Trade-Off and Coordination between Development and Ecological Protection of Urban Agglomerations along Rivers: A Case Study of Urban Agglomerations in the Shandong Section of the Lower Yellow River
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper analyzes the interaction between the intensity of land use change and the value of ecosystem service supply value, and to explore the driving factors affecting the value of ecosystem service supply, However, the following deficiencies require further improvement:
1. Abstract: Please supplement the methods adopted in this study.
2. Why do you choose the urban agglomeration in the Shandong section of the lower Yellow River in China as the research area? What are the characteristics and research values of this area?
3. The title of Figure 1 should be placed at the bottom of the figure.
4. This paper only analyzes the supply of ecosystem services, why not demand analysis and supply and demand balance analysis?
5. Please add the innovations and limitations of this study.
6. The number of references still needs to be properly added, especially some important literatures in this field cannot be omitted.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript “Trade-off and coordination between development and ecological protection of urban agglomerations along rivers: a case study of urban agglomeration in Shandong section of the lower Yellow River” is research that aims to understand the effects of Land Use Change on ecosystem services in a riverine area, they used other analysis to complete the reasoning relation. The goal is to spatially relate these changes using tools such as Intensity Analysis and the economic value of ecosystem services. The results suggest that ecosystem service value increases as the region's urbanization does, and the authors briefly discuss the land use change process and some of the analysis. I have some observations of the research that hopefully can improve the manuscript:
1) The abstract and the introduction are crucial for understanding the research and the objectives of the manuscript. However, the first sentence of the abstract is not as clear as it could be. Also, in the abstract, there needs to be a clear definition of ESSV, a term that is mentioned three times. In the introduction, the purpose of the study (lines 93-101) could be clearer. For example, the repetition of the word “value” three times in the same sentence does not effectively clarify the intentions of the research.
2) In the methods section, there is an explanation of the equations used for the analyses that can be improved; however, there is a lack of a clear definition of the type of analysis (for example, what does the intensity analysis mean, what is it used for, and why is it used here?).
3) The results have too many figures, so I doubt they are completely useful. Some of them are impossible to understand, such as Figure 3 or Figure 7 (this last one does not explain how or why authors marked differences of colors with those category values).
4) In the discussion section, there are sentences that, instead of solving doubts, release more questions. For example, in lines 490-493, the authors say that the intensity analysis has not fully captured the spatial dimension of change intensity across all levels. However, it does not say why and what the general implications are on the rest of the results derived from the intensity analysis. The same case as lines 512-513
It was tough for me to evaluate this manuscript because the analysis has too many chained steps from land use change to intensity analysis, cold and hot spot analysis, and finally, ESSV. These analysis tools have assumptions that must be adequately discussed, and the authors should also write strong arguments to explain why they are connected. This is particularly important since their results suggest that the ecosystem value increased and urbanization, which seems counterintuitive. In sum, the manuscript must be reorganized to be adequately evaluated.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Grammar and sentences are generally appropriate in most cases. However, there are some cases, such as the one in the goal section mentioned above, in which a keyword is repeated three times. The goal is written in a very long sentence, which does not help understand the manuscript's objectives. Also, there are strange sentences that do not help the manuscript. For example, I do not think “realization of the river” is correctly used. Also, in lines 71-75, the authors used the terms “foreign” and “domestic” to refer to different scholars; since this is an international journal, there do not seem to be appropriate terms. As I wrote, they used terms or tools of analysis that they did not define the first time they wrote about them (the most straightforward example is ESSV, but the rest are the same). In sum, I think authors should increase the quality of the language and the whole document's quality, particularly in the amount and order of information given or the order to make it understandable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors, I would suggest these comments on your paper:
- in the introduction, you can mention the core-periphery pattern explained by Krugman to frame the theoretical framework, in row 40 additionally;
- In row 45, you can mention some indications from the International Biennale of Architecture 2019 - The Town and the River, held in Kracow;
- in row 143 and following check the proper notation (St etc..) and explain further the use of the formula provided. It is not clear for all.
- in row 185 and following explain the application of formula. the automatic passage is not clear;
- The same thing applies to the sensitivity analysis. Please provide a clearer explanation of its application. Row 189;
- explain Figure 3 (Sankey map of land use change from 2000 to 2020).
- in row 488, please explain how land use analysis has been useful.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have revised the paper according to the revision suggestions. However, the following three minor issues still require minor modifications.
1. Abstract is too long, recommended compression.
2. The title of Figure 3 should be placed at the bottom of the figure.
3. The name of Figure 5 is separate from the figure.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
