The Evolution and Performance Response of Industrial Land Use Development in China’s Development Zone: The Case of Suzhou Industrial Park

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript analyzed the spatiotemporal change of the Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP) during 1994 to 2022. A performance evaluation system was built to evaluate the land-use performance and its responses to spatial transformations. The topic is interesting and the framework is generally clear. However, I have several suggestions for the improvement of the study.

(1)    The introduction of the topic should begin from a global perspective rather than in China. The literature review on the relationship between development zone and land use performance should be improved based on the existing studies. Are there any relevant studies on SIP? And the research gap should be further highlighted.

(2)    Line178: A buffer zone with a radius of 500 m is created. Why is the radius of 500 m selected in this study? and I am puzzled with the explanation of formula (9) and (12). What is the difference between Ai and Mi? What do dik and dis mean?

(3)    Too many methods and corresponding analysis are presented in this study. I suggest the authors to focus on the key issues to be addressed, and remove the analysis of spatial autocorrelation.

(4)    How do you set the weights presented in Table 2? Please explain it.

(5)    The relationship between development zone (especially for different industry classification in Table 1) and land use performance should be discussed based on the results analysis of SIP.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper analyses the evolution of the industrial land in Suzhou industrial park, its spatial and dynamic characteristics at different development stages. The researchers used Landsat satellite data, socioeconomic data, and industrial land-use data, and performed spatial analysis and statistical modelling to examine the evolution and phased patterns of industrial land use in a period from 1994 to 2022. The observed period has been divided into three distinctive periods.  A performance evaluation system analysed economic benefits, innovation-driven growth, development intensity, green development and social security aspect to assess land-use performance.

 

The paper clearly described studied area of interest, datasets and tools that were used, and explained methods and formulas used for the analysis. It is recommended that the main findings of the research should be emphasised in abstract with some quantitative results.

 

Based on the performed analysis, future recommendations should be summarised about possible land use improvement directions, concerning governance, possible policy changes, involved stakeholders, etc.

 

Concerning typos, there are additional blank characters throughout the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Suzhou Industrial Park is indeed a typical industrial park in China, and the authors' long-term sequence analysis, especially the LISA time path analysis, is quite persuasive. However, several key areas require more detailed elaboration:

First, the establishment of the performance evaluation indicator system and the setting of internal weights. The basis for this is merely a paper that has not been widely disseminated, which lacks sufficient persuasiveness. Are there overlaps or collinearities among the secondary indicators? Is there a direct relationship between the indicators themselves and the land use scale? How are the parameters of each indicator calculated to match the 500m*500m grid? Unfortunately, these details are missing from the text. 

Second, what method was used in section 3.3.2 to fit the relationship between the performance evaluation indicator system and the land scale? The subsequent appearance of Figure 9 left me somewhat confused. Why do Figures 9a and 9b contain many scattered points, while the other figures only have six points for curve fitting? If only six points were used, I believe the sample size is seriously insufficient, and the results may be overfitted, not to mention that the performance evaluation index system itself requires much more detailed explanation. 

Third, in the discussion or conclusion sections, there is a lack of impressive content. There is no mention of the study's limitations and future prospects, nor is there a summary of what makes Suzhou Industrial Park successful or worth promoting.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presenting the evolution and performance response of industrial land use development using the example of Suzhou Industrial Park has been correctly written. The individual sections of the text are clearly separated and contain the content that should be included in them. The introduction is concise but provides a sufficient overview of the topic and refers to the current state of knowledge on the subject. The materials and methods have been described correctly; figures, tables, and formulas are clear and adequately describe the authors' research intentions. The results also clearly present the obtained findings, with the prints (in colour) being generally readable, and their textual interpretation raises no objections. The discussion has been conducted properly, and the final conclusions are consistent with the obtained results and the reasoning consistently presented throughout the article.

On the downside, I would point out some oversights in the formatting of the text (double spaces or the lack thereof), but these can easily be corrected during the editorial process. In summary, I am in favour of accepting the text for publication.

Author Response

 Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved based on comments. The authors responsed that the weights of the indicators were mainly determined using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP); however, the the weights seem to be different from the way acquired using the AHP. Are the weights tested through consistency testing? Please confirm it.

Author Response

 Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the manuscript thoroughly, I have no additional comments or suggestions.

Author Response

 Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf