Sustainability Dynamics of Traditional Villages: A Case Study in Qiannan Prefecture, Guizhou, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author(s),

The topic developed is of interest and relevance and it offers several references to support it. I’ve recommended that your paper is suitable for publication in Sustainability. However, it would be better to revise the text before submitting it to the Editor. For instance: (i) The Discussion section should be improved. This section provides the interpretation of the results in the context of the existing knowledge (i.e., how do the results contribute to what is already known? How far do they break with existing knowledge and prepare new ground?). The results may be discussed by presenting generalizations that arise from them, by explaining extreme or unexpected observations, or by informing the reader about limitations of the methods. (ii) The Conclusions section should be improved. In my opinion, the conclusions presented in this paper go significantly beyond the results achieved, in particular with regard to the institutional issues and public management of urban growth. Note that the Conclusions section –as in the case of the Abstract– should be possible to read it in isolation.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Sustainability dynamics of traditional villages: A case study in Qiannan Prefecture, Guizhou, China” (ID: 674092). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, 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 the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer #1:

The topic developed is of interest and relevance and it offers several references to support it. I’ve recommended that your paper is suitable for publication in Sustainability. However, it would be better to revise the text before submitting it to the Editor. For instance: (i) The Discussion section should be improved. This section provides the interpretation of the results in the context of the existing knowledge (i.e., how do the results contribute to what is already known? How far do they break with existing knowledge and prepare new ground?). The results may be discussed by presenting generalizations that arise from them, by explaining extreme or unexpected observations, or by informing the reader about limitations of the methods.

Response:

As Reviewer suggested that we have improved the discussion section. In this section, we added how results contribute to a new approach for improving sustainability of traditional villages (Lines 333-337).

 

(ii) The Conclusions section should be improved. In my opinion, the conclusions presented in this paper go significantly beyond the results achieved, in particular with regard to the institutional issues and public management of urban growth. Note that the Conclusions section –as in the case of the Abstract– should be possible to read it in isolation.

Response:

We have improved the conclusion section. We deleted the content beyond the results achieved and re-wrote this section to make it can be read in isolation (Lines 339-346).

 

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. And here marked in revised paper.

We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The paper entitled “Sustainability dynamics of traditional villages: A case 2 study in Qiannan Prefecture, Guizhou, China” presents an in-depth sustainability assessment in Qiannan Prefecture between 1995 and 2015 using several indicators.

I see that authors works diffusely in the text, while reaching an overall accuracy and clarity of the work. Compared with the previous version, I found an evident step forward.

Now I think the paper I more clear, concise and well-written. I found also that the argumentation in now comprehensive and easy-to-understand. No abstract, introduction and methodology are well-designed, with a proper discussion and conclusion.

I don’t have any further comment, just see the few notes on the file.

Good luck.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Sustainability dynamics of traditional villages: A case study in Qiannan Prefecture, Guizhou, China” (ID: 674092). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, 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 the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

 

Reviewer #2:

I see that authors works diffusely in the text, while reaching an overall accuracy and clarity of the work. Compared with the previous version, I found an evident step forward.

Now I think the paper I more clear, concise and well-written. I found also that the argumentation in now comprehensive and easy-to-understand. No abstract, introduction and methodology are well-designed, with a proper discussion and conclusion.

I don’t have any further comment, just see the few notes on the file.

1 Abstract part:‘spatial–temporal’，‘change’

Response:

As Reviewer suggested, we have adjusted the spelling (Lines 11-12).

2 Introduction part:‘if you cite in thsi way you have always to provide the (year)’

Response:

We have enhanced the cite style (Lines 44-63).

3 Data source part:‘National? Regional? Copernicus? What?’

Response:

We have re-written the sentence (Line 101).

4 Data analysis part:‘change changes...’,‘matrix’

Response:

We have re-written the sentence (Lines 115-116).

We have changed the spelling (Line 119, Line 122).

5 Data analysis part:‘See table format’

Response:

We have checked the format of table according to the ‘Instructions for Authors’ (Lines 193-195).

 

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. And here marked in revised paper.

We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author(s)

The topic developed is of interest and relevance. The research on the relationship between population and the environment is a significant issue in the sustainability context due to its impact on chances for achieving sustainable development, especially in developing countries. This topic could provide an important contribution to this research area. However, in my opinion, the overall quality of your paper needs to be improved for its possible publication in SUSTAINABILITY. I think the paper should be enhanced if the following remarks were taken into account:

The wording of the abstract should be improved. The main goal of the paper should be accurately formulated. Note that the ‘Abstract’ must be able to stand-alone and the objective is an essential element of a paper. In formulating his manuscript seem confused objective and methodology, the difference in the text –at least for me– it is not clear. It is important distinguish between objective and methodology. This allows identify the type of journal article and permits a comprehensive assessment of outcomes. This must also be explicitly stated in the Introduction section. In Introduction section, I think it would be better to talk about China’s traditional villages in general. The reference to Qiannan Prefecture –in my opinion– would be in Material and Methods section as case study (lines 44-51). Where is Qiannan Prefecture geographically located in China? What does the subscript ‘j’ represent in equation 2 (line 115). Is the subscript ‘x’ of the formula 4 the same of the formula 2? (line 126). Where is the subscript ‘i’ in the sum of the equation 6? (line 150). The figures 3 and 6 should be improved. The manuscript contains a section entitled Discussions and Conclusions, however, I think both sections should be improved. Note that the Discussion section provides the interpretation of the results in the context of the existing knowledge. On the other hand, the discussion typically ends with implications for theory, future research or possible practical applications of the results. Finally, the Conclusions section should be improved. Note that the Conclusions section –like the Abstract- is often read in isolation before the other sections.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your suggestions and comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Rapid Economic Development Challenges Sustainable Land-use in Southern China’s Traditional Villages” (ID: 599541). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding and significant to our paper. We have thought comments carefully and have made modifications. The main modifications in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. The wording of the abstract should be improved. The main goal of the paper should be accurately formulated. It is important distinguish between objective and methodology. Response: As Reviewer suggested that we have improved the abstract. We have added some questions about the sustainability of traditional Chinese villages (lines 10-11). This paper aimed to offer suggestions on traditional village’s protection and development plan by assessing sustainability and studying its spatial-temporal dynamics (lines 11-13). At the end of the abstract, we have added the practical significance of this research, and put forward reasonable suggestions for the unscientific development plan of Qiannan Prefecture to enhance the sustainability of traditional villages (lines 20-22) 2. It is important to distinguish between objective and methodology in the Introduction section. In Introduction section, I think it would be better to talk about China’s traditional villages in general. The reference to Qiannan Prefecture –in my opinion– would be in Material and Methods section as case study (lines 44-51). Response: Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have distinguished between objective and methodology in the Introduction section. We introduced some progress and methods of sustainability research (lines 39-55). At the end of the introduction, we presented the research objectives and research implications (lines 70-75). In addition, we introduced the situation of traditional Chinese villages and the problems existing in the current protection of traditional villages (lines 60-64). 3. Where is Qiannan Prefecture geographically located in China? What does the subscript ‘j’ represent in equation 2 (line 115). Is the subscript ‘x’ of the formula 4 the same of the formula 2? (line 126). Where is the subscript ‘i’ in the sum of the equation 6? (line 150). The figures 3 and 6 should be improved. Response: We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion; we have added the content of Qiannan’s location in China (lines 78-79). We removed the subscript ‘j’ and subscript ‘x’ from equation 2 and equation 4 (line 161，line 172). We unified all the formulas and subscript and used the subscript ‘i’ to represent the grid cell in the paper (lines 161-206). For example, Yi represents the annual water yield in grid unit i in equation 2 (line 161). SR_i represents soil retention in grid unit i in equation 4 (line 172). We also made improvements to equation 6 (line 196). We reprocessed Figure 3 and Figure 6, increasing the resolution to make the picture clearer, and we adjusted the color to make the details more visible. 4. Note that the Discussion section provides the interpretation of the results in the context of the existing knowledge. On the other hand, the discussion typically ends with implications for theory, future research or possible practical applications of the results. Response: We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion; we have adjusted the title of Section 4.1. In this section, we focus on the reasons for the decline in sustainability of traditional villages in Qiannan and the possible consequences based on the results of the article (lines 311-330). We have also adjusted the title of Section 4.2. In this section, based on the research results, we discussed the protection of traditional villages in the development plan of Qannan Prefecture and found that the traditional villages in eastern and northern part of Qannan Prefecture face the risk of disappearing according to the current plan. We proposed three suggestions to protect and enhance the sustainability of traditional villages in Qannan and provided examples for the protection of traditional villages in other parts of China (lines 332-380). 5. The Conclusions section should be improved. Note that the Conclusions section –like the Abstract- is often read in isolation before the other sections. Response: Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have improved the Conclusions section. We described the research background and research purposes, and explain the research methods used in the article (lines 382-386). We described the spatial differentiation of the current sustainable development levels in traditional villages across Qiannan Prefecture from 1995-2015(lines 386-388). We discussed the reasons for the results and the possible consequences (lines 388-390). We proposed three suggestions to protect and enhance the sustainability of traditional villages in Qannan(lines 390-393). Special thanks to you for your good comments. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper entitled “Rapid Economic Development Challenges Sustainable Land-use in Southern China’s Traditional Villages” presents an in-depth sustainability assessment in Qiannan Prefecture between 1995 and 2015 using several indicators.

This manuscript deals with a complex and long debated problem: the assessment of ecological sustainability: from its definition to its empirical measurement through indicators that supports policy making.

Reading this manuscript I felt that authors didn’t play too much attention to the discursive and argumentative side of the work, paying attention to listing their indicators and presenting their own results.

Here I found several structural problems:

The title: it is too vague. It did not reflect the core argumentation of the manuscript and, moreover is has no punctation… what does it means? The abstract: the abstract is vague, general, without any real problematization… what this paper wants to address? What do you want to demonstrate? You want to develop a brand new composite indicator of sustainability? Or do you want to bridge the gap between theoretical definition of sustainability and its practical assessment? Or what? (the body of the text did not help to address this question…) The introduction: here you are general. You didn’t pose the research question… you are dealing with sustainability but without any proper introduction… you are making an assessment but you didn’t introduce adequately which indicators are normally used for this kind of work… you talk about ecosystem services without any introduction, of land use change without any introduction and, at least, you didn’t introduce the structure of your work. The methodology: you listed the sources and the formula of each indicator. But this is not enough. If the core of this manuscript is to present a composite indicator of sustainability you have to declare why did you select such variables, how did you find and map data, which software did you employ. Please remember that this journal is famous to present to a reader a potential full replicability of a methodology… a reader cannot understand at all how did you perform your indexes.

AHP and expert assessment are just introduced but are you aware of how indexing, scoring and weighting influences results in this kind of assessment?

Results and discussions just add some information about the trend but they didn’t support a real argumentation on how this assessment is innovative or can realistically support land use planning.

I would like to suggest to the author to re-design the structure of this manuscript just concentrating on a few variables. When you deal with this complex indictors the task to scientifically address the need of clarity and reliability is very high… I just recognize that to perform a model of water yield or carbon sequestration that is reliable and replicable can take a long time and it can be the object of an entire paper. If your objective is to present a composite assessment ok, but please make a bibliographic review, select variables, play the assessment and measure the reliability (sensitivity of each indicator) otherwise leave apart multi indicator assessment.

You can find detailed comments in the attached file.

In any case, good luck!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your suggestions and comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Rapid Economic Development Challenges Sustainable Land-use in Southern China’s Traditional Villages” (ID: 599541). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding and significant to our paper. We have thought comments carefully and have made modifications. The main modifications in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed as flowing:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

 

Reviewer #2:

1. The title: it is too vague. It did not reflect the core argumentation of the manuscript and, moreover is has no punctation… what does it means? The abstract: the abstract is vague, general, without any real problematization… what this paper wants to address? What do you want to demonstrate? You want to develop a brand-new composite indicator of sustainability? Or do you want to bridge the gap between theoretical definition of sustainability and its practical assessment? Or what?

 

Response: As Reviewer suggested that we have improved the title and the abstract. We have changed the title of this article to Sustainability of traditional villages - A case study in Qiannan Prefecture,Guizhou,China (lines 2-3). This title more clearly expresses the purpose of this article.

We have added some questions about the sustainability of traditional Chinese villages (lines10-11). This paper aimed to offer suggestions on traditional village’s protection and development plan by assessing sustainability and studying its spatial-temporal dynamics (lines 11-13). At the end of the abstract, we have added the practical significance of this research, and put forward reasonable suggestions for the unscientific development plan of Qiannan Prefecture to enhance the sustainability of traditional villages (lines 20-22).

 

2. The introduction: here you are general. You didn’t pose the research question… you are dealing with sustainability but without any proper introduction… you are making an assessment but you didn’t introduce adequately which indicators are normally used for this kind of work… you talk about ecosystem services without any introduction, of land use change without any introduction and, at least, you didn’t introduce the structure of your work.

 

Response: We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion. We introduced the situation of traditional Chinese villages and the problems existing in the current protection of traditional villages (lines 60-64).

We fixed and presented the research objectives and research implications clearly (lines 70-75).

We have re-written and introduced some progress and methods of sustainability research (lines 39-55). These methods of sustainability research include land use, social and economic factors, landscape patterns, ecosystem services and topography. And introduced the structure of the work (lines 69-70). We detailed the research progress of land use and ecosystem services in the method section.

 

3. The methodology: you listed the sources and the formula of each indicator. But this is not enough. If the core of this manuscript is to present a composite indicator of sustainability you have to declare why you selected such variables, how did you find and map data, which software did you employ. Please remember that this journal is famous to present to a reader a potential full replicability of a methodology… a reader cannot understand at all how did you perform your indexes. I just recognize that to perform a model of water yield or carbon sequestration that is reliable and replicable can take a long time and it can be the object of an entire paper. AHP and expert assessment are just introduced but are you aware of how indexing, scoring and weighting influences results in this kind of assessment?

 

Response: Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have detailed the new reference when we introduced each research indicator and declared why this indicator was chosen. We have read and discussed the references of water yield and carbon sequestration. The research methods used in this paper are widely used in China. Many scholars used this method to calculate the ecosystem services. They think that these methods are reliable (lines 143-147, lines 155-159, lines 170-178). We introduced how to find and map data in data source part (lines 97-105) and provide the website in reference.

  We explained the detailed steps of AHP and expert assessment, the consistency check was performed on the calculation results to determine the weights were reasonable (lines 198-205).

 

4. Discussions and conclusions just add some information about the trend but they didn’t support a real argumentation on how this assessment is innovative or can realistically support land use planning.

 

Response: We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion; we have adjusted the title of Section 4.1. In this section, we focus on the reasons for the decline in sustainability of traditional villages in Qiannan and the possible consequences based on the results of the article (lines 311-330). We have also adjusted the title of Section 4.2. In this section, based on the research results, we discussed the protection of traditional villages in the development plan of Qannan Prefecture and found that the traditional villages in eastern and northern part of Qannan Prefecture face the risk of disappearing according to the current plan. We proposed three suggestions to protect and enhance the sustainability of traditional villages in Qannan and provided examples for the protection of traditional villages in other parts of China (lines 332-380).

     Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have improved the Conclusions section. We described the research background and research purposes, and explain the research methods used in the article (lines 382-386). We described the spatial differentiation of the current sustainable development levels in traditional villages across Qiannan Prefecture from 1995-2015(lines 386-388). We discussed the reasons for the results and the possible consequences (lines 388-390). We proposed three suggestions to protect and enhance the sustainability of traditional villages in Qannan(lines 390-393).

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I see that author worked diffusely to resize the manuscript trying to give more importance at the discursive part of the work. I see also that the title and abstract where re-written, which is now helping the reader to became more aware of what the manuscript deals with.

I found also convincing the results and discussions that focuses of policy setting.

But the main problem remains the introduction and the methodology, which are too general. I have to insist:

If the core of this manuscript is to present a composite indicator of sustainability you have to declare why did you select such variables, how did you find and map data, which software did you employ. Please remember that this journal is famous to present to a reader a potential full replicability of a methodology… a reader cannot understand at all how did you perform your indexes.

Are you aware that by selecting just one of your procedure (land use change or ecosystem modelling) you can write up an entire paper? When you state that you use InVEST for carbon storage you have to detail how you find the data, how you prepare the .csv carbon pool table of the model… when you deal with land use change you should clearly state which method are you employing (statistical, geographical cross-tabulation…). When you use AHP for scoring variables you have to declare the entire methodology of scoring… and, moreover, composite indicators should be adequately evaluated before (see the handbook on composite indicators by Nardo et al. https://www.oecd.org/sdd/42495745.pdf.

I still have the impression that there is few attention to the importance of being selective, clear and provide an

argumentation around sharp and well-defined group of data.

See detailed comment in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

List of Responses

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Rapid Economic Development Challenges Sustainable Land-use in Southern China’s Traditional Villages” (ID: 599541). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, 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 the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

 

Responds to the Editor’s comments:

The Authors should strengthen conclusion before peer-review.

Response: we have improved the Conclusions section. We described the research background and research purposes, and explain the research methods used in the article (lines 413-415). We described the spatial differentiation of the current sustainable development levels in traditional villages across Qiannan Prefecture from1995-2015(lines 414-417). We discussed the reasons for the results and the possible consequences (line 418). We proposed three suggestions to protect and enhance the sustainability of traditional villages in Qannan(lines 419-422).

 

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer #2（Round 2）:

Why did you select such variables, how did you find and map data, which software did you employ. Please remember that this journal is famous to present to a reader a potential full replicability of a methodology… a reader cannot understand at all how did you perform your indexes.

 

Response: As Reviewer suggested that we have improved the Introduction part and the methodology part.

Why did you select such variables？

We have re-written the Introduction part to explain and introduce many researches about assessment of sustainability by Minimum Cumulative Resistance (MCR) model (lines 63-74) .In our study; we re-selected indicators according to these researches’ experience and conditions of Qiannan Prefecture. Please view the ‘materials and methods’ section for details (lines 117-127 and lines 229-240).

Introduction part: A large number of researches have combined and Ecosystem Service (ES) and landscapes when choosing indicators and establishing a methodology for sustainability assessment. For example, Estoque [21] evaluated sustainability of Baguio city by using landscape and and Ecosystem Service (ES) as indicators. The Minimum Cumulative Resistance (MCR)model originated from a study on the diffusion processes of species by Knaapen [22]. In recent years, the Minimum Cumulative Resistance (MCR) model has been applied to determine the ecological security pattern and ecological sustainable planning [23]. The landscape ecological security pattern is an important part for achieving sustainable development [24]. Recently, Minimum Cumulative Resistance (MCR) model has been used for assessing the safety and health of land resources, environment, ecosystem services, and regional sustainability [25]. Wu [26] used Minimum Cumulative Resistance (MCR) model to combine land use, landscape pattern, Ecosystem Services, population, economy and topography for discussing urban ecology and sustainability.

Materials and methods part:

(Lines 117-127) In this study, The Minimum Cumulative Resistance (MCR) model was utilized to integrate dynamics of land use and landscape, dynamics of Ecosystem Service (ES), dynamics of Gross Domestic Production (GDP), population and topography in sustainability assessment. First, we studied the dynamics of land-use change. Second, we selected three main regulation Ecosystem Services (ES) according to ecosystem problems such as stony desertification, soil erosion, and water resource lack in Qiannan [32]. Finally, we put the results of land use and landscape, Ecosystem Service (ES), topography as resistance and data of Gross Domestic Production (GDP) and population as human disturbance into Minimum Cumulative Resistance (MCR) model to assess sustainability of Qiannan (Figure 3).

Figure 3 The research process diagram in this study.

(Lines 229-240) Where x represents code of factors; k is the number of factors. represents resistance factor in the grid unit i. The resistance factor of Minimum Cumulative Resistance (MCR) model is selected from the intrinsic properties and external properties. Intrinsic properties include topography, land use types, landscape pattern indices, Ecosystem Services (ES). External properties include economy and population [63]. We set economy and population as human disturbance. According to its direction of spread, we marked it as "+". Ecological resistance represents the hindrance of ecosystems to human activity and was marked as "-". represents the respective weighting of each index in the model. In this study, we set rank and weightings of according to “HJ19-2011: Technical Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment: Ecological Impacts” [62,64]. The raster data on the factors were calculated so as to obtain using the raster calculator tool in ArcGIS 10.5. The resulting values and attributes of are displayed in Table 1.

 

How did you find and map data? Which software did you employ?

   We have re-written the ‘Data source’ part, we obtained the data from reliable source and gave its the resolution and format.

(Lines 103-115) In this study, we obtained Landsat remote sensing images in 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015 from the Geospatial Data Cloud [27] and so did the Digital elevation model (DEM) data (100m×100m resolution). The images were pre-processed by ENVI5.1 software to calibrate radiation, correct geometric, and clip images. We classified these images into 5 land use types including cropland, forest, grassland, construction land, water body, and unused land (100m×100m resolution). The kappa values of these land use grid data, which are greater than 0.85 to ensure the classification has a high reliability. Average precipitation grid data(100m×100m) and the annual actual evapotranspiration grid data (100m×100m) in 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015 were obtained from the National Meteorological Information Centre [28]. Soil data (100m×100m) were obtained from the Soil and Terrain Database (SOTER) Program [29]. Gross demotic Production (GDP) density grid data(100m×100m) and population grid data(100m×100m) in 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015 were obtained from the National Geometrics Centre of China [30] and the Guizhou Provincial Statistics Bureau [31].

 

When you state that you use InVEST for carbon storage you have to detail how you find the data, how you prepare the .csv carbon pool table of the model… when you deal with land use change you should clearly state which method are you employing (statistical, geographical cross-tabulation…). When you use AHP for scoring variables you have to declare the entire methodology of scoring…?

We provided carbon pool data source : The four carbon pool data (100m×100m, grid) from 1995 to 2015 were obtained from National Ecological Environment Decade Change Remote Sensing Survey and Evaluation Project [52].

In Materials and methods part, we have re-written the methods of land use and introduced our study method (statistical).

We consider the reviewer’s suggestions: we re-considered the factors of selected methods and re-made the weighting according many researches and ‘HJ19-2011: Technical Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment: Ecological Impacts’. We re-calculated and re-map the new results of Minimum Cumulative Resistance (MCR) model, reviewers can see them in ‘Assessment of sustainability’ part.

 

Please see that you have to change all achronims... before the full name and then the achronim,

Why you introduced your methodology and then you move back to general introduction?

We have changed all achronims.

We have adjusted them: introduced general introduction firstly and then introduced methodology.(Lines26-76)

 

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. And here we did not list the changes but marked in revised paper.

We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

It’s the third time I revise this manuscript.
It seems that the meaning of a major revision is not acknowledged by the authors.
Major revisions mean that you cannot work by putting new pieces of text here and there, while means that you have to conduct extended comprehensive editing of the text working on the contents and the style.
I don’t want to spend too many words: see detailed comments.
English, repetitions, punctuation, grammar mistakes. Unread sentences.
Please take into account that you are submitting to a high-quality scientific journal.

Good luck.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf