. For example, China’s dual carbon goals and other relevant research are not mentioned. There should be more attention to writing the introduction in a scientific way to clearly convey the purpose of the paper.

4. The abstract clearly explains the application of the InVEST model and GIS, but in the introduction, the term "carbon stock" should be explained more clearly. This may help readers understand it from the start.

5. The introduction section name is missing, and the sections are dispersed. There is a need to organize Section 2 as "Study Data and Methodology," and subsequently, divide it into 2.1 Study Area and 2.2 Methodology.

6. The authors did not mention spatial correlation in the abstract or conclusion. The use of Moran's I is not explained. There is a need for a structured approach to explain why Moran's I is used.

7. The authors should include a flowchart in the methodology. This will help the reader understand it better.

8. Rephrase lines 25 and 26 in the abstract.

9. Revise the keyword "coastal area" as it is enough. There is no need to include "Zhejiang" in the keyword.

10. The authors did not read their paper thoroughly. For instance, line 37 mentions “1719,” and similarly, lines 41, 46, 50, 63, 68, and 72 contain unclear numbers. The authors should fix these issues so that reviewers and editors do not have to address them.

11. Avoid using “home and abroad” in scientific papers. Use “international literature” instead.

12. The data obtained is not explained properly. It should be clarified where the data originates.

13. What does the "10" mean in Equation 1?

14. What is the unit of carbon stock in Equation 2? The unit for total area is also missing in the equation.

15. Line 258 has an ambiguous number “20059.”

16. There is significant improvement needed, especially in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion. The conclusion, limitations, and future recommendations are missing. The conclusion usually covers the study’s objective, data and methodology, main findings, implications, limitations, and future recommendations.

17. The study considers data from 2000 to 2020, but the implications for 2025 and future years are missing in the discussion or conclusion. These need to be elaborated on.

18. The authors have mostly used Chinese references. It is necessary to include references from international journals and top-tier journals to strengthen the credibility and global relevance of the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The presentation and writing of the paper are not well articulated. There are many writing and grammar issues. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have significantly improved my queries; however, fine-tuning is still needed to eliminate grammatical mistakes. In their response, they mentioned the period "2005-9", which should be corrected to "2005–2009". Additionally, the flowchart should be drawn using Microsoft Visio to enhance its aesthetic appeal. It should include directional arrows and follow a more logical structure. Please refer to similar papers to ensure consistency in design and presentation.

Furthermore, the flowchart should be re-designed using Microsoft Visio to enhance visual clarity and professionalism. Please ensure that the flowchart uses appropriate shapes:

Rectangles for processes

Diamonds for decision points (with clear "Yes" or "No" paths)

Ovals for start and end points

Arrows to show the logical sequence and direction of flow

In the abstract, the first sentence should present the global issue, followed by identifying the research gap. Then, the study's focus, including the investment and GIS model, can be introduced. This should be followed by the main findings and finally the conclusion. Some fine-tuning is still required in this section.

Please also avoid using terms such as "mechanistically"; consider replacing them with more appropriate and natural alternatives.

Line 328 equation needs to be fixed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf