Spatiotemporal Evolution and Influencing Factors of Urban Land Ecological Security in Yunnan Province
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors present an interesting research about the concept of urban land ecological security as starting point for sustainable utilization of urban land resources and, therefore, sustainable development. They use the case study of Yunnan Province (China) to demonstrate their thesis. The proposed analysis considers the last decade data for the most important cities of the province underling the spatiotemporal evolution of the index in relation to the population/economic/green regulation evolution in China.
The cultural background is not too precise or wide (i.e. "McHarg" - line 43; missing references for AHP method - line 120; line 100 "the risk": which one?). Please pay attention to this section and to the definition of all the elements.
The methods to define the factors and then the ecological security index is quite difficult to understand because authors do not provide a clear framework. It is suggested to translate lines 479-485 into a scheme/flowchart, to insert it at the beginning of section 2 and then describe all the main steps of the method. I found 7 different steps (is it correct?): step 1 from line 141; step 2 from line 161; step 3 from line 169; step 4 from line 186; step 5 from line 208; step 6 from line 266 and step 7 from line 290. Please verify, edit and/or clarify these crucial methodological aspects (related to your method and, in general, to a classical research method).
In my opinion it is not clearly written the difference and the correlation between indexes from Table 1 and from Table 2, please specify.
In Table 1, there could be many more indexes, such as biodiversity, noise, heat islands, renewable energies and so on.
Also in Table 2 there could be many more indexes for each category. For economics: GDP, resources; for society: policies and guidelines, demographic characteristics (age, sex, educational level), people behavior, stakeholder involvement, type of contractual links and so on.
Minor issues:
- line 122, only here authors use the personal "we" form, please revise with the impersonal;
- all the words/phrases into quotation marks: if they are not citation please do not use so many symbols;
- "to achieve the grand goal of beautiful mountains and rivers of the motherland" lines 66-67: if it is a citation please add quotation marks and references;
- "lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets" line 475-476 if it is a citation please add the references;
- Table 2 (page 6) pay attention to the structure (there is an extra line);
- lines 305-316-321 do not refer to Table 3 but 4. If it is correct, please revise;
- a consistent part of result section (from line 337 on) could be moved in the discussion paragraph, keeping only the general explanation there.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Sincerely thank you for your time and energy in the paper review, and put forward good suggestions for revision, so that this article benefited a lot.
Point 1: The cultural background is not too precise or wide (i.e. "McHarg" - line 43; missing references for AHP method - line 120; line 100 "the risk": which one?). Please pay attention to this section and to the definition of all the elements. 

Response 1: We have revised one by one, including deleting the improper sentences, adding the reference of AHP method, further explaining the concept of "risk", and checking the expression in the introduction.
Point 2: The methods to define the factors and then the ecological security index is quite difficult to understand because authors do not provide a clear framework. It is suggested to translate lines 479-485 into a scheme/flowchart, to insert it at the beginning of section 2 and then describe all the main steps of the method. I found 7 different steps (is it correct?): step 1 from line 141; step 2 from line 161; step 3 from line 169; step 4 from line 186; step 5 from line 208; step 6 from line 266 and step 7 from line 290. Please verify, edit and/or clarify these crucial methodological aspects (related to your method and, in general, to a classical research method).
Response 2: We have added three new flow charts. The first one (Figure 1) is the overall flow chart of the paper, which mainly includes the analysis of the spatiotemporal evolution and influencing factors of urban land ecological security in Yunnan Province. It is inserted into the beginning of section 2 and made a textual elaboration. In terms of spatiotemporal evolution analysis, this paper constructs the index system of urban land ecological security, determines the weight of each index by using the analytic hierarchy process and entropy weight method, and calculates the comprehensive index of urban land ecological security (will be detailed in Figure 2). In terms of the influencing factors, this paper establishes the index system of influencing factors from the economic, social, geographical and other dimensions, constructs the econometric model and choices the model (will be detailed in Figure 3), and systematically analyzes the influencing factors of urban land ecological security in Yunnan Province.
Point 3: In my opinion it is not clearly written the difference and the correlation between indexes from Table 1 and from Table 2, please specify.
Response 3: We have explained this at the beginning of section 2. In the research process, not only the evaluation index system of urban land ecological security (dependent variables) and the calculation of its comprehensive index, but also the construction of the index system of influencing factors (independent variables). On the surface, there is a correlation between the two, but the difference is very obvious. For the evaluation index system, the selected evaluation indexes need to fully reflect the status of urban land ecological security, rather than affect the urban land ecological security. For example, the green coverage rate of built-up area is a full reflection of the ecological security of urban land. If the green coverage rate of built-up area is higher, the ecological security of urban land will be better. At the same time, it should be noted that the evaluation indicators do not necessarily reflect this situation positively. For example, the average industrial waste gas emission is a negative reflection, that is, the greater the emission, the more unsafe the urban land ecology is. In terms of the influencing factors of urban land ecological security, each index does not reflect the status of urban land ecological security, but affects its status. For example, the level of urbanization may affect the ecological security of urban land, but we cannot say that the higher the level of urbanization, the ecological of urban land will be safer. To determine its impact, we need to build an econometric model and use statistical methods to draw exact conclusions. Therefore, it is necessary to find out all kinds of factors that may affect the ecological security of urban land and make scientific and systematic analysis.
Point 4: In Table 1, there could be many more indexes, such as biodiversity, noise, heat islands, renewable energies and so on.
Response 4: Your opinions and suggestions are wonderful. We have searched these data through various normal ways, but we still couldn’t find the complete basic data of biodiversity, noise, heat island, renewable energy of 16 states and cities in each year. By searching the Yunnan statistical yearbook over the years, we could get the complete “air quality composite index” of 16 states (cities) in each year. Therefore, this index is added.
Point 5: Also in Table 2 there could be many more indexes for each category. For economics: GDP, resources; for society: policies and guidelines, demographic characteristics (age, sex, educational level), people behavior, stakeholder involvement, type of contractual links and so on.
Response 5: Similarly, your opinions and suggestions are very good. By searching Yunnan statistical yearbook and other channels, we have added GDP indicator of 16 states (cities) in each year, and the effect was great. For other indicators, we couldn’t find the complete data of 16 states and cities in each year.
Point 6: Minor issues: line 122, only here authors use the personal "we" form, please revise with the impersonal
Response 6: We have used an impersonal form of revision.
Point 7: Minor issues: all the words/phrases into quotation marks: if they are not citation please do not use so many symbols.
Response 7: We have looked up the words / phrases one by one, and the quotation marks have been removed for words / phrases that are not citations.
Point 8: Minor issues: "to achieve the grand goal of beautiful mountains and rivers of the motherland" lines 66-67: if it is a citation please add quotation marks and references.
Response 8: This sentence is a quotation, so we have added a reference.
Point 9: Minor issues: "lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets" line 475-476 if it is a citation please add the references.
Response 9: This sentence is a quotation, so we have added a reference.
Point 10: Minor issues: table 2 (page 6) pay attention to the structure (there is an extra line).
Response 10: We have deleted this line and checked other similar places.
Point 11: Minor issues: lines 305-316-321 do not refer to Table 3 but 4. If it is correct, please revise;
Response 11: We have changed “Table 3” to “Table 4”.
Point 12: Minor issues: a consistent part of result section (from line 337 on) could be moved in the discussion paragraph, keeping only the general explanation there.
Response 12: We have put the consistent part of the model analysis into the discussion paragraph, and the general explanation of the model is mainly retained in the result section.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It was a pleasure for me to read this article. There is a scientific part that gives answers to how to create green areas to improve ecological security in cities.
I have only a few, rather editorial suggestions:
Please reconsider these Grammarly suggestions (from the beginning):
-"there are few researches studying on "->" a few types of research are studying"
-"fixed asset "- >"fixed-asset"
-" of impact"-> "of the impact"
-"27 tries has been started long ago"-> "have been"
...and more, if you find some time to read it once more
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Sincerely thank you for your time and energy in the paper review, and put forward good suggestions for revision, so that this article benefited a lot.
Point 1: I have only a few, rather editorial suggestions:
Please reconsider these grammarly suggestions (from the beginning):
-"there are few researches studying on "->" a few types of research are studying"
-"fixed asset "- >"fixed-asset"
-" of impact"-> "of the impact"
-"27 tries has been started long ago"-> "have been"
...and more, if you find some time to read it once more
Response 1: We have carefully revised the paper according to all of your grammar suggestions, checked the grammar problems of the paper again, and corrected other improper expressions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors made a great effort to implement the new version of their paper and to answer to all reviewers suggestions. Please pay attention only to spelling issues (i.e. line 772 "A _ scaling...").
In my opinion the research is now ready to be published.
