An Integrated Model for Constructing Urban Ecological Networks and Identifying the Ecological Protection Priority: A Case Study of Wujiang District, Suzhou

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

MS review:

Optimising Urban Ecological Networks and Land Use Management: A case study of Wujiang District, Suzhou

Authors:

Liyu Pan, Wenquan Gan, Kunlun Ren

 

The authors study the effects of rapid urbanization in China, which has resulted in the ecological system of urban areas being fragmented into fragmented patches, often leading to habitat isolation. Fragmentation has become a challenge to achieve ecological civilization today. To deal with this problem, the authors of MC are developing a methodology to help planners and local authorities identify key ecological resources in a given urban context and then rebuild the ecological network by reconnecting fragmented habitats. The authors believe that the use of their methodology will improve local biodiversity and thus provide regional ecological potential. The authors are developing a GIS-based model that can inform the construction and optimization of urban ecological networks, taking into account land use, habitat conditions and human intervention from an integrated point of view. The IS provides a detailed description of the methodology based on the combination of GIS and remote sensing studies. The authors tested the effectiveness of this methodology on the example of the Wujiang district of the city of Suzhou. According to the spatial distribution of critical ecological elements, an optimized ecological network consisting of "two axes, three cores and several belts" was proposed to support an interconnected and stable ecological system. In addition, based on existing territorial and spatial planning, the authors offer recommendations on management strategies regarding macro-level protection guidance and micro-level land use control. Undoubtedly, this study provides insight into the planning and optimization of ecological networks and provides a basis for further research in the future.

This study is relevant and interesting.

The result of the study is described in detail, with a detailed reflection of all options for obtaining data. The authors show not only the advantages of their methodology, but also the limitations that need to be addressed in the near future.

The work may be published in present form.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for providing your valuable feedback. Your acknowledgement of our work means a lot to us and has motivated us to further improve our research. We appreciate the effort and expertise you have invested in evaluating our work. Your feedback has been immensely helpful in shaping our manuscript and we believe it has strengthened our research. Wishing you all the best.

Reviewer 2 Report

The urban ecological network is the focus of research in the field of urban ecology. This manuscript develops a model that employs multiple approaches to evaluate the ecosystem from an integrated perspective considering land use, habitat conditions, and human intervention. Nevertheless, some minor revision is needed.

 

1. The title of the paper is suggested to focus on the construction model of the urban ecological network. The current title is vague and the focus is not highlighted.

2. The text in the abstract is redundant, and the key points are not highlighted, especially the quantitative results.

3. In the introduction part, there is no overview of technical methods, which will affect the advancement and comparability of the results of the paper. I suggest you add some related studies. For instance, 

 

Chunli Wang; Qun'ou Jiang; Yaqi Shao; Siyang Sun; Ling Xiao; Jianbin Guo. Ecological environment assessment based on land use simulation: A case study in the Heihe River Basin. Science of the Total Environment, 2019, 697: 133928.

 

4. The discussion could be more in-depth. This study is local, and the academic contribution is unclear. The paper could perfectly be presented as a "handbook" rather than a research paper. I have doubts about whether a contribution such as this one will be of interest to readers. I suggest the authors include some information related to the urban landscape, ecological conservation, and ecosystem services. The detailed description of the issues of the study area itself might be reduced. Also, the discussion can include some comparisons with other studies.

 

Qi, W., Deng, X., Chu, X., Zhao, C., & Zhang, F. (2017). Emergy analysis on urban metabolism by counties in Beijing. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/b/c, 101, 157-165.

 

5. Town-level administrative divisions can be added to Figures 3 and 5, for the convenience of readers.

In general, the topic selection of the thesis is meaningful, the method is reasonable, and the results are credible.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I would like to express my gratitude for your professional advice and the time you have taken to review our manuscript. Your insightful comments have proven invaluable in enhancing the academic rigor and logical flow of our work. Thanks to your feedback, we have made significant improvements to the abstract, introduction, and discussion sections, which have strengthened the theoretical contributions of our paper, deepened the debate, and provided a more coherent explanation of our research question. We have also made necessary modifications to the methods and results sections, to ensure that the paper presents our findings and methodology in the clearest manner possible. We sincerely believe that these revisions have improved the quality of our work, and we are grateful for your help in achieving this.

We would like to explain our modifications in detail as follows:

1. We have modified the title of the manuscript to "An Integrated Model to Constructing Urban Ecological Networks and Identifying the Ecological Protection Priority: A case study of Wujiang District, Suzhou" to help readers better understand the focus and research content of the article.
2. The abstract was revised to around 200 words, highlighting the primary content of this research, including the proposed model and the quantitative results based on the model simulation.
3. We have added a review and comparison of previous research methods of ecological network construction in the introduction part. Additionally, we have pointed out the shortcomings of the previous methods and elaborated on the advanced nature of the model proposed in this study in the "Methods" section. The literature you recommended has been compared with the research results in the "Results" and "Discussion" sections.
4. Major revisions have been made to the "Discussion" section of the manuscript. We have reduced the description of local planning and focused more on comparative research with previous studies. We have added two sections, one of which focuses on verifying the validity of the proposed model through research results and comparison with other studies. The other section analyzes the historical scenic spots and heritage landscapes in the study area, compares them with the ecological network constructed, and puts forward suggestions for urban landscape planning and land management in the study area.
5. All diagrams have been modified and the Town-level administrative boundaries have been added to improve the readability.

Once again, we would like to express our gratitude for your insightful feedback, which has immensely helped in shaping our manuscript. We hope our modifications meet your expectations, and we look forward to hearing back from you.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript titled "Optimising Urban Ecological Networks and Land Use Management: A case study of Wujiang District, Suzhou" intends to develop a GIS-based model that can inform the construction and optimization of urban ecological networks, considering land use, habitat conditions and human interventions from an integrated perspective. The study presents a scientific guide for constructing ecological networks, a case study has been conducted in Wujiang District in China.

The research is original; it could be characterized as novel and in my opinion important to the field, it also has an almost appropriate structure, and the language has been used well. In the meanwhile, the manuscript has a nice extent (about 6,850 words) and it is comprehensive. The figures (6), the tables (6) and the equations (3) make the paper reflect well to the reader. For this reason, paper has a "diversity look", not only numbers, not only words. Please number the equations as journal want, see the template from the journal Sustainability, the subchapter 3.3. Formatting of Mathematical Components (https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/sustainability-template.dot).

The title, I think, is all right. The abstract reflects well the findings of this study but is too long. Abstracts should indicate the research problem/purpose of the research, provide some indication of the design/methodology/approach taken, the findings of the research and its originality/value in terms of its contribution to the international literature. Please, revise the abstract, it must be up to 200 words long, [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Submission Overview / Accepted File Formats - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions#submission or https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/sustainability-template.dot)], and do not forget abstract need to encourage readers to download the paper. The Abstract needs further work.

The introduction is effective, clear, and well organized but it wasn’t introduced and put into perspective what research is negotiating. Moreover, it does not contain a clear formulation and description of the research problem. Please insert a clear description and justification of the problem the article deals with. Your literature research should be critical and more informed, rather than listing previous research. This section requires significant improvement.

For the Methodology chapter, the research conduct has been tested in several areas of the world, with comparable results and will probably be tested in others. Appropriate references to the methodology included in the already published bibliography but you can put more references, from all over the world. Do not forget, the journal “Sustainability” is international.

The results section is good. The argument flows and is reinforced through the justification of the way elements are interpreted. But the same does not apply to the Discussion and Conclusion. Both sections should be consistent in terms of Proposal, Problem statement, Results, and of course, future work. Your conclusion section does not do justice to your work. Make your key contributions, arguments, and findings clearer. You must refer to the literature and previous studies in your discussion section.

Please revise the manuscript and include more references which already exist in the bibliography. I would be much more satisfied if the number of references was slightly higher (about 70 - 80 references) and I would appreciate it if it also included data from all the word (Asia, America, Europe, or Australia). In this way it is documented that a method that is tested in a place with its own characteristics can be implemented in other places around the world.

More discussion is needed, comparing the results of this work related to attributes with those of other studies. I believe that the conclusions section or discussion should also include the main limitations of this study and incorporate possible policy implications. I think something more should be said about practical implications.

Please fill in the subchapters accordingly as: Author Contributions, Funding, Institutional Review Board Statement, Informed Consent Statement, Data Availability Statement, Acknowledgments and Conflicts of Interest, according to the instructions of the International Journal Sustainability [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Preparation/ Back Matter - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions#submission or https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/sustainability-template.dot)].

 

Please revise the references of the manuscript and include references which already exist in the bibliography. References must have an appropriate style, for this reason I would be good to change [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Preparation / Back Matter / References: - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions or https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references)]. Do not forget, DOI numbers (Digital Object Identifier) are not mandatory but highly encouraged and make the review easier.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I would like to express my gratitude for your professional advice and the time you have taken to review our manuscript. Your insightful comments have proven invaluable in enhancing the academic rigor and logical flow of our work. Thanks to your feedback, we have made significant improvements to the abstract, introduction, and discussion sections, which have strengthened the theoretical contributions of our paper, deepened the debate, and provided a more coherent explanation of our research question. We have also made necessary modifications to the methods and results sections, to ensure that the paper presents our findings and methodology in the clearest manner possible. We sincerely believe that these revisions have improved the quality of our work, and we are grateful for your help in achieving this.

We would like to explain our modifications in detail as follows:

1. The format of the manuscript has been modified in accordance with the requirements of the Sustainability, including ranking each equation, modifying the format of the literature, and adding subchapters to supplement the author's contribution, funding and other contents. By comparing with existing studies, the number of references in this paper has been increased to more than 70, and all the articles with DOI have been provided.
2. The abstract was revised to 200 words, highlighting the primary content of this research and followed the structure of “purpose of the research-methodology-the findings of the research-the academic contribution of this research”.
3. The introduction section has been significantly revised, the research question and the purpose of the research are justified by comparative research with previous study. The structure of the introduction has been reorganized.
4. Research cases from Europe and Central America are discussed in the section of the methodology, and the possibility of using this method in different cultural and geographical contexts is discussed.
5. In the “Results” section, the comparison between the simulation results and the findings of previous studies is discussed, and the difference of influence of different methods on the results when identifying ecological patches and constructing ecological resistance surfaces is discussed. Additionally, the advantages and disadvantages of different research methods and how to improve the research methods in the future are discussed.
6. Major revisions have been made to the "Discussion" section of the manuscript. We have reduced the description of local planning and focused more on comparative research with previous studies. We have added two sections, one of which focuses on verifying the validity of the proposed model through research results and comparison with other studies. The other section analyzes the historical scenic spots and heritage landscapes in the study area, compares them with the ecological network constructed, and puts forward suggestions for urban landscape planning and land management in the study area.

Once again, we would like to express our gratitude for your insightful feedback, which has immensely helped in shaping our manuscript. We hope our modifications meet your expectations, and we look forward to hearing back from you.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript titled " An Integrated Model to Constructing Urban Ecological Networks and Identifying the Ecological Protection Priority: A case study of Wujiang District, Suzhou" intends to develop a GIS-based model that can inform the construction and optimization of urban ecological networks, considering land use, habitat conditions and human interventions from an integrated perspective. The study presents a scientific guide for constructing ecological networks, a case study has been conducted in Wujiang District in China.

The manuscript has been revised according to the first review comments. The authors carefully studied the comments and revised the manuscript by considering all the last comments. The comments are responded to the new manuscript.

Conclusions and discussion are better than the previous one, they have general logic and on justification of interpretations as the author’s attribute.

In general, the manuscript is completely different from the previous one, since all the comments of the previous review have been revised.

Use the appropriate style in lines 82 – 109 and separate chapter 2. Materials and Methods in line 109, but these are comments for the next step of the publication.

 

I believe the revised manuscript has been improved carefully and I hope the desired level of Land can be reached.