Spatio-Temporal Changes and Driving Forces Analysis of Urban Open Spaces in Shanghai between 1980 and 2020: An Integrated Geospatial Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current manuscript is interesting where research questions and gaps to be addressed are well justified, which are then supported with robust integrated GIS and Remote Sensing techniques. Importantly, the findings are of considerable interest to urban planners and city policymakers in formulating a more planning and design strategies. Overall, the whole organization of the study is clear and cogently structured. It could be accepted after minor revisions after addressing and clarifying a few points as listed below:

 

1、 For Section 1 Introduction last part，please revise the first research question in terms of language.

2、 Provide more recent literature on factors influencing spatiotemporal changes of open spaces.

3、Figure 2 needs more detailed and specific captions，and kindly specify what policy is entailed in Figure 2.

4、Table 7 and Table 11 are low-resolution.

5、For Figure 12 do minor spelling check.

6、For Section5.2, policy drivers can be elaborated further with respect to the city's greening and open space policies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for your consideration and constructive suggestions,and for granting us the opportunity to submit a revised version of the manuscript entitled “Spatio-temporal Changes and Driving Forces Analysis of Urban Open Spaces in Shanghai between 1980 and 2020: An Integrated Geospatial Approach” (Manuscript ID: remotesensing-2884670). We have carefully checked our manuscript and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The changes were marked up with the “red color” highlights for your ease of reference.

 

Please find below a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.

Comments from the 1st reviewer
	Comments and Suggestions for Authors	Responses from authors
1	For Section 1 Introduction last part, please revise the first research question in terms of language.	Thanks for your suggestions. We have paraphrased the sentence.
2	Provide more recent literature on factors influencing spatiotemporal changes of open spaces.	Thanks for your suggestions. Considering the “Introduction” part is too long. We have added content to review the factors influencing.
3	Figure 2 needs more detailed and specific captions，and kindly specify what policy is entailed in Figure 2.	Thanks for your suggestions. We have revised it and added details.
4	Table 7 and Table 11 are low-resolution.	Thanks for your suggestions. We have revised Table7 and Table11, which can be high resolution and easily to read.
5	For Figure 12 do minor spelling check.	Thanks for your recognition and suggestions. We have revised it. See Figure 12.
6	For Section5.2, policy drivers can be elaborated further with respect to the city's greening and open space policies.	Thanks for your suggestions. We have added content. See Section 5.2.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study uses integrated geospatial techniques based on satellite image data to examine the spatiotemporal dynamics of urban open spaces in Shanghai. Based on the Google Earth Engine platform and the Random Forest (RF) classifier, the research applies various methodologies, including landscape metrics, trend analysis, open space ratio, transition matrix, normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), and fractal dimension analysis. The manuscript is well organized, presenting an introduction, a detailed description of the study area, a well-explained methodology, the results, a discussion, and a bibliography.

 The authors presented the methodology in a flowchart that helped to understand all the tasks performed. Some figures are highlighted in the text because they are incomprehensible due to the number size.

 In the discussion, the authors highlight the importance of understanding the dynamics of urban open spaces in Shanghai patterns to help the stakeholders in urban and landscape planning.

Attached are corrections/suggestions

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Manuscript ID: remotesensing-2884670

Dear Editors and Reviewers，

Thank you for your consideration and constructive suggestions,and for granting us the opportunity to submit a revised version of the manuscript entitled “Spatio-temporal Changes and Driving Forces Analysis of Urban Open Spaces in Shanghai between 1980 and 2020: An Integrated Geospatial Approach” (Manuscript ID: remotesensing-2884670). We have carefully checked our manuscript and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The changes were marked up with the “red color” highlights for your ease of reference.

Comments from the 2nd reviewer
Comments and Suggestions for Authors	Responses from authors
Some words and sentences have been revised in the manuscript.	Thanks for your revisions. It is very useful and valuable to help us. We have paraphrased the sentences or words in the article. Marked in red in revised paper. See Line 52，60，61，140，153，191，196，198，210，258，262，264，268，363，364，651.
100% free clouds?	Thanks for your suggestions. It's too absolute. We added “almost” in the sentence. See Line 168.
As imagens fora obtidas no GEE?	Yes，it was used to preprocess image data in GEE.
Page 7. How many points were used to validate?	More than 4500 points were selected, which is validate.
Numbers cannot be read.	Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised it. See Table 10.
Consistency in decimal places.	Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised it. See Table11.
When mentioning the causes of vegetation changes, such as land reclamation projects and urban development, it is important to provide additional context to help readers understand the underlying factors driving these changes.	Thanks for your suggestions. The land reclamation project is under government planning and management.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I liked this paper.  Overall, I thought it was was well-done. 

My biggest issue was that many of the graphical and tabular elements were too small to be easily read.  This needs to be addressed in the final version. There are other occasional technical and typesetting issues as well, such as extra spaces, skipped lines, changing typefaces, varying sized for the equations, and capitalization issues.

From a substantive perspective, the biggest correction is that the incorrect number for the built-up area in 2020 is listed (It should be 30.37% rather than 69.63% at Line 432). 

Also, C, S, and D could be better explained on Table 11.  (The D values are mentioned in the discussion in Section 4.2.4; however this is no discussion of the definition of the C and S values near the table).

Overall though, these appear to be minor issues -- and they are detailed in the attached review.  Once these matters have been addressed, I feel that the article will be ready for publication. 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Manuscript ID: remotesensing-2884670

Dear Editors and Reviewers，

Thank you for your consideration and constructive suggestions,and for granting us the opportunity to submit a revised version of the manuscript entitled “Spatio-temporal Changes and Driving Forces Analysis of Urban Open Spaces in Shanghai between 1980 and 2020: An Integrated Geospatial Approach” (Manuscript ID: remotesensing-2884670). We have carefully checked our manuscript and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The changes were marked up with the “red color” highlights for your ease of reference.

Comments from the 3rd reviewer
	Comments and Suggestions for Authors	Responses from authors
1	1）Looks like there is excess space here. 2）Unsure why these terms are typeset in a different and style. 3）This equation is quite large (type size) compared to other equations. 4）Another equation strangely typeset. 5）Does not need to be indented. 6）Should this be "Buffer 15" (capitalized)? Should this be Buffer 7 (no hyphen)? Should this be Buffer 10 (no hyphen)? 7）Appears to be an extra space.	Thanks for your revisions. It is very useful and valuable to help us. We have revised it all. Marked in red in revised paper. See Line 222，231，283，367，395，495，503，504，633.
2	“is a stated commitment” Not sure what is meant by this.	Thanks for your suggestions. It is not suitable. We have revised change to “emphasizes”. See Line 153.
3	This figure is somewhat small. It prboably should be larger to enhance readibility. Table is too small to be readable.	Thanks for your suggestions. We have revised Figure2, Figure16, Figure17, Table7, Table10.
3	The incorrect number for the built-up area in 2020 is listed (It should be 30.37% rather than 69.63% at Line 432).	Thanks for your revisions. Yes, it is a mistake. We have revised it to “30.37%”.
4	Do C, S, and D need better explanation in the table?	Thanks for your suggestion. Yes, it is not clearly. We have revised Table 11.