Analysis of the Spatiotemporal Evolution and Driving Mechanisms of Impervious Surfaces along the Jiaozhou Bay (China) Coast over the Past Four Decades

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

COMMENT TO AUTHORS

Review for Analysis of the Spatiotemporal Evolution Characteristics and Driving Mechanisms of Impervious Surfaces Along the Jiaozhou Bay (China) Coast over the Past Four Decades, by Ma et al. (2024).

This manuscript attempts to examine the Spatiotemporal Evolution Characteristics and Driving Mechanisms of Impervious Surfaces Along the Jiaozhou Bay (China) Coast over the Past Four Decades using remote sensing datasets. Overall, the study is interesting and well-written. However, minor flaws exist in the present research approach and the results reported in the current version manuscript. My comments are given below;

-Title: The overall title reflects the main objectives of the study, for instance, what do you mean by “Evolution Characteristics and Driving Mechanisms”? please revise as per the study aim.

-Introduction: The authors should point out the research goal of this manuscript and emphasize its research significance. Besides, I feel the authors need to provide some discussion on the limitations of the study in the discussion section and what needs to be done to address those. For example; a comprehensive analysis of climate sensitivity, given the datasets (that are used in the study) has a significant uncertainty among their datasets. Finally, discuss some lights on the physical mechanism on which the dryness/wetness is increasing over the regions with the help of some recent literature. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023EF003688

-What are the main aims and motivations for selecting the Landsat remote sensing satellite imagery, where, many other datasets are available? Please explain which is unclear and even not seen as the scientific reason in the entire manuscript.

- For investigating Random Forest Classification, what threshold has been used in the study? Please explain also.

-Provide a proper description to each figure caption, which is unclear as to what has been done in the figures, e.g., check Figure 5, follow for all figures in the entire manuscript.

Conclusions are not clarified. Besides, these findings cannot be well supported by the data and the results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. According to your comments and suggestions, I have revised the manuscript one by one. In addition, I gave a brief answer to your question based on self-understanding and literature review. Please find the detailed responses below the attachment.  Thank you again for your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1. Abstract: The abstract appears disjointed, comprising two separate sections—one technical and the other addressing urbanization as an urgent issue. A more cohesive and robust flow of ideas is needed to seamlessly connect these two parts.
2. Keywords: The keywords need to be revised to better reflect the content and be more indicative of the paper’s focus.
3. Content Gaps: The term 'surfaces' is missing and should be addressed (Page no. 2, Line #51).
4. Citations and Argumentation: The argument regarding the benefits of Random Forests is built on a citation that refers to an application of this concept. The authors should strengthen this argument with additional relevant citations.
5. Arguable Statements: Some statements are debatable, such as, "The bay area benefits from a unique combination of marine, terrestrial, and aerial resources, making it an ideal site for economic development" (page 2, lines 83-84).
6. Bias in Focus: The paper shows a bias towards the 'techniques' used rather than the 'planning issues.' This bias is evident in several sections, including the Introduction and Figure 1. A thorough revision of this approach is necessary for the paper to be accepted.
7. Citation Errors and Missing Citations:
• Citation error on page 4, line 111.
• Missing citations on page 5, lines 114-120.
• Missing citations in the methods to enhance extraction accuracy (pages 11-12).
• Missing citations in socio-economic data presented in Item 4.5 and Figure 11.
8. Typographical Errors: A typographical error is noted on page 5, lines 130-131, which incorrectly lists the year as 1996.
9. Inconsistencies in Methods: There is inconsistency in the number of methods used. The "Research Methods" section (page 6) and Figure 1 indicate three methods, but this is not consistent with the titles and numbering on pages 6-7.
10. Redundancy: There is noticeable redundancy in several parts of the paper, such as the first paragraph in item 3.1. These repeated sections should be removed.
11. Extended Examples: It is unclear why the authors used extended examples to compare the three methods on pages 11 and 12. This needs clarification.
12. Figure and Citation Errors:

• Citation missing in defining methods to enhance extraction accuracy (pages 11-12).
• Citation missing in many needed parts of the paper (socio-economic data in Item 4.5 and Figure 11).

Concluding Comment:

In conclusion, the primary weakness of this paper lies in its structural imbalance, where the technical aspects are given undue emphasis at the expense of the planning elements. This bias undermines the holistic perspective necessary for comprehensive urban studies. Additionally, the arguments presented are often built on a limited number of citations, which weakens the robustness and credibility of the research. Furthermore, many sections of the paper do not coherently align with the overall scope of investigation, leading to a fragmented and less impactful narrative. Addressing these issues by providing a more balanced focus, incorporating a wider range of citations, and ensuring coherence across all sections would significantly enhance the quality and relevance of the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor corrections as above mentioned.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. According to your comments and suggestions, I have revised the manuscript one by one. Please find the detailed responses below the attachment. Thank you again for your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting work, although there are certain aspects that could develop:

·       The keywords they propose are a repetition of the title, I suggest others that can identify the work in searches on the subject.

·       It would be interesting if the authors could indicate the spectral bands used to make the base map, since, depending on the combination of these bands, the identification of impervious surfaces could be more precise and, in this sense, perhaps the resolution of the images available could have a certain influence on the accuracy of the results. At the same time an in situ verification of the results is necessary, at least in areas of doubtful classification; they should specifically indicate if it has been done and, if not, I suggest its realization. And related to this, the use of other technologies such as LIDAR could be recommended to achieve the objectives proposed in the work.

·       Sustainability is based on three pillars: economic, social and environmental and, precisely, the environmental aspects are very scarcely treated, since only reference is made to the slopes as a key factor for the development of impervious surfaces but in no case the effects on the environment have meant: through what changes in land use and cover, the transformation of natural areas to urban areas has occurred; to what extent the environmental quality of Jiaozhou Bay has been affected (e.g. those related to those indicated in L46-60).

·       The work indicates an increase of 15 times the impervious surface area in the period considered, from about 15m² to 124m² per inhabitant. It would be very interesting for the authors to interpret this data in relation to what was expressed in L94-97 regarding the usefulness of these studies, since, according to them, the best correlation is between impervious surface area and population (fig. 11 (c)).

Administrative decisions have a great influence since, according to the authors, the greatest changes in the intensity of impervious surfaces (table 4) coincide, approximately, with moments related to administrative reorganizations (L467, L472, L477) and, in fact, this is pointed out in L481-482, but it would be convenient to discuss them in the context of the social, economic and environmental consequences that, in this case, they have provoked.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. According to your comments and suggestions, I have revised the manuscript one by one. Please find the detailed responses below the attachment. Thank you again for your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your sincere response. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for your kind comments. I believe that your work is of great interest, since it can serve as a reference tool for decision making regarding the balance between the environment and socio-economic development. I encourage you to continue to deepen these studies.