GIS-Based Watershed Unit Forest Landscape Visual Quality Assessment in Yangshuo Section of Lijiang River Basin, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the article you have proposed a suitable construction and management strategies for forest landscape structures. In addition, the study provides site selection, conservation and planning of landscape resources. The subject of the study is interesting. There are some points in the article that I don't understand. I have suggestions on this subject in order to increase the readability of the article.
First of all, your maps that you added to the article are good. Explainer, we'd better just see Figure 9 on one page.
My first suggestion in the introduction is that little space is given to the literature. I would like to see more studies on forest landscape quality assessment in this field. And to emphasize the difference of your work from these studies.
"yaahp 10.3" on line 202 ? what does it mean?
You used some indexes. Or written. Shannon index and Simpson index. What are their formulas? Why didn't you refer to them? Which index did you use and why? I think they should be informed.
While explaining the landscape fragmentation criterion, you wrote the formula you used as text. It would be more convenient to write it as a formula and add the formula number. and your explanation of this formula.
index= Ni/ Ai, Ni? Ai?
Landscape sprawl, how did you define this index. 261-264. The line is explained, but I think it's not enough.
In general, the result section and the methodoli section seem to be mixed together. If you explained the criteria you used better in the methodology section, you should have written only the results of these criteria in the result section. For example, the topography criterion. This is actually a criterion you use, isn't it? You need to get them in methodology section like its class range (a>30,20<a<30,..). This is also the case with other criteria. This way the result section needs to be edited.
Why was Figure 6 made? Are the two criteria related to each other or is there a need to show the correlation between them? If you think it exists, you should explain it in a few sentences.
In the results section, in general, the results of the study are given. I would only recommend that you add your suggestions in this area in line with the purpose of the study
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your suggestions! We think your suggestions are reasonable and good. I have made systematic modifications according to all your suggestions. We provide a point-by-point response to the comments in the Word file.
Please see the attachment!
Point 1: Explainer, we'd better just see Figure 9 on one page.
Response 1: Dear Reviewer: In the revised version of this paper, the Figure 9(now figure 7) has been merged into one page and optimized.
Point 2: My first suggestion in the introduction is that little space is given to the literature. I would like to see more studies on forest landscape quality assessment in this field. And to emphasize the difference of your work from these studies.
Response 2: In the revised version of this paper, Introduction section has emphasized the difference of our work from forest landscape quality assessment studies, several related literatures about forest landscape quality assessment have been supplemented. Please review.
Point 3: "yaahp 10.3" on line 202 ? what does it mean?.
Response 3: “yaahp 10.3” is a software for analytic hierarchy process. The previous statement is not clear. This version of the manuscript has been logically sorted out.
Point 4: You used some indexes. Or written. Shannon index and Simpson index. What are their formulas? Why didn't you refer to them? Which index did you use and why? I think they should be informed.
Response 4: In the revised version of this paper, the index Shannon index, Simpson index and other landscape index which is mentioned or written has clarified its meaning and added relevant formulas. Simpson index is mentioned because it can describe landscape diversity just as Shannon index. Through the comparison between the two index, clarify the advantages of Shannon index, which has been outlined in this article.
Point 5: While explaining the landscape fragmentation criterion, you wrote the formula you used as text. It would be more convenient to write it as a formula and add the formula number. and your explanation of this formula.
Response 5: In the revised version of this paper, the formula used has been explained clearly and the formula number is attached.
Point 6: index= Ni/ Ai, Ni? Ai?.
Response 6: T In the revised version of this paper, the Ni and Ai of this formula have been explained below the formula.
Point 7: Landscape sprawl, how did you define this index. 261-264. The line is explained, but I think it's not enough.
Response 7: In the revised version of this paper, Landscape sprawl has made a more detailed explanation in 2.4.1 SQ index.
Point 8: In general, the result section and the methodoli section seem to be mixed together. If you explained the criteria you used better in the methodology section, you should have written only the results of these criteria in the result section. For example, the topography criterion. This is actually a criterion you use, isn't it? You need to get them in methodology section like its class range (a>30,20<a<30,..). This is also the case with other criteria. This way the result section needs to be edited.
Response 8: In the revised version of this paper, the standards of all standards have been placed in “2.4 Indicators and Methods”.The result section and the methodo section has been separated according to the research content.
Point 9:. Why was Figure 6 made? Are the two criteria related to each other or is there a need to show the correlation between them? If you think it exists, you should explain it in a few sentences.
Response 9: Dear Reviewer: Figure 6 of the previous version of the paper is a window to explain and find the optimal value of relief amplitude. Compared with the content of other parts, the chart interpretation in this part is indeed redundant. Thank the experts for their comments. I have removed this figure from the revised version of the paper, and have not omitted to describe the indicator calculation method.
Point 10:. In the results section, in general, the results of the study are given. I would only recommend that you add your suggestions in this area in line with the purpose of the study.
Response 10: In the revised version of this paper, the results section has clarified the research purpose. According to the evaluation results, more targeted suggestions are given in 3.3 and 3.4.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article can be better organized, and the sections can improve it develop. There is not a related research section that synthesizing the literature about visual quality assessment, the materials and methods section can be improve, in the results section materials and methods are included, discussion section is more a results summary because the comparation with the results of other works is scarce and conclusion section is a discussion summary. The article results provide a good procedure to the evaluation of the forest landscape visual quality of the study area, although it is not clear if it is possible to apply in other places.
In relation with INTRODUCTION:
It includes an adequate description of the study area and its landscape relevance is well justified. The research goals can be defined clearer, in such a way they can be differentiated from the proposed result of the work. The paragraph between lines 89 and 109 is a physical description of the study area, it would be more appropriate to include it in the Materials and Methods section (Figure 1 geographic map of the study area is in line 108, but it is not referenced until 124 line in Material and Methods section).
In relation with MATERIALS AND METHODS:
A map of the 20 landscape units, assessment object, would be helpful.
It presents a summary of the calculation methods of the SQ and VS indicators, which are detailed in the results section. This makes it difficult to understand the methods (in the comments to the results section it is reflected in more detail).
In relation with the RESULTS: calculation methods of the SQ and VS indicators are detailed in this section. The paragraphs that would be convenient to move to the materials and methods section are indicated:
Line 211 to 271 for SQ index
Line 272 to 298 and line 307 to 314 for VS index
The method of determining the visible and invisible areas of major roads and waterways is not included in materials and methods.
Line 473: “total score of non-karst area is 7.5886, and the score of karst area is 7.0676” But in line 492 score of karst area is 7.5886 and in line 493 score of non-karst area is 7.0676, I understand that it is correct.
Line 475 to 484: corresponds more to discussion.
In relation with DISCUSSION: Subsections 4.2 and 4.3 are a summary of the results since they are not compared with other works (necessary for a discussion).
In relation with CONCLUSIONS: The conclusions are a summary of the main results already reflected in the discussion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your suggestions! We think your suggestions are reasonable and good. I have made systematic modifications according to all your suggestions. We provide a point-by-point response to the comments in the Word file.
Please see the attachment!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
General comments
The study is impressive in the context of visual quality assessment of the specific area. Certainly, such analyses help to formulate policies for better management of the adjacent regions of water bodies. However, in this article, which kind of dataset or combination of the dataset is most representative of land change in different years. The use of punctuation and lengthy sentences must be revised majorly in the article.
“Yangshuo section of the Lijiang River Basin” has been used multiple times in the article; try to abbreviate it as per journals’ recommendations.
Specific comments
In the abstract, mention the most significant results instead of the General conclusion of the article—different years’ effect, which indicator is more important for future similar studies.
Lines 28-32: Please consider revising the sentence to shorten it or divide it into two sentences.
Lines 33-39: Please consider revising the sentence to shorten it or divide it into two sentences.
Lines 47-49: Rephrase the sentence and clarify the meaning; also make sure to use correct punctuation.
Lines 48: Give the reference for CNN
Lines 73-80: Please cite reference
Lines 82-88: Please consider moving this part to the end of the “introduction” section.
Lines 132-136: Please consider revising the sentence to shorten it or divide it into two sentences.
Lines 139-144: Please consider revising the sentence to shorten it or divide it into two sentences.
Lines 163-169: Please clarify the meaning and revise the sentence to short or divide it into two sentences.
Lines 186-193: Please consider the sentence's revision and make proper use of punctuation.
Lines 202-208: Please consider revising the sentence and use punctuation correctly.
Lines 221, 231, 237, 244, and 254: Use correct punctuation instead of “full stop”.
Please support your discussion section through citations of previous relevant studies.
The conclusion portion is extended; try to simplify it.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your suggestions! We think your suggestions are reasonable and good. I have made systematic modifications according to all your suggestions. We provide a point-by-point response to the comments in the Word file.
Please see the attachment!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, congratulations on your work. All suggestions made in the review have been satisfactorily resolved. The work has improved in structure and quality.
