A Long-Term Ecological Vulnerability Analysis of the Tibetan Region of Natural Conditions and Ecological Protection Programs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A brief summary 

The manuscript in review introduces a methodology for evaluation of Ecosystem Vulerability Index (EVI) through the case of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (QTP). The manuscript has three aims which are (i) assessing spatio-temporal changes in EVI and its driving forces using  in EVI using Spatial Principal Component Analysis (SPCA), (ii) establishing correlations between EVI with grasslands and urbanization and lastly (iii), validating impacts of Artificial Afforestation Program (AAP) in EVI. The assessment was conducted through using a set of indicators (18 in total) on ecological, economical and social dimensions and Spatial Principal Component Analysis (SPCA). The study uses a novel methodology that aims to quantify the indicators that builds up ecosystem vulnerability index and to analyse spatio-temporal variation of EVI of the region within the time span of 1990 to 2015. The contributions of the manuscript to literature and practice cover the novel methodology developed, the assessment of the relevance of environmental projects in ecosystem vulnerability, and the baseline of indicators and results that the manuscript developed for further studies.

Broad comments 

Overall, the manuscript fits to the scope of this special issue.  It is well organized and explains the research clearly. Although there are some minor problems with fluency of the sentences in terms of logical structure, the level of English is well sufficient. The manuscript has grasps and narrates the existing scholarship on the topic and identifies the gaps and controversies in literature and practice very clearly. Although one of the aims of the research is to find correlations with ecosystem vulnerability and environmental projects, AAP, as one of the projects, is not given detailed information such as the type, spatial covarage, scale, time-span and success of the programme. Inclusion of these information can enrich the spatial context. Methodology section of the manustricpt is well detailed and developed. It includes steps for replicability. It is a potentially significant contribution to literature and practice on Tibet region concerning the ecological importance of the area. The results and discussions on the contextual dimension can be integrated to increase the fluency. Otherwise, the reader has to drift among pages to understand the contextual reasons behind the results of the assessment. Conclusion is adequately wrapping up all findings and discussions.

 

Specific Comments

Overall

• Abbrevations should be reviewed througout the document and included in the first use of the terms such as The Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (QTP), Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI) etc.
• Very long sentences should be avoided in order to increase fluency and legibility such as the sentence between the lines of 108 and 114,  411 and 415.

Title

• Title should be revised to cover the content of the document. Terms of “Natural and Political Factors” are somehow vague.

Abstract

• The first sentence of the abstract can be revised in order to increase the fluency.
• The term “socio interference” in line 11 is vauge and can be detailed according to the context.

Introduction

• The first sentence can be revised to increase the fluency and catch the attention of the reader. In line 30, the word of “carbon” as itself, does not introduce a problem. It can be detailed like the following statements.
• Different use of concepts : Line no. 96- Green Project Policies// line no. 83 ecological protection projects

Materials and Methods

• For indicator selection, where does these principals in line 131 come from? The sentence between 131 and 134 can be revised and be divided into two sentences.
• How do indicators reflects the most objective "natural" environmental conditions in the study area? Does this objectivity come from the methodology that is not weightened by the experts? Please elaborate.
• Although ecological indicators are well established, socio-economic indicators are downscaled to human disturbance.

Results

• The reason behid the trend mentioned between the lines on 269-270 can be explained. In addition to the reason behind the sharp increase in 2000 in extreme vulnerability.
• Between lines 278 and 281, contextual reasons behind why Naghu is the most vulnerable and experienced peak (massive urbanization, change in land use, drought etc.) can be explained.
• In line 310 and 311, the mentioned change covers which areas? More accurate location of these areas should be depicted. Why these areas had significant change?
• Between lines 324-326, how these programmes are spatially distributed? What are their relevance with the locations that show significant change and/or no change? A statement can be added that these programs will be discussed in the upcoming section.

• For sentence starting in line 331, although representing %55 of the final PC, how PC1 accounted for the whole drivin forces should be explained? Still almost half of the value affected from other PCs? Generalization should be avoided.

Discussions

• In line 496, More information on the AAP should be included. This program does not apper in table 3. What is the significance, scale and period of the programme? It is not clear whether all projects were parts of AAP or it is a distinct programme in addition to the list in table 3.
• Line 502- The first sentece is the repetition of the sentece in the first paragraph of this section. Moreover, landuse degree should be more elaborated and on what that land use degree significant influece should be stated. Better evaluation is required to conclude this section.
• In line 509-512- This sentence should be restructured for logical sequence. Is Qinghai Tibet Plateau the core driver of environmental change? What is this reasoning comes from “survival and development of more than 20 countries and 3 billion people”? Maybe a reference can be given.
• For the sentence start at line 512- Influenced in a negative or a positive way?
• For the sentence between 539- 542, the logical structure can be improved to make sentence more legible and clearer.
• Why AAP program results are not mentioned here as it is one of the core statements of the research that AAP decreases EVI. Place of AAP among all environmental programs should be mentioned.
• In line 547- Local development is mentioned but how it is related with ecosystem vulnerability of the region.

Figures and Tables

• Figure 3 can be moved under the title of results to improve fluency.
• Table 3 can be revised by adding a coloum of location and scale of these projects ( national, regional, prefecture etc.)
• Correlations of GDP are not included in Figure 6, can be included (for represneting the sentence in line 340)
• Visual quality can be improved in Figure 6.

Referencing

• Reference is needed for the sentence between 122-125.
• Ref no. 54 should be revised according to the citation style in use.
• Some references has commas and some has semicolon between the name of authors.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor,

 

Thank you very much for your time and comment on our manuscript. On behalf of the co-authors, I am submitting the revised manuscript along with the response file. Below are the point-by-point responses to the comments made by reviewers. The manuscript was proofread with assistance from MDPI English editing.

 

Our responses below start with “Response:” and are highlighted in red. The line numbers used here refer to the ones in the Word document (with Track Changes turned to “All Markup”). All line numbers are based on the revised manuscript unless stated otherwise (e.g., “in the previous submission”).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper entitled "Long term ecological vulnerability analysis (1990-2005) of Tibet Region to natural and political factors" presents an in-depth assessment of the main consequences of the vulnerability fluctuation in this area due to natural and anthropogenic factors.

The structure of this work seems to be properly framed: a sound introduction, materials and method, results, discussion and conclusion and even the argument and the applied techniques seems to be promising. A lot of recent bibliographies has been dedicated to similar works thus confirming that this work captures the attention of contemporary research in environmental analysis.

Now I come to the main weaknesses that affect the overall quality of this manuscript. First, you should revise your style mainly taking into account the logical development of phrasing and sometimes checking the grammar. Take a look at the redundancy of some passages and clarify some expressions that remain vague (in the attached file you'll find the detailed comments). The method is the main weakness since your description of the formula you employed does not substitute the "logical" explanation of what you have been applied... Please consider that good scientific papers are the ones that are able to explain in a synthetic an easy-to-read way the method while guaranteeing good applicability. 80% of your considerations are around the utilization of PCA... nevertheless you used this technique without clarifying how you mixed, graded and used the input variables. Then I come to a more theoretical mistake: 1) PCA does not "explain" the relation between variables, it only reduces the variability keeping the original variance thus your interpretation appears sometimes "forced" and 2) you mixed in the PCA different "categories" of variables (sensitivity and pressures/hazard) how do you pretend that PCA could explain their relation??? So please clarify these matters while reviewing this work, because it needs to be clearly described (for example declaring the limits of this study). Pay attention in the discussion to keep the discourse around your own assessment and don't go forward with unexplainable statements.

Take the time to revise deeply this work since it is so promising.

Attached my detailed comments.

Good luck!

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor,

 

Thank you very much for your time and comment on our manuscript. On behalf of the co-authors, I am submitting the revised manuscript along with the response file. Below are the point-by-point responses to the comments made by reviewers. The manuscript was proofread with assistance from MDPI English editing.

 

Our responses below start with “Response:” and are highlighted in red. The line numbers used here refer to the ones in the Word document (with Track Changes turned to “All Markup”). All line numbers are based on the revised manuscript unless stated otherwise (e.g., “in the previous submission”).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I see that the authors tried to make an extended work of revision.

Nonetheless, the critical methodological point remains uncovered by this new version. What you call "vulnerability" is in the scientific literature something clear. You referred to the IPCC definition, but your method is for large parts barely acceptable. You cannot put in the PCA sensitivities, with coping capacities and with hazards... this does not make sense. What you obtain is not a vulnerability index. Moreover, it is theoretically unproper to evaluate the correlation between PCA components and some input variables of the PCA... this does not make sense. Your chapter 2.2.2 is the core of this work since it can clarify what variables did you inputted and what are their relations... but you skip this part without explaining.

Although i confirm that this method has a good sequence (Using PCA for vulnerability assessment, then verify hotspots and cause-effect mechanism), actually this work cannot be presented in this form. 

You can find my detailed comments in the attached file.

Please ask for detailed, extended and qualified English support to help you in reaching a good final draft.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment, which include "2021.9.10-revised manuscript sustainability-1344688" and "Response to Reviewer 2 comments".

Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Please i repeat for the third time: at least clarify in chapter 2.2 how the normalized variables are ranked (normalized) from 0 to 1. For example, let's take the land use degree. the value 1 what represent? the 100% sealed soil? And to what hazard this land use is vulnerable? Or did you considered vulnerable where you have forest land? I make this question because if you consider (let's say) the hazard of the fires, then 1 (high vulnerability) correspond to natural areas, while if you are considering (let's say) the flooding, then the value 1 should be associate to sealed surfaces (run-off)... If you don't clarify what these input variables are and how did you normalized them and, besides, what their value means, it's difficult to obtain a proper interpretation of the results of this study.

Good luck.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much for your time and comment on our manuscript. On behalf of the co-authors, I am submitting the revised manuscript along with the response file. Below are the point-by-point responses to the comments made by reviewers.

Our responses below start with “Response:” and are highlighted in red. The line numbers used here refer to the ones in the Word document (with Track Changes turned to “All Markup”). All line numbers are based on the revised manuscript unless stated otherwise (e.g., “in the previous submission”).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx