Vulnerability Assessment and Optimization Countermeasures of the Human–Land Coupling System of the China–Mongolia–Russia Cross-Border Transportation Corridor

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please, see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The paper needs to improve significantly for English.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your guidance on our research (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2549172), as well as your affirmation of the interests and usefulness of this study. From your inquiry and guidance on many details, we are affected by your careful and responsible attitude. We have studied your comments carefully and made modifications in our revised manuscript. Under your guidance, this study was made more user-friendly, even for the non-specialists in geography and environment, and English language expression was improvement. We hope that the revised manuscript can meet with your approval and published in Sustainability. Thank you again for your careful guidance and help on the manuscript.

 

Sincerely,

Hao Cheng

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Based on the nearly 20 years of the scientific expedition, this study constructed the vulnerability assessment index system and quantitative assessment model assessed the vulnerability of HLS-CMRTC, revealed the key influencing factors, divided vulnerability risk prevention zones, and proposed the targeted optimization countermeasures for different risk zones. The conclusions may provide a decision-making basis for the study area to reduce the vulnerability of HLS. However, there are some concerns that the authors should address before it can be considered for publication.

(1) In the data, I suggest the authors add more information about data, such as the resolution of data used in this study.

(2) In order to further highlight the innovation of this article, it is better to compare the results of this study with other studies.

(3) More mechanism explanations should be added to further explain why the exposure of HLS-CMRTC exhibited a steady increase from south to north.

(4) More information about the limitation discussion should be added to clarify the uncertainty of current study. For example, there may be some uncertainties of this study's results due to the inaccuracy of remote sensing data including NDVI data and land cover data (Wang et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2020, 2022).

(5) The authors mentioned that “The vulnerability overall pattern of the HLS-CMRTC showed a vulnerability level gradually increasing from south to north”. I wonder which factor plays a major affect the vulnerability level in different regions, the human activities or the ecological environment? 

(6) The conclusion is not a simple restatement of the results. The authors should further clarify the contribution of the research results to the research field.

References:

Spatiotemporal change of aboveground biomass and its response to climate change in marshes of the Tibetan Plateau. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 2021, 102: 102385.

Marshland loss warms local land surface temperature in China. Geophysical research letters, 2020, 47(6): e2020GL087648.

Vegetation greening, extended growing seasons, and temperature feedbacks in warming temperate grasslands of China. Journal of Climate, 2022, 35, 5103-5117.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your guidance on our research (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2549172). Your comments were very valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have carefully studied your comments and improved our manuscript according to your guidance. Detailed revises have been marked as highlighted in the revised manuscript, and the following is a line-by-line response to your suggestions. We sincerely hope that the revised manuscript be received your reorganization and published in Sustainability. Thank you again for your kind guidance and help!

 

Sincerely,

Hao Cheng

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The study examines the vulnerability of the China-Mongolia-Russia Cross-border transportation corridor and proposes targeted optimization countermeasures for different risk zones in the region. The aim and objectives of the study are clear and fit into the context of the Sustainability Journal. Each section is balanced in length but there are some structural constraints explained below.

The Introduction section:

It is well-written and referenced. It provides the background of the study as well as highlights the importance of the China-Mongolia-Russia Cross-border transportation corridor. It also provides the underlying reasons why this study is required.

Models and methods section:

I think it is enough to say methods for this section. Then if you want you can use a subsection named Model Construction and explain the details under this.

It would be nice to see a short explanation of why you have chosen specifically the entropy weighting method to assign weights to the indicators in your study (to prevent your readers to think that you have randomly selected this method). Also, here it is necessary to introduce the details for which indicators and why you have selected them.

Page 3, Lines 127-129: the sentence is not clear. Please rewrite it in a shorter and clear form.

Page 4, Lines 151-152: ….. was established as in Table 1.

Page 4: I would suggest you giving justification for the vulnerability assessment in this table (can be related literature in this region or similar research-The vulnerability assessment index system of the Human-Land Coupling System in the China-Mongolia- Russia Cross-border Transportation Corridor (HLS-CMRTC))

Page 5, Lines 158-159: “The vulnerability assessment index system consists of 18 indicators, and those requiring specific interpretation are as follows”. The sentence is not clear. Please rewrite it in a shorter and clear form. Also, why do only three of them require an explanation? I believe most of the readers can detect what is land cover change.

Page 5, Lines 178-179: Should be “The entropy method is a mature method of determining weights, which was first introduced by Shannon”.

Page 6, Table 2: should be placed under your Results section as it is an outcome of your methods.  

Page 7, Line 225: All your Data Source section should come before the Methods section.  

Results Section: your results are thoroughly represented.

This study lacks sufficient discussion of your findings in the related literature. For example, what is the contribution of your work to the literature, any similarity or oppositeness to other studies? Pros and cons of the methods you applied in your research…..etc.

 

 

 

Dear Editor(s), 

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to review this paper. 

I think the paper requires only small corrections in terms of the language. For example, when some sentences are too long to understand, some of them need structural corrections. 

Best regards 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We sincerely thank you for your careful guidance and help on this paper (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2549172)! From your inquiry and guidance on many details, we are affected by your careful and responsible attitude. We have carefully studied your comments and improved our manuscript according to your guidance. We sincerely hope that the revised manuscript be received your reorganization and published in Sustainability. Thank you again for your kind guidance and help!

 

Sincerely,

Hao Cheng

Author Response File: Author Response.docx