Spatio-Temporal Analysis about Resource and Environmental Carrying Capacity (RECC) of Mining Cities in Coal-Concentrated Areas: A Case Study of Huaihai Economic Zone in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is overall well-structured and the writing quality is fine. Research questions and purposes of this paper are clearly stated.It is better if the authors consider the following mentioned remarks and further improve the manuscript before submitting the final version.
1.But the literature review is not complete and doesn't mention the newest researches. Literature review needs to be done more systematically. Authors should be describing on what basis literature review was done? Articles from which time frame, journals etc were shortlisted for this study? Also, currently, the literature review section is not building the gap for your research.Therefore the original creativity of this paper is questionable.And the depth of this paper is needed to be dug furtherly.
2.There are format problems in many parts of the paper.L48、L55.....
3.L170,Table 2. Index system table.The index system framework needs to elaborate more detailed reasons
Author Response
Point 1:But the literature review is not complete and doesn't mention the newest researches. Literature review needs to be done more systematically. Authors should be describing on what basis literature review was done? Articles from which time frame, journals etc were shortlisted for this study? Also, currently, the literature review section is not building the gap for your research.Therefore the original creativity of this paper is questionable.And the depth of this paper is needed to be dug furtherly.
Response 1: We have made a new review of the literature, and introduced the selected literature sources, including the selected literature database and the time period. The gap of the research about analysis and introduction are derived again.
Point 2: There are format problems in many parts of the paper.L48、L55.....
Response 2: The format of the reference was lost due to the editing, and now it has been readjusted.
Point 3: L170,Table 2. Index system table.The index system framework needs to elaborate more detailed reasons
Response 3: In this study, the reasons for the construction of index system framework are reexplained. It refers to the indicators in a large number of relevant studies by previous scholars, and adds special indicators about mining cities.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, Spatio-temporal resource and environmental carrying capacity (RECC) of mining cities in coal concentrated area was analyzed based on a case study of Huaihai Economic Zone in China. The research can provide optimized reference strategies for the transformation and development of mining cities to ecological cities in Huaihai Economic Zone. Overall, the article is well written, but some parts still need to be revised before publication.
1. The the abstract, the concept “RCC” , “ECC” and “ TOPSIS” should be expressed in its full name.
2. In the second paragraph of Introduction and table 2, several references appeared by wrong format like “Error! Reference source not found”, which should be advised.
3. Several figures in the content are not clear enough, for example the Longitude and latitude in figure 3 and figure 6.
4. In line 143, the reference or website of the statistical yearbooks should be added.
5. Coal is the most important resource in the Huaihai Economic Zone, authors should explain the reasons and characteristic of the trend of the RECC from the aspects of coal mining and coal consumption in the section Discussion, which is the most important innovation of this paper, I think.
Author Response
Point 1:The the abstract, the concept “RCC” , “ECC” and “ TOPSIS” should be expressed in its full name.
Response 1: The concept “RCC” , “ECC” and “ TOPSIS” have been expressed in its full name in the abstract.
Point 2: In the second paragraph of Introduction and table 2, several references appeared by wrong format like “Error! Reference source not found”, which should be advised.
Response 2: The format of the reference was lost due to the editing, and now it has been readjusted fine.
Point 3: Several figures in the content are not clear enough, for example the Longitude and latitude in figure 3 and figure 6.
Response 3: The quality of all figures has been improved.
Point 4: In line 143, the reference or website of the statistical yearbooks should be added.
Response 4: All of the statistical yearbooks can be searched on China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), which has been explained in 2.3. Sources of the data.
Point 5: Coal is the most important resource in the Huaihai Economic Zone, authors should explain the reasons and characteristic of the trend of the RECC from the aspects of coal mining and coal consumption in the section Discussion, which is the most important innovation of this paper, I think.
Response 5: I agree with you that ‘coal is the most important resource in the Huaihai Economic Zone’, and ‘coal mining and coal consumption are key factors affecting the changes of RECC’. Now, In the discussion section, the reasons for the influence of these two tertiary indicators on the change of RECC have been explained carefully following your valuable advises .
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This research has important value. However, before publication, there are still some areas in the article that need to be improved. Below is my comment.
The research design is appropriate. The methods and results are adequately described. The results are clearly presented. The conclusions are supported by the results.
Plagiarism was found in the Discussion without citation.
Keywords are written in a different style.
Image quality needs to be improved in Figure 2, 3, 6.
Remove dots in eq. lines.
Please check the paper carefully for English editing and typos!
It is difficult to check the references because there are "[Error! Reference source not found.]" inscriptions in several places in the pdf.
In general, the article makes a good impression, is devoted to an interesting and topical problem of Spatio-temporal analysis about resource and environmental carrying capacity.
Author Response
Point 1:The research design is appropriate. The methods and results are adequately described. The results are clearly presented. The conclusions are supported by the results.
Response 1: Thank you!
Point 2: Plagiarism was found in the Discussion without citation.
Response 2: The format of the reference was lost due to the editing, and now it has been readjusted .
Point 3: Keywords are written in a different style.
Response 3: Keywords written style has been uniformed.
Point 4: Image quality needs to be improved in Figure 2, 3, 6.
Response 4: The quality of all figures has been improved.
Point 5: Remove dots in eq. lines.
Response 5: The dots has been removed.
Point 6: Please check the paper carefully for English editing and typos!
Response 6: I have checked the paper carefully for English editing and typos as your advises.
Point 7: It is difficult to check the references because there are "[Error! Reference source not found. ]" inscriptions in several places in the pdf.
Response 7: The format of the reference was lost due to the editing, and now it has been readjusted and can be checked.
Point 8: In general, the article makes a good impression, is devoted to an interesting and topical problem of Spatio-temporal analysis about resource and environmental carrying capacity.
Response 8: Thank you for your important comments and revisions about the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I am satisfied with the revisions made by the authors. Good luck with your future research initiatives. I also consider that this paper's topic can be further developed and I encourage the authors to proceed with it.
