Study on the Dynamic Change of Land Use in Megacities and Its Impact on Ecosystem Services and Modeling Prediction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral Appraisal:
The article presents the results of an evaluation of 4 ecosystem services: carbon storage, water yield, habitat quality and soil conservation in a city under different scenarios created through modeling and using an index to evaluate the changes (CES). The topic is relevant, especially considering the rates of land use change near cities where there is an increase in urbanization. The results can serve as a starting point to guide informed decisions. However, considering that there are many and it can sometimes be difficult to quickly establish relationships between scenarios, services and the analysis index, it would be advisable to include a graphical abstract to increase the ease of visualization of the results. Also, it is recommended that authors include what years were analyzed based on data field and what years and for which years the scenarios were projected, because this is not clear until the results are almost ready. The work has many analyses. Nevertheless, the discussion needs to be improved to better interpret the results and analyze them. This improvement allows the results could be projected to other contexts.
Introduction:
· Lines 73 and 74 have the expression “has been widely used” twice in the same sentence.
· Lines 84 and 87: At the beginning, the authors have already presented an introduction to ecosystem services, delving into the dimension that they are going to address in the article, so returning to the definition in this paragraph is a bit strange. Perhaps it would be advisable to begin this paragraph directly with the proposals for evaluating the services, highlighting InVEST as a tool, because it is the one they are going to use.
· Lines 101 and 102: The scarcity of information on the subject of research in the study area was already addressed in previous lines of the introduction. However, little or nothing has been said in the introduction about the ecosystem services that were evaluated throughout the study, so the introduction in this paragraph could rather address that topic.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1 Study Site
Please mention in the description of the study site something more about the population, economic activities and what allows understanding the main drivers of land use change and their impact on the ecosystem services to be assessed.
2.2 Data resources:
In this section it would be interesting to mention which ecosystem services are going to be analyzed and by means of which tools and models so that there is a more interesting reading correlation in the table and to know which data are necessary for which type of model.
2.4 Research methodology:
Line 156: I think this is the first-time authors mention the abbreviation CA model or in any case I can't easily find what it means, please post at length, that I think in the line 164
Land use simulation scenario presetting: Please describe the scenarios in a table it could be better to understand what the generated scenarios were and what are their main characteristics.
2.4.3 Spatial autocorrelation analysis
Line 250, please review the space before Moran´s ..
2.4.5 Comprehensive ecosystem services index
The development of the index is not entirely clear, please could you explain a little more where and how you obtain the values used in the formula or in any case cite the relevant sources where it is possible to find the values for S and how the weight of the services was calculated, perhaps this could be placed as supplementary material, but the information is relevant as it has the potential to be replicated and applied to other contexts.
Discussion:
The first line of discussion states that the main factor of change of ecosystem services is land use change, this has been stated and studied many times, what would be the differential value or contribution of this research to this statement?
It is mentioned that there is a National Outline of Territorial Spatial Planning (2021-2035), in the light of the results of this research, what would be the main ones?
Bibliography:
Include the original citation of InVEST models.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI think this is good and easy to read, just avoid some redundancies that have already been pointed out.
Author Response
Reviewer #1:
Comment: The expression "has been widely used" appears twice in the same sentence in lines 73 and 74.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we adjusted and revised the language of the entire text and redesigned any grammatical errors, incompatibilities and ambiguities. However, due to the scattered nature of the perspectives and language points of change, we will not explain them one by one in the revised report.
Comment: Lines 84 and 87: At the beginning, the authors have already introduced ecosystem services and delved into the dimensions they will discuss in the article, so it is a bit strange to go back to the definition in this paragraph. Perhaps it is recommended to start this paragraph directly with the suggestion of assessing services, emphasizing that InVEST is a tool because it is the tool they will use.
Lines 101 and 102: The problem of the lack of information about the research topic in the research area has been addressed in the first few lines of the introduction. However, there is little or no mention of the ecosystem services assessed throughout the study in the introduction, so the introduction of this paragraph can discuss this topic.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We reorganized the introduction section, emphasized the InVEST tool in the introduction, and explained the importance and significance of the model selected for this study. We added how ecosystem services were assessed in the introduction throughout the study.
Comment: Please mention more information about population, economic activities in the description of the study site, and factors to understand the main drivers of land use change and their impact on ecosystem services.
Reply: We are very grateful for pointing out the issues with our manuscript. We have added a description of the study site in 2.1 and referenced more information about the economic activities of the population.
Comment: In this section, it is necessary to mention which ecosystem services will be analyzed and by which tools and models to have a more interesting reading relevance in the table and to understand which type of model requires which data.
Reply: Thank you for your comments. We have added additional notes in Table 1, where we divide all the data in the indicators into the categories required for the three models, including the InVEST model, the PLUS model, and the GeoDetector model, and describe the existing literature supporting the choice of each model.
Comment: Line 156: I think this is the first time the author mentions the abbreviation CA model, or anyway I can't find what it means, please post it in detail, I think it is in line 164
Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made additional clarification in (page 6 of the revised manuscript, lines 199-200), changing CA to CA (cellular automaton).
Comment: Land use simulation scenario presets: Please describe the scenarios in the table to better understand what the generated scenarios are and what their main features are.
Response: We are very grateful for pointing out the problem with our manuscript. We added to Table 2 to provide a detailed description of the four scenarios. It includes Natural Development (ND), Urban Development (UD), Cultivated Land Protection (CP) and Ecological Protection (EP).
Comment: Line 250, please look at the space before Moran's.
Response: We are very grateful for your suggestion. We have made changes to line 311. We have adjusted and revised the language throughout the text and reworked any grammatical errors, incompatibilities and ambiguities.
Comment: The development of the index is not completely clear, please explain where and how you obtained the values ​​used in the formula, or in any case cite the relevant source where the values ​​of S can be found and how the weights of the services are calculated, maybe this can be included as supplementary material, but this information is relevant because it has the potential to be replicated and applied to other contexts.
Response: We thank you for your suggestion. We have included a formula supplement in 2.4.5 explaining the calculation of the S values ​​and the weights of the services.
Comment: The first discussion thread states that the main factor of ecosystem service change is land use change, which has been stated and studied many times. What is the differential value or contribution of this study to this statement? It is mentioned that there is a National Territorial Spatial Planning Outline (2021-2035). According to the results of this study, what is the main one?
Response: Your comments helped to improve the quality of this study. Based on your and other experts' suggestions, we rewrote the Discussion section. The discussion of research innovation and contribution, policy recommendations, and limitations and shortcomings further highlights the innovation and contribution of the article.
Comment: Include the original reference to the InVEST model.
Response: We are very grateful for this good suggestion. We added the references as mentioned in reference [15].
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComplete and well described work.
I would like to point out some figures that are too small to be appreciated, in particular figures 3 and 9.
Little notes:
- Line 187: EP in place of EC
- The driving factors shown in the figure 3 should be reported and described in the text of point b "second bullet: selection of driving factors"
Author Response
Dear Editors:
We gratefully appreciate the editors and all reviewers offering us an opportunity to improve the quality of our submitted manuscript “Response and simulation of ecosystem services to land use change in megacities coupled with InVEST and PLUS models”（ID:sustainability-2999196）. We have appreciated very much the reviewer’s constructive and insightful comments, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.
We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval, Revised portion are marked in red in the revised manuscript, The responses to the reviewer’s comments are listed in the Revision Report.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Muyi Huang
Corresponding author:
Revision Report
Responses to reviewers (original comments by reviewers are in blue color)
Reviewer # 2:
Comment:I would like to point out some figures that are too small to be appreciated, in particular figures 3 and 9.
Reply: We appreciate very much for this good suggestion. We have enlarged the figures you mentioned in Figure 3 and Figure 9 to make them easier to see. And we have also checked the other images in the text.
Comment: Line 187: EP in place of EC
Reply: Your comment is very helpful. We have adjusted and revised the language of the entire text, reworking any grammatical errors, incompatibilities, and ambiguities.
Comment: The drivers shown in Figure 3 should be reported and described in the text of point b “Second point: Selection of drivers”
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added a note in the second bullet point of 2.4.1. The drivers include altitude, temperature, precipitation, slope, distance to railway, distance to highway, distance to primary road, distance to secondary road, distance to tertiary road, distance to water source, population, GDP.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors of the paper "Response and simulation of ecosystem services to land use change in megacities coupled with InVEST and PLUS models" propose a relevant topic, namely "land space optimization and ecological restoration and governance in megacities", especially in the situation where urbanization represents a phenomenon existing globally, especially in the context of the green era.
Considering the topic of the paper, we suggest the authors to highlight the elements resulting from the study, which produce a multiplying effect, especially since this issue is a global priority.
Concepts, citations and bibliographic references are adequately mentioned by the authors of the paper, for example the authors also use references from 2024 such as [17, 18]. However, in order to better highlight the scientific works identified in the specialized scientific literature, respectively relevant to the topic, we suggest the authors of the work within the introduction chapter to restructure a distinct sub-chapter "Literature review".
The research methodology is appropriate, the authors of the paper use to obtain the results, "the land use data in three phases (2000, 2010 and 2020) from the Resource and Environment Data Exchange Centre of the Chinese Academy of Sciences". Moreover, four kinds of ecological indicators were used as analysis indicators and analyse their spatial and temporal evolution characteristics as well as Hefei CES index in different scenarios in the future to provide information for land use decision making. At the same time, "The Patch-generating Land Use Simulation Model (PLUS)", developed by the High-Performance Spatial Computing Intelligence Laboratory (HPSCOL), was used as a research model, as the authors of the paper also mention. Last but not least, the authors use Spatial autocorrelation analysis to obtain the results.
The research results are presented both descriptively and graphically through tables and figures. At the same time, the authors present the results based on the data used, as well as the land use scenarios. Moreover, the authors present the results from both a theoretical and an applied (practical) perspective, regarding the "comprehensive management of land use and the regulation of ecological functions in megacities". However, we suggest the authors of the work to highlight the innovative scientific contributions to the specialized scientific literature.
The conclusions are presented by the authors based on the defined scenarios, and highlighting the results obtained for each of these scenarios, the most obvious for improving the value of ecosystem services and the sustainability of land use, being the development scenario. However, we suggest the authors of the paper to also present what are the limitations of the study, as well as future research. Moreover, if in the iThenticate report we have a similarity index that does not correspond to the conditions in the journal guide, please reduce it in the acceptance parameters.
We congratulate the research team for the chosen topic, and suggest revision according to the elements mentioned in the report.
Author Response
Reviewer #3:
Comment: The authors of the paper fully mentioned the concepts, citations and bibliography. For example, the authors also used references from 2024, such as [17, 18]. However, in order to better highlight the scientific works related to this topic identified in the professional scientific literature, we suggest that the authors of this work reorganize a separate sub-section "Literature Review" in the introduction chapter. The research results are presented in a descriptive and graphical way through tables and figures. At the same time, the authors present the results based on the data used and the land use scenarios. In addition, the authors present the results on "Integrated Management of Land Use and Regulation of Ecological Functions in Megacities" from both theoretical and applied (practical) perspectives. However, we suggest that the authors of this work highlight the innovative scientific contributions to the professional scientific literature.
Reply: Thank you for your comments. In the literature review section, according to your comments, we reorganized it into three parts to make the logic of the literature section clearer. In order to clarify the research gaps, we described the problems and deficiencies in the existing research at the end of each section, and further emphasized the research significance and research contribution of this study.
Comment: The authors presented the conclusions based on the defined scenarios and emphasized the results obtained for each scenario, the most obvious of which was the development scenario, which was the most obvious for improving the value of ecosystem services and the sustainability of land use. However, we suggest that the authors of the paper also introduce the limitations of the study and future research.
Reply: Your comments help improve the quality of this study. Based on your and other experts' suggestions, we have rewritten the Discussion section. The discussion of research innovation and contribution, policy recommendations, and limitations and shortcomings further highlights the innovation and contribution of the article.
Comment: In addition, if our similarity index in the iThenticate report does not meet the conditions in the journal guidelines, please reduce it in the acceptance parameters.
Answer: Your suggestions are very helpful to us. We have performed a weight check and the results meet the journal's requirements.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall the manuscript has been improved in this second version. At this sense, in terms of form I would only recommend make a revision of the scenario titles in Table 2 because they would be in capital letters.
On matters of content I have one extra suggestion because, the discussions and conclusions are interesting but seem very local, it would be interesting if the authors could develop a small paragraph to visualize the importance of this study across borders. For example mentioning the applicability of the index in other areas, etc.
Author Response
Dear Editors:
We gratefully appreciate the editors and all reviewers offering us an opportunity to improve the quality of our submitted manuscript “Response and simulation of ecosystem services to land use change in megacities coupled with InVEST and PLUS models”（ID:sustainability-2999196）. We have appreciated very much the reviewer’s constructive and insightful comments, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.
We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval, Revised portion are marked in red in the revised manuscript, The responses to the reviewer’s comments are listed in the Revision Report.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Muyi Huang
Corresponding author:
Revision Report
Responses to reviewers (original comments by reviewers are in blue color)
Reviewer # 1:
Comment # 1: Overall the manuscript has been improved in this second version. At this sense, in terms of form I would only recommend make a revision of the scenario titles in Table 2 because they would be in capital letters.
Reply: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have corrected the scenario names in Table 2 based on your suggestions. In addition, we have also revisited other places in the article to present it more clearly(Table2, in the revised manuscript).
Comment # 2: On matters of content I have one extra suggestion because, the discussions and conclusions are interesting but seem very local, it would be interesting if the authors could develop a small paragraph to visualize the importance of this study across borders. For example mentioning the applicability of the index in other areas, etc.
Reply: We have reorganized the discussion based on your suggestions and added what you said about the importance of other regional studies, making the discussion section more complete and convincing. We have elaborated the section in more detail in terms of global urbanisation trends, and clarified the section as it applies to other regions(Lines 868-876, page 25 in the revised manuscript).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
