Urban Growth Simulation Based on a Multi-Dimension Classification of Growth Types: Implications for China’s Territory Spatial Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript uses the MC-CA model to cluster urban growth types and simulate urban growth boundary by taking Xi’an as an example. I feel the manuscript is not well defined, and the scientific contribution of this work is not clear.

The authors have not clarified how this study improves existing research gaps in the introduction and abstract. You have discussed different models in the Literature review part, but it is not clear what are the existing issues that your work seeks to address. Besides, I could not see any information expressing the novelty and significance of the paper in the last paragraph. Just aim is given.

The authors should clearly present what are the existing urban growth molding methods? And their shortages (research gaps). Besides, you need to show how your work will help the scientific community.

More importantly, only one study area (Xi’an) was used to evaluate the performance of the MC-CA method. Authors should present whether or not their work can be applied to other cities. 

What does MC-CA mean? Please write the explanation in full the first time you use an abbreviation.

I would suggest adding a table to compare different urban growth modeling.

I would suggest adding a flowchart to the methodology section. It can help readers to better understand the designed methodology.

I would suggest adding a figure to show the location of the study area.

Please, separate the conclusion part from the discussion part. It is suggested to combine results and discussion.

Minor revisions:

Line 137: geospatial information systems (GIS) is incorrect. Please change it to Geographical Information Systems.

Line 191: please remove the comma after “even though”

Line 196: you have mentioned that you build an MC-CA urban growth method. Later, in Line 204, you used a CM-CA-based name for it. Which one is correct? MC-CA or CM-CA

Line 234: Please use a proper font size for Equation number 3.

Legends in all Figures are not clear. Please select a proper font size.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “Urban growth simulation based on a multi-dimension classification of growth types: evidence from Xi’an, China” is od and an interesting topic. But It needs modifications and revisions. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It is an interesting topic and could be a beneficial paper after some revisions.

1) Use keywords in the body of the abstract or mentioned the ones that are used in the abstract in the Keywords section. e.g. Multi-level logit regression that is not in the abstract in complete form.

2) It would be better to add a description for each title and then add a subtitle. e.g. 2. Literature review and 2.1 Spatial heterogenous of urban growth

3) When using "recently" it is better to mention some things that have a relation with recent years, not 10 years ago. like lines 137-139, references 46 and 47.

4) proofing the necessity of using Cellular automata (CT) is not appropriate. Please add more detail with a clear index. Lines 151-161

5) please explain the difference between the distance to the train station and the distance to the railroad. 

6) in line 287, why choose 30-meter for processing?

7) Figure 2 is not useful because of the size

8) Why use citation in result part "automata were used to simulate the urban growth in Xi’an by using FLUS (Figure 4, Fig- 362 ure 5)[67]. " lines 361-363

9) Please rewrite the conclusion section and maybe it needs to be separated from the discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors

The article is very interesting and valuable. It presents an important and current topic. I would like to present some comments.

Comments and suggestions:

1.      The issue of the applied research tools was presented in the paper very extensively, but I have the feeling that the substantive part relating to urbanization processes was treated too narrowly. I would see the possibility of extending the theoretical part with the issue of the "urban growth" phenomenon and the factors stimulating / limiting it. This analysis would also provide a theoretical foundation and justification for the variables selected for analysis. A more detailed justification of the selection of variables (Table 1) and their impact on urban growth processes would be important because the paper attempts to discuss/draw conclusions about the results (e.g. subsection 3.4).

2.      Introduction does not seem to be internally coherent, it does not introduce the reader well to the subject of the work.

3.      The purpose of the work requires improvement, or is the real purpose of the work "to improve the suitability of the model"?; the aim of the work should be consistent with the adopted topic, research problem, etc.

4.       The formulated hypothesis should be confronted with the review of the literature; the hypothesis should be unequivocally verified at the end of the article; hypotheses are presented in two places of work, they cover a different scope.

5.      Is it possible to give names to the identified clusters (subsection 3.3 of the article), deepen their characteristics, emphasize what distinguishes them (based on data from table 2)? This is a very important part of the work.

6.      It would be important to link urban growth more closely with the characteristics of clusters.

7.      Figure 2 requires discussion, as well as data in table 4.

8.      It would make it easier for the reader to unequivocally define the term "land cell" in the methodological part.

Other remarks:

1.      Language of the work requires verification and necessary corrections; language errors make it difficult to understand the text in some passages.

2.      The paper requires editorial correction.

3.      Authors refer to earlier studies in several fragments, it is worth specifying whether they are other authors or their own studies.

4.      In Table 1, I propose to clearly indicate the units for each variable.

5.      It is worth verifying the adequacy of the titles of tables and figures.

6.      Please ensure that all abbreviations are explained.

Thank you

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The article is complete and addresses a particularly current topic regarding urban expansion. The fact that the study was able to highlight, on the one hand, the needs to classify the types of urban growth and, on the other, the possibility of providing technical support for the delimitation of urban growth limits shows the importance of the chosen theme.

The practical usefulness of the research is more than obvious, because many areas of the world face this problem, with urban expansion at the expense of rural areas.

The way of presentation, MC-CA model used to group the types of urban growth and to simulate the limit of urban growth are additional reasons to agree to accept its publication.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed to all of my comments. The manuscript is publishable in its current state.

Reviewer 2 Report

All comments had been addressed. it can be recommended for publication. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for answering the mentioned points in the first review.