Examining Relationships between Regional Ecological Risk and Land Use Using the Granger Causality Test Applied to a Mining City, Daye, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper investigates the relationship between land use changes and ecological risks. For this purpose, the concept of Granger “causality” is used and applied to a subdivision of the traditional mining city of Daye in China.

Although it is stated in the introduction, that Granger “causality” can only test if one time series can be used to predict the values of another time series. Later in the article, reference is made again and again to the causal relationship between land use change and ecological risk. However, since the Granger test does not provide this, a more careful use of the terms causality and correlation or prediction would be recommended. For this reason, a broader discussion of the concept of Granger “causality”, its capabilities and its limitations are recommended, e.g., in the introduction part.

For the analysis, the study area has been subdivided into different regions. Here an explanation should be added, what is the base of the subdivision, i.e., what criteria have been used for the delineation of the subregions. This description should be added at the beginning of the article, not at its end.

The methodology part (data source and data processing) should include a comprehensive and complete description of data and algorithms used, so that it is plausible and traceable for the reader. As the description of the input data is very general (i.e. the classification used for land used types, water quality etc.) the results obtained are not comprehensive. Here a more detailed description of data and algorithms should be included. “This is example 1 of an equation” means that there are more equations not listed. Here a complete set of ALL equations should be given.

The naming is of terms is not consistent, e.g. in the land use degree but as title of the table land use intensity, same for int4nsity index and grading index. Why is the index in equation (2) multiplied by 100? It is nor a percentage value as indicated in the text, but the absolute values for the areas are used in the formulae, so what is the need of this?

Similar holds for the risk assessment. It is not clear how the risks are determined and assigned to the different regions.

The numbering of the equations and their references in the text should be checked (e.g. line 157 for equation 4).

It is not clear, how the ecological loss has been determined and assigned. Here a more detailed description is needed. Some of the risk sources are for instance regional and not local sources (like acid rain or geological disasters, so it is not clear why the effect will be different for a small region like Daye.

Abbreviations should be explained in their first use, see line 231 for ADF.

For chapter 2.5.1 see the remarks above. The term “causal relationship” should be avoided. The sane holds for chapter 3.2.4

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your suggestions are pertinent and important, and we have responded to each of them. Please see the attached detailed responses, as well as the corresponding revisions in the resubmission.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed the text and have added some comments and questions for your consideration.  You will find my comments and questions in the margins of the pdf file. I hope my comments and questions will help you in improving the paper. 

Yours,

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your suggestions are pertinent and important, and we have responded to each of them. Please see the attached detailed responses, as well as the corresponding revisions in the resubmission.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall:

• The article tackles an important topic examining the relationship between land use and ecological risk. However, the introduction lacks a strong thesis statement or overview of the key findings. I would recommend revising the introduction to clearly state the purpose, highlight the novel analytical approaches used, and give a brief preview of the major conclusions.
• The methods section provides technical details on the analyses conducted, but more conceptual explanation is needed on why these specific approaches were selected and how they build on previous work.
• The results are thoroughly presented, but the figures could be better integrated with the text to enhance flow. For instance, reference each figure after describing the key result it illustrates.
• The discussion section interprets the results in depth, yet lacks clear takeaway messages. Consider adding a conclusion paragraph summarizing the key insights, implications, and next steps.
• Carefully proofread the article to fix minor grammar issues, typos, and awkward phrasing. Standardize the formatting of headings, equations, citations etc.

 

Major Revisions:

• Revise the introduction to have a strong statement summarizing the purpose, methods, and overall findings of the study. Help frame the paper for readers upfront. In addition, the introduction has a high similarity with the authors previous paper on "Science of the Total Environment", please rewrite those part to avoid high similarity.
• In the methods, explain the rationale for choosing the specific analytical approaches used. Elaborate on how they advance existing techniques for examining land use-ecological risk relationships.
• Integrate the figures more closely with the text - refer to each figure after the paragraph describing the relevant result. Can also consider moving some figures to appear earlier.
• Add a conclusion paragraph summarizing the key insights from this work, implications for ecological planning/management, and recommended next research steps.
• Carefully proofread the article to resolve minor language, grammar, and formatting issues throughout.
•  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While the overall quality of English language in the manuscript is moderate, there are areas where additional editing would enhance clarity and readability. Long, complex sentences make several sections challenging to comprehend on first read. Breaking these into shorter, more focused sentences would be beneficial. There is inconsistent verb tense usage, with improper shifts between past and present tense in some places. Attention should be given to proofreading thoroughly to address minor grammatical errors, typos, and awkward or unclear phrasing. Standardizing the formatting and styling of headings, equations, citations, etc. would also improve the flow and polish of the paper. With moderate English language edits to improve the precision and concision, the manuscript will be much stronger. I believe the authors have the key technical elements in place, and further refining the writing itself will make the work more impactful. Please feel free to contact me for any clarification or assistance on appropriate English language usage.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your suggestions are pertinent and important, and we have responded to each of them. Please see the attached detailed responses, as well as the corresponding revisions in the resubmission.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revised manuscript shows great improvement through the thoughtful responses to reviewer feedback. The authors have strengthened the introduction with a clear overview and background context. Revisions throughout integrate the figures and results more closely with the text to enhance flow. Additionally, the added conclusion paragraph provides an impactful summary of key insights, implications, and future research directions. Overall, the careful revisions significantly enhance the quality and clarity of this interesting study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors have significantly improved the English grammar and language usage in this revision. The writing is now clear and fluent, with only minor lingering issues that do not impact comprehensibility.