Urbanization Process: A Simulation Method of Urban Expansion Based on RF-SNSCNN-CA Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a method to model the spatial distribution of urban area. The idea of authors and idea is interesting, but it is necessary to improve the manuscript to have a level suitable for publication.

 

Firstly, acronyms are not defined (in the abstract and in the text of the paper). It would be appropriate to include a box with a description of all acronyms used immediately before the Introduction Section. 

 

The paper proposes the cellular automation model, but the reason for adopting this model is not described, nor are the advantages and disadvantages compared to other models describing discrete-event systems. Enhancing this aspect of the article with a mention of models proposed in the literature such as Petri-net model (doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.184), or linear programming models (doi: 10.1109/COASE.2019.8842852), or other would be remarkable.

 

Also, a proof reading by a native English speaker should be conducted to improve both language and organization quality. In many cases, sentences are very long and concepts need to be simplified.

 

All formulas have incorrect numbering. It is appropriate to remove the # symbol and place the numbering inside round brackets.

 

In the line 230 are introduced “h” and “w”. What are these parameters?

 

In Section 2.2.6, an index or indicator is introduced as an evaluation method. The use of this method for the subsequent forecasting activities requires the application of baseline value-based methods. Some significant contributions (such as doi: 10.1109/CoDIT.2019.8820408, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106742, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150534) from literature are suggested that are worth considering.

 

There are several typos, such as:

-       lack of large letter after the dot (e.g. line 27, 353, 368 etc.);

-       line 59, insert comma in the reference (it is [11, 14] and not [1114]);

-       words repeated twice in the same sentence (e.g. line 203, line 300 and 301, and so on, for the word “model”,” simulation”, “based on the base”, etc.);

-       lack of punctuation (e.g. line 471, 587);

-       large letter not required (e.g. line 568 the word “Although”);

-       insert colon instead of dot at the end of the sentence (e.g. line 403).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for reviewing our research and giving valuable comments and suggestions. Your expertise and attention to detail have greatly improved the quality of our articles. The following are the responses and amendments to your comments:

 

1. For the problem that acronyms are not defined, we add an explanation at the location where the acronyms are first used. The goal is to ensure a clear understanding of the terms used and to improve readability.

 

2. As for the literature comparison of discrete system models, the advantages of CA model compared with other similar models are further expounded in the introduction. We have clearly pointed out the uniqueness and advantages of the CA model in a particular scenario, so that readers can better understand our research background and motivation.

 

3. As for the language problem, we have repolished the sentences of the article to improve the language quality of the original text. We attach great importance to the clarity and accuracy of the language, and through careful revision and polishing, we hope to make the article easier to understand and read.

 

4. We apologize for the # in the formula. This problem is caused by the wrong way of exporting our original PDF file. We have re-exported the correct file to ensure that the formula symbols are displayed correctly.

 

5. We have given specific explanations of "h" and "w" in the original text to ensure readers' understanding of these symbols. In the revised version, we have added explanations of these symbols so that readers can understand their meanings more clearly.

 

6. In Section 3.3.2, we further introduce the evaluation method based on Section 2.2.6 in detail, especially the landscape pattern index for evaluating future land in the prediction of future urban expansion. We have added more details and examples to make this part more complete and clear.

 

7. As for the problem of wrong characters, we have carefully checked relevant errors in the process of proofreading the article, including the problem you pointed out. We attach great importance to the accuracy and professionalism of the articles and have carefully corrected and proofread them to ensure the quality of the articles.

 

Thank you again for your valuable comments and suggestions during the review process. Under your guidance, our articles have been further improved and perfected. We appreciate your expertise and attention to detail and sincerely thank you for your support and guidance.

In future work, we will continue to strive to improve the quality and accuracy of the articles. Your review comments play an important role in guiding our academic research. We will take every suggestion seriously and improve it in the follow-up work.

 

Thank you again for your review and look forward to your further guidance and support. If you have any other questions or comments, please feel free to let us know. We will be very happy to continue our communication and cooperation with you.

 

Best regards,

 

Liao Xiangli

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract.

I suggest adding the database used for manuscript.

 Introduction

I suggest that the Introduction chap. could be also developed based also on some international literature, projects results, some official reports.

Please develop the research question which is not very well stated in the Introduction.

 Results

I would like to see why there are differences, which are the main factors, to be added some correlations

 Conclusions

The connection between results and some projects could also be approached this could lead to an interesting and policy-relevant discussion

I suggest adding future scope of this study in the conclusion section. What can your results be used for?

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

First of all, thank you for reviewing our research paper and putting forward valuable comments and suggestions. Your professional insight and careful analysis have had a profound impact on our research work and enabled us to make comprehensive and beneficial improvements in the final draft.

 

According to your suggestions in the summary section, we have revised it. We have integrated not only your suggestions but also the comments of other reviewers to ensure the accuracy and readability of the paper. These changes will help to better communicate our research objectives, methods and main results, further improving the quality of the paper.

 

In response to your suggestions on the relevant discussion in the introduction, we have optimized and added some necessary literature. We believe that these changes strengthen the logical structure of the introduction and provide readers with a more comprehensive background and research basis. In particular, your focus on the core issue of this paper -- how to better extract the neighborhood role of the CA model -- provided insight and guidance, which we emphasized in our response.

 

In the results section, we pay particular attention to the driver analysis in Section 3.2. Combined with the reality of Chongqing, we conducted a more detailed study and explanation of the driving factors from different perspectives to provide deeper insight and data support. Your affirmation and suggestions on this part have played an important role in promoting our work, for which we would like to express our heartfelt thanks.

 

Finally, in the conclusion part, we combine the results of this paper with the national projects of China's economic development according to your opinions, and expound the practical application prospect of our research. Your suggestions make us more deeply realize the potential value of this study in predicting future urban expansion patterns. We believe that this combination will provide important reference and decision basis for relevant decision makers.

 

Thank you again for your guidance and support during the review process. Your review comments and suggestions have played an extremely important role in promoting our research. We feel very honored to improve our research papers under your guidance.

 

Thank you for your hard work and professional review. We deeply admire your professionalism and review ability.

 

Best regards,

 

Liao Xiangli

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The study proposes a new RF-SNSCNN-CA model to simulate urban expansion and analyze the spatial distribution patterns of geographic phenomena in Chongqing. In the following some comments to improve the research:

1.     Line 24-25: “compared with the RF-NN-CA without compared with RF-NN-CA without neighborhood,” rewrite it.

2.     Abstract: use full terms for first use.

3.     Line 131-135: “Chongqing is one of the national important central cities, the economic center of the upper reaches of Yangtze River, the core city of the twin-city economic circle of Chengdu and Chongqing, the national important advanced manufacturing center, the western financial center, the western international comprehensive transportation hub and the international gateway hub as approved by the State Council.” Rewrite the paragraph.

4.     2.1 study area: add climatic and land use information of the study area.

5.     Figure 3: what is the unit? Added it.

6.     Line 173: “RF-SNSCNN-CA” write the full term for first use.

7.     Line 262-263: “a 20% Dropout operation is performed to avoid overfitting on Next, a 2*2 convolution operation is used, and a 20% Dropout operation is performed to avoid overfitting.” Double check it.

8.     Discussion and Conclusions section: it is required the discussion section be separated and written in a dipper manner for instance it is not compared with similar research.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for reviewing the paper submitted by us and providing valuable comments and suggestions. We appreciate your professional knowledge and patience during the review process. The following are our replies to your comments:

 

1. Regarding your comments on lines 24-25 of the original abstract, we have repolished the abstract to further improve the accuracy and clarity of its expression.

 

2. The abbreviations in the abstract have been corrected and an explanation provided for abbreviations to ensure that readers can better understand the content of the paper.

 

3. We have corrected the introduction of Chongqing to a more accurate expression to ensure the accuracy of the information.

 

4. We have added relevant profiles of climate and land use information in the study area to provide more comprehensive background information.

 

5. In view of the problem you raised in Figure 3, since the value range of each driving factor is different, we have considered adding legends for each driving factor to represent its value range. However, doing so will cause Figure 3 to become bloated. Therefore, in order to simplify the diagram, we choose to use the normalized representation, so that only one legend is used, which is more concise. At the same time, we suspect that the reason for your question may be the use of qualitative descriptors such as "high" and "low" in the legend, for which we have corrected it to the actual values of 0 and 1.

 

6. The full term for RF-SNSCNN-CA is now given in the previous article to ensure the reader's understanding of the term.

 

7. We have corrected the error in lines 262-263 to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the paper.

 

8. We have rewritten the discussion and conclusion sections to better respond to the research questions and draw conclusions, as well as to further improve the logic and coherence of the paper.

 

Thank you again for your professional guidance and advice during the review process. Your review comments play a key role in improving the quality of our research and papers. We highly appreciate your professionalism and meticulous review attitude. If you have any other questions or comments, please feel free to let me know.

 

Sincere regards,

 

Liao Xiangli

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Introduction

The Introduction is still poor, I suggest that the Introduction chap. could be also developed based also on some international literature, projects results, some official reports.

The research question was rewritten but still for what your results is useful is not mentioned.

 

Results

I would like to see why there are differences, which are the main factors, to be added some correlations

 

Conclusions

The connection between results and some projects could also be approached this could lead to an interesting and policy-relevant discussion

What can your results be used for?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

First of all, I would like to sincerely thank you for your review comments on our research once again. By carefully reading and taking your suggestions into account, we have made comprehensive changes and improvements to the paper to make it even better. The following is our response to each of your comments:

1. We appreciate your comments on our overview of the current state of land use simulation research. This section is also the part we changed the most. In response to your comments, we have provided a detailed review of existing land use simulation-related research in which we have highlighted the value of model construction in this study. This is fully reflected in our revised manuscript. With such an overview, we hope to provide the reader with a clear background to better understand our research work.

2. Thank you for your comments on our interpretation of the results. Our understanding of the term "the main factors" in your comments is the driving factor (such as light, DEM, etc.) in our study. In section 3.2 of our paper, we have analyzed these drivers in detail from different perspectives and in the context of the reality of Chongqing city. If your comments refer to other meanings of "the main factors", please describe them more clearly so that I can make more changes, I would be grateful for this.

3. Thank you for your suggestions on our presentation in the conclusion section. Based on your comments, we have combined the results of this paper with China's national program for economic development (Rural Revitalization Strategy) to illustrate predictions of future urban expansion patterns. We have further presented and illustrated this result in lines 603 to 623, as you suggested. We believe that such additions enhance the usefulness and relevance of our findings, while also providing a valuable reference for policy makers in China.

Thank you again for providing valuable comments and suggestions on our study. Your expertise and guidance have been an important contribution to our work. We are grateful for your review comments and sincerely hope that our revised manuscript will meet your expectations. If you have any further suggestions or requests, please feel free to let us know and we will be more than willing to further improve our research.

Thank you again for your review work!

Sincere regards,

 

Liao Xiangli

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors taken into account all the suggestions.