Analysis of Urban Ecological Quality Spatial Patterns and Influencing Factors Based on Remote Sensing Ecological Indices and Multi-Scale Geographically Weighted Regression

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The present paper presents an interesting application of the urban ecological index based on remote sensing data. However, the author should consider the following recommendations before publication:

1.- Is difficult to understand the objective or objectives of the paper. I recommend to the authors place them at the end of the introduction and base their conclusion on them.

2.- The authors use 3 scenes for the application of their index (lines 12 to 13). To respect this, the authors must specify the scenes’ weather conditions. In specific the precipitation, this is because the weather conditions before the scene can influence the values of the indicators used to determine the RSEI and conduct errors in the conclusions. I recommend using a graph to do this.

3.-Normalization of the data before performing a PCA is a good procedure. However, do not be confounded whit standardization, which normally is performed by any software before a PCA (authors should mention in the text if this is their case). In both cases (Normalization or standardization), the maximum, minimum, and standard deviations should be reported in the results to guarantee the replicability of the study.

4.-In lines 170-175, the authors mention their independent variables used, under the justification that “land use and land cover changes have a fundamental impact on the 173 city’s ecological environment”. How do these variables explain the changes if they are static variables? Do the authors use different layers of these variables across time to explain the changes in RSEI? These questions need to be more detailed in the methodology.

5.- For the normalization of the RSEI is also important to report in the results the maximum and minimum values used.

6.- On table 5, the variance explained by the first PC1 in all cases needs to be reported.

7.- There are a lot of studies that apply the RSEI in China. The authors should compare their findings against other authors. Highlight the importance of performing an analysis as they did.

 

Minor

In table 1 change “Landsat 5/8” for “Landsat 8” you do not use Landsat 5

 

In figures 4, 5, and 6: try to use similar value ranges for a better comparison.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revisions are marked with appropriate marks on the paper. The major corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are in the attachment file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revisions are marked with appropriate marks on the paper. The major corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are in the attachment file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors primarily analyzes and evaluates the spatial pattern and influencing factors on urban ecological quality using Pingtan Island in Fujian Province, China as an example. Urban ecological quality is a crucial topic, the manuscript provides a typical research case.

Suggestions for revision of the manuscript are as follows:

1. Abstract: The study's result 3 only illustrate the model's applicability , It is suggested to provide specific explanations of the impact of three factors, namely land-use type proportions, road density, and population density, on urban ecological quality.

 2. Introduction: The background and significance of the research are not sufficiently explained, and the literature review focuses mainly on the listing of research methods and models without emphasizing the essential problem of "urban ecological environment changes." This makes it seem like the research was conducted to fit a method rather than address a vital issue. The main research content and viewpoints are not introduced, and the structure and chapter arrangement of the subsequent articles are not mentioned. Additionally, the discussion of vegetation coverage index and water body index takes up a significant portion of the method introduction but does not seem relevant to this article. Therefore, I suggest briefly mentioning them and focusing on introducing remote sensing ecological index instead.

 3. Methods: The scientific validity and persuasiveness of selecting the three factors, i.e., land cover type, road density, and population density, need to be further strengthened. It is recommended to prove their relevance compared to other factors.

 4. Results and discussion: The analysis of water type is missing from the land cover type section. Furthermore, all calculated results need to be analyzed in conjunction with the actual situation in Pingtan Island, rather than solely describing superficial patterns evident in the data. Additionally, I suggest adding a paragraph summarizing the main research conclusions instead of focusing on the model applicability. The meaning of "from positive to positive" on line 376 and "vary from negative to negative" on line 380 is unclear.

 5. Figures: The meaning of the number "2" in Figure 1's upper right corner is unclear, while Figure 2 contains Chinese characters "<值>."

 6. Tables: Tables 2-5 have three decimal places, whereas Table 6 has two decimal places.

 7. I suggest to provide a detailed description of the limitations of the research and directions for future improvements.

 8. The conclusion only includes the results of the OLS model and does not mention the outcomes of the other two models. Instead, it analyzes the applicability of the model. I suggest that the authors can summarize how land-use type proportions, road density, and population density affect urban ecological environment.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revisions are marked with appropriate marks on the paper. The major corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are in the attachment file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

the manuscript can be published in its current form

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I am satisfied that issues arised have been addressed and note responses to other review(s) that have improved the paper 

Reviewer 3 Report

I think the concerns in the Round 1 are well-addressed.