Multi-Factor Collaborative Analysis of Conservation Effectiveness of Nature Reserves Based on Remote Sensing Data and Google Earth Engine
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have focused on developing a conservative effectiveness evaluation model for PAs. The manuscript is detailed and well structured.
I have a few comments/concerns as follows;
Add a small description about the 2 ecosystems, as well as a comparison of the different ways that the same parameter will affect/impact each ecosystem. This is because the selected parameters would behave in vastly different ways due to the uniqueness of the selected ecosystem, and though such parameters can be brought to the same 'table' mathematically, the reality or the applicability would be different. This is also my major concern regarding this research - the fact that the same parameter would tell 2 different stories about the 2 ecosystems. As such. how feasible is it to use the same model and the same parameters. If you can add some literature that compare 2 different landscapes (similar studies), that would also be helpful.
Minor corrections are needed. For example;
Lines 90-93
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1:
Thank you for your advice and comments concerning our manuscript “Multi-factor collaborative analysis of conservation effectiveness of nature reserves based on remote sensing data and GEE” (remotesensing-2553263).
For more detailed responses, please see the attached "Response to Reviewer 1 Comments" and revised manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
Jin Zhang
on behalf of all authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript tried to assess ecological quality and conservation effectiveness within Protected Areas (PAs). The authors calculated several indicators to evaluate the conservation effectiveness of PAs, including land use dynamic index, the NDVI, and landscape metrics. Nonetheless, there are distinct areas that require improvement and refinement.
1. In the abstract and introduction, the authors declared that there was lacking uniform standards for evaluating the conservation effectiveness of PAs, particularly across different ecological types, which remained a significant gap in the literature. This statement is not correct. In fact, there are several standards such as the “Technical guidelines for assessing conservation efficiency of nature reserves” released by the former National Forestry Administration of China in 2014, and the “Standard for conservation effectiveness assessment of ecology and environment in nature reserve” released by Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China in 2021.
2. Within the introduction (Lines 90-92), the chief contribution of this study seems to explore what extent differences exist between the conservation effectiveness of these two types of PAs (forest ecosystem and wetland ecosystem). This is quite difficult for the readers to understand its distinctive relevance and import. Is it necessary to compare the conservation effectiveness of two PAs with different purpose? What is the significance of this comparison?
3. In the methodology, the authors used NDVI as one of the indicators to represent the conservation effectiveness of PAs. But this index could mislead the results. First, water bodies may cause negative NDVI values. That is, the increasing area of wetland ecosystem should cause the decreasing of NDVI values in ZlNNR. Second, the increasing of cropland and grassland inside ZlNNR (according to Table 3, Line 272) may lead to increasing NDVI values, which should not be identified as the result that “the superior conservation effectiveness of ZlNNR over MdfNNR”.
4. In the discussion, the authors should make clearer explanation to the tangible benefits or recommendations emanating from the study, especially for the methodology framework which they established to compare the difference between two PAs with different major ecosystem.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2:
Thank you for your advice and comments concerning our manuscript “Multi-factor collaborative analysis of conservation effectiveness of nature reserves based on remote sensing data and GEE” (remotesensing-2553263).
For more detailed responses, please see the attached "Response to Reviewer 2 Comments" and revised manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
Jin Zhang
on behalf of all authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Please describe the innovation points of the paper in detail in the introduction section;
2. Line 115, Change "210km2" to "210 km2".
3. Line 131-132, Why are land use types divided into 7 categories? As far as I know, GlobeLand30 includes a total of 10 types.
4. Line 134-140, What is the total amount of the Landsat 5/7/8 data, and how many images are used to calculate NDVI after cloud removal.
5. The Discussion section, which is the most important section, should be revised and strengthen to make the readers convinced.
6. The quality of English needs improving in order to make meanings more explicitly understandable.
The quality of English needs improving in order to make meanings more explicitly understandable.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3:
Thank you for your advice and comments concerning our manuscript “Multi-factor collaborative analysis of conservation effectiveness of nature reserves based on remote sensing data and GEE” (remotesensing-2553263).
For more detailed responses, please see the attached "Response to Reviewer 3 Comments" and revised manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
Jin Zhang
on behalf of all authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Section Managing Editor, Mr. Dejan Naumov
I have carefully read the article "Manuscript ID: remotesensing-2553263- Multi-factor collaborative analysis of conservation effectiveness of nature reserves based on remote sensing data and GEE". This manuscript analyzed the temporal change of different dynamic land use and landscape indices in 2000-2020 in two areas with different conservation situations in north-eastern China, including a cloud platform such as GEE.
In general, the article tries to seek answers by asking 2 important questions. The findings are presented in detail in 2 different regions and discussed effectively. will be a timely and appropriate contribution to the field of "Ecological Remote Sensing" through your international journal.
My comments, which may lead to a few minor changes in the methodological part, are as follows.
*-I suggest you share the comparative quantitative results of the Dynamic land use index and landscape factors you mentioned in the Abstract section.
*-Line 55: Numerous sensors at satellites deployed by both governmental and non-governmental entities in recent times can furnish temporal, spatial, and spectral data about the identification of land characteristics on the terrestrial expanse of the Earth. Please carefully review and refer to the following article if needed:
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abe8628 - Using satellite imagery to understand and promote sustainable development
*-The study clearly stated its research questions. I find 3 methodological goals acceptable at the end of the introduction. However, this is missing: How does this article differ from the existing literature? And what innovation does it offer? The reader will want to see just that here.
*- Line 103: Avoid starting a sentence with an Abbreviation. Samely situation at line 113.
*-Line 134: Use the following reference for GEE.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425717302900 - Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone
*-Line 140: Please briefly describe NDVI, and give a formula if necessary.
*-Line 154: Provide a reference for commercial software ArcGIS 10.8.
Sincerely yours,
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 4:
Thank you for your advice and comments concerning our manuscript “Multi-factor collaborative analysis of conservation effectiveness of nature reserves based on remote sensing data and GEE” (remotesensing-2553263).
For more detailed responses, please see the attached "Response to Reviewer 4 Comments" and revised manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
Jin Zhang
on behalf of all authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made a very careful revision, and the manuscript has been significantly improved. Here I still have two concerns:
1. The authors selected NDVI as one of the indicators to assess the effectiveness of PAs. In the revised single-factor NDVI analysis, cropland, impervious surfaces, and barren land were excluded, and grassland was kept to represent a positive indicator of conservation effectiveness. In my opinion, NDVI should be carefully used when it was selected as the indicator to explore conservation effectiveness of PAs for protcting wetland ecosystem. For example, when the wetland ecosystem were converted into grassland ecosystem, NDVI would show increasing trend, but it did not gurantee the positive conservation effectiveness. Thus, I suggest that the authors fully adress this issue in the discussiion section.
2. The authors put forward some conservation measures and suggestions according to their results. For example, they "recommended core zones of all PA types be completely free of disturbance, while sustainable use of natural resources in buffer zones requires strict scientific guidance based on management measures for different PA types". This is inconsistent with the current laws and regulations on nature reserves in China. According to relevant regulations, sustainable use of natural resources, such as tourism and business activities, are not allowed in the buffer zone of the nature reserve. The authors should modify the relevant expression in the revised manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2:
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript “Multi-factor collaborative analysis of conservation effectiveness of nature reserves based on remote sensing data and GEE” (remotesensing-2553263) and providing constructive feedback. We have carefully considered your comments and have made revisions accordingly.
For more detailed responses, please see the attached "Response to Reviewer 2 Comments-Round2" and revised manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
Jin Zhang
on behalf of all authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors addressed my comments in the paper. Besides this, the paper is improved extensively. It is ready for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3:
We deeply appreciate you taking the time to thoroughly review our manuscript again despite your demanding schedule. We are extremely grateful that you have invested the effort to help substantially strengthen our work. We are grateful that you have agreed to consider our manuscript for publication.
Yours sincerely,
Jin Zhang
on behalf of all authors
