Evaluation of Geoenvironment Carrying Capacity in Mineral Resource-Based Cities from the Perspective of Sustainable Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 In the study, based on employing catastrophe theory, entropy method, and analytic hierarchy process, an evaluation system of geological environmental carrying capacity of mineral resource-based cities is constructed. This manuscript has a clear idea and a clear structure, and the reviewers think it is acceptable after minor revisions.

1.Please describe formula (1) and formula (2) in detail, and explain the scientific nature of using formula (1) and formula (2) to standardize the data.

2.Please explain the meaning of "analytic hierarchy process" to non-specialist readers.

3.Please explain the meaning of the dot dash line in Figure 4.

4.It is mentioned in lines 273-275 that the assessment value dropping in 2022 is due to the absence of new contingency plans being implemented and a deterioration of the state system, so it is necessary to describe the policy of this period in detail in 3.4 Policy performance.

5.This paper mainly studies the geological environmental carrying capacity from 2018 to 2022, so the relevant policies from 2018 to 2022 should be mainly described in 3.4 Policy performance, and the previous years do not need to be described too much.

6. Line 173, some non-english character appear.

7. Some environmentally friendly methods for the minerals resources could be incited. For example, International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization, 2024: 1-20.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you have devoted to reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate the insightful comments and constructive suggestions that have greatly improved the quality of our work. Thank you for acknowledging that our manuscript has a clear idea and structure and for finding it acceptable after minor revisions. We have carefully addressed all comments and suggestions and believe that the revised manuscript is stronger as a result. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to the comments and describe the changes we have made to the manuscript. We appreciate your hard work and hope that the revised manuscript meets your approval. Thank you again for your valuable input and suggestions. Sincerely, Liu

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Please describe formula (1) and formula (2) in detail, and explain the scientific nature of using formula (1) and formula (2) to standardize the data.

Response 1: We appreciate your request for a detailed description of formulas (1) and (2). In the revised manuscript, we have provided a comprehensive explanation of each formula, including the rationale behind their construction. We have explained how formula (1) is used to normalize the data, thereby ensuring comparability across different metrics. Additionally, we will discuss the theoretical underpinning of using formula (2) for weighting the criteria about geological environmental carrying capacity. We have added further explanation and clarification where in the revised manuscript this change can be found – Page 4 Line 160 to Page 5 Line 176.

Comments 2: Please explain the meaning of "analytic hierarchy process" to non-specialist readers.

Response 2: Thank you for highlighting the need for clarity regarding the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). We have added an explanation of the AHP concept and cited the literature where in the revised manuscript this change can be found – Page 6 Line 212 to Line 215.

Comments 3: Please explain the meaning of the dot dash line in Figure 4.

Response 3: We have recognized the necessity to clarify the elements of Figure 4. In the revised version, a detailed legend has been included that explains the meaning of the dot-dash line, indicating what it represents in the context of the geological environmental carrying capacity evaluation. This has enhanced the reader's understanding of the data representation. We have made additional clarifications where in the revised manuscript this change can be found – Page 9 Line 294 to Line 296.

Comments 4: It is mentioned in lines 273-275 that the assessment value dropping in 2022 is due to the absence of new contingency plans being implemented and a deterioration of the state system, so it is necessary to describe the policy of this period in detail in 3.4 Policy performance.

Response 4: We have understood the importance of contextualizing the decline in assessment values mentioned in lines 293-295. In the revision, a thorough description of the relevant policies during the 2022 period has been provided. We analyzed the possible causes of declining geo-environment carrying capacity where in the revised manuscript this change can be found on page 10 Line 313 to Line 316. We have added relevant policies for the period 2018 to 2022, especially the policy orientation for 2022 in 3.4 Performance in Policy where in the revised manuscript this change can be found – Page 12 Line 430 to Page 13 Line 480.

Comments 5: This paper mainly studies the geological environmental carrying capacity from 2018 to 2022, so the relevant policies from 2018 to 2022 should be mainly described in 3.4 Policy performance, and the previous years do not need to be described too much.

Response 5: We appreciate your feedback on the focus of the policy performance discussion. Section 3.4 has been revised to primarily encompass policies from 2018 to 2022, streamlining details to emphasize critical policies during this period while having reduced information on earlier years that has been less relevant to our analysis. We have removed and simplified the policy where in the revised manuscript this change can be found on page 11 Line 346 to Page 12 Line 416.

Comments 6: Line 173, some non-english character appear.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing out the presence of non-English characters in the manuscript. We have corrected this issue in the revision to ensure that the text is presented uniformly in English. We have removed non-English characters where in the revised manuscript this change can be found – Page 5 Line 184

Comments 7: Some environmentally friendly methods for the minerals resources could be incited. For example, International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization, 2024: 1-20.

Response 7: We appreciate your suggestion to incorporate environmentally friendly methods for mineral resource management. In the revised manuscript, a discussion of these methods has been included, referencing the article from the International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization. This addition has enhanced the manuscript by providing readers with insights into sustainable practices within the industry. We have added environmentally friendly treatments and a look into the future, citing articles from the International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization to illustrate the necessity and forward-looking nature of the matter where in the revised manuscript this change can be found – Page 13 Line 480 to Page 14 Line 510.

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Response: You have made a good point. We have checked and corrected the grammar, spelling, and punctuation throughout the text.

Additional clarifications: One of the key revisions we made was to add numerous citations supporting the results presented in the article. We believe that this strengthens the credibility of our findings and provides readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the research landscape.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript try to establish an indicator system for measuring the sustainability of mineral resource-based cities. The authors select DPSR as a framework for generating indicators. However, the authors make no sense about the concept of DPSR. The concept of DPSR emphasizes causality. It is a linage-based indicator system. The manuscript does not make linages from driving force to pressure to state and to response. Take the linkage from driving force to press as an example. How to explain the indictors “ming”, “rainfall”, and “groundwater” link to the indictors “automobile-owned” and others?

No solid generated indicators, the following indicator measurement has no meaning.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough and insightful feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your constructive comments, which will help us improve the quality of our work.

As you have rightly highlighted, it is important to establish clear linkages between driving forces, pressures, states, and responses in the DPSR framework We fully acknowledge that we need to better demonstrate the causal relationships between the indicators within each DPSR category. The DPSR model is designed to understand the interconnectedness of environmental issues by tracing a chain of cause and effect. We have revised our presentation to ensure that we clearly explain the linkages between the driving forces, pressures, state, and response indicators.

The DPSR model is designed to understand the interconnectedness of environmental issues by tracing a chain of cause and effect. Driving Forces (D): These are the underlying factors that initiate the pressure on the environment.Pressures (P): These are the direct impacts on the environment resulting from the driving forces.State (S): This refers to the current condition of the environment, reflecting the cumulative effects of pressures.Response (R): These are the actions taken to address the pressures and improve the state of the environment.

I have shown the connection between the different factors and their impact on geo-environment carrying capacity whereas in the revised manuscript this change can be found on page 6 Line 224 to Line 245.

Minerals have a strong impact on the automobile industry, and car ownership per capita in mineral resource cities is used as an indicator to measure and evaluate the impact on the geo-environmental carrying capacity, through which the impact of the mining industry on the geo-environment can be characterized [1]. The following example details the connection between these factors:

Example1: Driving Force to Pressure:

"Mining" (D): This is a driving force that directly influences the pressure on the geo-environment.

"Rainfall" (D): While rainfall is a natural factor, it can be indirectly linked to pressure when mining activities alter water infiltration patterns or lead to water pollution.

"Groundwater" (D): Similar to rainfall, groundwater availability can be influenced by mining activities, leading to pressure on water resources.

"Automobile-owned" (P): This indicator seems misplaced under pressure. But it's more likely a result of economic development (a driving force) and contributes to air pollution and

water pollution (a pressure to state).

Example2: Mining (D) to Automobile-owned (P):

Mining (D): Mining activities can lead to economic growth in a mineral resource-based city. Economic growth can lead to increased car ownership (P).

Automobile-owned (P): Increased car ownership contributes to air pollution and traffic congestion (P), which further impact the geo-environment (S).

We think it would be redundant for the manuscript to explicitly explain the relationships between the indicators selected in each category, but I would be happy to make further revisions to the article if you think it is necessary.

In addition to these revisions, we have also made significant improvements to the manuscript in several other areas. We have spent a considerable amount of time refining the presentation of our data and parameters to make them more logical and coherent. Furthermore, we have added numerous citations to support the feasibility of our methodology, providing a stronger foundation for our research. We have also expanded our discussion of policy and guidance programs relevant to our study, which will enhance the readability and relevance of the article. We believe these revisions will significantly enhance the analysis and make a more convincing case for the indicator system. We appreciate your time and effort in providing such valuable feedback, which has helped us to strengthen our manuscript.

Thank you again for your time and effort in reviewing our work. We appreciate your time and effort in providing such valuable feedback that has helped us strengthen our manuscript and look forward to implementing your recommendations and submitting a revised version of the manuscript.

1. Jin, P. Development characteristics of geological hazards and safety evaluation of affected areas in Fushun West Open-pit Mine. 2023. Graduate School of China Coal Research Institute DOI:10.27222/d.cnki.gmkzy.2023.000033.

Sincerely,

Liu

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-crafted, but needs more references. In addition, many citations were not included in the article. 

The data that used for research can be included as an attachment.

It would be good to improve the way data and arguments are written.

I attach my comments to the attached file (pdf).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for taking the time to review our manuscript and provide us with your valuable feedback. We appreciate your thoughtful comments and suggestions, which have helped us to improve the quality of our work. We have carefully read all the comments in the PDF file and have made changes to the revised manuscript, but please forgive me for not being able to respond to all your comments individually here.

We are pleased to hear that you find our manuscript to be well-crafted and that it has a clear idea and structure. We appreciate your suggestion to include more references to support our research, and we have taken this opportunity to add numerous citations to the revised version of the manuscript. We believe that this strengthens the credibility of our findings and provides readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the research landscape.

Regarding the citations, we apologize for the oversight and have made sure to include all relevant citations in the revised manuscript. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript to ensure that all sources are properly cited and referenced.

Furthermore, we fully acknowledge the significance of data sharing by journals. However, some of the data were obtained from the Scientific Observation and Research Station for Landslide Hazards of Liaoning Fushun Open Pit Mine of the Ministry of Natural Resources of the People's Republic of China and the Geological and Environmental Monitoring Institute of the Tenth Geological Brigade of Liaoning Province, Limited Liability Company, owing to the policies and confidentiality agreements adhered to us, we regretfully cannot furnish a part of the raw data. Nevertheless, we have meticulously presented a comprehensive account of the data sources in Table 2 and the procedures employed for data analysis and processing. Should the esteemed editor and reviewers require further elucidation or specific inquiries about the data, we pledge our utmost commitment to providing detailed explanations and clarifications.

Besides, we have taken your suggestion to improve a part of the way data and arguments are written. We have revised the manuscript to ensure that the data and arguments are presented clearly and concisely, and that the writing is engaging and easy to follow.

Thank you again for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate your feedback and suggestions, and we hope that the revised manuscript meets with your approval.

Sincerely,

Liu

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors.

Thank you for the revision. I see the results are very good compared to the previous manuscript.