Multi-Temporal Analysis of Environmental Carrying Capacity and Coastline Changes in Yueqing City
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
-The novelty of the research should also be clear and should be emphasized and supported further at the Abstract.
-Introduction section: Unfocused scientific issues. Authors summarize the five problems, have they all made breakthroughs?
-There are multiple formatting errors, see examples below.
Incorrect ordering of reference citations. Line 30: Started in [30]?
Line 114: “km2” needs to be superscripted.
Line 184 and 211: Inconsistent formatting of references.
-Figure 3: Repetition of "Environment" in section "ECC evaluation and prediction".
-Line 287: It is not clear how the prediction of ECC procedure was performed.
-Line 399-410: There is a lot of description of data preprocessing in Results, where only the results should be presented.
-Table 7. - The x-axis and y-axis should be labelled. In addition, the information contained in the bar chart and the table seems to overlap. If so, what is meant by the existence of both at the same time?
-The Discussion is not written properly. You should discuss your results in the context of the research which has been already done in this direction. For example, any advantages (improvements) compared to similar studies. What are the limitations of your approach?
-Conclusions need to be further condensed to highlight core findings.
I wish those changes will contribute to improve your paper.
Author Response
Comments 1: The novelty of the research should also be clear and should be emphasized and supported further at the Abstract.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have further emphasized the novelty of the study in the abstract, and provided more support and elaboration in the discussion section to present our research results. (In lines 13-16.)
Comments 2: Introduction section: Unfocused scientific issues. Authors summarize the five problems, have they all made breakthroughs?
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully reviewed the introduction section and have reduced the five questions in the introduction to three. In the subsequent paragraph, we have explicitly outlined our approach to addressing these three issues in our study. (In lines 87-110.)
Comments 3: There are multiple formatting errors, see examples below.
Incorrect ordering of reference citations. Line 30: Started in [30]?
Line 114: “km2” needs to be superscripted.
Line 184 and 211: Inconsistent formatting of references.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and made the necessary corrections to address these issues:
We have corrected the ordering of reference citations.
We have superscripted "km²" as requested in line 114.
We have ensured consistent formatting of references in lines 184 and 211.
We appreciate your attention to detail, and we believe these corrections will improve the overall quality and readability of the manuscript.
Comments 4: Figure 3: Repetition of "Environment" in section "ECC evaluation and prediction".
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised this section to ensure clarity in the wording.
Comments 5: Line 287: It is not clear how the prediction of ECC procedure was performed.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We have made necessary revisions to the section “2.5.2. Prediction of ECC” to provide a clearer explanation. The organization and logic in this section were somewhat unclear, and it has now been restructured as follows: Using the MATLAB platform, we first fit the scores of various subsystems of ECC with the most suitable fitting functions, establishing the relationship between subsystem scores and time. Based on these fitted functions for each subsystem, we calculate the future scores of the subsystems. Finally, the future scores of all subsystems are used to calculate the future ECC value using the composite index method. This completes the entire prediction process. (In lines 237-252.)
Comments 6: Line 399-410: There is a lot of description of data preprocessing in Results, where only the results should be presented.
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge the need for simplification and placing emphasis on presenting the results themselves, rather than delving into excessive details of data preprocessing. We have revised this section and relocated it to '2.2 Available Data,' where it is briefly introduced, allowing for a more concise and focused presentation of the results. (In lines 136-138.)
Comments 7: Table 7. - The x-axis and y-axis should be labelled. In addition, the information contained in the bar chart and the table seems to overlap. If so, what is meant by the existence of both at the same time?
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. The bar chart and the table indeed had overlapping information. Initially, we added the bar chart with the intention of providing a more intuitive visualization of the annual ECC changes. However, we did not anticipate the ambiguity and redundancy that it introduced. Furthermore, upon reflection, we realized that it did not significantly enhance the readability of the article and could, in fact, burden the reader. Consequently, we have removed the bar chart (now Table 6). Additionally, I have also made the same adjustments to Table 8 (now Table 7).
Comments 8: The Discussion is not written properly. You should discuss your results in the context of the research which has been already done in this direction. For example, any advantages (improvements) compared to similar studies. What are the limitations of your approach?
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge the importance of placing our results in the broader context of existing research and providing a more comprehensive discussion. We have made the following improvements:
The previous discussion content was referred to as the 'Yueqing City Ecological Construction Proposal,' and its placement within the discussion section was not appropriate. It aligns more closely with the content of experimental results and analysis. Therefore, we have adjusted it to “3.4. Yueqing city ecological reconstruction”. (In lines 499-554.)
We will discuss our results in the context of previous research in the field, highlighting advantages compared to similar studies. This will help readers better understand the significance of our research findings. (In lines 555-572.)
We have explicitly addressed the limitations of our methodology, maintaining transparency about the shortcomings of our study. This is crucial for maintaining the integrity of our research. (In lines 573-584.)
Comments 9: Conclusions need to be further condensed to highlight core findings.
Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We understand the necessity of being concise while emphasizing the core findings. We have revised the Conclusion section to ensure that it succinctly highlights the most important and central results of our study. This will make it easier for readers to grasp the key takeaways from our research. (In lines 586-599.)
Reviewer 2 Report
This study proposes an ECC evaluation framework of "environment-society economy-pollution" to ensure objective and reliable environmental assessment of coastal cities. The article is rich in content and the results are reliable, but the author's presentation of the article is difficult to satisfy. It is recommended that the author significantly delete the content of the article to make it more concise and readable.
(1) The topic of the article is Environmental carrying capacity, but the first paragraph of the introduction does not directly introduce the topic, but emphasizes the importance of the coastline. It is recommended that the author re-revise the first paragraph to highlight the research topic.
(2) The second paragraph of the introduction is too long. It is recommended that the author divide it into two paragraphs and straighten out the logical structure between them.
(3) The article has a lot of content and is very long. The author does not need to include all the calculation formulas and all the charts, which makes the article difficult to read. Therefore, it is recommended that the author make targeted deletions on the methods, results analysis and other contents of the article to make the article more concise and concise.
(4) Especially the method section is too long and has been greatly shortened. Some calculation formulas do not need to be listed. If the author doesn't cut this part, I have to reject this paper.
(5) The article has 17 figures. It is recommended that the author delete some figures, such as Table 6, Table 10, and Figures 10-17, and some of them can be merged into one figure. In addition, the color expression of the drawing is optimized.
(6) Optimize the content of the discussion and increase comparison with previous results. Reduce the conclusion to 3-4 points.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Comments 1: The topic of the article is Environmental carrying capacity, but the first paragraph of the introduction does not directly introduce the topic, but emphasizes the importance of the coastline. It is recommended that the author re-revise the first paragraph to highlight the research topic.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We understand your concern about the emphasis on the coastline in the opening of the first paragraph. We have thoroughly reviewed the introduction and made the necessary revisions. We have restructured the first paragraph by removing the initial discussion about the coastline to avoid ambiguity regarding the research topic. Instead, we now start by highlighting the environmental degradation caused by the development of coastal cities, which subsequently introduces the importance of environmental carrying capacity in coastal regions. We have provided more specific details about environmental carrying capacity in the second paragraph. These changes ensure that the first paragraph more directly introduces and underscores the research topic of environmental carrying capacity. (In lines 28-41.)
Comments 2: The second paragraph of the introduction is too long. It is recommended that the author divide it into two paragraphs and straighten out the logical structure between them.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have adjusted the second paragraph of the introduction into two separate paragraphs and reorganized the content's logic. The first paragraph introduces the concept of environmental carrying capacity and the changes in early research content. The second paragraph begins by discussing research content from ten years ago, following a chronological sequence: theoretical approaches - research methodologies - diversity in research areas. It then introduces the research trends in ECC from five years ago and, finally, outlines the current research focus. These two paragraphs follow an overall chronological timeline and provide detailed research insights for each key time period. (In lines 42-82.)
Comments 3: The article has a lot of content and is very long. The author does not need to include all the calculation formulas and all the charts, which makes the article difficult to read. Therefore, it is recommended that the author make targeted deletions on the methods, results analysis and other contents of the article to make the article more concise and concise.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. Indeed, the excessive length of the manuscript can affect its readability. We have taken your suggestion to heart and made targeted reductions in the methods, results analysis, and other sections to ensure a more concise and clear presentation. Specifically, in the methods section, I have integrated various concepts and removed unnecessary theoretical content, along with some widely known formulas, making this part more streamlined. In the results analysis section, there were previously extensive analyses, and some subsections may have appeared somewhat repetitive upon reading, which could potentially burden the reader. These have now been trimmed down. These modifications will contribute to improving the quality and readability of the manuscript.
Comments 4: Especially the method section is too long and has been greatly shortened. Some calculation formulas do not need to be listed. If the author doesn't cut this part, I have to reject this paper.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully considered your suggestions, and as previously mentioned in 'Response3,' we have significantly shortened the methods section and removed unnecessary calculations and formulas.
Comments 5: The article has 17 figures. It is recommended that the author delete some figures, such as Table 6, Table 10, and Figures 10-17, and some of them can be merged into one figure. In addition, the color expression of the drawing is optimized.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We have reduced the original 17 figures to 13, merged some individual figures, edited tables with redundant content, and optimized figures with unclear text.
Comments 6: Optimize the content of the discussion and increase comparison with previous results. Reduce the conclusion to 3-4 points.
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We have optimized the content in the Discussion section. The previous discussion primarily focused on “Yueqing City ecological reconstruction”. Upon careful consideration, we believe that this content is not best placed in the Discussion section but is more suitable for the final section of the Results. Therefore, we have repositioned the original content to section 3.4. We have rewritten the Discussion section, taking into account the feedback from all reviewers. Additionally, we have further streamlined the Conclusion section. (In lines 556-600.)
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper assessed the Environmental Carrying Capacity and coastline changes in Yueqing City. Overall, this paper did a lot of work and meaningful. However, the current version is so lengthy, which is like a graduate student’s thesis, not a scientific paper.
1. Please firstly shorten the whole paper like 2.3, 2.4.2…and other sections. A number of contents are existing knowledge, so you need to summarize them and highlight your contributions and findings. Not just repeat them!
2. For the format, please check through the whole paper. The first citation is from [30], then [40], then [61, 63] which are messy.
When you refer a table or a figure, the table/figure should be below the text for the first-time appearance, such as Table 1, Figure 3…
3. The citation format should be consistent such as Line 211 (Li et al., 2020).
4. 2.4.3 BPNN model (Line 254) is redundant?
5. “According to the basic structure and development characteristics of coastal cities and the response mechanism of carrying capacity, the index system is divided into four symbiotic development subsystems (ESEP), including 18 indicators in terms of positive and negative environments” The 18 indicators (Table 4) should be in the Data section not your Results.
Author Response
Comments 1: Please firstly shorten the whole paper like 2.3, 2.4.2…and other sections. A number of contents are existing knowledge, so you need to summarize them and highlight your contributions and findings. Not just repeat them!
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have shortened the entire article, especially in the methods section. We acknowledge that some portions involve existing knowledge, so we have summarized these parts, reducing unnecessary content and repetition, such as detailed method descriptions and certain formulas. In the results section, we found that some analyses appeared redundant upon careful review, potentially fatiguing for readers, and thus, we have made reductions in this section as well.
Comments 2: For the format, please check through the whole paper. The first citation is from [30], then [40], then [61, 63] which are messy.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have rearranged the citations in the references section in sequential order from the beginning.
Comments 3: The citation format should be consistent such as Line 211 (Li et al., 2020).
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have made corrections to all the places where citations were incorrect and standardized the citation format.
Comments 4: 2.4.3 BPNN model (Line 254) is redundant?
Response 4: We sincerely apologize for the oversight. Section 2.4.3 was originally intended to be a standalone section, focusing on the results of weight optimization and environmental carrying capacity calculations. Due to an error, the previous section's title was mistakenly duplicated. We have now corrected this and, in accordance with feedback from other reviewers, merged this section's content into the preceding section, labeled as "2.4.2 Weight Optimization". (In lines 195-213.)
Comments 5: “According to the basic structure and development characteristics of coastal cities and the response mechanism of carrying capacity, the index system is divided into four symbiotic development subsystems (ESEP), including 18 indicators in terms of positive and negative environments” The 18 indicators (Table 4) should be in the Data section not your Results.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge that this section should indeed not be placed within the results section, as it appears redundant and challenging to read. We have made the necessary adjustments accordingly, including the removal of detailed explanations for the selection of each indicator. Since Section 2.2 solely provides an introduction to data sources without discussing research-related content and the ECC response mechanism is established in Section 2.3, with indicator selection based on this mechanism, we have modified this portion and moved it to Section 2.3. (In lines 167-170.)
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Compared to the original, the revised manuscript is much improved, both in terms of clarity and the quality of the presentation. I found that the author has addressed most of the comments previously made, but still leaving a few minor issues to be resolved.
-Line 49-50: “Error! Reference source not found., Error! Reference source not found”???
Figure 3: Still repeating "Environment"???
Author Response
Comments 1: Line 49-50: “Error! Reference source not found., Error! Reference source not found”???
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. The lack of a reference source in this section may have been an oversight during the previous adjustment of the reference list order. It has now been reorganized (line 49 to 52).
Comments 2:Figure 3: Still repeating "Environment"???
Response 2: I'm very sorry. During the first revision, there was an error in that section because I had mistakenly referred to Figure 2 as Figure 3 due to an error on my part. As a result, I misunderstood your comment about repetition, thinking it referred to the duplicate figure number. I have now corrected Figure 3, and I apologize for my carelessness once again.
Reviewer 2 Report
The author has made extensive revisions to the manuscript, but some content still needs to be revised. Specifically: (1) Line88-111: The author’s expression of research deficiencies and innovations needs to be more concise and improved. (2) All drawings have latitude and longitude information in their outer frames, and the north arrow and scale bar can be deleted inside. (3) Figure 6 improves clarity; It is recommended to add the sub-picture titles (a), (b)... of all figures in the article at appropriate locations in the figure. Can the abscissa value in Figure 9 only retain 0-14? The styles of the three pictures in Figure 11 do not match? Figure 12 is too difficult to read.
Author Response
Comments 1: Line88-111: The author’s expression of research deficiencies and innovations needs to be more concise and improved.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing out this issue. We have further made this section more concise and improved it (lines 87-102).
Comments 2: All drawings have latitude and longitude information in their outer frames, and the north arrow and scale bar can be deleted inside.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have now included latitude and longitude information in the outer frames of all drawings, and as per your recommendation, we have removed the north arrow and scale bar inside the drawings. This adjustment has been made, and we appreciate your feedback.
Comments 3: Figure 6 improves clarity; It is recommended to add the sub-picture titles (a), (b)... of all figures in the article at appropriate locations in the figure. Can the abscissa value in Figure 9 only retain 0-14? The styles of the three pictures in Figure 11 do not match? Figure 12 is too difficult to read.
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion.
- We have already replaced the original image with a new one in Figure 6.
- Since we followed the formatting requirements of Remote Sensing, we have provided an explanation for the subtitles of the sub-figures after the main figure title.
- Figure 9 has been adjusted.
- You are correct about Figure 11 not being consistent in style. Initially, (a) and (b) were intended as examples, and they were released separately from (c), which has a different style. We have now placed (a) and (b) together, while (c) remains separate.
- Regarding your comment about the difficulty of reading Figure 12 (now Figure 14), we have indeed found it to be the case. It may be due to the positioning of the "section line," which is difficult to understand. Therefore, we are considering adding a new figure before this one. This additional figure will show the overall location of the section line numbers and some place names in the coastal area of Yueqing City. This should make it easier to understand Figure 12 (now Figure 14) and provide a clearer understanding of the place names mentioned in the previous text.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors answered my questions. Thanks!
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback. We are pleased that our responses have met your satisfaction. The suggestions you provided earlier have been invaluable to us, and they have significantly improved our paper. Once again, thank you!
