A Comprehensive Study of the Suitability of Urban Underground Spaces for Connection Development: A Case Study of the Erhai Lake Basin, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript (sustainability-2352426) tries to use the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to build a comprehensive index system of underground space development demand. Then, through the introduction of Cellular Automata (CA), and the influence of connectivity development on regional suitability was comprehensively considered to arrive at the best scheme of underground space planning in the Erhai Lake Basin, China. Although it fits the aim and scope of this journal and the amount of the work is enough, its contribution to urban land use simulation needs to be explained more clearly and convincingly. Another serious concern is that some related latest studies have been neglected. Also, the current results of this study can hardly be reviewed because of those problems about data and methodology. Therefore, a Major Revision is required. More detailed comments and suggestions are presented as follows:
- 1. The scientific question or research gap is missing in the Abstract. Similarly, the Introduction Section is not strong because the authors did not raise an important scientific question or gap related to this study and beyond this study area. Therefore, potential readers can hardly identify the need that the authors should have to provide a new solution. Note that the cellular automata models are not new methods for urban land use simulation.
- 2. What are the real and significant differences between urban underground space (UUS) and urban aboveground space?
- 3. The authors need to explain more clearly why this small and less-developed study area was selected in this study.
- 4. Figure 3. The distribution map of the collected studies: Only one paper is related to the study area, Yunnan Province. I wonder is it enough.
- 5. Section 2.2. Index selection: The authors need to explain why just these benefit indicators have been selected. For example, why not consider the influence of subway, geological engineering, and/or geohazards?
- 6. The authors devote too much space to describing the background of the study area, which should be briefly mentioned in several simple sentences. In addition, the authors also need to look further into the latest research in this field. In fact, the literature review is far from enough. Especially, the more advanced patch-based CA model has been widely utilized by many cutting-edge research (see below as examples). However, this well-accepted technique is not even mentioned in the manuscript.
Modeling urban land-use changes using a landscape-driven patch-based cellular automaton (LP-CA). Cities, 2023, 132: 103906.
A segment derived patch-based logistic cellular automata for urban growth modeling with heuristic rules. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 2017
The Literature Review section is meant to set the context for your research work and highlight how it contributes to the knowledge in this field and builds on previous similar studies. In particular, the authors have mentioned that "the connectivity between underground Spaces has received extensive attention". Actually, the connectivity problem can be effectively handled by these patch-based CA models.
- 7. Table 1. Research data sources and data typology: the data description section failed to provide the specific details of the input data, such as the spatial resolution, dates in acquiring them, and accuracies. In particular, what are the years of the driving factors? Are they consistent with the years of the other basic geographical data?
- 8. Table 2. Index evaluation standard: please provide more convincing supports for the determination of these index classifications.
- 9. Please explain why not use the more objective weighting method, entropy weighting? The AHP method is a bit subjective.
A comprehensive analysis of weighting and multicriteria methods in the context of sustainable energy. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2021
- 10. The authors did not mention which method was used for the calibrating transition rules of the cellular automata model.
- 11. Basically, there is no real discussion. The Discussion and Conclusion Sections failed to engage with the wider readership of this international and interdisciplinary journal. For example, most contents in these parts are only related to the specific study area. The novelty and originality should be clearly justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective.
- 12. In the Conclusion Section, many of the statements just simply repeated the results. In addition, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the results compared with previous similar studies? In other words, the manuscript needs a strong take-home message in order to increase its scientific impact.
- 13. The authors also need to improve the Conclusion Section by mentioning the main shortages of your work.
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions that improved this study significantly.
Point 1: The scientific question or research gap is missing in the Abstract. Similarly, the Introduction Section is not strong because the authors did not raise an important scientific question or gap related to this study and beyond this study area. Therefore, potential readers can hardly identify the need that the authors should have to provide a new solution. Note that the cellular automata models are not new methods for urban land use simulation.
Response 1: The Abstract section has been modified to address the existing problems. Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Referring to the abstract format of other excellent papers, I modified the abstract part.
Point 2: What are the real and significant differences between urban underground space (UUS) and urban aboveground space?
Response 2: The differences between UUS and urban aboveground space mainly include the following points：
(1) Urban above-ground space has a systematic layout, and the distribution of the UUS area is relatively chaotic. In addition, it is difficult to carry out secondary development of UUS, so the development site of UUS is very important.
(2) The construction of UUS mostly relies on the above-ground space and belongs to the attachment of above-ground space. Under the action of this characteristic, the development of UUS needs to consider some attributes of urban ground space.
(3) The connectivity of UUS is restricted in many ways. Unlike above-ground space, which can be easily renovated with connectivity, UUS is less effective, so it is better to consider its connectivity during the design phase.
The above are some of the differences between the urban surface and UUS, which cannot be listed in detail. Please comment on the shortcomings.
Point 3: The authors need to explain more clearly why this small and less-developed study area was selected in this study.
Response 3: The underground space construction in the developed area is relatively rich, so it is not necessary to study the suitability. The current situation of underground space development in Erhai Valley is relatively backward, so it is urgent to have a forward-looking development plan to help the better development of the city. Therefore, this paper chooses the Erhai Valley area.
Point 4: The distribution map of the collected studies: Only one paper is related to the study area, Yunnan Province. I wonder is it enough.
Response 4: The characteristics of most regions in Yunnan are similar to those of other cities in southwest China, and relevant literature studies in Sichuan and Guizhou can also provide references. In addition, the nationwide research also provides a certain reference value for this paper. Therefore, although the number of local relevant studies in Yunnan is small, it can support the research of this paper.
Point 5: Section 2.2. Index selection: The authors need to explain why just these benefit indicators have been selected. For example, why not consider the influence of subway, geological engineering, and/or geohazards?
Response 5: As Erhai Valley is a small and underdeveloped region, the index selection should be as much as possible after the development of UUS to promote the development of the city. Most suitable areas for underground space construction are located in urban areas, so the influence of geological factors will be weakened, and there is no subway in Dali at present. Finally, considering the interests of various parties, several indicators in the paper are selected.
Point 6: The Literature Review section is meant to set the context for your research work and highlight how it contributes to the knowledge in this field and builds on previous similar studies. In particular, the authors have mentioned that "the connectivity between underground Spaces has received extensive attention". Actually, the connectivity problem can be effectively handled by these patch-based CA models.
Response 6: Thanks for your suggestions, the presentation of the study area has been optimized. The introduction of the research area background has been streamlined. The latest research in the field is introduced in more detail, and the paper has been improved on the literature review. Thank you again for your valuable advice.
Point 7: Table 1. Research data sources and data typology: the data description section failed to provide the specific details of the input data, such as the spatial resolution, dates in acquiring them, and accuracies. In particular, what are the years of the driving factors? Are they consistent with the years of the other basic geographical data?
Response 7: The data issues have been refined, and more information about the data is explained in Table 1. The data used in this article are real-time data, not year-driven data. Most of the data are from 2020.
Point 8: Table 2. Index evaluation standard: please provide more convincing supports for the determination of these index classifications.
Response 8: There is no relevant research basis in Dali. Therefore, the criteria for index classification are combined with the Master Urban Planning of Dali City (2011-2020), the Special Planning for the Development and Utilization of Kunming Urban Underground Space (2014 2030), and the Science and Technology Project of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, PRC, The Evaluation Research on the Planning and Development Carrying Capacity of Kunming Underground Space (Pipeline) (No. 2018-k8-046) for the classification of indicators.
Point 9: Please explain why not use the more objective weighting method, entropy weighting? The AHP method is a bit subjective.
Response 9: The use of entropy weight method was also used in the author's previous research, but the entropy weight method has the following disadvantages:
(1) The entropy weight method has high requirements for data, and its analysis results may be very different with the change of samples.
(2) The mutual influence of indicators cannot be reasonably expressed by the entropy weight method.
Therefore, to fit the development of the region, this paper uses the AHP method of subjective evaluation to carry out weighting.
Point 10: The authors did not mention which method was used for the calibrating transition rules of the cellular automata model.
Response 10: The calibration cell model is mainly a sample set established according to the AHP analysis result, and analyzes the AHP samples and CA result, to correct the CA transition rules. Thank you very much for your suggestions, which have been added to the article.
Point 11: Basically, there is no real discussion. The Discussion and Conclusion Sections failed to engage with the wider readership of this international and interdisciplinary journal. For example, most contents in these parts are only related to the specific study area. The novelty and originality should be clearly justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective.
Response 11: Thanks for your suggestions, the discussion section has been rebuilt. To make the article accessible to a wider audience of this international and interdisciplinary journal, its relevance to urban sustainable development is pointed out. Novelty and originality are also elaborated from many aspects.
Point 12: In the Conclusion Section, many of the statements just simply repeated the results. In addition, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the results compared with previous similar studies? In other words, the manuscript needs a strong take-home message in order to increase its scientific impact.
Response 12: The discussion and conclusion sections have been rewritten. The advantages and disadvantages of this study are elaborated on in detail. More related information is also explained. Thank you for your correction.
Point 13: The authors also need to improve the Conclusion Section by mentioning the main shortages of your work.
Response 13: The shortcomings are also explained again in the article, and future research is discussed. Thank you for all your valuable suggestions, and I believe that UUS-related research will also flourish with the promotion of scholars like you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
A comprehensive study of the suitability of urban under- ground spaces for connection development: a case study of the Erhai Lake Basin, China
General comments
Abstract
· English editing is needed in the abstract
· More results should be provided other than detailing the methodology
· Include results on suitability and connection developments other than benefits of UUS
· Line 27, this recommendation should be revised to reflect the findings of this study
Introduction
· Line 21, provide a citation to this claim
· Line 61 and 64, the citation years are missing. Please confirm with the journal guidelines
· Line 66 geographical information system – capitalise each work; Geographical Information System;
· Line 70-88 – the authors have dwelled more on the methodologies instead of providing a rich background on suitability analysis.
· Line 90, the issue of stakeholders is something that authors may include in the title otherwise, it does not mean that this study is comprehensive as claimed
· Line 98: Authors should also provide objectives that guided this study other than providing the aim
Materials and methods
· Figure 1: provide an image of a Erhai Lake Basin, we seem to miss this in your study
· Line 148, why was index selection introduced in the study. It is not clear
· Figure 4, despite the opinions from the stakeholder, I think the basin ecosystem parameters such as water, topography and protected areas also need to be included in the analysis
· Figure 5, for the collected datasets, how were they pre processed to ensure quality control, this is not clear, for example, what is other land use type?
· Line 252, How were the model results validated?
Results
· Line 377-390 – provide study results other than methods again in this part
· Overall, the authors should provide a map that shows suitability of UUS in the lake basin
Discussion
· The discussion should be improved, it does not reflect the topic and study findings
· Therefore, it should be rewritten
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions that improved this study significantly.
Point 1: English editing is needed in the abstract.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestions, the English of the abstract has been edited optimally
Point 2: More results should be provided other than detailing the methodology.
Response 2: Thanks again for your advice. The English of the abstract has been optimized and edited. The results are also elaborated on in the abstract.
Point 3: Include results on suitability and connection developments other than benefits of UUS.
Response 3: The practicalities and results of UUS connection development have been updated, thanks for your suggestions.
Point 4: Line 27, this recommendation should be revised to reflect the findings of this study.
Response 4: Your suggestion is very good and has been modified in the article. I hope it can meet your requirements. Thanks again for your suggestion
Point 5: Introduction part
Line 21, provide a citation to this claim.
Line 61 and 64, the citation years are missing. Please confirm with the journal guidelines.
Line 66 geographical information system – capitalise each work; Geographical Information System.
Line 70-88 – the authors have dwelled more on the methodologies instead of providing a rich background on suitability analysis.
Line 90, the issue of stakeholders is something that authors may include in the title otherwise, it does not mean that this study is comprehensive as claimed.
Line 98: Authors should also provide objectives that guided this study other than providing the aim.
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. The question in the introduction has been revised. Given the problems existing in the introduction part, I have rewritten the introduction part, hoping to meet your requirements. Thanks again for your advice.
Point 6: Figure 1: provide an image of a Erhai Lake Basin, we seem to miss this in your study.
Response 6: There may be some problems in the marking of the images of Erhai Valley that you missed. I have modified the images again so that you can see this area intuitively.
Point 7: Line 148, why was index selection introduced in the study. It is not clear.
Response 7: The selection of indicators is introduced in this paper to learn from the existing excellent relevant research experience in China, and then combined with the characteristics of the Erhai basin and the concerns of multiple stakeholders, the index system in this paper is finally selected. This article also carried on a supplementary explanation of this problem.
Point 8: Figure 4, despite the opinions from the stakeholder, I think the basin ecosystem parameters such as water, topography and protected areas also need to be included in the analysis.
Response 8: The ecosystem parameters of the basin, such as water, topography and protected areas, have been analyzed and studied in our other studies on the Erhai basin. And this study mainly stands in the better urban development perspective for analysis and consideration. Therefore, the research on UUS, water, topography and protected areas were not included in the scope of analysis.
Point 9: Figure 5, for the collected datasets, how were they pre processed to ensure quality control, this is not clear, for example, what is other land use type?
Response 9: The data in this paper includes qualitative data and quantitative data. Data preprocessing is mainly included in Table 2, including buffer analysis, kernel density analysis, and other methods. Finally, all data is converted to quantitative data. The other land types are mainly the land types with low influence and irrelevant land types. Partial land types are not shown for the convenience of presenting the data.
Point 10: Line 252, How were the model results validated?
Response 10: The AHP model is verified and analyzed mainly by CI and RI values, which proves that the consistency test in the paper meets the requirements. Aiming at the CA model, we took the RA values around the plots with different suitability in the AHP evaluation results as the control group and refined the research area as much as possible to ensure the accuracy of the model.
Point 11: Results and Discussion
Line 377-390 – provide study results other than methods again in this part.
Overall, the authors should provide a map that shows suitability of UUS in the lake basin.
The discussion should be improved, it does not reflect the topic and study findings.
Response 11: Given the problems existing in the discussion and conclusion parts, the discussion and conclusion parts have been optimized and rewritten. The conclusion section provides a clearer explanation, and the discussion section provides an in-depth discussion of the topic and findings. Thank you for all your valuable suggestions, and I believe that UUS-related research will also flourish with the promotion of scholars like you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The article is interesting and raises an important issue of UUS in China. The strength of the article is the importance of the problem and a well-executed plan of empirical research. What is interesting is the methodology that validates the research and the final conclusions.
However, I would also like to point out some gaps that should be filled.
The most serious issue for the Discussion chapter. In fact, I cannot consider this part as a Discussion chapter. It is written in general terms and does not draw attention in depth to what is a weakness and what is a strength of the authors' research. There is also no broader reflection on the research of other authors and the methodology used.
This chapter basically needs to be rewritten.
I am also surprised by the proportions between the Methods and Results chapter. I think the latter should be more elaborate. Anyway, some of the information from the chapter can be successfully transferred to the Results chapter.
In the conclusion I will find bulleted conclusions. It seems to me that these 3 points can be put in a more compressed way, without making numbering.
It is also a challenge to deepen the review of research, especially from outside China. This will help in the development of the Discussion chapter and will better confront the authors' research results with what their predecessors have already established regarding the UUS.
Sincerely
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions that improved this study significantly.
Point 1: The most serious issue for the Discussion chapter. In fact, I cannot consider this part as a Discussion chapter. It is written in general terms and does not draw attention in depth to what is a weakness and what is a strength of the authors' research. There is also no broader reflection on the research of other authors and the methodology used.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestions, the discussion section of the article has been rewritten. In the discussion and conclusion part, further discussion is carried out, and the research is reflected.
Point 2: I am also surprised by the proportions between the Methods and Results chapter. I think the latter should be more elaborate. Anyway, some of the information from the chapter can be successfully transferred to the Results chapter.
Response 2: The weight of chapters has also been optimized and adjusted. The introduction and methods of the research area have been simplified, and the conclusion and discussion have been analyzed and explained in detail. Thank you again for your suggestions.
Point 3: In the conclusion I will find bulleted conclusions. It seems to me that these 3 points can be put in a more compressed way, without making numbering.
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestions, the conclusion was also modified from the original text. In the conclusion part, the compression method is written, and the current shortcomings and future research directions are expounded.
Point 4: It is also a challenge to deepen the review of research, especially from outside China. This will help in the development of the Discussion chapter and will better confront the authors' research results with what their predecessors have already established regarding the UUS.
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestions on the research of UUS. I believe that the research of UUS will become more and more perfect under the promotion of scholars like you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for incorporating my comments and suggestions.
The quality of English language has been improved.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewer 1
We are grateful for your constructive suggestions that improved this study significantly. Your profound knowledge, rigorous attitude, and selfless dedication to helping me point out the problems of this paper, for you to send sincere thanks and heartfelt blessings. UUS research needs to be developed with the efforts of experts like you.
I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The article has been improved, but one doubt remains. The Discussion should refer not only to the general knowledge, which is the system of relations between our research and the previous findings. It is also expected to refer to specific solutions and findings in other studies. Meanwhile, the new version of Discussions lacks this. We don't know what research we're talking about. Then the meaning of our own research is better emphasized. I recommend supplementing this part of the article.
Sincerely
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Reviewer 3
Point 1: The article has been improved, but one doubt remains. The Discussion should refer not only to the general knowledge, which is the system of relations between our research and the previous findings. It is also expected to refer to specific solutions and findings in other studies. Meanwhile, the new version of Discussions lacks this. We don't know what research we're talking about. Then the meaning of our own research is better emphasized. I recommend supplementing this part of the article.
Response 1: It has been modified given the problems in the current discussion section. This paper discusses and analyzes the deficiencies found in previous studies and emphasizes the significance of this study. I hope the new discussion section meets your requirements.
We are grateful for your constructive suggestions that improved this study significantly. Your profound knowledge, rigorous attitude, and selfless dedication to helping me point out the problems of this paper, for you to send sincere thanks and heartfelt blessings. UUS research needs to be developed with the efforts of experts like you.
I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
