Comprehensive Evaluation of Land Use Planning Alternatives Based on GIS-ANP

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript Title: Comprehensive Evaluation of Land Use Planning Alternatives based on GIS-ANP

Manuscript number: land-2496413

General Comment

Based on the title of the study, this is an interesting work, however, this study needs corrections. Please review and make corrections and changes to make this paper possible for publication. The paper can be considered for publication after minor revision. The following structural changes are being proposed for the improvements in the manuscript.

Specific Comments

1.       Revise the abstract to comply with IMRAD and include quantitative results

2.       What is the concluding part of this research? Must be added in the abstract section

3.       In the last of the abstract add the key recommendation for future work.

4.       Keywords: Arrange in alphabetical order.

5.       Try to add the same areas of previously published results and discuss your result in the discussion section.
5. What are your study limitations? Add this section.

6.       Conclusion: add the conclusion in a separate section. It is suggested that add some key recommendations for urban planners and decision-makers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall the paper was interesting and meaningful. While there are many, I think my suggestions are relatively minor. I found no major issues with the methodology but do recommend a bit of rewriting to enhance it's replicability. Additionally, some concepts and theories are used but not adequately explained. It's important to give a thorough report on your research so the reader knows exactly what you used, what you did, and why you used/did it. Replicability is severely lacking in the field, don't contribute to it. 

Find below (and attached) my comments, both general and specific for your manuscript. 

Reviewer's Feedback:

Title: Comprehensive Evaluation of Land Use Planning Alternatives Using GIS-ANP Method

Thank you very much for your time and work on this manuscript, I enjoyed reading it. Please find my comments below. 

The text provides an introduction to the importance of comprehensive evaluation in land use planning and discusses the evolution of planning evaluation frameworks and indicator systems. It describes the complex nature of land use planning and the need for objective and geographically relevant index weighting methods. The study proposes the use of a GIS-ANP comprehensive evaluation method to increase the objectivity of land use planning alternative evaluation. The research design incorporates the establishment of an evaluation index system, determination of index values (quantitative and qualitative), and the construction of an ANP network. Overall, the study's focus on GIS-ANP evaluation and the call for more robust presentation and support of findings provide insights into the potential of integrating spatial analysis and decision-making methods in land use planning.

 

Here are my general comments for each section: 

Abstract:

The abstract provides a concise overview of the study, highlighting the use of GIS-ANP method for evaluating land use planning alternatives. It effectively summarizes the key components of the research. However, it would be helpful to include a brief statement about the findings or main conclusions of the study.

 

Introduction:

The introduction provides a clear background and rationale for the research, emphasizing the importance of land use planning and the need for comprehensive evaluation of planning alternatives. The transition between paragraphs could be improved for smoother flow of ideas. Additionally, it would be beneficial to clearly state the research objectives or research questions that the study aims to address.

 

Methods:

The methods section presents a detailed explanation of the GIS-ANP method used for comprehensive evaluation. It covers the evaluation index system, determination of index values (quantitative and qualitative), and the construction of ANP network. The description of the methodology is well-structured and provides sufficient information for replication. However, additional details are required regarding the selection of experts for the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and the specific equations used for GIS analysis.

 

Results:

The results section discusses the findings of the planning evaluation using the GIS-ANP method. It mentions the short-term and long-term effects of the planning alternatives and presents the weight rankings of the influencing factors. However, the presentation of results could be improved by providing tables or figures to summarize and illustrate the evaluation results. Additionally, it would be beneficial to discuss the practical implications of the results in relation to land use planning decision-making.

 

Discussion and Conclusions:

The discussion section provides a good analysis of the main influencing factors and their implications for land use planning. It effectively highlights the importance of ecological factors in both short-term and long-term decision-making. However, it would be valuable to further discuss the limitations of the study and potential future research directions. The conclusions section could be strengthened by clearly summarizing the main findings and their significance.

 

Language and Structure:

The overall language and structure of the paper are clear and concise. However, there are instances where the text could be further improved for clarity and readability. It would be beneficial to break down long paragraphs into smaller ones and use subheadings to organize the content. Additionally, proofreading is needed to address grammatical errors and ensure consistency in citation style.

 

General recommendations:

1. Clearly state the research objectives or research questions in the introduction.

2. Provide more details about the selection of experts for fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and the specific equations used for GIS analysis.

3. Discuss the practical implications of the results for land use planning decision-making.

4. Include a section on limitations and potential future research directions.

5. Break down long paragraphs into smaller ones and use subheadings for improved organization.

6. Proofread the paper to address grammatical errors and ensure consistency in citation style.

 

Overall, the study provides a comprehensive evaluation of land use planning alternatives using the GIS-ANP method. With some revisions and additions, the paper has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field of land use planning and evaluation.

 

Here are my specific comments for each section: 

 

1. Introduction:

- What is the specific problem or research gap that this study aims to address?

- Can you provide more context or examples to support the statements about the evolution of planning evaluation and the indicator systems used?

- Consider breaking down the introduction into smaller paragraphs to improve readability.

- Clearly state the objective or research question at the end of the introduction.

- Provide a smoother transition between sentences to enhance the flow of ideas.

- Line 30: Specify what "the role of citizens in planning consideration" entails for better understanding.

- Line 32: Clarify the difference between "environment" and "society" in the context of the indicator system.

 

2. Geographical conditions of the study area:

- Consider providing a clearer description of the study area, including its location, size, and relevant characteristics.

- Can you provide more information about the existing land use in the study area and how it relates to the proposed planning alternatives?

- Use subheadings to structure this section and make it easier to follow.

- Consider breaking down the text into smaller paragraphs to improve readability.

- Line 90-: Specify the criteria used for proposing the planning alternatives.

- Line 111: Clarify what is meant by "the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)" and how they were met.

 

3. Research methods:

- Can you provide more details on the data sources used for GIS analysis and the specific GIS equations utilized?

- How were the experts selected for the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, and what expertise or qualifications did they possess?

- Can you explain how the qualitative and quantitative index values were combined to determine the final index value?

- Start this section with a clear statement explaining the main purpose of the research methods.

- Divide this section into subsections to clearly explain each step of the methodology.

- Provide a brief explanation of ANP (Analytic Network Process) before introducing the ANP network construction.

- Line 165: Provide a brief explanation of ANP before introducing the ANP network construction.

- Line 179-: Specify how the subjective and objective index values were combined to determine the final index value.

- Line 273: Clarify what is meant by "the Geometric Mean method" and how it was applied.

 

4. Results of planning evaluation:

- Can you provide more details on the evaluation results, such as the specific scores or rankings of the planning alternatives?

- What are the implications or practical implications of the evaluation results? How can they inform decision-making in land use planning?

- Use subheadings to structure this section and make it easier to follow.

- Consider presenting the results in a more concise and organized manner, using tables or bullet points.

- Provide a clear and concise summary of the main findings and their implications.

- Line 322: Consider providing specific scores or rankings of the planning alternatives rather than stating there is "little difference" between them.

- Line 327-: Elaborate on the implications or practical implications of the evaluation results.

- End of section: Provide a clear and concise summary of the main findings and their implications.

 

5. Discussion and conclusions:

- Can you provide a more in-depth discussion of the main influencing factors identified in the evaluation and their implications for land use planning decisions?

- How do the findings of this study contribute to the existing knowledge or understanding of land use planning evaluation?

- Start this section with a clear statement summarizing the main findings.

- Discuss the implications of the findings and their relevance to the research objectives.

- Provide a concise and conclusive summary of the study's contributions and potential future research directions.

 

Overall:

- Can you provide more specific examples, data, or case studies to support the claims made in the text?

- Consider providing more explicit connections and explanations between different sections and concepts in the text.

- Review the text for clarity and readability, ensuring that complex ideas are explained in a clear and concise manner.

- Expand on the discussion of the main influencing factors and their implications for land use planning decisions.

- Mention the limitations of the study, such as potential biases or data limitations.

 

- Provide potential future research directions or areas for further investigation.

 

While the English itself is good (but please recheck with a Spell Checker!) there are some structural changes that could significantly increase the readability of the paper. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript “Comprehensive Evaluation of Land Use Planning Alternatives based on GIS-ANP” is an interesting paper that focuses on a useful procedure on Land Use Planning processes. Indeed, the integration between GIS and ANP can be a helpful tool for urban planner. The topic fits the aims of the journal and is relevant on the discourse of sustainable planning of contemporary urban contexts. From my point of view, the language use is good (I am not a native speaker). I would like to recommend its publication after the revision of the following points.

 

-          The authors should better describe the used data (Data source and quality). Furthermore, it would be appropriate to include a workflow for apllied methodology. This would facilitate replicability in other geographical settings as well.

-          The authors should use the international measurement units both in the text and in the figures.

-          The figure 6 are not necessary. Please, remove it.

-          Section 4.2.2. Please, Correct references to figures in the text.;

-          Figures 8 and 9: the authors should insert the name axis and unit;

-         Section 5: An interesting future development for this study could be insert Ecosystem Service in the evaluation. The authors should explore this possibility in the conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx