Ecological Recreation Across the Jinma Mountain Region: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Suburban Mountain Greenway Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of manuscript "Ecological Recreation across the Jinma Mountain Region: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Suburban Mountain Greenway Networks" (land-3740841)  

I am a reviewer of the previous version of this resubmitted manuscript. After a careful second review, I found that the new version has been significantly improved, and the authors have address all of the comments properly. More specifically, this manuscript breaks through the traditional, single-function research framework by combining the construction of a countryside and mountain greenway network system with dual-function coupling from the perspective of ecology and leisure. This opens up a new way of thinking about greenway research. The study's findings are closely linked with the Kunming Territorial Spatial Master Plan and can be translated from academic research into policy practice. They provide local governments with actionable solutions to promote the coordinated development of ecology and leisure. In summary, the current version is ready for publication. I have no more comments or suggestions.

Author Response

We are deeply grateful for your insightful feedback throughout the review process. Your recognition of our work—particularly its novel integration of ecological-recreational duality in mountainous greenway planning and its policy relevance to Kunming's territorial spatial master plan—is immensely encouraging. We sincerely appreciate your time and expertise in guiding this manuscript to its final form.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper en s now ready for publication

Author Response

We are deeply grateful for your insightful feedback throughout the review process. Your recognition of our work—particularly its novel integration of ecological-recreational duality in mountainous greenway planning and its policy relevance to Kunming's territorial spatial master plan—is immensely encouraging. We sincerely appreciate your time and expertise in guiding this manuscript to its final form.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Comments to the Authors – Major Revisions Required

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript titled “Ecological Recreation across the Jinma Mountain Region: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Suburban Mountain Greenway Networks.” The manuscript presents a well-conceived and highly relevant study that integrates ecological and recreational planning frameworks using a multi-model approach, including coupling coordination theory (CCT), ant colony optimization, landscape ecology, and user perception analysis from social media. The case study of Jinma Mountain is compelling and has substantial practical relevance.

However, in its current form, the manuscript requires major revisions before it can be considered for publication. My detailed comments are as follows:

Lack of Stakeholder Engagement

Although the study claims to have a comprehensive evaluation framework, it does not incorporate stakeholder input, such as that from residents, planners, or tourism officials, which limits the practical applicability of the findings.

Recommendations:

Could you acknowledge this limitation more explicitly in the discussion and limitation sections?

Could you outline a plan for incorporating stakeholder feedback in future work, such as through participatory GIS (PGIS), surveys, or workshops?

Model Validation and Real-World Relevance

While the integration of multiple modeling tools is impressive, the study lacks any discussion of field validation or real-world testing of the proposed greenway paths.

Recommendations:

• Provide either preliminary field validation or discuss how the simulated routes could be evaluated post-construction.

• Address potential discrepancies between model outputs and on-the-ground feasibility (e.g., land use conflicts, accessibility issues).

Weighting Methods and Transparency

The paper employs AHP and entropy weighting methods to evaluate various ecological and recreational indicators; however, the process and justification lack sufficient transparency.

Recommendations:

• Could you clarify how experts were selected for AHP scoring, their number and qualifications, and how consistency was checked (e.g., CR values)?

• Could you consider adding supplementary tables that show AHP matrices and consistency index values for greater transparency?

Use of Social Media Data

The use of platforms like Xiaohongshu and Weibo to evaluate recreational value is novel, but concerns exist regarding demographic bias and data interpretation.

Recommendations:

• Discuss how platform user demographics may skew results (e.g., young urban users vs. older residents).

• Could you explain how sentiment and semantic analysis were conducted, including limitations and reliability of the software used?

Overloaded Tables and Result Density

Several tables (such as Tables 4, 5, and 7) contain too much detail for the main body of the manuscript and may overwhelm the reader.

Recommendations:

• Move lengthy tables to supplementary materials and summarize key results in the main text.

• I'd like you to focus on the implications of the data rather than repeating every detail.

Broader Implications and Generalization

The study lacks a clear discussion on how its methods or results can be transferred to other regions or used in broader policy contexts.

Recommendations:

• Add a paragraph in the discussion section addressing how this framework could be adapted to other suburban mountainous areas.

• Could you consider briefly comparing your results to similar international case studies to position the work globally?

Figure Quality and Interpretation

Some figures are too small, have low resolution, or lack essential elements such as scale bars, north arrows, or legible labels.

Recommendations:

• Improve figure clarity and ensure they meet publication-quality standards.

• Could you guide readers through figures in the captions by pointing out key patterns or implications?

Strengthen the Conclusion Section

The conclusion summarizes the results but lacks a strong, forward-looking perspective on how this work contributes to greenway planning practice or research.

Recommendations:

• Could you emphasize the originality of your framework?

• Suggest how it can support sustainable development, eco-tourism, or spatial planning policies in similar contexts.

The paper presents an innovative and interdisciplinary contribution to the planning of green infrastructure. However, revisions are required to improve clarity, transparency, field relevance, and stakeholder integration. I'd like the authors to carefully revise the manuscript, taking into account the above suggestions, and resubmit it for further consideration.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

 

Reviewer Comment 1: Lack of Stakeholder Engagement

Response：We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting this gap. We have now explicitly acknowledged this limitation in the Discussion (Page21，Lines527-531) and Limitations subsection (Page 22, Lines 552–556)。These revisions address both the acknowledgment and the actionable pathway for stakeholder integration.

 

Reviewer Comment 2: Model Validation and Real-World Relevance

Response：We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's valuable suggestion regarding model validation. As a forward-looking study focused on greenway route optimization through a comprehensive evaluation framework, our primary aim was to establish a scientifically rigorous planning methodology for Jinma Mountain. To address real-world relevance, we conducted post-construction simulations in Section 5: Optimization and Evaluation of the Jinma Mountain Greenway Network, specifically:

Feasibility evaluation (Section 5.4. Feasibility Evaluation of the Greenway Network

, Pages 18-19): Verified alignment with Kunming's territorial spatial planning (Figure 15) and policy mandates (e.g.Ecological Red Lines).

Functional evaluation (Section 5.5. Functional Evaluation of the Greenway Network, Pages 19-20): Quantified ecological-recreational coordination via coupling degree analysis (D-values) across all 34 greenways.

While field validation remains essential for implementation, we have explicitly acknowledged this limitation in the revised Limitations subsection (Section 6.1.3, Page 22, Lines 557–559)

We fully agree that on-ground verification (e.g., land use conflicts, accessibility testing) is critical. As next steps, we will Design field surveys to monitor ecological/recreational outcomes (e.g. species connectivity, user satisfaction).and Publish validation results in a follow-up study.

 

Reviewer Comment 3: Weighting Methods and Transparency

Response: We have significantly enhanced transparency in Section 2.2. (Page 4, Lines 157–164) and Section 5.5 (Page 19, Lines 474–478)，This ensures methodological rigor and reproducibility. 

 

 

Reviewer Comment 4: Use of Social Media Data

Response: We expanded the Methods (Section 3.2.2) and Limitations (Section 6.1.1):

Bias acknowledgment (Page 21, Lines 527–530), Methodological clarity (Page 9, Lines 273–280). This clarifies both technical robustness and data limitations.

 

 

 

Reviewer Comment 5: Overloaded Tables and Result Density

Response: We have streamlined the main text

 

Reviewer Comment 6: Broader Implications and Generalization

Response: We added a new subsection: 6.1.2 Comparative Positioning with International Studies (Page 21-22, Lines 537–550)，We also cite 4 international studies ( [59]–[62]) to contextualize contributions.

 

Reviewer Comment 7: Figure Quality and Interpretation

Response: We have tried our best to improve the figures.

 

Reviewer Comment 8: Strengthen the Conclusion Section

Response: We refined the Conclusion (Section 6.2, Page 22, Lines 565–568, Lines 580-582):

 

We thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback, which significantly strengthened the manuscript. All changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript.

 

Sincerely,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of manuscript "Ecological Recreation in the Whole Region: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Suburban Mountain Greenway Networks" (land-3641128)

This manuscript tries to utilize a suite of techniques, including remote sensing ecological index analysis, morphological spatial pattern recognition, semantic network analysis, and kernel density estimation to analyze the construction of greenway network systems in mountainous suburban areas. After reading this manuscript, I have some comments and suggestions as shown in the following:

- . In the introduction, the theoretical basis of coupling coordination theory in greenway network research needs to be supplemented, especially the applicability of this theory in greenway network evaluation needs to be clearly stated.

- . The description of the integration process of multi-source data is vague. For example, the cleaning rules of social media data and the specific process of semantic network analysis need to be fully explained.

- . There are differences in the acquisition time and accuracy of some data, and the problem of inconsistent classification systems and standards may be faced when integrating data. For example, does the timeliness of land use data in 2020 match that of the "three lines" data in 2022?

- . The setting basis of parameters such as the number of iterations and weight distribution in the ant colony algorithm is insufficient, and the rationality of the model parameter selection needs to be explained in detail.

- . In addition, the parameter setting of the MSPA method and its basis need to be supplemented.

- . The literature review section is relatively simple, especially the research on China's green network in the past two years needs to be supplemented. Please refer to:

National-scale connectivity analysis and construction of forest networks based on graph theory: A case study of China.

An integrated model chain for diagnosing and predicting conflicts between production-living-ecological space in lake network regions

- . The weights of ecological sensitivity indicators (Table 1) directly adopt the entropy weight method, but no explanation is given as to why the entropy weight method is chosen instead of other methods (such as AHP).

- . The indicator classification standards in Tables 1 and 3 need to refer to the greenway planning and design guidelines or literature basis.

- . This study integrates theoretical frameworks such as landscape ecology, leisure science and coupling coordination theory, but the connection and integration between theories are not deep enough.

- . When explaining the innovation of this study, it is necessary to fully emphasize the differences and advantages with existing studies. Although multiple methods and indicators are integrated, it is not clear how these integrations bring new insights or breakthroughs.

- . The greenway network optimization process mentions the adjustment of the intersection with the ecological protection red line, but no specific explanation is given on how to quantify the ecological impact after the adjustment. In addition, it is not discussed whether the greenway density matches the regional ecological carrying capacity.

- . Some paragraphs are lengthy and not clearly structured. For example, when describing the data calculation and analysis methods, the steps and formulas are listed in too much detail, but there is a lack of intuitive explanation and discussion of the results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

To improve this paper, consider the following suggestions:

1. Simplify the abstract to make it more concise and accessible to a broader audience. Focus on the key findings and implications without excessive technical jargon.

2. Clearly define the research gap and objectives upfront. While the introduction provides a good background, it could benefit from a more focused explanation of why this study is necessary and how it advances existing research.

3. Ensure all figures and tables are properly labeled and referenced in the text. Some tables (e.g., Table 2) appear incomplete or poorly formatted, which can confuse readers.

4. Include more explanatory captions for figures and diagrams to help readers understand the data and results without needing to refer back to the text.

5. Provide more details about the reliability and limitations of the data sources used (e.g., social media data, remote sensing imagery). Address potential biases or inaccuracies in the data collection process. ​

6. Include a section on how the simulation results were validated or cross-checked with real-world observations or expert feedback.

7. Discuss how the findings compare with similar studies in other regions or contexts. Highlight unique contributions and areas where the methodology could be applied elsewhere.

8. Explicitly address the limitations of the study, such as discrepancies in data timing and accuracy, and suggest ways to overcome these in future research. ​

9. Provide more specific recommendations for future research, such as exploring greenway networks in suburban plains or middle-distance suburbs. ​

10. Eliminate repetitive phrases and redundant information, especially in the methodology and results sections.

11. Ensure consistent formatting and correct grammar throughout the paper. Some sections have formatting issues (e.g., incomplete tables, inconsistent headings).

12. Expand on how the findings can be implemented in real-world planning and policy-making. Include examples of how local governments or planners can use the evaluation system.

13. Discuss the potential for adapting the evaluation framework to other countries or regions with similar ecological and recreational needs.

14. Ensure all references are properly formatted and relevant. Some references could be expanded to include more recent studies or global perspectives on greenway planning.

15. Better integrate references into the discussion to show how the study builds on or diverges from previous work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your submission titled “Ecological Recreation in the Whole Region: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Suburban Mountain Greenway Networks.” This manuscript presents a compelling and methodologically advanced framework for integrating ecological and recreational functions into suburban mountain greenway planning. Your interdisciplinary approach—merging remote sensing, ecological indices, landscape connectivity models, and sentiment analysis—significantly contributes to the green infrastructure literature, particularly in the context of suburban China.

However, the manuscript requires major revisions in the following areas to improve clarity, scientific rigor, and broader applicability:

1. Language Clarity and Technical Terminology

Issue: Several expressions throughout the manuscript are awkward or imprecise, potentially causing misinterpretation of methods or findings.

Examples:

• Page 5, Line 160: “the fragrance diversity was calculated” should be revised to “Shannon’s Diversity Index (SHDI) was calculated.” “Fragrance diversity” is not standard terminology in ecological or landscape literature.

• Page 6, Line 164: The phrasing “suitability grade” is vague. Please clarify whether this refers to construction feasibility, accessibility, or another metric.

• Throughout Sections 2 and 3, multiple terms, such as “composite factor,” “visual suitability,” and “resistance level division,” are used without adequate definitions or consistent usage.

Recommendation: A thorough professional English edit is strongly recommended to enhance readability and precision.

2. Lack of Mathematical Transparency in the Coupling Coordination Index

Issue: The manuscript repeatedly refers to the use of a “coupling coordination degree” to evaluate multifunctional performance (e.g., Page 6, Line 165–175; Page 14, Lines 424–441), yet does not provide the actual formula used, nor clarify the weights or thresholds for the D value.

Recommendation: Please include the exact formula, definitions of all variables (e.g., U₁, U₂, T, D), and classification criteria used to assess coordination levels (e.g., “moderate,” “good”). Cite authoritative sources such as [35] and Wang et al. (2021) more explicitly in your methodology.

3. Methodological Reproducibility – GIS & Model Integration

Issue: The manuscript lacks a step-by-step description or a schematic overview of how the various datasets (RSEI, slope, SHDI, POIs, semantic nodes) are integrated into the final path simulation (Pages 7–9, Section 3.2.2). While several models (MCR, ACO, Gravity Model) are mentioned, their integration sequence and decision logic are unclear.

Recommendation: A flowchart or methods diagram should be included (possibly as a new Figure) showing the data processing sequence from raw input to simulation and evaluation. Details about how weighting was applied, what software was used, and how simulations were verified should be expanded.

4. Validation and Comparison with Existing Plans

Issue: The manuscript fails to benchmark its simulated greenway network against existing municipal plans or past greenway networks, making it difficult to assess the added value of the composite framework.

Example: On page 15, Lines 447–451 describe the final plan (“multiple interconnected rings and a dense network”), but no comparative table or figure illustrates how this design improves over conventional ones.

Recommendation: Include a comparative analysis with either a baseline (e.g., current local plans) or previous models to demonstrate how your design improves connectivity, function, or ecological integrity. Metrics in Table 6 (Page 14) could be compared against planning guidelines from sources like [33].

5. Social Media Data Use – Methodological Detail Needed

Issue: The use of social media data (Page 9, Lines 309–320) to identify popular recreational nodes is innovative, but lacks methodological transparency.

Examples of missing information:

• What keywords were used in the crawler?

• How were posts filtered for relevance or geotagged?

• How many posts or records were analyzed?

• What tools were used for sentiment analysis (beyond naming “Octopus”)?

Recommendation: Please provide detailed data cleaning and analysis steps for semantic and sentiment evaluation, discussing potential biases such as the overrepresentation of tourists versus residents, as well as language limitations in the scraped text.

6. Figures Require Better Integration and Explanations

Issue: Many figures (e.g., Figures 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 16) are referenced without adequate in-text explanation. The figure captions often lack units or scale, and the legend symbology is not always clearly defined.

Example: Figure 6 (Page 10) – simulated ecological greenways – does not specify which lines represent high-connectivity routes versus minor paths. Similarly, Figure 14 (Page 14) needs to clarify how the ant colony optimization algorithm altered the network structure.

Recommendation: Revise all figures for clarity. Ensure each map has a clear legend, scale, and that figure captions explain the relevance of the data visualized. Refer to the main text more explicitly to describe what each figure demonstrates.

7. Stakeholder Participation and Public Engagement Not Addressed

Issue: The study focuses on greenways for recreation and tourism, yet it fails to mention user engagement or participatory methods in identifying priorities or validating routes.

Recommendation: At minimum, a limitations paragraph should be added (in Section 6 or 5.5) acknowledging the absence of stakeholder input. Discuss how participatory GIS, local surveys, or interviews could be incorporated in future work.

8. Functional Evaluation – Justification of Weighting System

Issue: The weights assigned in Table 7 (Page 15) for both ecological and recreational indicators are not entirely justified.

Example: Recreation weights (e.g., landscape visual quality at 0.49 and service convenience at 0.309) appear plausible, but there is no explanation of how the 30 expert questionnaires were analyzed using AHP, nor the consistency ratio or matrix used.

Recommendation: Include methodological details on AHP application, including any matrices or consistency checks performed. Additionally, consider adding this information as supplementary material.

Conclusion

The manuscript presents a significant and original contribution to greenway planning. However, considerable revisions are necessary to ensure methodological transparency, clarity of language, and empirical validation. I look forward to reviewing a revised version that addresses the above issues in detail.