Ecological Risk Assessment of Saltwater Intrusion and Urban Ecosystem Management in Shenzhen City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents an ecological risk assessment model that evaluates four factor stresses. The study used ArcGIS and an AHP to map and assess the ecological risk level of the urban greenbelt for the SWI. While the paper is well written, major revisions should be made before publication.

 

―     Line 21: “At concept level, some stress factors were identified.” Not clear sentence. How were the factors identified, and what analysis was used to identify the factors?

―     Line 22: Modify the presentation of the factors. E.g., intensity gradient exposed to salt water (SF1), etc.

―     Line 27: Change "Km2" to "km²".

―     Line 27: Add "into" before five to: "the Ecological risk was sorted into five ranks".

―     Line 39: Replace the word "So" with a more appropriate word such as "therefore" or "hence", etc.

―     Line 74: I believe the statement that no study has attempted to assess the risk of SLR using physical-based methods might not be accurate. Numerous studies have utilized GIS and AHP methods to map the ecological risk of sea level rise.

―     Line 89: Change "our study area" to "the study area is located…".

―     Lines 90-93: Please provide the source for the information in this sentence.

―     Line 97: Why is the text in bold?

―     Line 100: Replace the word "but" with a more academic word such as "However".

―     Lines 103-106: Please cite the source of the information in those sentences.

―     Line 107: Please elaborate further on how the DEM helps determine the SWI-affected zones.

―     Lines 112-116: Please cite the source of the information in these sentences.

―     Line 118: It's unclear how the stress factors were selected. Please include a clear analysis to determine the most important stress factors.

―     Line 119: Refer to the comment in line 22.

―     Line 124: It's not appropriate to start a sentence with "ER=...."; please rephrase it.

―     Line 126: Please cite the source of the information in this sentence.

―     Lines 143-146: The information is repetitive. It was previously mentioned in the abstract and section 2.2.

―     Line 156: Please specify the previous studies and cite them here.

―     Line 160: What input data did you use to create buffers? Was it the DEM? Please elaborate and include the plot.

―     Lines 166-168: Please cite the source of the information in this sentence.

―     Line 172: I suggest rewriting the sentence to read, "The watersheds in the study area were delineated using the 30 m DEM...".

―     I suggest including an illustration of the watersheds in the study area, perhaps in Figure 1.

―     Line 192: Please use a more suitable word than "hindered."

―     Line 215: Explain what the AMAP® API is and include the full name and not just the acronym.

―     Line 224: Cite the source of the AHP method.

―     Lines 224-227: Provide a citation for the information in this section.

―     Lines 228-231: There is repetition of information. See lines 143-146.

―     Line 235: Move the explanation of the software ArcGIS to an earlier section, around line 160.

―     Line 237: To minimize confusion, elaborate on how the ER defined here is different from the one defined in line 124.

―      Line 244: Avoid repeating the evaluation of the four stressors and move the data source to an earlier section, as it is essential for the study.

―     Line 246: Clarify the meaning of "Through the analysis of the literature."

―     Lines 246-249: Specify the data obtained from the investigation conducted with Shenzhen Water Science people and its relevance.

―     Lines 264-270: Move the content related to the discussion to the discussion section and provide citations for the literature review.

―     Lines 291-294: Avoid discussing the results in the results section and move it to the discussion section.

―     Strengthen the Discussion section with citations from previous research.

―     Clarify the relevance of the supplementary material to the manuscript and consider integrating it better into the paper..Line 224: Add the source of the AHP method.

 

Figures

―     Figure 1: the quality of the figure needs significant improvement. Also, Please explain how the saltwater intrusion area was identified in the plot.

―     Figure 3: the quality needs significant improvement. The colors are not professional. Please use software (e.g., MATLAB, Python) for better plotting. Additionally, avoid direct cut and paste from ArcGIS as it reduces the image quality.

―     Figure 4: Explain the meaning of the blue, white, and brown colors and the relevance of showing them in relation to the urban greenbelt distribution zone.

―     Figure 5: Improve the quality of the figure and clarify the focus on the SWI boundary.

 

―     Figure 6: Enhance the quality of the figure.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is good. Only few corrections is required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is a solid scientific assessment offering some interesting results regarding ERA in specific saltwater inclusions in peri-urban areas.  It is a valuable contribution in the field. However, some small adjustments could be considered:

-          More theoretical and conceptual background would be useful. Ecological risk should be better defined. Usually, a risk emerges from a hazard/multiple hazards and a vulnerable system. Also, a differentiation between urban-suburba-peri-urban areas could be made to better explain the case study.

-          The study area is unclear. Are SWI–affected areas included? If so, does it include both areas? Why is the risk calculated only for SWI? If the focus is only on the SWI area, why is the map so extended towards the East? Some of the maps ar

-          It is not clear how the AHP was used.AHP is generally used for decision–making and setting priorities. In this case, it can be used to weight different indicators.

-          Instead of using the risk categories  low-relatively low-medium-relatively high-high, I would suggest very low-low-medium- high-very high

 

-          Some resilience strategies should be provided. What is the actual response, and what adaptation measures can be considered? For the moment, the ideas regarding the policy implications are too general.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Dear authors,

Please find the following for comments.

Minor comments

Line 8 = Greater Bay Area in ……………….(country)

Line 60 = remove one “that”

Line 62 = mention the country and reference

Line 72 = mention the duration per year or else

Line 205 = Italicized the scientific names

Line 266= Casuarina equisetifolia should italicized.

Line 329 = not clearly written the sentence.

Line 339 =How did you calculate the rate?

 

Major comments

The modelling part should validate how the model fits the data (Akaike information criterion (AIC)) 

It is better to make some predictions of the significance of future saltwater intrusion in the studied area.

Discussion and conclusion should be improved with your findings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done a good job addressing all comments. I recommend the paper for publication. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the authors address the comments.