Rural Ecosystem Health Assessment and Spatial Divergence—A Case Study of Rural Areas around Qinling Mountain, Shaanxi Province, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
General comments:
Authors of this manuscript aimed to describe a rural ecosystem heath over a large area, gathering a extensive data on various indicators of this parameter. While the goal of this study is worth pursuing, a number of issues found in this work prevent my approval and recommendation for publication in its current state. Specifically, the following shortcomings are of significant concern:
1) It seems that authors intended to employ a wide array of methods to study this topic, however the methods are described in an unclear way, making it difficult to understand the purpose of their usage
2) I find that manuscript doesn’t follow the standard rules for each of the sections (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion). It’s evident especially in Results section, where authors provide interpretations of obtained results, which should properly belong in the Discussion.
3) The language used is excessive, with many adjectives, emphasis, varied synonyms used for the same terminology, and numerous repetitions. This does not add any substance to the text, but rather it makes it hard to follow. I urge the authors to simplify their presentation of aims and results and provide a concise version of the text.
4) The flow of the text should be improved, as in many cases I found that authors used a terminology, that is not explained immediately, until much later in the text. A reader should not need to backtrack through a scientific paper.
It is worth noting, that my concerns are mostly about the style, language and clarity of the text, and not on its scientific value and merit. Unfortunately, as the text proved to be challenging to understand I was unable to review parts of the paper related to scientific content. Therefore, I recommend improving those aspects of the manuscript that would allow for a proper evaluation of the scientific work conducted by the authors.
Specific comments:
Introduction:
I would suggest changing the order of the paragraphs, starting with the 2nd paragraph, outlining the definition and forms of investigation, followed by threats and importance (1st paragraph) and concluding with more local point of view in China and rural areas around the Qinling Mountains (3rd and 4th paragraph)
Line 33: the term "population-resources-environment-economy" is unclear
Line 41: Consider using ‘functionality’ instead of ‘function’?
Line 65-65: Improve the grammar structure of the sentence starting ‘in terms of the ecosystem health….’ for clarity.
Line 73: Remove ‘Upon reviewing published literature’ as it is redundant.
Line 81 -83; 86-88: Citation for those statements is needed.
The prrovided aim is unclear in terms of its importance. As I understood from previous paragraphs there are certain lacks in our knowledge, but it is unclear for me which of those gaps in knowledge the work aims to address.
Data sources and research methodology:
The title of this section should be changed to ‘Materials and Methods’, as this is the how the section is titled by the Journal chosen by the authors.
2.1
Line 110-111: Change the ‘according to ….’ to an actual citation listed in the references.
2.2 This paragraph is challenging to read, perhaps all of that information could be presented in a table, along with the sources of the data listed. Especially since, later authors divide the factors in subsystems and state them in the table. I don’t understand how the factors listed here relate to the Table 1.
Line 128: Could ‘descriptive statistics’ be better phrase?
Line 128: Use either ‘Specifically’ or ‘…, mainly’
130: Provide a full citation of the map used, not just the year
Line 133 – 137: Abbreviate the citations
2.3
Line 165 – 168: this sentence is redundant, or belongs to the Introduction, not to the Methods section.
Line 168 – 174: It’s unclear why BI and ESV are important to calculated in order to obtain the aims of the study. What do they relate to?
Line 175 and 180: Both formulas for BI and ESV should be numbered as formulas, with references to them in the text. I see belove that formulas are generally numbered, but they are not related to in the main text.
Line 176 – 178: The value of Abio (327.9839) should be explained. Why did it took such value in this study? What’s more, why there are only 6 areas of various land use types? They should be clearly listed and explained. I don’t see the Amax in the provided equation.
Line 200 and 203: It’s not clear what the authors mean by ‘positive and negative indicators’.
Line 215: The Engel coefficient could be explained or at least cited.
Table 1: It should be cited in each section in which authors describe the given subsystem. Moreover, it’s unclear what Reference values and Weights are.
2.4
Authors go into too much detail describing the used (or even unused) methods, yet fail to provide the key information about them.
Line 242: Both methods should be cited.
Line 247 – 250: I find listing the unused methods redundant.
Line 252: ‘Huge’ is a colloquia;, change for ‘large’.
Line 259 – 262: This sentence repeats information stated earlier.
Line 262: It’s unclear what authors mean by ‘mainly’, I recommend being more specific.
Line 265: It is unclear how the adjusting of the indicators has been obtained.
Line 290: Software used should be cited.
Line 293 – 298: This whole paragraph should have been provided earlier in the text. The repeating issue that I find throughout this manuscript is that some aspects/methods/terms are being introduced to the reader, but their feasibility in the authors’ work is described much further in the manuscript. This makes the text really hard to read and understand.
Table 2: The names of REH Type of Health should be more unform – it’s either ‘Heath’ or ‘Healthy’.
Fig 2: The figure description is unclear and does not reflect the content of the figure. All abbreviations should be explained here.
Line 363: While it is a good practice to check for the correlation between variables, this section lacks information on how variables that correlated with each other were treated.
Results:
3.1
Line 386: Mean value should be stated together with standard deviation, or different measure of deviation. This comment is relevant also to other mean values stated in the text. Also, clarify what ‘most’ means by prviding the actual number eg. 20 out of 37, or a percentage.
Fig 3: Values should be presented with bar graph, or a similar type of graph. As far as I understand there is no continuity between obtained measurements in all counties, so those values shouldn’t be connected with a line.
Line 406 – 410; 413 – 417; 423 – 424; 430-431: Those parts should be included in the Discussion, not Results
Line 428: To support that claim authors should have mention the geographical location of each county in the methods or provide a different figure, where north-south change in the parameters is presented.
3.2
Line 436 – 447; 485-486; 520-522: Authors discuss obtained results, which should be done in Discussion, not in the Results.
Table 4: The Di and Gi topology is nowhere explained. It should be clarified in the table’s description
Figure 4: Abbreviations should be clearly explained, as well as the ‘shan nan’ and ‘Guanzhong’. I understand that those might be the regional names, but it’s not clearly understandable for a broader public.
Line 483: Again, ‘most’ is a vague statement, authors should provide a proper metric.
Figure 5: What does the a), b), c) and d) stands for? It should be described in the figure’s caption.
3.3
Line 525 – 527: This is a repetition of methods, and should be avoided in the Results section.
Line 530: I noticed that in different sections a different number of counties taken into account is provided, and it is not explained why and how authors excluded some of them for a given type of analysis.
Line 537 – 539; 541 – 549; 557 – 560; 572 – 576: Again, this is Discussion, not Results.
Table 5: Authors should be consistent with using the capital letters.
Table 6: Reference to this table is absent in the text.
Discussion:
Line 589 – 611: Here authors list a number of other studies in the region, of a similar topic. However such information on current knowledge would be more suitable for the Introduction. Moreover authors do not compare or discuss their results in the light of previous studies, which should be done in Discussion if possible.
Line 612 – 627: Those are repeated information, already provided in the previous sections.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: I would suggest changing the order of the paragraphs, starting with the 2nd paragraph, outlining the definition and forms of investigation, followed by threats and importance (1st paragraph) and concluding with more local point of view in China and rural areas around the Qinling Mountains (3rd and 4th paragraph)
Response 1: Many thanks for the important comments. We well noted what the comments mean and have changed the order of the paragraphs in the revised version.
Point 2: Line 33: the term "population-resources-environment-economy" is unclear
Response 2: Many thanks for the good and important comments. We have deleted the expression ‘population-resources-environment-economy’.
Point 3: Line 41: Consider using ‘functionality’ instead of ‘function’?
Response 3: Good idea! We have used ‘functionality’ instead of ‘function’of line 82.Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 4: Line 65-65: Improve the grammar structure of the sentence starting ‘in terms of the ecosystem health….’ for clarity.
Response 4: Yes, many thanks for the valuable comments. We have amended the formulation of this sentence, see lines 46-48. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 5: Line 73: Remove ‘Upon reviewing published literature’ as it is redundant.
Response 5: Yes, many thanks for the suggestion. We have deleted redundant phrases and noted them on lines 93-95. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 6: Line 81-83; 86-88: Citation for those statements is needed.
Response 6: Many thanks once again for the fine reading and suggestions. We have heeded your comments and highlighted them on lines 104 , 112. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in red.
Point 7: The prrovided aim is unclear in terms of its importance. As I understood from previous paragraphs there are certain lacks in our knowledge, but it is unclear for me which of those gaps in knowledge the work aims to address.
Response7: We are grateful for the good comments. We have rewritten the introductory section and labelled the knowledge gaps that this work aims to address in lines 117-120. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 8: The title of this section should be changed to ‘Materials and Methods’, as this is the how the section is titled by the Journal chosen by the authors.
Response 8: Yes, many thanks. We have changed the title of Part II to ‘Materials and methods’ and labelled it in line 123. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 9: Line 110-111: Change the ‘according to ….’ to an actual citation listed in the references.
Response 9: Good suggestion, many thanks. We have labelled the specific citations referenced on lines 134-135. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 10: This paragraph is challenging to read, perhaps all of that information could be presented in a table, along with the sources of the data listed. Especially since, later authors divide the factors in subsystems and state them in the table. I don’t understand how the factors listed here relate to the Table 1.
Response 10: Many thanks once again for the fine reading and suggestions. We have carefully studied your suggestion. We have also carefully analysed the logic of this paragraph and have tabulated all the information and data sources. At the same time, we have modified the factors listed in this section so that their relationship to the indicators in Table 2 is easier to understand. See lines 157-162. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 11: Line 128: Could ‘descriptive statistics’ be better phrase?
Response 11: Good point, many thanks. We have adopted the formulation of ‘descriptive statistics’ and highlighted it on lines 158-159. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 12: Line 128: Use either ‘Specifically’ or ‘…, mainly’
Response 12: Yes, many thanks. We have replaced ‘Specifically’ with ‘Primarily’ and highlighted it in line 159. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 13: 130: Provide a full citation of the map used, not just the year
Response 13: Many thanks for the comments. We have added the full citations for the maps in Table 1. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 14: Line 133 – 137: Abbreviate the citations
Response 14: Many thanks for the comment. We have abbreviated the citations and labelled them in Table 1. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 15: Line 165 – 168: this sentence is redundant, or belongs to the Introduction, not to the Methods section.
Response 15: Good suggestion, many thanks. We read through the sentence over and over again and felt that it really should belong in the Introduction section, not the Methods section, so we deleted it.
Point 16: Line 168 – 174: It’s unclear why BI and ESV are important to calculated in order to obtain the aims of the study. What do they relate to?
Response 16: Good comments, many thanks. Lines 185-189 of the revised version describe the importance of BI and what it relates to, and lines 189-193 of the revised version describe the use of ESV and what it relates to. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 17: Line 175 and 180: Both formulas for BI and ESV should be numbered as formulas, with references to them in the text. I see belove that formulas are generally numbered, but they are not related to in the main text.
Response 17: Many thanks for the comment. We have numbered the BI and ESV formulas, see lines 194 ,200. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 18: Line 176 – 178: The value of Abio (327.9839) should be explained. Why did it took such value in this study? What’s more, why there are only 6 areas of various land use types? They should be clearly listed and explained. I don’t see the Amax in the provided equation.
Response 18: Many thanks for the good and important comments. Regarding the value of Abio, the value of 327.9839 listed in the original manuscript was not accurate and we have removed it. The relationship between Abio and Amax has been illustrated in line 199.Changes to other sections are found in the lines 196-198. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 19: Line 200 and 203: It’s not clear what the authors mean by ‘positive and negative indicators’.
Response 19: Many thanks for the good and important comments. We have removed the reference to ‘positive and negative indicators’ in this section.
Point 20: Line 215: The Engel coefficient could be explained or at least cited.
Response 20: Yes, many thanks for the suggestion. We have explained the meaning of the Engel coefficient, see lines 238-239. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 21: Table 1: It should be cited in each section in which authors describe the given subsystem. Moreover, it’s unclear what Reference values and Weights are.
Response 21: Yes, many thanks for the valuable comments. We have already cited Table 2 (Table 1 in the original manuscript) in describing specific subsystem and have highlighted it on line 262. Also, we have marked the reference values and weights in Table 2. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 22: Line 242: Both methods should be cited.
Response 22: Good point, many thanks. We have cited both methods in the revised version, highlighting them on lines 267 , 268. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes inred.
Point 23: Line 247 – 250: I find listing the unused methods redundant.
Response 23: Thanks for the suggestion, we've removed the unused methods.
Point 24: Line 252: ‘Huge’ is a colloquia;, change for ‘large’.
Response 24: Thank you very much for your advice and careful reading, we have carefully compared ‘Huge’ and ‘large’ and have modified the expression, see the words in line 274. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 25: Line 259 – 262: This sentence repeats information stated earlier.
Response 25: Many thanks for the comments. As you noted, this sentence repeats the information described earlier. We have removed it.
Point 26: Line 262: It’s unclear what authors mean by ‘mainly’, I recommend being more specific.
Response 26: Good comments, many thanks. We have removed ‘mainly’ in line 280. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 27: Line 265: It is unclear how the adjusting of the indicators has been obtained.
Response 27: Good comments, many thanks. To make it more specific, we have modified the expression and highlighted it in lines 280-285. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 28: Line 290: Software used should be cited.
Response 28: Good point, many thanks. The software we use is DPS, which has been marked on line 313. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 29: Line 293 – 298: This whole paragraph should have been provided earlier in the text. The repeating issue that I find throughout this manuscript is that some aspects/methods/terms are being introduced to the reader, but their feasibility in the authors’ work is described much further in the manuscript. This makes the text really hard to read and understand.
Response 29: We are grateful for your good comments.We have placed the explanation of the Delphi method earlier in the text, see lines 268-270. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 30: Table 2: The names of REH Type of Health should be more unform – it’s either ‘Heath’ or ‘Healthy’.
Response 30: Good point, many thanks. We have changed the name of REH Type of Health to" Healthy" in Table 3 on line 362. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 31: Fig 2: The figure description is unclear and does not reflect the content of the figure. All abbreviations should be explained here.
Response 31: hank you so much and important and valuable comments.We have explained all the abbreviations in the notes and highlighted them on lines 365,366. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 32: Line 363: While it is a good practice to check for the correlation between variables, this section lacks information on how variables that correlated with each other were treated.
Response 32: Yes, many thanks for the valuable comments.We've added information on how to handle interrelated variables, see lines 385-386.Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 33: Line 386: Mean value should be stated together with standard deviation, or different measure of deviation. This comment is relevant also to other mean values stated in the text. Also, clarify what ‘most’ means by prviding the actual number eg. 20 out of 37, or a percentage.
Response 33: Yes, many thanks for the valuable comments. We have added standard deviations wherever averages appear in the text, as detailed in lines 405, 411,412, 421, 428, 433, and 437. We have also replaced ‘most’ with specific values and highlighted them in lines 405-406. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 34: Fig 3: Values should be presented with bar graph, or a similar type of graph. As far as I understand there is no continuity between obtained measurements in all counties, so those values shouldn’t be connected with a line.
Response 34: Many thanks once again for the fine reading and suggestions. We have carefully considered your comments and changed the line graph to a bar graph, as shown in Figure 4.
Point 35: Line 406 – 410; 413 – 417; 423 – 424; 430-431: Those parts should be included in the Discussion, not Results
Response 35: Good suggestion, many thanks. We removed these from the results and wrote some of them in the discussion.
Point 36: Line 428:To support that claim authors should have mention the geographical location of each county in the methods or provide a different figure, where north-south change in the parameters is presented.
Response 36 Many thanks for the comments. We have plotted the geographic location of each county in Figure 2, and we have plotted the trend line of REH values in Figure 4.Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 37: Line 436 – 447; 485-486; 520-522: Authors discuss obtained results, which should be done in Discussion, not in the Results.
Response 37: Yes, many thanks. We removed these from the results and wrote some of them in the discussion.
Point 38: Table 4: The Di and Gi topology is nowhere explained. It should be clarified in the table’s description
Response 38: Good comments, many thanks. We have added an explanation of Di and Gi in the notes to Table 5 and labelled it in lines 453-454. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 39: Figure 4: Abbreviations should be clearly explained, as well as the ‘shan nan’ and ‘Guanzhong’. I understand that those might be the regional names, but it’s not clearly understandable for a broader public.
Response 39: We are grateful for the good comments. In figure 5, we have added notes to explain the meaning of ‘Shannan’ and ‘Guanzhong’ and labelled them in lines 456-459. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 40: Line 483: Again, ‘most’ is a vague statement, authors should provide a proper metric.
Response 40: Many thanks once again for the fine reading and suggestions. We have changed ‘most’ to more specific expression and marked them in lines 491 ,493. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 41: Figure 5: What does the a), b), c) and d) stands for? It should be described in the figure’s caption.
Response 41: Good suggestion, many thanks. We have already explained the meaning of a), b), c) and d) in the caption of Figure 6, as detailed in line 498. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 42: Line 525 – 527: This is a repetition of methods, and should be avoided in the Results section.
Response 42: Many thanks for the comment. We have removed the duplication of this part of the method.
Point 43: Line 530: I noticed that in different sections a different number of counties taken into account is provided, and it is not explained why and how authors excluded some of them for a given type of analysis.
Response 43: We classified the health level of rural ecosystems around Qinling Mountains according to the classification criteria shown in Table 3 and Figure 3. We have added this part in the paper, see line 529.Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 44: Line 537 – 539; 541 – 549; 557 – 560; 572 – 576: Again, this is Discussion, not Results.
Response 44: Good suggestion, many thanks. We removed these from the results and wrote some of them in the discussion.
Point 45: Table 5: Authors should be consistent with using the capital letters.
Response 45: Many thanks for the comment. We apologise for this cheap mistake. We have corrected the spelling error in the table 6 and highlighted it on line 542 in green.
Point 46: Table 6: Reference to this table is absent in the text.
Response 46: Good point, many thanks. We have added a reference to the table in the main text and highlighted it on line 613 (Table 7). Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 47: Line 589 – 611: Here authors list a number of other studies in the region, of a similar topic. However, such information on current knowledge would be more suitable for the Introduction. Moreover, authors do not compare or discuss their results in the light of previous studies, which should be done in Discussion if possible.
Response 47: Good comments, many thanks. We compare and discuss the results of this study with those of previous studies in lines 621-633. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 48: Line 612 – 627: Those are repeated information, already provided in the previous sections
Response 48: Many thanks once again for the fine reading and suggestions. We have removed this duplication of information.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, I have had the opportunity to review the Manuscript "Rural Ecosystem Health Assessment and Spatial Divergence: A Case Study of Rural Areas around Qinling Mountain, Shaanxi Province, China"
This paper assesses the health of rural ecosystems in the Qinling Mountains region of Shaanxi Province, China, utilizing a composite ecosystem perspective to develop a unique evaluation system. The study incorporates data from remote sensing and employs ArcGIS for spatial analysis to gauge the health status and spatial differentiation of ecosystems across 40 counties. The main strengths of the paper include its comprehensive methodology combining various indicators related to resources, environment, society, and economy, and its thorough analysis of spatial distribution patterns, providing important insights for regional planning and sustainable development.
General Comments
The paper presents a solid framework for assessing rural ecosystem health (REH), demonstrating a thorough understanding of the multi-dimensional nature of ecosystems which include social and economic aspects alongside environmental factors. The study's integration of remote sensing data and GIS analysis is particularly commendable, providing a robust tool for spatial analysis.
1. The manuscript could benefit from a more detailed explanation of the selection criteria for the indicators used in the REH assessment. While the paper mentions the inclusion of various subsystems (resource, environment, society, economy), the justification for the specific indicators chosen within these categories needs to be clearer.
2. The study lacks a discussion on how the results compare with other similar regions which might have different ecological, social, or economic contexts. Including such comparisons could enhance the robustness of the findings and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the regional peculiarities of the Qinling Mountains.
3. The hypothesis that rural ecosystem health can be effectively assessed through a composite of diverse indicators is plausible but would be strengthened by a more rigorous statistical validation of the indicators' effectiveness and interrelationships.
4. The literature review is thorough in explaining the concept of REH and its importance. However, it could be improved by including more recent studies that discuss advanced methodologies or findings from similar ecosystems globally. This would provide a better context for the significance of the study and its contribution to existing knowledge.
Specific Comments
1. Lines 146-155: The selection of 28 evaluation indicators is mentioned but without sufficient rationale for how these particular indicators are capable of capturing the complex interplay of ecological, social, and economic factors in rural areas.
2. Table 1 (Lines 237-239): The weights assigned to various indicators are listed, but the manuscript lacks a clear explanation of how these weights were derived. Detailing the methodological approach for weight allocation (e.g., expert consultation, literature basis) would strengthen this section.
3. Figure 1 (Line 125): Provides an overview of the study area. The figure is well-integrated into the discussion but could be enhanced by indicating the locations of particularly significant findings (e.g., areas of highest and lowest ecosystem health).
Recommendations
4. Expanding the methodological section to include a detailed justification of the indicator selection and weighting process.
Incorporating comparative analyses with other similar rural areas to contextualize the findings.
5. Enhancing the literature review with recent studies and methodologies used in similar assessments.
6. Addressing the clarity and detail of figures and tables to ensure they adequately support the text and findings discussed.
The manuscript is generally well-written with good use of English. However, minor grammatical and syntactical corrections are necessary to enhance readability and ensure clarity. These edits primarily involve refining sentence structure and polishing the use of technical terminology. This level of editing will ensure that the scientific content is clearly communicated without distractions from language issues.
Overall, the paper is a valuable contribution to the field of rural ecosystem health, offering practical insights for sustainable development and environmental management in rural China. With the suggested improvements, it could provide a compelling case study for similar ecological assessments worldwide.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing is required.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Lines 146-155: The selection of 28 evaluation indicators is mentioned but without sufficient rationale for how these particular indicators are capable of capturing the complex interplay of ecological, social, and economic factors in rural areas.
Response 1: Yes, many thanks for the valuable comments. We have added a discussion of the interaction of the 28 indicators with ecological, social and economic factors in rural areas, see lines 183 -189, 220 -225, 232 - 239 and 248 -258 . Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 2: Table 1 (Lines 237-239): The weights assigned to various indicators are listed, but the manuscript lacks a clear explanation of how these weights were derived. Detailing the methodological approach for weight allocation (e.g., expert consultation, literature basis) would strengthen this section.
Response 2: Many thanks for the comments. We have detailed the methodology for weight allocation including expert consultation, literature base, See lines 280-285. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 3: Figure 1 (Line 125): Provides an overview of the study area. The figure is well-integrated into the discussion but could be enhanced by indicating the locations of particularly significant findings (e.g., areas of highest and lowest ecosystem health).
Response 3: Many thanks for the comment. The discussion on the study areas has been incorporated into the overview, including an analysis of the counties with the highest and lowest levels of comprehensive development ,refer to lines 146-153，and highlighted these additions in Figure 2. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 4: Expanding the methodological section to include a detailed justification of the indicator selection and weighting process. Incorporating comparative analyses with other similar rural areas to contextualize the findings.
Response 4: Many thanks for the important comments. On the basis of careful reading of the literature, we expanded the method section and revised the reasons for the indicator selection and weighting process in detail, see lines 164-178.The research results are compared with the rural research results of Jiangsu and Chongqing in China, so as to make the research results more convincing, see lines 621-633. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 5: Enhancing the literature review with recent studies and methodologies used in similar assessments.
Response 5: Many thanks for the good and important comments. We have added a literature review of the most recent studies and methods used in similar assessments by reading the relevant literature, see lines 48-59. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 6: Addressing the clarity and detail of figures and tables to ensure they adequately support the text and findings discussed.
Response 6: Many thanks for the comments. We have revised and reordered the diagrams in the original manuscript, please see the diagrams in the revised version.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. What is the health of an ecosystem? In what way does it differ from ideas like ecosystem security or quality? I recommend that the author explicitly describe and expand on the aforementioned themes in the text.
2. I recommend that the author give a thorough justification of the research area's representativeness as well as the ecological and environmental problems that it faces.
3. Because Figure 1 is so loosely sketched, it is advised to redo the map.
4. Detailed explanations, ideally in the form of a list, should be provided regarding the different types, sources (websites), and correctness (resolution, etc.) of the data utilized in the text.
5. There is some inaccuracy in the terminology used to describe the resource, social, environmental, and economic ecosystems. It is advised to go out study and give them a precise definition.
6. The indicator system proposed in this article can also be fully used for the evaluation of regional ecological environment quality or ecological system security. Since that's the case, it indicates that the indicator system lacks characteristics and specificity. It suggests that the author has not made the meaning of ecosystem health evident if it is freely replaceable. Encourage the author to describe ecosystem health connotation subsystems in detail and to create a relationship diagram of them.
7. There is excessive subjectivity in the AHP's determination of indicator weights. It is advised that when redetermining indicator weights, the author combines subjective and objective techniques.
8. The health topology diagram (Figure 2) does not explain or show why ecosystem health must be composed of those four systems.
9. What is the scientific problem that this article aims to solve? Suggest the author to clearly state in the introduction.
10. The innovation of this article is insufficient. The author did not propose any theories, optimize and improve any methods, or verify certain hypotheses. It is suggested to strengthen the author's academic contribution.
11. Expand the international perspective of this study, especially the reference value of this case study for similar regions in other countries.
12. The discussion section is not in-depth enough, it is recommended to rewrite. Conduct in-depth analysis on certain important findings, in line with the solutions to scientific problems.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageExtensive editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: What is the health of an ecosystem? In what way does it differ from ideas like ecosystem security or quality? I recommend that the author explicitly describe and expand on the aforementioned themes in the text.
Response 1: Thank you so much for such the important and valuable comments. We have added a description of ecosystem health and how it relates to ecosystem security. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in lines 33-35 and lines 37-40. in green.
Point 2: I recommend that the author give a thorough justification of the research area's representativeness as well as the ecological and environmental problems that it faces.
Response 2: Many thanks for the good and important comments. we added the relevant content of the research area, and fully demonstrated the ecological and environmental problems faced, on the basis of consulting relevant literature and field investigation, See lines 101-103, 107-111. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 3: Because Figure 1 is so loosely sketched, it is advised to redo the map.
Response 3: Yes, many thanks for the suggestion. To make the study area map more compact, we have redrawn Figure 1. As a result of the addition of a new figure, the study area map has been coded in the revised version as Figure 2, on line 156. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 4: Detailed explanations, ideally in the form of a list, should be provided regarding the different types, sources (websites), and correctness (resolution, etc.) of the data utilized in the text.
Response 4: Good suggestion, many thanks. We have plotted Table 1 to present the data types and sources, as detailed in Table 1. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 5: There is some inaccuracy in the terminology used to describe the resource, social, environmental, and economic ecosystems. It is advised to go out study and give them a precise definition.
Response 5: Many thanks for the good and important comments. We have added descriptions of resource, social, environmental and economic ecosystems based on extensive books and literature. See lines 63-71. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 6: The indicator system proposed in this article can also be fully used for the evaluation of regional ecological environment quality or ecological system security. Since that's the case, it indicates that the indicator system lacks characteristics and specificity. It suggests that the author has not made the meaning of ecosystem health evident if it is freely replaceable. Encourage the author to describe ecosystem health connotation subsystems in detail and to create a relationship diagram of them.
Response 6: Many thanks for the important comments. We add a detailed description of the ecosystem health content subsystem, based on extensive reading of the literature, see lines 71-78, and draw the relationship between them, see Figure1.We also demonstrate the practicability and scientificity of the index system, see lines 596-612. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 7: There is excessive subjectivity in the AHP's determination of indicator weights. It is advised that when redetermining indicator weights, the author combines subjective and objective techniques.
Response 7: Good point, many thanks.The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has too much subjectivity in determining the index weight. Therefore, we combine analytic hierarchy process and Delphi method in determining the weights, see lines 266-285.
Point 8: The health topology diagram (Figure 2) does not explain or show why ecosystem health must be composed of those four systems.
Response 8: Good point, many thanks. The reasons why ecosystem health consists of these four components are analyzed and discussed both in the introduction and in the discussion, see lines 63-73; Lines 577-590. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 9: What is the scientific problem that this article aims to solve? Suggest the author to clearly state in the introduction.
Response 9: Good point, many thanks. We have stated the scientific problem of this article aims to solve in the introduction, see lines 99-103, and demonstrate in the discussion see lines 615-617. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 10: The innovation of this article is insufficient. The author did not propose any theories, optimize and improve any methods, or verify certain hypotheses. It is suggested to strengthen the author's academic contribution. (586-604)
Response 10: Many thanks for the good and important comments. We put forward the innovativeness of this paper. After reviewing a large number of literatures and refining the paper, see lines 99-100 , 616-618,633-635.Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 11: Expand the international perspective of this study, especially the reference value of this case study for similar regions in other countries.(602-604)
Response 11: Many thanks for the important comments. we discuss the practicability of the index system and the reference value of this case study to similar regions in other countries ,from the perspective of international standards, see lines 616-635. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 12: The discussion section is not in-depth enough, it is recommended to rewrite. Conduct in-depth analysis on certain important findings, in line with the solutions to scientific problems.(547-604)
Response 12: Many thanks for the good and important comments. We have rewritten the discussion section, conducted in-depth analysis of some important findings, and come up with solutions that are in line with the scientific problem, based on reading the relevant literature See lines 577-645. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in green.
Point 13: Comments on the Quality of English Language, Extensive editing of the English language is required.
Response 13: Many thanks for the good and important comments. We invited professionals to polish the paper, hoping to meet the requirements of the journal.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors the article titled "Rural Ecosystem Health Assessment and Spatial Divergence: A Case Study of Rural Areas around Qinling Mountain, Shaanxi Province, China" focuses on the assessment of rural ecosystem health (REH) using a composite evaluation system covering resource, environment, society, and economic subsystems. The study leverages remote sensing data and comprehensive indicator evaluation models to analyze the REH across 40 counties near the Qinling Mountains, revealing a general decline in ecosystem health from north to south and proposing management strategies to enhance ecosystem resilience and sustainability.
General Concept Comments
Strengths: The paper presents a robust methodological approach integrating various datasets and a multi-dimensional evaluation system that adequately captures the complexities of rural ecosystems. The use of ArcGIS for spatial analysis and the detailed classification of ecosystem health across different counties are particularly commendable, providing valuable insights into spatial patterns and management needs.
Specific Comments
Lines 120-125: The explanation of the evaluation system construction is slightly unclear and could benefit from a more detailed description of how the indicators were chosen and their respective impacts on the overall assessment results.
Figure 2: There is a lack of clarity in how the results are visually represented in Figure 2. Enhancing the contrast or providing more detailed legends might help in better understanding the spatial distribution of ecosystem health.
Table 1, Lines 161-177: The table is comprehensive, but the relevance of each data source could be elaborated upon, explaining how each contributes to the overall assessment of ecosystem health.
Overall, the article makes a significant contribution to the field of rural ecosystem health by developing a comprehensive assessment framework and identifying spatial divergences in ecosystem health. Enhancing methodological details and addressing the noted gaps could further solidify the study's impact and applicability.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Lines 120-125: The explanation of the evaluation system construction is slightly unclear and could benefit from a more detailed description of how the indicators were chosen and their respective impacts on the overall assessment results.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have carefully considered the implications of your feedback and provided a more detailed explanation for our choice of indicators (refer to lines 184-191, 229-236, 247-254, 268-274, 277-278). Additionally, we have included an analysis of the impact of each indicator on the overall evaluation result (see lines 194-201, 238-245, 259-267, 282-291). Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in blue.
Point 2: Figure 2: There is a lack of clarity in how the results are visually represented in Figure 2. Enhancing the contrast or providing more detailed legends might help in better understanding the spatial distribution of ecosystem health.
Response 2: Thank you for your insightful comment. To enhance the clarity of the results, we incorporated vector data for each county government and further categorized counties, municipal districts, and county-level cities. Additionally, we differentiated the two main regions studied in this paper of Guanzhong Region and southern Shaanxi Province using distinct colors as indicated in Figure 2 in line 154. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in blue.
Point 3: Table 1, Lines 161-177: The table is comprehensive, but the relevance of each data source could be elaborated upon, explaining how each contributes to the overall assessment of ecosystem health.
Response 3: Many thanks once again for the fine reading and suggestions. We elaborate in detail the basis of the data source see lines 156-162, and explained each data source for overall evaluation of the contribution of ecosystem health, see table 1 in line 166. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in blue.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the revised manuscript, the author defined ecological health as the ability of ecosystems to self-repair and renew. Therefore, this ability should be reflected in the ecosystem evaluation index system. Unfortunately, such indicators were not seen in the article.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: In the revised manuscript, the author defined ecological health as the ability of ecosystems to self-repair and renew. Therefore, this ability should be reflected in the ecosystem evaluation index system. Unfortunately, such indicators were not seen in the article.
Response 1: Thank you so much for such the important and valuable comment. The ecological health is defined as the capacity of ecosystems to autonomously restore and regenerate. According to the definition of rural ecosystem, see lines 62-66,The well-being of rural ecosystems relies on the stability of rural social, economic, and natural subsystems, encompassing the rural resources subsystem and the rural environment subsystem (refer to lines 168-170). We have carefully considered the implications of your feedback and provided a more detailed explanation for our choice of indicators (refer to lines 184-191, 229-236, 247-254, 268-274, 277-278). Additionally, we have included an analysis of the impact of each indicator on the overall evaluation result (see lines 194-201, 238-245, 259-267, 282-291). Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in blue.
Point 2:Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of the English language is required.
Response 2:Many thanks for the good and important comments. Once again, we invite professional institutions to polish the paper comprehensively and carefully, hoping to meet the requirements of the journal.
