Spatiotemporal Dynamics of the Suitability for Ecological Livability of Green Spaces in the Central Yunnan Urban Agglomeration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work is very interesting and original. Anyway the authors does not consider a relevant problem in the composite indicator construction which is the subjectivity of the choices for the construction of the composite indicators as well. In this respect the main point which is necessary in this work is well explain:
1. the procedure adopted in the framework of the literature of the construction of composite indicators
2. explaining the level of innovation of the procedure adopted (which is innovative but need to be emphasized for that)
3. explaining why the weights are significant by itself and so they are a the "choice" for this work. In this respect explaining why the weights are derived and the procedure.
4. referencing
the framework of the composite indicators:
Joint Research Centre-European Commission. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. OECD publishing.
problem definition, extensions and solutions to problem of subjectivity using different approaches: as
Drago, C. (2021). The analysis and the measurement of poverty: An interval-based composite indicator approach. Economies, 9(4), 145. Drago, C., & Gatto, A. (2022). An interval‐valued composite indicator for energy efficiency and green entrepreneurship. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(5), 2107-2126. Gatto, A., & Drago, C. (2020). Measuring and modeling energy resilience. Ecological Economics, 172, 106527. Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M., & Torrisi, G. (2019). On the methodological framework of composite indices: A review of the issues of weighting, aggregation, and robustness. Social indicators research, 141, 61-94. Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 168(2), 307-323.Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English can be improved.
Author Response
Comment (1-1): The work is very interesting and original. Anyway the authors does not consider a relevant problem in the composite indicator construction which is the subjectivity of the choices for the construction of the composite indicators as well. In this respect the main point which is necessary in this work is well explain:
Response (1-1): Dear reviewer, Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for the constructive comment, which greatly helped us to improve the manuscript. The manuscript was carefully revised and point-by-point response was listed below. We hope that your comments have been addressed accurately. Based on the special characteristics of the urban agglomeration in central Yunnan, which contains 49 districts and counties, we synthesize the previous definitions of eco-livability and the evaluation index system, and propose an evaluation index system on eco-livability of green spaces from three aspects: economic development, social life and ecological environment.
Comment (1-2): the procedure adopted in the framework of the literature of the construction of composite indicators.
Response (1-2): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestion regarding our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the comment. Regarding the literature framework for the construction of composite indicators, we first defined eco-livability and green space in the introduction section, then provided a literature review on the construction of eco-livability evaluation indicators, and finally summarized the indicators used by relevant scholars and constructed an eco-livability evaluation indicator system for green spaces through expert questionnaires. We have added the methodological framework in the revised draft as well as a description of the process of constructing the composite indicators in section 2.2.
Comment (1-3): explaining the level of innovation of the procedure adopted (which is innovative but need to be emphasized for that).
Response (1-3): Dear reviewer, Thank you for this suggestion. Based on your comment, we have highlighted our innovation in the abstract, introduction and discussion of the article. The innovation of our paper is the construction of a system of indicators for evaluating the ecological livability of green spaces.
Comment (1-4): explaining why the weights are significant by itself and so they are a the "choice" for this work. In this respect explaining why the weights are derived and the procedure.
Response (1-4): Dear reviewer, because this paper studies the evaluation of ecological livability of green spaces in the urban agglomeration of central Yunnan, it involves multi-dimensional indicators and multi-regional evaluation and comparison. Therefore, it is important to choose an objective method to evaluate. The weight is the degree of determining effect of many factors on the evaluation of the ecological livability of green spaces, some factors have a large determining effect, and some factors have a small determining effect. The weight is important because the size of the weight indicates the proportion of factors in the evaluation. The larger the weight, the greater the proportion, and the greater the determining effect . So we chose the entropy method as the method of giving weights, and the specific calculation process of this method is in section 2.3 of the revised draft.
Comment (1-5): referencing the framework of the composite indicators:
Joint Research Centre-European Commission. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. OECD publishing.
problem definition, extensions and solutions to problem of subjectivity using different approaches: as
Drago, C. (2021). The analysis and the measurement of poverty: An interval-based composite indicator approach. Economies, 9(4), 145.
Drago, C., & Gatto, A. (2022). An interval‐valued composite indicator for energy efficiency and green entrepreneurship. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(5), 2107-2126.
Gatto, A., & Drago, C. (2020). Measuring and modeling energy resilience. Ecological Economics, 172, 106527.
Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M., & Torrisi, G. (2019). On the methodological framework of composite indices: A review of the issues of weighting, aggregation, and robustness. Social indicators research, 141, 61-94.
Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 168(2), 307-323.
Response (1-5): Dear reviewer, Thank you very much for providing us with references related to composite indicator construction, problem definition, extensions and solutions to problem of subjectivity using different approaches. We have listed these papers in our key references these references play an important supporting role in the discussion section. Interval-based composite indicators are a great innovation, and in the future we can draw on the references to construct interval-based composite indicators for green space eco-livability assessment through different assumptions, and we may find something different. However, with the wide use of composite indicator construction, the quality problem about the construction of composite indicators is also a big problem to be solved in the research, in the future, we can optimize our composite indicator system by analysing the uncertainty and sensitivity of composite indicators.
Comment (1-6): The English can be improved.
Response (1-6): Language has been revised by a native speaker. Our manuscripts are touched up by MDPI's English editing.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is consistent with MDPI - Sustainability and fits in the overall journal scope.
The article is well structured. The article presents the results of the research according to the set methodology.
It is necessary to improve the graphic representations because they are not readable (for example, text in Figure 2 is not readable, legends in Figure 3, Figure 4 etc.)
In the Discussion, it would be desirable to show the differences in approach in relation to other authors who dealt with the same issue.
Author Response
Comment (2-1): The paper is consistent with MDPI - Sustainability and fits in the overall journal scope.
Response (2-1): Dear reviewer, we thank the reviewer for affirming the subject matter of our paper.
Comment (2-2): The article is well structured. The article presents the results of the research according to the set methodology.
Response (2-2): Dear reviewer, we thank the reviewer for favorable comment and recognition of our paper.
Comment (2-3): It is necessary to improve the graphic representations because they are not readable (for example, text in Figure 2 is not readable, legends in Figure 3, Figure 4 etc.).
Response (2-3): Dear reviewer, we appreciate the reviewer's suggestions for improving the expression of the drawings. We have made the following changes to the drawings in Figures 1-7: the city name numbers have been made smaller in Figure 1, the city names have been removed from Figures 3-6, the legend portion of Figures 3-7 has been enlarged.
Comment (2-4): In the Discussion, it would be desirable to show the differences in approach in relation to other authors who dealt with the same issue.
Response (2-4): Dear reviewer, thank you for this suggestion. Based on your comment, we addressed this issue in the “Discussion” section.
” Most studies cheese hierarchical analyses and questionnaires to determine indicator weights. On the one hand, this kind of method is not applicable to multiple cities, on the other hand, it made the result of weight more subjective. The research adopted entropy method can solve the problem of subjectivity of weight, and at the same time, this method is also applicable to multi-dimensional and multi-regional research.”
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is well organized, while, I would have to say, However, the authors haven’t provided a very rigorous research question, research analysis framework and Research conclusion, policy recommendations, based on these, the paper is not suitable for publication in the journal, I suggest the authors do some necessary modification as my review comments:
(1) The abstract hasn’t been well organized, the finding of the research should be re-organized, and the results are too longer, without the clearly presentation, the characteristics should be presented in three different dimensions.
(2) The authors haven’t given some specific recommendations for the policy, this is the necessarily in the abstract.
(3) The authors have discussed the four aspects regarding on the ecological livable sustainability, while haven’t formed a research gap, that is to say, what is the creatively of the paper than the previous studies?
(4) I think the authors haven’t explain clearly why they choose the central Yunnan urban agglomeration, does the site selection can be the innovation of the study? I think it is not enough.
(5) The majors concern lies in that the author haven’t construct an analysis framework, how does the three dimensions: economic development, social life and ecological environment, how does these three-dimension effect the ecological livable, the author should construct a theoretical/conceptual framework.
(6) In my mind, the evaluation method of the weight exists no innovation and the indicator systems presents no creativities and the study areas cannot indicate the innovation, hence, the author need to think how to provides new insight for the reference, may be the new indicator system, or the mechanisms of the spatial distribution.
(7) The author has talked about the spatial and temporal characteristics, this is necessary, but unfortunately, the authors haven’t studied the formed mechanism of the distribution, how does the economic development, social life and ecological environment impact the distribution, as far as I can concerned, the impact of social life... on the ecological livable sustainability can be a good research topic.
(8) . The authors have analysis the spatial correlation of the green space in the study areas, and find different characteristics in the central areas and edge but not explain why this phenomenon has formed?
(9) I think the layout and the arrangement of the 4.2. 4.3 and 4.4 have some problems, some contents should put in the last section, while some parts should put after the contents in section 3.
(10)I think the authors haven’t provide some meaningful and practical recommendations. The policy recommendation should strictly come from your empirical research results, that is, your policy recommendations are quite super-surface, and not specific, I suggest you reorganize the policy implication section.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The quality of the language are poor.
Author Response
Comment (3-1):The paper is well organized, while, I would have to say, However, the authors haven’t provided a very rigorous research question, research analysis framework and Research conclusion, policy recommendations, based on these, the paper is not suitable for publication in the journal, I suggest the authors do some necessary modification as my review comments:
Response (3-1): Dear reviewer. We appreciate your thoughtful reviews. We tried to reply to your comments and revised the manuscript. We hope that the revised paper is now suitable for the publication in the journal.
Comment (3-2): The abstract hasn’t been well organized, the finding of the research should be re-organized, and the results are too longer, without the clearly presentation, the characteristics should be presented in three different dimensions.
Response (3-2): Dear reviewer. We have reorganized the abstract section based on the comment.
“Green spaces are an essential part of building an eco-livable city, and play an important role in building eco-livability in the central Yunnan urban agglomeration. However, there are relatively few studies on the eco-livability evaluation of green spaces, so the establishment of a green space eco-livability assessment system can help us to better analyse the eco-livability status of urban green spaces. In order to fill this research gap, this study takes the green spaces of the urban agglomeration in central Yunnan as the research object, and constructs an ecological livability evaluation index system of green spaces from three aspects: economic development, social life and ecological environment. We used the entropy method to calculate the ecological livability suitability of green spaces of each district and county in the central Yunnan urban agglomeration for three periods: 2010, 2015 and 2020. In addition, we used the spatial autocorrelation analysis function of ArcGIS software to explore the spatial clustering characteristics of the ecological livability suitability of green spaces in the central Yunnan urban agglomeration. The results showed that: From 2010 to 2020, the green spaces ecological livability suitability of the 49 districts and counties in the central Yunnan urban agglomeration showed a trend of increasing in some districts and decreasing in others, and the spatial characteristics of high in the central districts and counties and low in the peripheral districts and counties. The spatial characteristics of the suitability of the economic development and ecological environment target layers are consistent with the comprehensive suitability. In addition, through spatial autocorrelation analysis, it was found that the suitability of green spaces for ecological livability has positive spatial correlation and showed significant spatial aggregation characteristics. The study proposed recommendations for improving the suitability of ecological livability of green spaces from the dimensions of government policy and urban development in the combination of the three target layers. The results of the study provide a reference for decision-making on the construction of eco-livable cities in the central Yunnan urban agglomeration.”
Comment (3-3): The authors haven’t given some specific recommendations for the policy, this is the necessarily in the abstract.
Response (3-3): Dear reviewer. We have added some specific recommendations for the abstract section based on comment. Detailed recommendations are described in the discussion.
“The study proposed recommendations for improving the suitability of ecological livability of green spaces from the dimensions of government policy and urban development in the combination of the three target layers. The results of the study provide a reference for decision-making on the construction of eco-livable cities in the central Yunnan urban agglomeration.”
Response (3-4): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestion regarding our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the comment. We enhance about the research innovation and contribution of this paper in the Introduction, abstract and discussion sections.
This research innovation and main contribution of this paper include (1) constructed a green space eco-livability evaluation index system, which is rare in previous studies; (2) identified the spatial and temporal changes and spatial distribution characteristics of green spaces eco-livability appropriateness of the urban agglomeration in central Yunnan, and proposed the corresponding development suggestions.
Response (3-5): Dear reviewer, Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for the constructive comment, which greatly helped us to improve the manuscript. The reason we chose the urban agglomeration of central Yunnan as the study area is that one of the planning and development orientations of the urban agglomeration of central Yunnan is an ecologically livable city agglomeration with mountains and waters, which is described more specifically in the second to last paragraph of the introduction to the revised manuscript. And the innovation of our paper is the construction of a system of indicators for evaluating the ecological livability of green spaces, which is emphasized in the Abstract, Introduction and Discussion sections of the revised manuscript.
Response (3-6): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestion regarding our manuscript. For this issue, we have added a methodological framework in the revised draft. Based on the concept of eco-livability, we constructed a green space eco-livability evaluation system from three aspects: economic development, social life and ecological environment, and analysed the spatial and temporal evolution of the suitability from the three aspects. Based on this analysis, we add the related impact analysis in section 4.1.
Comment (3-7): In my mind, the evaluation method of the weight exists no innovation and the indicator systems presents no creativities and the study areas cannot indicate the innovation, hence, the author need to think how to provides new insight for the reference, may be the new indicator system, or the mechanisms of the spatial distribution.
Response (3-7): Dear reviewer. Thank you for this comment. We agree. Based on your comment, we have highlighted our innovations in the abstract, introduction and discussion sections of the revised manuscript. And the innovation of our paper is the construction of a system of indicators for evaluating the ecological livability of green spaces.
Comment (3-8): The author has talked about the spatial and temporal characteristics, this is necessary, but unfortunately, the authors haven’t studied the formed mechanism of the distribution, how does the economic development, social life and ecological environment impact the distribution, as far as I can concerned, the impact of social life... on the ecological livable sustainability can be a good research topic.
Response (3-8): Dear reviewer. We have added the analysis of the impacts of economic development, social life and ecological environment on the ecological livability suitability of green spaces in the discussion section. The next step in our research is to explore the mechanism of the influence of each factor on the ecological livability of green space through regression modelling. This is a very constructive comment. And we will proceed with the in-depth study in the future.
Response (3-9): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestion regarding our manuscript. In response to the comment, we have added explanation of this phenomenon in section 3.3 of the revised draft. The clustering characteristics of the spatial correlation of green space ecological livability suitability in the urban agglomeration of central Yunnan appear to show a high cluster in the centre of the urban agglomeration and a low cluster in the peripheral area because the districts and counties with higher suitability are mainly located in the centre and the districts and counties with lower suitability are mainly located in the peripheral area.
Comment (3-10):I think the layout and the arrangement of the 4.2. 4.3 and 4.4 have some problems, some contents should put in the last section, while some parts should put after the contents in section 3.
Response (3-10): Dear reviewer, Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for the constructive comment, which greatly helped us to improve the manuscript. In the light of the comment, we have restructured the discussion section.
Comment (3-11): I think the authors haven’t provide some meaningful and practical recommendations. The policy recommendation should strictly come from your empirical research results, that is, your policy recommendations are quite super-surface, and not specific, I suggest you reorganize the policy implication section.
Response (3-11): Dear reviewer, Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for the constructive comment, which greatly helped us to improve the manuscript。 This section of the policy recommendations has been reorganized in our revised draft. In our discussion of the revised draft, based on the results of the study, we put forward recommendations from the two dimensions of government management and urban development, taking into account the three target levels of economic development, social life and ecological environment. Firstly, we have made suggestions in each of the three dimensions. Secondly, we also suggested what government departments should do. Finally, based on the results of the study, we suggest what the district should do.
“Based on the analysis of the above research results, we make the following recommendations:
(1) Economic construction, the central Yunnan urban agglomeration should speed up the formation of the central Yunnan urban economic circle of "one region, two belts, four cities and several points" to achieve a pattern of regional integration. For cities like Yongren, Yuanmou, Wuding, Muding, Yao'an, Chengjiang and Malong, whose suitability was declining under the economic development target layer, they should focus on economic development, accelerate the construction of a modern ecological featured tourism industry, improve the tourism auxiliary services, create cultural and tourism products, and promote the modernization and development of the economy. This will provide economic support for the rational use and planning of green spaces in the central Yunnan urban agglomeration.
(2) Social life, the improvement of social life standards plays an important role in promoting economic development and the optimization of the ecological environment. The government should improve the level of public services to enhance people's sense of well-being. For cities like Xinping, Wuhua, Xundian and Dongchuan, which showed a decline in suitability under the social life target layer, these cities should encourage entrepreneurship and employment, provide skill training opportunities, increase employment opportunities, reduce urban unemployment, moderately extend the retirement age, and direct young talents to urban areas with lower suitability ratings.
(3) Ecological environment, the government should strictly control the three zones and three lines, strengthen the protection and management of highland lakes, and enhance the monitoring and regulatory capacity of the ecological environment. For cities like Xishan and Huaning, which showed a decline in suitability under the ecological environment target layer, these cities should pay more attention to the protection of the ecological environment, especially to the protection of the water systems of Dianchi, Fuxian Lake, Yangzonghai and Qilu Lake. In addition, the protection of green spaces should be strengthened, the green coverage rate should be increased, urban green spaces should be rationally planned, and the policy of three zones and three lines should be strictly adhered to.”
Comment (3-12): The quality of the language are poor.
Response (3-12): Language has been revised by a native speaker. Our manuscripts are touched up by MDPI's English editing.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Several key scientific issues need to be further sorted out and improved:
1) The spatial and temporal evolution characteristics of the ecological suitability of green space in urban agglomerations are completely analyzed. However, the paper lacks a complete theoretical framework and influencing mechanism when using three objective levels to analyze its impact on the ecological suitability of green space.
2) As for the impact of economic construction levels on the ecological suitability of green space in 4.1, the selected economic construction includes indicators such as GDP, tertiary industries, tourism and fixed assets. The main factors are not explained, and the opinions and suggestions are concentrated on industries, which need further explanation.
3) Urban agglomerations are distinguished by the spatial existence of high-high clustering and low-low clustering in 3.3, but lack of comparative analysis between high-high clustering and low-low clustering areas. What are the difference factors causing different types of clustering? When assuming the ecological suitability of the new city construction, should we consider the type of clustering in the nearby area or near the high-high clustering level?
2. The logic of the fourth part of the article is slightly confused:
1) 4.1 "Additionally, while developing the economy, cities should focus on preserving green spaces, and strictly adhere to the three districts and three lines policy. "The original text gradually analyzes the impact on the ecological suitability of green space from three levels, but suddenly mentions the economy at the ecological level. It is suggested to delete this sentence or reorganize the language.
2) 4.2 "This is because these cities showed a decline in their economic development target layer. All in all, this is mainly due to a decrease in the proportion of tourism revenue in the GDP and social investments in fixed assets as a proportion of the GDP (Figure 8) ", the linear graph shows obvious influence of tourism on economic development, but the summary of "all in all" is a little hasty. It is suggested to draw a conclusion after further analysis and explanation.
3) 4.3 Spatial correlation analysis has been explained in the previous analysis, and more specific analysis conclusions about high-high clustering and low-low clustering regions are lacking.
4) 4.4 Part in "In order to explore the relationship between green spaces and ecological livability,this study... ", this paper aims at the assessment and evolution characteristics of green space ecological suitability, rather than the relationship between green space and ecological suitability.
3. The policy position of the research results can be discussed.
4. Language needs to be strengthened.
5. It is suggested to review the summary and conclusions.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageLanguage needs to be strengthened.
Author Response
Comment (4-1): Several key scientific issues need to be further sorted out and improved:
The spatial and temporal evolution characteristics of the ecological suitability of green space in urban agglomerations are completely analyzed. However, the paper lacks a complete theoretical framework and influencing mechanism when using three objective levels to analyze its impact on the ecological suitability of green space.
Response (4-1): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestion regarding our manuscript. For this issue, we have added a methodological framework in the revised draft. Based on the concept of eco-livability, we constructed a green space eco-livability evaluation system from three aspects: economic development, social life and ecological environment, and analysed the spatial and temporal evolution of the suitability from the three aspects. Based on this analysis, we add the related impact analysis in section 4.1. And in the future, we can continue to explore the mechanism of the influence of economic development, social life and ecological environment on the eco-livability of green spaces in the urban agglomeration of central Yunnan through regression modelling.
Comment (4-2): As for the impact of economic construction levels on the ecological suitability of green space in 4.1, the selected economic construction includes indicators such as GDP, tertiary industries, tourism and fixed assets. The main factors are not explained, and the opinions and suggestions are concentrated on industries, which need further explanation.
Response (4-2): Dear reviewers, thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript. To enhance the logic, we have reorganized this section in the discussion section.
“It is to be noted that the eco-livability suitability of green space under the three dimensions of economic development, social life and ecological environment in 2010-2020 showed a decreasing trend in some districts and counties. The districts and counties with the largest decreases in the ecological livability suitability of green spaces under the economic development target layer during 2010-2020 mainly include Yongren, Yuanmou, Wuding, Muding, Yaoan, Chengjiang and Malong. This is due to the fact that these cities showed a decrease in the tourism revenue as a proportion of GDP and the social investment in fixed assets as a proportion of GDP. Among all the economic development indicators, only these two indicators showed negative values in terms of suitability (Figure 9(a)).”
Response (4-3): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestion regarding our manuscript. In response to the comment, we have added explanation of this phenomenon in section 3.3 of the revised draft. The clustering characteristics of the spatial correlation of green space ecological livability suitability in the urban agglomeration of central Yunnan appear to show a high cluster in the centre of the urban agglomeration and a low cluster in the peripheral area because the districts and counties with higher suitability are mainly located in the centre and the districts and counties with lower suitability are mainly located in the peripheral area. high- high clustering, because of its own high suitability, can play a certain role in promoting the neighboring districts and counties with less high suitability while developing. The low-low clustering, because the suitability of this area is low, if the suitability can be improved, it will have a great effect on the improvement of the overall suitability of the green space in the urban agglomeration of central Yunnan, and also play a role in the coordinated development of the region.
Comment (4-4): The logic of the fourth part of the article is slightly confused:
4.1 "Additionally, while developing the economy, cities should focus on preserving green spaces, and strictly adhere to the three districts and three lines policy. "The original text gradually analyzes the impact on the ecological suitability of green space from three levels, but suddenly mentions the economy at the ecological level. It is suggested to delete this sentence or reorganize the language.
Response (4-4): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review regarding our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the comment. Deleted the sentence.
Response (4-5): Dear reviewers, thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript. For this section, we have reorganized the content.
“It is to be noted that the eco-livability suitability of green space under the three dimensions of economic development, social life and ecological environment in 2010-2020 showed a decreasing trend in some districts and counties. The districts and counties with the largest decreases in the ecological livability suitability of green spaces under the economic development target layer during 2010-2020 mainly include Yongren, Yuanmou, Wuding, Muding, Yaoan, Chengjiang and Malong. This is due to the fact that these cities showed a decrease in the tourism revenue as a proportion of GDP and the social investment in fixed assets as a proportion of GDP. Among all the economic development indicators, only these two indicators showed negative values in terms of suitability (Figure 9(a)).”
Comment (4-6): 4.3 Spatial correlation analysis has been explained in the previous analysis, and more specific analysis conclusions about high-high clustering and low-low clustering regions are lacking.
Response (4-6): Dear reviewer, Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for the constructive comment, which greatly helped us to improve the manuscript. More specific analyses of high - high clustering and low - low clustering regions we described in section 3.3 of the revised manuscript.
“Based on the analysis in Figure 8, the ecological livable suitability spatial clustering characteristics of green spaces in the central Yunnan urban agglomeration showed high–high clustering in the middle of the urban agglomeration and low–low clustering at the edge. The high–high clustering and the low–low clustering were significant. The reason for this phenomenon is that the districts and counties with relatively high levels of ecological livability suitability of green spaces are mainly concentrated in the core areas of the central Yunnan urban agglomeration, while the districts and counties with relatively low levels of suitability are mainly concentrated in the peripheral areas. From 2010 to 2020, the high–high cluster areas were mainly distributed in the central region of the Yunnan urban agglomeration. And these regions had a good spatial spillover effect while developing and played a certain promoting role in the suitability of the neighbouring districts and counties.”
“The suitability of the districts and counties in low–low agglomeration areas is relatively low, and the suitability of the surrounding counties is also low. These cities have great potential to develop the ecological livable suitability of green spaces, which is crucial for improving the green spaces of the central Yunnan urban agglomeration. The level of ecological livability has a driving effect.”
Comment (4-7): 4.4 Part in "In order to explore the relationship between green spaces and ecological livability, this study... ", this paper aims at the assessment and evolution characteristics of green space ecological suitability, rather than the relationship between green space and ecological suitability.
Response (4-7): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review regarding our manuscript. In the revised draft, we have reorganized the sentence.
Comment (4-8): The policy position of the research results can be discussed.
Response (4-8): Dear reviewer, Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for the constructive comment, which greatly helped us to improve the manuscript。 This section of the policy recommendations has been reorganized in our revised draft. In our discussion of the revised draft, based on the results of the study, we put forward recommendations from the two dimensions of government management and urban development, taking into account the three target levels of economic development, social life and ecological environment. In terms of economic development, the Government should accelerate the formation of the "one-region, two-belt, four-city, multiple-point" Central Yunnan City Economic Circle in order to achieve regional integration. In terms of social life, the government should improve the level of public services, enhance the people's sense of well-being, and guide young talents to develop in towns and cities with lower suitability ratings. In terms of ecological environment, the government should strictly control the three zones and three lines, do a good job in the battle to protect and manage the plateau lakes, and improve the ability to monitor and supervise the ecological environment.
Comment (4-9): Language needs to be strengthened.
Response (4-9): Language has been revised by a native speaker. Our manuscripts are touched up by MDPI's English editing.
Comment (4-10): It is suggested to review the summary and conclusions
Response (4-10): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestion regarding our manuscript. we have reorganized the summary and conclusions sections in the revised draft.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, this paper presents an interesting study on the ecological livable suitability of green spaces within urban agglomerations, focusing on the central 12 Yunnan urban agglomeration. The analysis of spatiotemporal differences and distribution characteristics of green space ecological livability is valuable for the research and development of human living environments. However, there are several areas that require improvement to enhance the quality and clarity of the paper.
General Writing Issues:
The paper's writing is somewhat general, lacking specific technical details, references, and explanations. It is essential to provide clear references and explanations for chosen techniques and methods.
The methodology section needs to include references to existing methods, emphasizing the unique features of this study compared to previous research.
The research gap has not been adequately addressed, and the paper appears to be a general application of research methods rather than a focused contribution to evaluation methods for ecological livability.
Specific Comments:
Abstract:
Line 13: Clarify how the evaluation index system was established.
Line 16: Clearly state that GIS was used for visualizing the Moran's I index.
Line 30-31: Specify the unique significance of this study and provide evidence of its contribution to the development of ecological livability.
Introduction:
Line 43: Provide the date when the term "ecologically livable" was first proposed and define it more precisely with a citation.
Line 47: Specify the literature search methods, keywords, and data collection process used for the analysis of literatures.
Line 50-54: Improve the logical flow of the paragraph when introducing "The definition of ecological livability" with a chronological approach.
Line 92: Define the specific scope of "small-scale" and provide research citations to highlight the uniqueness of this study.
Line 94: Clarify what "a unique structure and organizational mode" means and explain why this area was selected as the research sample.
Materials and Methods:
Evaluation system construction and data sources:
Line 128: Specify the number of experts involved, the type of questionnaire used, and the criteria for expert selection.
Methods:
Entropy Method:
Line 150: Explain why the Entropy Method was chosen over other evaluation methods, highlighting its advantages and uniqueness.
Line 167: Clarify why a shifting of 0.0001 was chosen as the elimination criterion.
Results:
Characteristics of spatial and temporal evolution of ecological livability suitability of green spaces:
Line 206-215: Provide a more detailed description of the changes, including trends and percentages of data.
Line 228-215: Specify the criteria used for classifying the levels.
Discussion and Recommendations:
Line 380: Explain why protecting specific water systems is essential and highlight the differences that exist.
Conclusions:
Add a section discussing the innovative research methods and perspectives of this study, as well as the feasibility of the evaluation method. Provide suggestions and prospects for the evaluation results in the region.
In summary, addressing these issues will significantly improve the readability and novelty of the paper. I look forward to reviewing the revised manuscript if the author incorporates these improvements accordingly.
Author Response
Comment (5-1): General Writing Issues:
Overall, this paper presents an interesting study on the ecological livable suitability of green spaces within urban agglomerations, focusing on the central 12 Yunnan urban agglomeration. The analysis of spatiotemporal differences and distribution characteristics of green space ecological livability is valuable for the research and development of human living environments. However, there are several areas that require improvement to enhance the quality and clarity of the paper.
Response (5-1): Dear reviewer. We are very grateful to the reviewer’s for recognising the research in our article and for taking their valuable time to give us advice.
Comment (5-2): The paper's writing is somewhat general, lacking specific technical details, references, and explanations. It is essential to provide clear references and explanations for chosen techniques and methods.
Response (5-2): Dear reviewer. We thank the reviewer’s comments and have added technical details, references and explanations in response to the comments.
Comment (5-3): The methodology section needs to include references to existing methods, emphasizing the unique features of this study compared to previous research.
Response (5-3): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestion regarding our manuscript. We have highlighted the unique aspects of this study compared to previous studies in the abstract, introduction, and discussion sections.
Comment (5-4): The research gap has not been adequately addressed, and the paper appears to be a general application of research methods rather than a focused contribution to evaluation methods for ecological livability.
Response (5-4): Dear reviewer, Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for the constructive comment, which greatly helped us to improve the manuscript. Based on your comment, we have highlighted our innovation in the abstract, introduction and discussion of the article. Our innovation is to construct a green space ecological livability evaluation index system from the perspective of green space, and to integrate green space land use indicators into the evaluation index system.
Response (5-5): Dear reviewer. We thank the reviewer’s comment and have added some descriptions of the indicator construction in the abstract. Also, in section 2.2, the steps of indicator construction are described in detail.
“In this paper, from the perspective of "green spaces", based on the concept of eco-livability, we construct an eco-livability evaluation system for green spaces from three aspects: economic development, social life and ecological environment. The specific steps are as follows.
- Based on the "Scientific Evaluation Criteria for Livable Cities (2007)" and the relevant studies of more than 40 scholars at home and abroad, we concluded the evaluation indicators related to ecological livability and integrated green space land use indicators from the perspective of green spaces (Figure 3). In this study, green spaces include four land use types: forest land, cropland, grassland, and water bodies [1].
- We distributed an expert questionnaire for the construction of eco-livability indicators for green spaces and designed a questionnaire format with a scoring system combined with open-ended modifications. In the end, we returned 29 questionnaires, of which 28 were valid. The main areas of expertise of the experts who participated in this study include landscape architecture, gardening, urban and rural planning, human geography and urban ecology.
- Based on the expert questionnaire survey and the principle of data accessibility in the study area, we finally selected 25 indicators as green space eco-livability evaluation indicator factors”
Response (5-6): Dear reviewers. We thank the reviewer’s comment and clearly state in the abstract section that GIS was used for spatial autocorrelation analysis. A note on this part has also been added to the research methodology section.
Comment (5-7): Line 30-31: Specify the unique significance of this study and provide evidence of its contribution to the development of ecological livability.
Response (5-7): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestion regarding our manuscript. To the point you mention, we have reorganized the abstract section in response to the comment.
“Green spaces are an essential part of building an eco-livable city, and play an important role in building eco-livability in the central Yunnan urban agglomeration. However, there are relatively few studies on the eco-livability evaluation of green spaces, so the establishment of a green space eco-livability assessment system can help us to better analyse the eco-livability status of urban green spaces. In order to fill this research gap, this study takes the green spaces of the urban agglomeration in central Yunnan as the research object, and constructs an ecological livability evaluation index system of green spaces from three aspects: economic development, social life and ecological environment.”
“The study proposed recommendations for improving the suitability of ecological livability of green spaces from two dimensions of government policy and urban development in the combination of the three target layers. The results of the study provide a reference for decision-making on the construction of eco-livable cities in the central Yunnan urban agglomeration.”
Comment (5-8): Introduction:
Line 43: Provide the date when the term "ecologically livable" was first proposed and define it more precisely with a citation.
Response (5-8): Dear reviewer, We thank the reviewer’s comment. In the second paragraph of the introduction, the time period for proposing ecological livability is provided, and it is more accurately defined through reference to literature.
“In terms of definition, at the beginning of the 21st century, the concept of eco-livability began to be constantly proposed. Different scholars have different views. Lu [7] believes that eco-livability covers all aspects of economic development, social development and ecological environmental quality, and objectively and realistically reflects the eco-livability of cities. Li [9] argues that eco-livability encompasses the natural environment, the spiritual humanistic environment and the soft environment of the social life of the residents. Xie[10] considers an eco-livable city is one in which the natural and human environments are perfectly integrated, and in which the social system and the ecosystem co-exist in harmony. Although a unified concept of eco-livability has yet to be developed, by synthesising the views of most scholars, we believe that eco-livability is a composite system that encompasses economic prosperity, social development as well as a clean and beautiful ecological environment.
”
Comment (5-9): Line 47: Specify the literature search methods, keywords, and data collection process used for the analysis of literatures.
Response (5-9): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestion. According to the comment, the second paragraph of the introduction provides additional explanations on the literature search methods, keywords, and data collection process used for literature analysis.
“The paper was searched on the China Knowledge and Web of Science platforms using the keywords "ecological and livable city, eco-livable city, livability city".”
Response (5-10): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestion regarding our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the comment. When introducing the definition of "ecological livability", the paragraph content was reorganized.
“In terms of definition, at the beginning of the 21st century, the concept of eco-livability began to be constantly proposed. Different scholars have different views. Lu [7] believes that eco-livability covers all aspects of economic development, social development and ecological environmental quality, and objectively and realistically reflects the eco-livability of cities. Li [9] argues that eco-livability encompasses the natural environment, the spiritual humanistic environment and the soft environment of the social life of the residents. Xie[10] considers an eco-livable city is one in which the natural and human environments are perfectly integrated, and in which the social system and the ecosystem co-exist in harmony. Although a unified concept of eco-livability has yet to be developed, by synthesising the views of most scholars, we believe that eco-livability is a composite system that encompasses economic prosperity, social development as well as a clean and beautiful ecological environment. This concept involves the sustainability and coordination of the economy, society and the environment [11].”
Comment (5-11): Line 92: Define the specific scope of "small-scale" and provide research citations to highlight the uniqueness of this study.
Response (5-11): Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment. We have provided relevant citation.
Jun lin, X. Spatial distribution and ecological livability evaluation of typical open space in the central urban area of Guangzhou [D]. Guangzhou University,2022.
Comment (5-12): Line 94: Clarify what "a unique structure and organizational mode" means and explain why this area was selected as the research sample.
Response (5-12): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review. For this issue, we have reorganized the paragraph content to make the significance of the research area as a research sample clearer.
“The central Yunnan urban agglomeration is Yunnan's bridgehead to Southeast Asia and the gateway support area of China's Belt and Road construction. In the Central Yunnan Urban Agglomeration Plan (2016-2049), one of the development directions is an ecologically livable mountain and water urban agglomeration. With the accelerated urbanization of the central Yunnan urban agglomeration, green spaces are gradually decreasing, and they play an important role in building an ecologically livable central Yunnan urban agglomeration.”
Comment (5-13): Materials and Methods:
Evaluation system construction and data sources:
Line 128: Specify the number of experts involved, the type of questionnaire used, and the criteria for expert selection.
Response (5-13): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review again. We have added information on the number of experts involved, the types of questionnaires used, and the selection criteria for experts in section 2.2.
“In the end, we returned 29 questionnaires, of which 28 were valid. The main areas of expertise of the experts who participated in this study include landscape architecture, gardening, urban and rural planning, human geography and urban ecology.”
Comment (5-14): Methods:
Entropy Method:
Line 150: Explain why the Entropy Method was chosen over other evaluation methods, highlighting its advantages and uniqueness.
Response (5-14): Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment. In section 2.3.1, the advantages and uniqueness of entropy weight method compared to other methods have been added.
“The entropy method is an objective evaluation method that can better exclude people's cognitive biases and make the process of determining the weights of indicators more rational and the evaluation results more scientific compared with the subjective method [39]. Compared with other objective methods, the entropy method algorithm is simple, easy to understand and has a wide range of applications, which can be applied to a variety of decision problems and different types of data [40].”
Comment (5-15): Line 167: Clarify why a shifting of 0.0001 was chosen as the elimination criterion.
Response (5-15): Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment. To eliminate the occurrence of a "0" value after normalization of indicator data, which affects subsequent calculations. This paper refers to Meng's research idea and performs 0.0001 translation processing on the normalized data indicators.
Meng L, Hao L, Lingling S, Qihong S, Chen C. Construction of Comprehensive Evaluation System of Urban Ecological Economy Based on Entropy Method and Evaluation of Jiangsu Province[J]. Ecological Economy, 2022,38(08):68-71+87.
Response (5-16): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review regarding our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the comment. We provide a detailed description of the changes in the manuscript and have added data for 2010-2015, 2015-2020 and 2010-2020 in Table 2.
“The largest decrease is in Chengjiang, from 0.4993 to 0.3974, a decrease of 0.1019. The largest increase is in Wuhua, from 0.2581 to 0.3655, an increase of 0.1074.”
“The largest decrease is in Xundian, from 0.1982 to 0.1874, a decrease of 0.0108. The largest increase is in Anning, from 0.2966 to 0.3896, an increase of 0.093.”
“Yuanmou showed the largest decrease from 0.2987 to 0.2738, a decrease of 0.0249. Panlong showed the largest increase from 0.2533 to 0.4227, an increase of 0.1694.”
Comment (5-17): Line 228-215: Specify the criteria used for classifying the levels.
Response (5-17): Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestion. We used the natural breakpoint grading method for grading and added graded citations in section 3.1.2.
Huimin L, Pingsheng D, Haidong G. Evaluation of Regional Ecological Livable Degree and Its Influencing Factors: A Case Study of Xi’an[J]. Ecological Economy,2019, 35(10):80-85.
Comment (5-18): Discussion and Recommendations:
Line 380: Explain why protecting specific water systems is essential and highlight the differences that exist.
Response (5-18): Dear reviewer, thank you for your questions. As can be seen from the weights of the indicators, the indicator with the largest weight is the proportion of water bodies to land use. And the weight reflects the importance of an indicator. The greater the weight of an indicator, the stronger the indicator's determining effect on the evaluation results. This indicates that water bodies are of great importance in green space ecological livability. This is why it is so important to protect the waterways in the area. It is emphasized that there is a difference because this difference also leads to a difference in the ecological habitability suitability of the green space. In response to the comment, we have also added a related note in sections 4.1and 3.2.2 of the revised draft.
Comment (5-19): Conclusions:
Add a section discussing the innovative research methods and perspectives of this study, as well as the feasibility of the evaluation method. Provide suggestions and prospects for the evaluation results in the region.
Response (5-19): Dear reviewer, Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for the constructive comment. According to the comments, in the revised draft, we have discussed the innovation of this study and the feasibility of the evaluation method. And based on the evaluation results, relevant suggestions and outlooks have been presented.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate that the theme of this article focuses on the dynamic evaluation of the ecological livability of green spaces in urban agglomerations. Green spaces are an essential part of the human settlement environment and play an important role in urban eco-livability. This paper constructs an ecological livability evaluation system from the perspective of green spaces, which has a certain degree of innovation.
Here are some comments that can help you improving the work.
Comments
1. The title is long and it is suggested to change it to "Spatio-temporal dynamics of the ecological livable suitability of greenspaces in Yunnan central urban agglomeration".
2.In the keywords section, the authors wrote "green space", but in the title and other parts of the paper, the green space is used as "green spaces". Authors should carefully consider whether to use singular or plural and unify their usage.
3. The subject of this study is green spaces and this paper is not clear enough about the meaning and classification of green spaces. The authors could try to add relevant meanings of green spaces and their classification in this paper.
4.In section 3.2. Analysis of variability under a single target layer of ecological livability of green spaces, the authors wrote: "to explore the level of ecological livability of green spaces and the spatial variability of each single target layer". However, the following text shows that the translation of this sentence is not correct. The author should check that the translation of the sentence is correct.
5.The place names in the central urban agglomeration of Yunnan in Figure 1 and Figure 3-6 are ambiguous and easily misunderstood, so it is recommended to further improve the expression of the drawings.
Author Response
Response (6-1): Dear reviewer. Thank you for your comment and providing good suggestions for my manuscript. We have revised my manuscript according to the suggestion.
Response (6-2): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review regarding our manuscript. We appreciate the reviewer's proposal and have made modifications to this issue. The full text has been checked and modified to address this issue.
Comment (6-3): The subject of this study is green spaces and this paper is not clear enough about the meaning and classification of green spaces. The authors could try to add relevant meanings of green spaces and their classification in this paper.
Response (6-3): Dear reviewer. Thank you for your comment. we have provided an explanation of the meaning of green space in the first paragraph of the article and described its classification in Section 2.2.
Comment (6-4): In section 3.2. Analysis of variability under a single target layer of ecological livability of green spaces, the authors wrote: "to explore the level of ecological livability of green spaces and the spatial variability of each single target layer". However, the following text shows that the translation of this sentence is not correct. The author should check that the translation of the sentence is correct.
Response (6-4): Dear reviewer. We are very grateful to the reviewer for their attention and have checked and revised this sentence.
Response (6-5): Dear reviewer. We appreciate the reviewer's suggestions for improving the expression of the drawings. We have made the following changes to the drawings in Figures 1 and 3-6 by reducing the number of city names in Figure 1 and removing the city names in Figures 3-6.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work is clearly improved. Congratulations to the authors.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English quality is improved.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Comment (1-1): The work is clearly improved. Congratulations to the authors.
Response (1-1): Dear reviewer, thank you very much for recognizing our revised draft and for your suggestions.
Comment (1-2): Comments on the Quality of English Language: the English quality is improved.
Response (1-2): Dear reviewer, thank you for your positive appreciation. Language has been revised by a native speaker. Our manuscripts are touched up by MDPI's English editing.
English-Editing-Certificate：
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has been great improved after great efforts modification.
While I still have two points for the authors:
(1) In section 2, you should have a ‘conceptual framework", actually you have drawn a very good figure for the whole paper, while you should say some words explain your framework, and the title of section 2 should also be changed, like "The theoretical and analysis framework," then section 3 is the method and data......
(2) The innovation, shortcomings and outlook in 4.3 should put in the last section and after conclusion, that the shortcomings your paper hasn't dealt with and should be your further research assignments.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language is understandable, but much improved will be welcomed.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Comment (3-1): The paper has been great improved after great efforts modification.
Response (3-1): Dear reviewer, thank you for your positive appreciation.
Comment (3-2): While I still have two points for the authors:
(1) In section 2, you should have a ‘conceptual framework", actually you have drawn a very good figure for the whole paper, while you should say some words explain your framework, and the title of section 2 should also be changed, like "The theoretical and analysis framework," then section 3 is the method and data......
Response (3-2): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestion regarding our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the comment.
Comment (3-3): (2) The innovation, shortcomings and outlook in 4.3 should put in the last section and after conclusion, that the shortcomings your paper hasn't dealt with and should be your further research assignments.
Response (3-3): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestion regarding our manuscript. We've moved part 4.3 to after the conclusion to form part 5.2.
Comment (3-4): Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English language is understandable, but much improved will be welcomed.
Response (3-4): Dear reviewer, Language has been revised by a native speaker. Our manuscripts are touched up by MDPI's English editing.
English-Editing-Certificate：
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.Table 2. need to be re-optimized.
2.Figure 7. Legend grading from year to year needs to be consistent, for better comparison.
3.Keep a maximum of 3 decimals,such as Table 3.
4.Figure 9. It is recommended to optimize with professional software.
5.The numbers in the legend should be preceded by "0."..., like Figure 4. 6.
6.All decimal points need to be consistent.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagegood
Author Response
Reviewer 4
Comment (4-1): 1.Table 2. need to be re-optimized.
Response (4-1): Dear reviewer, Thank you for your careful work regarding our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comment. We've redrawn Figure 2.
Comment (4-2): 2.Figure 7. Legend grading from year to year needs to be consistent, for better comparison.
Response (4-2): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestion regarding our manuscript. We used the natural grading method for grading, which was specified in 4.1.2 section of paper.
” This study visualized the ecological livable suitability of green spaces in the 49 districts and counties of the central Yunnan urban agglomeration from 2010 to 2020. The comprehensive ecological livable suitability of green spaces was classified into five levels using the natural breakpoint grading method. These levels included high, relatively high, medium, relatively low, and low (Figure 5).”
The references for which we used this grading method are as follows:
Meifang, Z.; Peijuan, Z.; Shuqiang, C.; Honghui, L.; Tangxin, L. Evaluation of the Livability of Urban Space In Changsha from the Perspective of "Production-Living-Ecology". Journal of Natural Science of Hunan Normal University. 2019, 42, 9-17.
Li, X.M.; Bai, Z.Z.; Tian, S.Z.; Guo, Y.J.; Liu,H. Evaluation of the Livability of Urban Human Settlements: A Case Study of Liaoning Province. Journal of Human Settlements in West China. 2019, 34, 86-93.
Huimin, L.; Pingsheng, D., Haidong, G. Evaluation of Regional Ecological Livable Degree and Its Influencing Factors: A Case Study of Xi’an. Ecological Economy. 2019, 35, 80-85.
Kewen, L.; Qiucheng, L.; Li, W.; Chen, X. Coupling and Coordination Study of Livable City and Innovative City Development in the Yangtze River Delta.Geography and Geo-Information Science. 2019, 35,120-126+134.
Fu, B.; Yu, D.; Zhang, Y. The livable urban landscape: GIS and remote sensing extracted land use assessment for urban livability in Changchun Proper, China. Land use policy. 2019, 87, 104048.
Dear reviewer, we Considerate the variety of grading methods regarding eco-livability, the grading methods of other studies may not be applicable to this study. However, the natural grading method has a high degree of applicability, so this paper adopts this method of grading to explore the spatial distribution characteristics of the ecological livability suitability of the green space in the urban agglomeration in central Yunnan in different years. For better access, we have also optimized the legend section of image 7.
Comment (4-3): 3.Keep a maximum of 3 decimals, such as Table 3.
Response (4-3): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestion regarding our manuscript. We follow your advice to keep a maximum of 3 decimals.
Comment (4-4): 4.Figure 9. It is recommended to optimize with professional software.
Response (4-4): Dear reviewer, Thank you for your careful work regarding our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comment. We've redrawn Figure 9.
Comment (4-5): 5.The numbers in the legend should be preceded by "0."..., like Figure 4. 6.
Response (4-5): Dear reviewer, Thank you for your careful work regarding our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comment. We have optimized all the legends in the paper by adding "0......" in front of the number.
Comment (4-6): 6.All decimal points need to be consistent.
Response (4-6): Dear reviewer, Thank you for your careful work regarding our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comment. We have optimized all the legends in the paper by keeping the numbers to 3 decimal points.
Comment (4-7): Comments on the Quality of English Language:good
Response (4-7): Dear reviewer, thank you for your positive appreciation. Language has been revised by a native speaker. Our manuscripts are touched up by MDPI's English editing.
English-Editing-Certificate：
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed most of my concerns and I suggest accept this paper pending minor format/grammar revisions.
Author Response
Reviewer 5
Comment (5-1): The authors have addressed most of my concerns and I suggest accept this paper pending minor format/grammar revisions.
Response (5-1): Dear reviewer, thank you for your positive appreciation. We have already touched up the language of the article. And have adjusted some of the structure as well as some of the drawing expressions. The changes are as follows:
- English-Editing-Certificate
- Optimized all images in this paper.
- Methods and materials section and conclusions section were restructured in accordance with the comments of reviewer 3.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThrough modification, the quality of the article has been well improved, it is recommended to publish.
The picture is very ugly, it is recommended to be optimized.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagegood
Author Response
Reviewer 4
Comment (4-1): Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Through modification, the quality of the article has been well improved, it is recommended to publish.
Response (4-1): Dear reviewer, thank you very much for recognizing our revised draft and for your suggestions.
Comment (4-2): The picture is very ugly, it is recommended to be optimized.
Response (4-2): Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestion regarding our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the comment. We have optimized Figures 1, 3, 9.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
