To Preserve Green Buffer under Polarization and Diffusion Effects of a Fast-Developing Megalopolis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General aspect: For global readers, information on urban dynamics and the impacts on the expansion of the built environment in China is an important source of data, as the superlative numbers faced in this country help to give parameters to other geographic spaces in the world.
I found some points that I suggest pondering.
The arguments that I highlight in the summary and introduction say that there will be: a) a discussion about the effects of the diffusion of megalopolis and green zones within and between cities (line 14 -18) and b) An urban planning proposition taking into account the productive forces in regional urban planning and green areas.
I see that the textual structure is clear, but I see that some arguments need revision.
First, there are important information that should be presented and discussed that were not properly addressed in the work, such as:
1- Why was it called twin cities? Remember that the audience is international. It may be that the terms used in China are different in my country, for example.
2- What is meant by dual core? (line 23)
3- Returning farmland to forest policy (211)
4- Identification of risk zones in the region by topographic attributes of the region
5- The data analysis scale does not privilege the intra urban, only the regional scale.
I justify.
In view of the proposal to suggest a guideline for the State and space-producing agents to guarantee regional development articulated with environmental well-being, minimizing natural risks, it is necessary to take into account the legislation in force.
There was mention of the Returning farmland to forest Policy (line 211). In my view, this is a fundamental point to verify if it meets or even it can help the claims that the authors point out in lines 376 – 381. Would it be possible to highlight the role of this legislation in the increase or decrease of green areas?
It is evident that the topographical issue is a dimension that must also be evaluated, however, figure 1 is insufficient to encourage this reasoning. A second image is needed indicating the risk or interest zones in the region (slides or flooding) by topographic attributes of the region (suggestion: low slope, medium slope and high slope).
Figure suggestion: Overlay the information of the analyzed classes in the matrix on a map by class topographic attributes of the region. It would help a lot.
I don't see any problems with the analysis matrix. The data are clear, however, there was a need to improve the discussion on two points: a) waterbody and unsed land. These two classes were not clear in the analysis and discussion. What led to the rise of waterbody? Three Gorges Reservoir Area? Or leisure?
On the role of green zones in the discussion. There is no doubt that the increase in green areas is important for any mega-regional urban development. What could be made clearer is what the purpose of the green areas would be. The proposal is very generic, given the particularities of Chinese legislation. Would the green areas be destined for natural parks, green areas that could also be used for forest extraction or even recreation parks? Will they be implemented only in development axes or would they also have a strategic role to contain (for example) landslides or floods?
I understand that this aspect mentioned above can help the argument presented in lines 413 – 414. If included in the discussion, it can give another justification closer to what authors seek to propose for the orientation of regional development.
These are the recommendations for this work.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We thank you for your insightful and detailed comments concerning our manuscript entitled “To Preserve Green Buffer Under the Polarization and Diffusion Effects of a Fast Developing Dual-Core Megalopolis?” (ID: land-1686740). We have now corrected the errors and have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. We hope that you will find our manuscript to be much improved. We responded your comments point by point, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The Abstract is clear and logic but is to extensive and detailed. Maybe the authors will try to make it shorter and more concise.
The Introduction is generally well done addressing some significant aspects of urban development/urbanization.
However, given that urban development is widely addressed and there is a large body of literature related to it, it would be expected to provide a more extended state of the art with both relevant and recent works and illustrative examples. A greater focus was put on the Chinese studies, which is very useful, but not enough to have a complete picture of phenomenon.
The authors are frequently using urbanization - Lines 53, 63, 70 (page 2), but are then referring to urban sprawl (line 72, page 2) which could also involve suburbanization. I kindly ask the authors to pay attention to the terms used. They could refer to urban development or urban growth with involves, as spatial and functional patterns urbanization, suburbanization, deurbanization etc. There is significant literature on these concepts.
Line 99 (page 3) I think that the authors meant "country" instead of "countries".
Second paragraph (page 3) could be integrated into the Study area subsection.
Lines 14 (page 3) - please revise the phrases referring to Figure 1 and Table 1. Provide some basic information about Table, the significance of its content.
Please pay attention to the way the Results are formulated in order to be clearer for the reader. Some wording is not clear enough.
Discussions and Conclusions are well written, useful and detailed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We thank you for your insightful and detailed comments concerning our manuscript entitled “To Preserve Green Buffer Under the Polarization and Diffusion Effects of a Fast Developing Dual-Core Megalopolis?” (ID: land-1686740). We have now corrected the errors and have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. We hope that you will find our manuscript to be much improved. We responded your comments point by point, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall it is an interesting and complete research, the paper is well structured and it addresses a relevant issue, particularly in China. I only have a small suggestion to make, regarding the further work – you should include a section explaining where does your research lead you and how do you plan to make further progress with it. Thank you in advance.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We thank you for your insightful and detailed comments concerning our manuscript entitled “To Preserve Green Buffer Under the Polarization and Diffusion Effects of a Fast Developing Dual-Core Megalopolis?” (ID: land-1686740). We have now corrected the errors and have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. We hope that you will find our manuscript to be much improved. We responded your comments point by point, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I was fully contemplated with the returns.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript.
Best wishes
