Spatiotemporal Analysis of Urban Sprawl and Ecological Quality Study Case: Chiba Prefecture, Japan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is an interesting research and it has present the spatiotemporal process and characteristics of Urban Sprawl in Chiba Prefecture, and mutual relationships between Urban Sprawl and Ecological Quality. But I am puzzled about that (1) literature review should be enriched to describe the global study on Urban Sprawl and Ecological Quality, especially“shrinkage sprawl” phenomenon, not only focused on the existing researches about Chiba Prefecture.

(2)why Urban Sprawl and Ecological Quality exists the relationships, and what reasons can explain it in this case study? What’s more, this finding would give other place reference to deal with “shrinkage sprawl” or Urban plan?

(3)the quality of related figures should be improved, and there are some little errors in manuscripts, Such as, legend in Figure 3 and Figure 5; 2.3.2.1 Prefecture Level and 2.3.2.2 Prefecture Level, and so on.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for thoroughly reviewing the paper We authored. I have received valuable comments and input, and I will address them in the attached document below. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.

Please see the attachment for my feedback. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper investigates the relationship between urban sprawl and ecological quality using remote sensing imagery over the last thirty years. It is meaningful for future development of urbanization concerning the current aging situation in Japan.

To assess urban sprawl, the authors introduced Shannon entropy index to quantify urban sprawl and landscape metrics to quantify landscape structure. The paper is well structured.

One question is that what the relationship is between Shannon entropy and indicators calculated based on FRAGSTATS (please check the software spelling)? A following question is that since the authors used images at 1990 and at 2021 over the 30 years, it is not straightforward to draw a conclusion that “built-up areas expanded continuously across all prefectures during the entire study period…. prevalent and consistent over the years。。。”.

 

1.        The first sentence of this paper should add “Japanese” before “City Planning Act” to avoid misunderstanding.

2.        What is UUA?

3.        What are designated areas, delineated areas, and non-delineated areas mentioned in section 2.1?

4.        Labels on Figure 1 are not readable and should be revised.

5.        In three formulas, what are the differences of Hn and H’n? And what does L stand for? Is formula 2 properly represented?

6.        Should the title of 2.3.2.2 be “city level”?

7.        The eight indicators used in Table 1 are in different units and different value ranges. How was the “stacking map layers” implemented?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor revision needed.

Author Response

I appreciate your review of my paper. I have carefully considered the questions and suggestions you provided, and I have addressed them in the attached document. Thank you for your valuable input.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the article is well-written and the topic is relevant.

The following change is suggested:

-          Improve de resolution of the figures.

 

-          Review the legend of Figure 4, as the indicated letters E and F do not appear in the figure.

Author Response

I want to express my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review the results of my paper. I have received valuable comments and input, all of which I will address in the attached document below. Thank you once again for your thoughtful review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx