Spatiotemporal Analysis of Urban Blue Space in Beijing and the Identification of Multifactor Driving Mechanisms Using Remote Sensing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made some changes. But, it is still insufficient to be regarded as a research article. There are several issues. More importantly, I hope that the Editors of this journal also see the comments provided by the reviewers. I pointed out last time that in my very first comment that "From the first paragraph of the conclusions section, it is evident that the third person is writing on behalf of the authors. Whatever comments were given last time were mostly basic, and the authors still didn't pay proper attention to it."
BUT THE AUTHORS DIDN'T EVEN PAY ATTENTION TO IT. This is so irritating.
My comments:
1. Abstract: Since the last two times, I have been saying that there is no quantification in the abstract. The results are put in a general and vague manner. What are results? Please quantify.
Even there is no quantification in the conclusions section. This is surprising. It should be a research article, not a report. All the findings sound qualitative. The authors don't understand this simple comment.
2. Last paragraph of Introduction: First of all, just taking a longer duration is not a research contribution. I don't expect to new novel methods every time; however, it should at least provide some new insights for a particular region, then also it can be encouraged as a good case study.
Though the introduction is well-written, the flow into the objectives is really poor. It is not a newspaper article; please write it like a technical paper. Secondly, you have sent the manuscript to Remote Sensing journal; don't claim just using remote sensing data as a great scientific work. I hardly see any technical rigor during revisions from the author. I only want everything to be properly justified.
The author didn't change it even after my comments. Actually, there is no significant revision except that they have hired experts to correct the English.
3. Figure 1: Extremely poor resolution. The figure should be exported in at least 1000 dpi.
4. Section 2.2: Please don't jump into methods directly. First put the overall framework of the study; there should be a flowchart encompassing all the methods described below and what they are used for. This will improve the clarity. Simply putting the methods names will be uninteresting to readers.
5. Surprised to see the data and resources are coming after the methodology. Put them before describing the methods.
6. Figure 2: Provide a detailed caption. It is a very poorly written caption. What and how does it illustrate PCA theory?
Surprised to see that the authors have not even mentioned the "dimensionality" term once. PCA is used to reduce dimensionality.
Figure 3: Please provide a detailed caption and improve the resolution.
7. Page 11: Equation 1 and 2: Too poor way of presenting things. Put a table. What do you find from it. Just saying it is positive or negative???? How you interpret the results?
8. Page 13; Line 369: "The spatial distribution of UBS in Beijing appeared random......"
Please refrain from writing such sentences. If it is random, how are you attributing the patterns. Each pattern change must be justified thoroughly. The manuscript is still far from the publication standards; however, it can be improved significantly.
Please improve the scientific aspect and soundness of the article. Actually, your findings and the flow of the manuscript are random.
9. Poorly written discussion. How the results of this study is comparable with the recent studies across different parts of the world, including Iran?
What are the key insights provided by this study? How will this study be helpful to policymakers? How this study's findings can contribute to society or the field of remote sensing? Please discuss these thoroughly.
10. Firstly, the conclusions start with "The authors of this study utilized", "They conducted", and so on. This is RIDICULOUS. Who is writing the article? Even I pointed out this last time clearly in my very first comment. I hope the Editors of this journal are paying attention to the reviewer's comments.
The conclusions are presented in a lengthy, boring and vague manner. the authors should present a brief summary of their work in one paragraph of 5-6 sentences.. This should be followed the key conclusions (preferably point-wise). This should be quantitative too. It seems you have found nothing significant in terms of results to present. Very poorly written.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOnly some minor issues mentioned in the previous comments have been corrected by the authors. However, some of the problems remain unresolved. Specific comments are as follows.
1. I mentioned in the previous round that the quantification of the Urban Environmental Management (UEM) indicator (in lines 226-230) is a black box. However, there is no explanation on quantifying the indicator in this version of the manuscript. It is still not clear how the indicator is quantified.
2. I also mentioned in the previous round the inconsistent argument about “technological factors” in the manuscript. The authors argue in the abstract (in line 23) that "Technological factors emerged as the most influential mechanism for the UBS area". However, the results (lines 317-326) show that “According to the correlation coefficients, the influencing factors rated from most to least importance are as follows: UEM>EDUI>STI>NDVI>T>GDP>POP>FVC>EVI>PREP>ASP.” and that “scientific technology factors greatly influenced the UBS area, with correlation coefficients greater than 0.7. The strongest factor is UEM, with the highest coefficient of 0.798…”. Has the issue been checked? There is no explanation or clarification about it in the manuscript.
3. I think that “Z=0.8162Z1+12.28Z2” in line 294 should be “Z=0.8162Z1+0.1228Z2”.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere is no major problem with the English language, but the English style and expression could be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed all my concerns.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWell, after so many rounds, I hereby recommend acceptance of this manuscript. The authors have satisfactorily addressed my concerns/comments. Congratulations to them!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMost of the comments in the previous round have been responded by the authors. Some specific comments on this version of the manuscript are as follows.
1. The authors claimed that the Urban Environmental Management (UEM) indicator is directly available in the Statistical Yearbook. I am still confused about this. How exactly is the Urban Environmental Management (UEM) indicator defined in the Statistical Yearbook and what is its unit? Could the authors explain this in more detail in the manuscript? Not just only the included components of the indicator.
2. In lines 415-417 of the Conclusions, the authors state “In terms of UBS area, Urban Expansion Model (UEM), Economic Development Urban Index (EDUI)…”. However, “Urban Expansion Model” and “Economic Development Urban Index” are not mentioned in the previous parts of the manuscript.
3. Also, in lines 421-422 of the Conclusions, the authors state “EDUI, Urban Model(UEN)，and…”. “Urban Model” is not mentioned in the previous parts of the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere is no major problem with the English language.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see attached report for my review.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Quality of English language is good.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has greatly improved only in terms of English. The scientific aspect is still poor.
The authors have hired someone to address the comments and revise the manuscript. From the first paragraph of the conclusions section, it is evident that the third person is writing on behalf of the authors. Whatever comments were given last time were mostly basic, and the authors still didn't pay proper attention to it.
Moreover, most of my comments are not addressed adequately. There is no point in providing a thorough review again. The English of the manuscript is absolutely fine now. However, regarding technical aspects, I won't recommend this manuscript for publication in the Remote Sensing journal. There is no novelty, and the authors didn't show any scientific rigor in their revision; rather they hurriedly and vaguely addressed the reviewers' suggestions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is clearer than the previous submission. However, there are still some issues, which are as follows.
1. Although the authors have provided the description of Urban Environmental Management (UEM) in lines 225-229, the quantification of the indicator is a black box. Please explain in detail how the indicator is quantified.
2. In line 23, the authors argued that "Technological factors emerged as the most influential mechanism for the UBS area". However, the strongest factor according to the results is UEM. Please check this and make it consistent.
3. In line 178, the authors claimed that the data were aggregated to the district level. However, the spatial clustering pattern analysis (Figure 5) was performed at the county level. Please specify the level of spatial scale for each analysis.
4. In Table 4, it is not clear what represents the UBS Landscape. Thus, it is not clear how to obtain a value representing the UBS Landscape, which is then used to perform a correlation analysis.
5. In lines 165-166, the expression “r(x0, xi) is the data sequence from x0 to xi” is obscure and confusing. Are x0 and xi in the same sequence? In terms of Grey Relation, I do not think so.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English style and expression could be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article improved and I appreciate that some of the observations made on my previous review were addressed and solved. Other observations were approached only superficial, just as a mention and the actual impact on the subject still neglected so I believe that the article improved but can be better and the results can be more accurate. I believe that the article is somehow conceived to show that the human impact trough the economic activities and intense land exploitation does not affect the quality and size of the urban blue space and to encourage such practices.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
