Influence of Intercity Network on Land Comprehensive Carrying Capacity: A Perspective of Population Flow

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The graphical abstract shall be submitted as attachments and does not need to be displayed in the paper.

2. Figure 1 requires major modification, in which the sand Islands is unclear and the base map needs to be replaced. Scale bar change to km instead of mile. The legend does not need to show so many detailed land use classifications. Considering the author's research scale, it is suggested to change to the six major land use types.

3. Why the water resources index of the pressure part in the evaluation index system of land comprehensive bearing capacity a negative index?

4. In part 3.1, the author said that this paper is based on prefecture-level cities as the research object, but the research in part 3.2 intercity population flow is based on the whole country. Can the non-prefecture-level cities be removed in part 3.2 to maintain the consistency of the research objects?

5. The regression method can only show that there is a statistical connection between the land use carrying intensity value and the intercity population flow value, but is it really there in reality? In particular, the data in this paper are only one-year data, so I think the research in the discussion part is still insufficient, and the authors need to further explain the connection between the two.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper “Influence of inter-city network on land comprehensive carrying capacity: a perspective of population flow” constructed an evaluation index system of land comprehensive carrying capacity, analyzed the spatial carrying characteristics of land in China, and explored the impact of inter-city network on land comprehensive carrying capacity from the perspective of population mobility. The article has clear thought and reasonable structure, but there are several problems:

          i.               In Part 2.3.1, Line 157-166, the author does not give the explanation of the concept of land comprehensive carrying capacity, which is suggested to be improved.

        ii.               When constructing the evaluation index system in this paper, why were these indicators selected and what was the basis for the selection of these indicators? Are they different from the previous studies? It is suggested that the author give some explanation and clarification.

      iii.               In Line 356-386, the paper analyzed why the weighted degree centrality and betweenness centrality are positively correlated with land comprehensive carrying capacity. However, the paper did not give corresponding data or charts to support it. From the existing charts, it is impossible to support the relevant explanations described in this section.

       iv.               The paper lacks in many parts proper citation for various claims made throughout the manuscript (e.g. parts of the method) and particularly the Discussion.

         v.               What's your policy implication based on the conclusions of this research?

       vi.               There are some detailed problems in the paper, such as the last keyword does not need to be followed by punctuation (Line 29), and there is a problem with the title of Figure 2, which is recommended to be checked and revised. At the same time, it is recommended to change the serial number labeling method of the next level of Part 2.3.1(Line 157, 167 and 178).

 Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations, I have no other comments.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewer, Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. These opinions help to improve academic rigor our article. We would love to thank you again for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.

Reviewer 2 Report

After revision, the manuscript improved. Thank you for that. There are several minor concerns that need to be revised further. Finally, the writing and English of this manuscript can be improved. Specific comments are as follows.

-Line 14. Not “problem”, but “question”. I believe this manuscript can be polished by a native English speaker for better flow.

-Line 106. Not “traditional”, but “previous”. Check and revise the whole manuscript. I will no more specific comments for this issue.

-Figure 1. Ocean (in legend)? Confusing. In addition, the land use data source should also be provided in the figure caption. Furthermore, the north arrow is unnecessary since the lat/lon net is available.

-Line 145, “2.3. Research method” should be “Methods’.

-Figures 2, 5. Numbers (a) and (b) should be placed at the top of the figure.

-Figures 3, 4. There are numbers above and below the figure. Duplicated, need to delete one.

-Conclusions. Too long and needs to be simplified.

 

-References. The Journal Land is an international Journal. If possible, please remove some references in Chinese. References with international authors are good for international readers.

The writing and English of this manuscript can be improved. Specific comments are as follows.

-Line 14. Not “problem”, but “question”. I believe this manuscript can be polished by a native English speaker for better flow.

 

-Line 106. Not “traditional”, but “previous”. Check and revise the whole manuscript. I will no more specific comments for this issue.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf