Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Simulation of Landscape Ecological Risk and Ecological Zoning Under the Construction of Free Trade Pilot Zones: A Case Study of Hainan Island, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction. The introduction describes the purpose of the research well, briefly discusses previous studies, and appropriately substantiates the relevance of the research.

Materials and methods. The research area is presented in detail and clearly. Data sources are understandably and correctly selected. Before the section “2.3 Methods”, it is advisable to provide a structural and logical scheme of the research - this will improve the readers' understanding of the research process. In the methods, the authors should briefly (in one sentence) explain why the ordinary kriging method was chosen to model each LERI assessment unit. It is necessary to explain how the authors chose the boundaries of the five classes of environmental risk gradation. The methods are presented well, the authors use a significant number of logically consistent methods to correctly present the research results and achieve the set goal. This is a significant advantage of this manuscript.

Research results. The results obtained are complete and understandable. The logical presentation and description of the research results, which are accompanied by cartographic material, allow the reader to understand the research well. The motivating factors have been identified and the relationship between them has been established - this is a good result for the practically oriented use of the research results.

The discussions and conclusions are well presented, are meaningful and understandable. The authors have achieved the main goal of the research. The research is complete; the research methodology proposed by the authors based on geoinformation analysis will be interesting for a wide range of readers.

I recommend the article for publication after making additions to the "Materials and Methods" section.

Author Response

Firstly, on behalf of all the authors, I would like to express our utmost gratitude to you! We sincerely appreciate your valuable time dedicated to reviewing our manuscript and providing such meticulous, relevant, and constructive feedback. The professional perspective and insights you provide not only enable us to identify the shortcomings in our manuscript, but also guide us towards the path of improvement, which is invaluable for enhancing the quality and academic value of our manuscript. After receiving your review comments, we have engaged in extensive discussions and conducted meticulous revisions, aiming to attain a higher standard in all aspects. The revision we have made will enhance the perfection and effectiveness of our manuscript in reflecting scientific and practical research. All our responses to the raised questions have been comprehensively presented in the attached PDF document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comment

From a technical perspective, the article is of a good standard and presents a detailed analysis of ecological risk and land-use change in Hainan. However, my primary concern is the article's originality and tangible contribution. Although the study employs advanced methods, it is not specified why the years to be evaluated were selected. Is this a choice based on significant historical trends, or were they chosen because they were the most accessible years in online data sources? It is essential to clarify the rationale behind the time choice, as this detail is crucial to understanding the approach and the validity of the future projections.

Particular comments

It is recommended that the abstract clearly state that the simulation is projected to the year 2033. The current wording only mentions that simulations are performed into the future but does not specify the exact period. This will help readers better understand the temporal context of the study.

It would also be beneficial to explain why 2033 was chosen as the projection year. Although this year may be appropriate for specific reasons, such as planning objectives or local policies, its choice is not adequately justified. Explaining the reasons behind this year, whether due to government policy, development projects, or specific economic projections, would provide more context and clarity to the study.

Data used in the analysis (2015-2023):

Although the article mentions that a data period from 2015 to 2023 (8 years) is used, it does not justify why those specific years were selected. In many studies, the choice of period significantly impacts the results, especially when projecting future trends. It is important to explain whether these years were selected due to relevant historical trends, the availability of reliable data at that time, or due to data access restrictions. This clarification would provide greater insight into the validity and representativeness of the period chosen for the analysis. Methods Used (PLUS Model and Geographical Detector):

The article mentions using the PLUS model and the Geographical Detector, but the description of how these methods are integrated into the analysis is unclear. Specifically, it would be helpful to detail how these methods were combined and applied in the study, as this is not sufficiently discussed in the methods section. For example:

• How were the variables selected for the PLUS model? Although some variables are mentioned, how they were weighted or the criteria used to choose them is not explained. This may raise questions about the robustness of the model and its ability to make reliable projections.
• It would be relevant to include a sensitivity analysis to discuss how variable variations can influence model results, especially considering the uncertainties inherent in long-term projections.

A lack of transparency in selecting variables and the justification for their weights could affect the model's credibility. Including a more detailed discussion of this aspect will help strengthen the article's methodological approach.

Discussion of Study Limitations:

The article does not provide an adequate discussion of the study's limitations. All research has limitations, and the article must acknowledge potential constraints that may have affected the results. Some key limitations that could be mentioned include:

• Availability and quality of the data used (e.g. if land-use data or ecological risk projections are incomplete or have geographical limitations).
• Uncertainty in the projection models, especially when projecting long-term ecological and land-use changes, as is the case with 10-year projections.
• Assumptions in future scenarios (e.g., how urbanization or conservation policies may change and how this would affect the results).

I recommend adding a section titled "Methodological caveats" addressing these and other potential limitations that could have influenced the study's results. This will improve the transparency and credibility of the article.

Author Response

I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude on behalf of all the authors for your invaluable contribution. We truly appreciate the time you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript and providing us with detailed, relevant, and enlightening feedback. The professional insights you have provided not only highlight the manuscript's potential for improvement, but also guide us towards the path of enhancement. Following your valuable comments, we have undertaken comprehensive and meticulous revisions to elevate the academic standards across all aspects of content, structure, and presentation. The aforementioned changes will undoubtedly enhance the rigor, scientificity, and practicality of our manuscript. Thank you again for your hard work and valuable suggestions. All our responses to the raised questions have been comprehensively presented in the attached PDF document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have correctly addressed the comments