Regional Land Eco-Security Evaluation for the Mining City of Daye in China Using the GIS-Based Grey TOPSIS Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The regional assessment of ecological safety is a very important research topic and a significant methodology for environmental protection, land use and social development. The authors identify the existence of regional limitations of ecological resources in the study to overcome difficulties and complexity in quantifying current models used in terrestrial ecosystems.
The article has a correct structure which makes it easier to read it. The second section presents materials and methods. It should be explained why MCDA, e.g., to use Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection, was chosen. In section 2.5 it is also necessary to complete which normalization method was used. This is a narrow step in many MCDM methods as well as in TOPSIS (e.g. please see Are MCDA methods benchmarkable? a comparative study of topsis, vikor, copras, and promethee ii methods). The results are quite interesting, but it would be possible to check their similarity to the expected values using the A new coefficient of rankings similarity in decision-making problems. The description of the directions of further research work proposed in the conclusions should be extended. Errors such as in line 233 and 234, where r+/r- is replaced by r^+ and r^-, should also be corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Land use by sub-region not presented (along with average factors), it can help to interpret results

possible Typos
eq(1): Ni, TAi not defined
eq.(7),(8): missing index for r+, r-;
eq.(8): |r- + rij| instead of |r- - rij|
eq.(11),(12): uppercase letter L, Q not defined. Lowcase assumed?

Author Response

Please see the attachemnt.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear all,

In the first place, many thanks for the opportunity to revise this paper.
The theme of the work is interesting and totally in line with the journal scope. Besides, it presents scientific soundness.

However, I expect to encounter some references of similar studies in the discussion part - to foster the discussion over this issue and consequently enrich the thematic literature. Thus, I recommend the addition of similar studies to create a debate in the discussion section.

Regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been improved correctly. I suggest accepting in the current form.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.