Spatial-Temporal Effect of Sea–Land Gradient on Land Use Change in Coastal Zone: A Case Study of Dalian City
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
There is no doubt that the authors have undertaken an important topic output of which can complement towards better urban planning vis-à-vis changing patterns of climate in the context sea level rise and other maritime climate indicators and enhancing the urban resilience. This can also be helpful in understanding the relationship between future exposure of urban settlement to sea related vulnerability vis-à-vis adaptive capacity by considering the sensitivity of the coastal ecosystem involved. So, I appreciate the authors for choosing a significant topic. However, I have following observations as an initial review:
1. ABSTRACT. It is written as the crux of the entire manuscript and its contents are representing the complete paper. So, it needs a thorough revision in the light of my following observations on the entire manuscript.
2. There is no qualifying statement for the aim of the paper. The current statement about aim of the paper does not provide practical use / benefit of this research. It should be strengthened not only in Abstract part but also in introduction of the paper.
3. Line 30 (Introduction). Land Use/Cover Change (LUCC) is used by the author, which is not well-established terminology along with the abbreviation used in the paper. It is used in informal way and perhaps to overcome interference due to similarity index. The well-established terminology is land use and land cover change (LULCC). So, either it should be used completely for first time and rest of the places its correct terminology can be used. OR, alternately, strong argument is required to establish a new scientific knowledge. If the authors desire to write it in informal way as the case is in present paper form, then don’t mention its incorrect abbreviation and use without it.
4. What is rationale behind the dataset for the period 2000-2015? Its logic is missing under the methodology section, as the paper is submitted 7 years after the year 2015 which can be most significant period. Whereas non-availability of dataset for the said period cannot be excused for such modern-day research on LULCC. Most importantly, it needs to be clarified with solid justification. Any gap should be written as limitation of the study in conclusion section. In other case, the paper will be having a major shortcoming.
5. Although the study tried to determine the distance from coastline, what baseline point of coast-line was used to determine the distances? Since coastlines are used on a wider scale compared to shorelines. However, it has significant relationship with high water mark. Reflection of shoreline in Figure 3(d) and line numbers 131 & 132 has created confusion in this regard. There is a need to describe the baseline point in methodology section and a clear conceptual distinction be provided between coastline and shoreline.
6. From the overall contents of the paper, it is visible that only outward land use and land cover change (LULCC) flux (i.e. towards terrestrial part) along-side the coast is assessed by the authors. Whereas inward flux (towards marine ecosystem) from baseline point is neither assessed as part of results nor discussed as per of discussion so as to identify actual trends vis-à-vis density of the actual changes have been taken place towards the baseline point of the coastline. It needs to be duly clarified under methodology and discussion parts of the paper, and any gap / shortcoming needs to be mentioned as part of limitation of the study in conclusion part.
7. Although section 2.2 (line 115) mentions about radiometric correction and geometric correction, the overall methodology section lacks information regarding ‘GROUND TRUTHING’ for the dataset used in this study. Without ground truthing, how accuracy vis the error matrices for results are ensured? This is a major concern for the paper. It need to be described and justified under methodology section, in a satisfactory and comprehensive way. Any gap/shortcoming needs to be covered as part of limitation of the study.
8. In lines 131 to 133, 207 to 208 and conclusion (line 290), reclamation is repeatedly used. It is technical and cannot be determined through a simple remote sensing image based analysis. Its needs proper reference and solid argument that reclamation of land has been done during the study period. One possible reason can be the expansion of urban structures inward to the sea alike port jetties which need reclamation. However, it is neither argued nor supported as the paper results revolves around the outward flux from an unclear baseline point. Here, two different segments exist i.e. one is the marine side and other terrestrial side. Both need to be understood well and clarified with strong justification and proper references not only in methodology part but also in discussion and conclusion. In other case, all related contents to reclamation need to be removed from the paper on logical ground.
9. Similarly to my comment vide para 8 above, agricultural land transformation should also be clarified. There is no clarity regarding the trends of transformation i.e. either agricultural extensification has occurred or something different than this alike increased flux of urban settlement in agricultural land areas.
10. In the light of above comments, conclusion and abstract need to be updated after addressing the observation.
11. Quality of many figures are not good, which should be replaced with higher resolutions.
12. All above comments are part of my initial review. Subsequent upon addressing the above comments, I will examine the results in the light of revised paper for which I reserve my feedback at this stage of the review.
13. Improvement also needed in English Language which can be done in next review round after satisfactory settlement of initial review comments.
14. Overall, the paper needs major revision and re-submission in track change mode for its second round of review at my part, if proceeds further as per editorial procedure.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Thank you!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1) Broad comments
1. 1-The text have a good organization. In general, it was written in a simple and clear style.
2. 2-There is a number largely sufficient of figures and tables. This makes the article very argumentative and helps to better understand the explanation and the sequence of ideas.
3. 3-On the abstract, the type of images has been indicated (TM/ETM+) while on the method section there is not enough precision. Could you add the type of each image and its exact date. In addition, add an explanation of the choice of these two types (TM/ETM+), especially the ETM+ sensors have technical problems since 2003. So it is essential to clarify this information in form of a table in the methodology section.
4. 4-Especially in the introduction, try to avoid announcing the names of the authors. It is recommended to use brackets to make reading text easier and to aid the reader in following the structure of the presentation.
5. 5-In the methods section (2.2. Data sources), it would be important to indicate the indices or band ratios used during the processing of Landsat images.
6. 6-When referring to figures, tables and equations, avoid announcing each time the expressions (as shown in Figure, as shown in Equation, …). This makes the text redundant. To be concise when referring to figures, tables and equations, you just have to use the citation between brackets, for example: (Figure X)
7. 7-The illustrations have different fonts. It is necessary to unify the writing style according to the constructions of this journal.
8. 8-The explanation of the spatio-temporal variation of different parameters used in the results and discussion section is missing. This is very important; the results should be discussed and compared with other similar studies for example.
9. 9-In the conclusion section it is recommended to add a short paragraph to explain the main index used.
1. 10-The choice of bibliographical references was well focused. However, it is worth noting a lack of diversified references.
2) Specific comments referring to line numbers
In addition to the comments on each line, there are suggestions for rewording the sentences in yellow.
8: Geographically the coastal zone is a unit…
12: Land use maps were extracted…
33: I cannot find in internet the reference 1, I suggest using this one: Ding, Z., Su, F., Zhang, J., Zhang, Y., Luo, S., & Tang, X. (2019). Clustering coastal land use sequence patterns along the sea–land direction: A case study in the coastal zone of Bohai Bay and the Yellow River Delta, China. Remote Sensing, 11(17), 2024.
36: …has become an active field of research
89: … for the four years. At...
97-100: Dalian is located on the southernmost tip of the Liaodong Peninsula (120°58'-123°31' 97 E, 38°43'-40°10' N), on the shores of the Yellow Sea in Northeast China (Figure 1). The topography is…
100-101: could you give a value of the high and the low altitude? It will be more informative sentence
115: It would be interesting to list all types of image pre-processing.
117-118: a bibliography reference to be mentioned for the (GB/T21010-2017).
119: you mean by forest land the Woodland and Grassland ? If yes, please mention it on this phrase, especially you use the word forest in the other parts of your paper.
128-129: The current coastline is used as the boundary of the study area and the shorelines of the years 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015 were extracted from the land use classification (Figure 2). Since 2000, the shorelines have…
130: what are these other reasons? Climatic or anthropogenic?
135: Figure 3. Comparison of coastline changes in Dalian between 2000 and 2015.
143: … km respectively (Figure 4). The different coastal buffer…
148: Dynamic index of the coastal land use
151-152: there is a repetition of the same sentence. I suggest to delete the phrase (This paper constructs a quantitative description of land use dynamics in the coastal area.)
178-180: The aggregation index is used to reflect the structural characteristics of the distribution of land use quantities between different zones in different periods [30]. This parameter is defined as shown in equation 5:
188-189: The change in the area of different land use types in different buffer zones in Dalian between 2000 and 2015 (Table 2) could be summarized in the following:
192-194: The proportion of water body area is highest in the range less than 2.5 km from the shoreline, but has decreased significantly with time. Despite a slight increase in the proportion of water is noted on the buffer zones [10,Max] and [10,Max] between 2000 and 2015.
195: Between 2010 and 2015 instead of Since 2010.
202-203: The analysis in changes of the dynamic land use attitude gradient in the buffer zones during the period 2000-2015 (Figure 5) could be summarized in the following points:
204-206: The graph reading is not clear, could you reformulate this paragraph.
208: Please give more explanation if you have them instead of putting the abbreviation (etc.)
226: … construction lands. The main observations may be summarized as follows:
240-241: The net land use transfer matrix within each buffer zone in Dalian allow the detection of the spatial interconversion between land use types (Table 4, 5, 6 and 7). This test revealed that In the [0, 2.5] km, …
243-245: … into cities and villages. Regarding the intervals [2.5, 5] and [5, 10] km, the prevailing trend of land use transfer is the transformation of agricultural land and forest land into cities and villages, with a gradual shift towards villages as the distance increases…
255-256: Figure 6 shows the obtained results of the calculation aggregation index of the land use structure of Dalian City from 2000 to 2015 at different distances.
266-269: The results of this index demonstrate two things. First, from the time scale, the equilibrium degree of land use structure in Dalian City from 2000 to 2015 shows a fluctuating upward trend. Second, from the distance scale, the closer the distance ([0, 2.5]) is the most functional categories of land use with highest homogeneity.
276-277: Please be more precise if there is a changes or not.
281-186: This sentence not clear and so longue (about 5 lines!). Rewording is required! Also there is a repetition of the expression (this paper).
299: …particular level. Overall, the coastal areas are the first to suffer.
3) Figures
-Figure 2: change the small map by using the map of China and add the north symbol.
-Figure 3: the scale is not readable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Broad comments
The manuscript presents an interesting approach to detecting criticalities in coastal city areas. However, the introduction is poorly written, and significant revision is required. A research paper must be grounded in theory; where is the evidence of theory within this manuscript? There is a weak literature review.
A research paper should contain comprehensive information about the research question. The contribution of this research to the body of knowledge is unclear. It is recommended that the author(s) revisit this manuscript to identify the research question and include a comprehensive literature review of the phenomenon in question.
However, to make it more suitable for the special issue, I'm expecting that the author could add a bit more to the discussion of land policy, like maybe the implication of their findings on how the future land policy in Dalian City, in particular, should look like. They indeed provide specific actions that can progress the implementation of mitigation and adaptation as their recommendation based on their findings, but it would be better for the special issue if they could also add some more or adjust their request to be more specific on the land policies.
Abstract
· The work's outcomes and contributions are not well communicated in the abstract. Additionally, details about the research methods and the main conclusions or products are needed. Therefore, the abstract has to be significantly refined, especially the significant results.
· This abstract is lengthy. The maximum word count for the abstract is 200. Reference the "Author guidelines" if necessary.
Keywords
· Use different words entirely for the title and keyword.
· Please completely update and clarify the key phrases. Please use the phrases underlined in the article as your search terms. The keyword cannot be longer than 4-6 words.
Introdution and literature
· The authors should improve the introduction and literature review parts following the research report format. It is not permissible to publish this section in Land Journal. It is pretty brief, to begin with. Why is this study significant? There are some redundancies in the introduction part. Please revise. The literature review is crucial for how this study differs from others in the field of research; There are also a few grammatical/punctuation errors throughout the text that need to be corrected.
Methodology
· I believe that additional specifics and references should be used to characterize the study area.
· Methodological procedures are unclear to facilitate the reader's understanding. The authors should describe the methods and tools used in detail, informing in each step the samples, periods, equipment, and what criteria are used for each technique.
· Line 157, Page 6: UA and UB are what? Please verify the manuscript's abbreviations one more time.
· Abbreviations (UA and UB) were not identified when first used. All abbreviations in the manuscript should be recognized when first used. Thus, the authors are recommended to define all abbreviations when first used. Correction should be applied to the whole text.
Result
· Please separate the results and discussion per the journal's guidelines.
· The results section is relatively weak. Explanation, justification, and sources of the provided information are unclear. As a result, the results section is ineffectual and very short. Edit it and make changes, please.
Discussion
Prepare the discussion part, please. This component of a research paper is essential.
Conclusion
· The conclusion might be improved and modified to emphasize the study's results more than any issues or implications. What makes research novel? What "limitations of the research" are there? Please place the "Recommendations and Future Work" section in the conclusion.
· The conclusion is intended to help the reader understand why your research should matter to them after they have finished reading the paper. A conclusion is not merely a summary of the main topics covered or a re-statement of your research problem, but a synthesis of key points and, if applicable, where you recommend new areas for future research.
Specific comments
Figures
Figure 1: Please insert the north arrow in the picture. Please edit it and make it better.
Follow the out layer map in GIS format. The current map cannot be justified.
Figure 2: This figure is essential for the audience, so please improve and revise the
constitution and separate all the land use maps according to the year in the
different figures.
Figure 3: This is not clear. Please revise and use a high-resolution image. Please insert the
north arrow in the picture.
Figure 4: Please insert the north arrow in the picture. All figures should be enlarged to
make all details well-visible.
v Numerous grammatical errors and poor expressions significantly lower the quality of the manuscript. The paper should be polished by a native English speaker or expert and well-experienced researcher in the field.
v The current form needs significant adjustments to meet publishing criteria, such as providing the research with sound processes.
v You need to distribute better the knowledge portions between the Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion. At least all findings should be separated from interpretations and methodological notes.
v Before the paper is accepted, all these critical issues must be explained reasonably in the Materials and Methods section.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors, please see my comments for round 2 regarding review of paper in blue text inside attached word file, against your responses i.e. ‘R’.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see the attachment. We reply in red text inside attached word file.
Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I don’t have additional comment
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We have made a second round of revisions to the paper in accordance with your suggestions. We checked the references, the references of the paper are all related to the research content. Thank you for valuable comments on our paper, which are very important for our paper, and we hope that our paper will be approved by you.
