An Optimization Strategy for Provincial “Production–Living–Ecological” Spaces under the Guidance of Major Function-Oriented Zoning in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is on a relevant topic and is well written. It seems that the modeling carried out also has a right to exist.
However, the article has a fundamental flaw: the cartographic materials, in my opinion, are so unsuccessful that they do not allow me to agree or disagree with the discussion and conclusion.
If in Figure 4 it is still possible to detect some significant differences between the maps (at least from a to f), then Figures 5 and 6 are completely uninformative.
In Figure 5, all three maps visually look the same. I think it needs to be redone. Firstly, it is necessary to give the initial situation (for 2020). Then, in addition to the “maps of situations” in each period (2030 – 2040 -2050), it is also necessary to prepare a well-visually readable integral map of changes between the current situation and the following time periods. Apparently, Figure 6 should have been such a map, but it is also difficult to visually read, since the legends do not correspond to the colors on the maps.
Without explicit cartographic confirmation, everything that the authors write in text is completely unfounded.
I ask the authors to find options for successful mapping and redo Figures 5 and 6.
Author Response
You're welcome. Thank you for your valuable comments. I have carefully revised the manuscript according to the suggested changes, as detailed in the response to the revision comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1) Capitalize 's' in southern and 'w' in western in the abstract.
2) L-89. Please leave a space before cited reference numbers.
3) Many sentences throughout the manuscript lack references specifically from L-133 -257. Please do the needful.
4) Figure 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are not cited in the text
5) Rotate the text in the leftmost columns of Figure 2 by 180 degrees for improved readability.
6) Please revise figure 3. The legend and labels within the map are not clear
7) I suggest to revise figures 1 and 2 to increase its aesthetic beauty
8) Please revise Table 1. The corresponding rows in the columns are not clear. Format the table accordingly to easily visualize each row respective to the columns.
9) Consider changing the question mark symbol used in the equations, as it appears clustered (e.g., L.313).
10) Please place figure 4 soon after the paragraph in which it is cited.
11) Table 4 and 5 are not cited in the manuscript.
12) Introduce a clear separation between data for 2030-40 and 2040-50 in Table 4.
13) Specify the unit of the rate in L. 403, such as per year or per 10 years.
14) Revise the legend of Figure.4
15) Figure 6 is unclear.
16) There are 52 references in the back. The 52nd reference is not cited in the manuscript.
17) I recommend moving the "Discussion" section before the "Conclusions" section to follow the standard format suggested by journal and to improve the logical flow of the paper. Focus on summarizing the main findings in the conclusion.
18) Add relevant citations throughout the discussion section to enhance the credibility.
19) The interpretations of the result should be discussed in the “Discussion” section rather than focusing solely on the significance and future implications. Also avoid the repetition of information.
20) Please ensure that all references in the reference list are cited appropriately within the manuscript's text. I noticed some references remain uncited.
21) Some of the years in back reference are not formatted in bold.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor edits required
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. I have carefully revised the manuscript according to the suggested changes, as detailed in the response to the revision comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNot sure to have understood well some parts of the manuscript, however, a language check should be appropriate in this case. I would also suggest to take particular care of the following aspects:
1) I would see a more detailed policy comment, with implications for both research and strategic approaches.
2) novelty and originality of the approach should be better clarified.
3) references can be enlarged with more specific insertions with a truly global perspective.
For this reason, I recommend moderate/major revisions.
thank you.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageneeding revision
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. I have carefully revised the manuscript according to the suggested changes, as detailed in the response to the revision comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think that the article can be published.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWell ms revised and refined
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNice corrections overall. I am pleased that the authors were able to work on the ms and elaborate further my comments.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate revisions still needed.
