Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of rural expansion is a major problem worldwide, with the loss of ecosystem services, increased soil erosion and water quantity/quality problems. For this reason, it is important to conduct research in this area in many parts of the world so that good practices can be transferred from one area to another by comparing results.

The results presented in the paper provide a good basis for ecologically based spatial planning. At the same time, it is an open question how much chance there is/will be in the future to put ecological rural development into practice. This question also arises in other countries of the world, so it would be worthwhile to compare the presented results with international experiences in this article.

Some formal deficiencies in the article need to be corrected:

Line 213: „Tongue County” is used instead of Tong Yu county.

In the case of the Figures, the legends are too small and not legible, which makes it difficult to understand.

The units of measurement for the size of areas are in m² and should be converted to km².

The wording should be reworded in places, as several sentences are too long. For example, there is an eight-line sentence in the text! (453-460 lines)

However, after minor corrections the article is acceptable .

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We had revised our article seriously according to reviewers' comments. Please find the detailed responses in our document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article contains an interesting compendium of knowledge focused on explore a remediation program that can ensure that the farmers' living environment does not undergo any drastic changes. This research certainly contributes to evaluate the rural location and soil and water conservation service capacity of Tong Yu County, an ecologically fragile area in the western part of Jilin Province, which is important for the present and future assessments. But this manuscript only performed a basic analysis of existing data and produced simple results, which lacked innovation.  Other handicap of this work is that is written without paying attention to the writing, observing numerous errors. The novelty of the study is not clear. The new methods/findings achieved through this study needs to be clearly presented. That is, authors should clearly indicate the scientific novelty of the described research, not from a local point of view, but from an international one. Below are some specific comments:

-I am not an expert in the English language, but I am afraid that the title is based on a non-logical expression.

-Please, I suggest not using acronyms in the abstract and conclusions.

-Keywords: Rural settlements Soil and water conservation Ecologically vulnerable área. Please Do not repeat words from the title in the keywords

-There are numerous editing/writing errors: Line 35 society.[4]; Line 40…. hand, The spatial… ; Line 42. others. [7] [8] However,..; Line 52. Yang Ren et 52 al. studied …reference?; Line 56. Li et al. …reference?; Line 79. cropland[25], and regional soil and water conservation capacity is significant for rural set[26]. The regions with serious soil and water erosion often face the problem of poverty[27,28]

-Line 73. Soil erosion is one of the most important factors destabilizing the ecological environment in the region [22]. What region? Tong Yu County,? .. not yet established in the text.

-Line 97. is 364.1mm. Is that level of precision really logical?.

-Line 99. The soil matrix of Tong Yu County is Quaternary river and lake deposits and river alluvial deposits. Please rewrite.

-Line 100. soil types such as black calcareous, meadow, alkaline, marshy, and saline soils are developed. It would be useful to specify more, using international classifications such as FAO WRB.

-Line 102. 10.24% grassland, 53.068% arable land, 13.736% saline 102 and alkaline land, and the soil erosion rate is 54.47%. Is that level of precision really logical? 3 decimals?

-Line 111. In the county, 22% of the population is over 60. Repeated.

-Line 117. Soil data are from the World Food Organization. Soil data were obtained from the World Food Organization. Repeated.

-Please improved the figure 2. Be clear.

Line 453. A phrase like this is unacceptable: This paper evaluates the rural location and soil and water conservation service capacity of Tong Yu County, an ecologically fragile area in the western part of Jilin Province, and then optimizes it according to the regional differences and combines the distribution characteristics of rural settlements with the phenomenon of ecologically fragile regional ized differences in full consideration of the subdistricting of remediation, and puts for ward optimization plans for the remediation of settlements to achieve the purpose of protecting the land resources and guarding against the risk of ecological degradation, and provides decision-making bases for the ecologically fragile areas of settlements.

-Line 464. In this paper, the hierarchical analysis method is used to evaluate the location of rural 464 settlements in Tong Yu County. Unnecessary.

-Line 469. was classified into three grades: A, B, and C in terms of villages. It has already been said before.

-Line 472. for 3.498 %. Is that level of precision really logical?.

-In the Conclusions, please include information about the limitations of the presented research and the issues of universality of the results, their novelty and their practical application.

I wish those changes will contribute to improve your paper.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files. We had updated some informations about conclusions .

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Title Revision:

Consider changing the title to "Rural Settlements Remediation in Ecologically Sensitive Areas Evaluation Based on Geo-Proximity and Soil-Water Conservation Capacity" for greater clarity

2. Abstract:

Clarify what is meant by the "phenomenon of hollowing out"

Consistently use either "remediation" or "restoration," rather than both

Unify the terms "environmentally vulnerable regions" and "ecologically sensitive areas" to maintain consistency

Rephrase "location evaluation of the area" for better clarity as "geographical assessment" or another suitable term

Expand on the findings as the current summary appears limited and lacks detail

3. Introduction:

In the first paragraph, add a global context to discuss the challenges rural settlements face due to rapid urbanization

The second paragraph appears isolated; its connection to the rest of the text is unclear

Include more international research references to give the introduction a broader context. The third paragraph, which is predominantly China-centric, is insufficient

4. Research Questions:

Clearly state the research questions in the introduction

5. Research Framework:

Present the research framework before discussing the study area, including data, algorithms, and objectives

6. Table 1:

Table 1 is introduced abruptly. It would be better placed in the results section

7. Figures:

Figure 1: This figure represents the study area. Why is elevation included?

Figure 3: The description of the evaluation of the area’s spatial resource proximity is unclear. The current terminology is confusing

8. Evaluation Logic:

The overall evaluation logic raises some concerns. The accuracy of the NPP quantitative assessment method and RUSLE modeling method is questionable

9. Discussion:

The discussion section does not adequately address the research questions (or the paper lacks clear research questions). Therefore, the discussion does not convincingly tie into the study

Comments on the Quality of English Language

- The manuscript has numerous capitalization and citation format errors, which negatively impact the review experience (e.g., lines 42, 45-46)

- The English throughout the manuscript is very difficult to read and requires significant revision for clarity and coherence

Author Response

We would like to express our gratitude for the suggestions you made on our manuscript, which we found very useful, and here are the details of the relevant changes we made to the manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately I do not see the changes made clearly and concisely (for example with another color). Consequently I cannot review this second version. Please clarify what has been done.

Author Response

We have made corrections for the  problem, and adjusted the text that was not clearly expressed, and sincerely hope to get your comments on the improvement, thank you for your comments on the article!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The improvements made are commendable, but the depth of discussion in the latter part of the manuscript still needs enhancement. It is recommended to further strengthen the depth of the conclusion and discussion sections. Additionally, ensure that the overall formatting is consistent throughout the document.

Author Response

We are grateful for your suggestions and we have added some exposition to the discussion section.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 The authors have thoroughly revised the manuscript and it can be accepted in the present form for publication in Land journal.