Spatiotemporal Evolution of Ecological Environment Quality and Driving Factors in Jiaodong Peninsula, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.It is imperative to provide specific dates for the remote sensing data to ensure accuracy. Furthermore, the broad timeframe spanning from June to September, particularly concerning agricultural land use data influenced by planting regimes, may exhibit significant discrepancies within ESRI.

2 Kilometer-grid GDP data are derived from a synthesis of luminosity data and relationships with land use, population density, among other factors, presenting a fundamental disparity from GDP figures obtained through administrative district-based statistical methodologies. As the manuscript has already incorporated land use and population data, it is recommended to eliminate this factor from consideration.

3.Given the substantial variability in remote sensing data and remote ecological indices attributable to differences in sensors, environmental conditions, and socio-economic factors, the data spanning three years fail to capture the nuanced changes over a twenty-year period. Consequently, the extensive portrayal of yearly variations over two decades in the manuscript is deemed inappropriate. It is advisable to confine the descriptions to a comparison of data at three specific time points.

4. Better to consider the temporal lag effects of driving factors, as these factors exhibit varying degrees of temporal delay. Analyzing their correlation with ESRI data at the same time point yields poor scientific rigor due to the heterogeneous lag effects.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Ecological Environment Quality (EEQ) is of great importance for both ecological environment governance and sustainable development. This study evaluates the EEQ of Jiaodong using the Remote Sensing-based Ecological Index (RSEI) model and analyzes its spatiotemporal evolution patterns. The manuscript as basically well structured, with reasonable methods and results.

The following two issues need to be noticed:

1) Although RSEI is widely used, from the perspective of ecological environment quality, it does not consider land and water pollution and air quality. I suggest supplement environmental pollution data to optimize the index's ability to characterize ecological environment quality;

2) A variety of scales are involved in the data used in this paper, especially some socio-economic statistics may be statistically analyzed by administrative divisions. All data were resampling to 5km in the paper. Why not close to the minimum or maximum scale, the reasons need to be further explained;

Note that the following details need to be revised:

3）Line5，change “algorithm. Using” to “algorithm, Using”;

4）Line 87,change ’col-lected’ to ‘, collected’;

5) Line 100-116, reduce the numbering levels of the four indicators to levels below the third-level heading 2.3.1., e.g. by adding half brackets;

6) Line 145-146, reduce the numbering levels of the two indicators to levels below the third-level heading 2.3.3., e.g. by adding half brackets;

7）Line187-194，reduce the numbering levels of the two indicators to levels below the third-level heading 2.3.5，e.g. by adding half brackets；

8)Figure 2, Explain X1-X6 briefly, or give a citation;

9)Figure 7 ,Explain what the blue and gray circles represent, respectively;

10)Figure 8, Explain X1-X6 briefly, or give a citation.

Minor revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper titled "Spatiotemporal Evolution of Ecological Environment Quality and Driving Factors in Jiaodong Peninsula, China" presents a comprehensive analysis of the ecological environment quality (EEQ) dynamics in the Jiaodong Peninsula region using the Remote Sensing-based Ecological Index (RSEI) and explores the driving factors behind these changes. The authors have employed a robust methodology, combining RSEI calculation, spatial autocorrelation analysis, RANSAC algorithm, and GeoDetector statistical methods. Overall, the paper addresses an important topic and provides valuable insights into the dynamics of EEQ and its drivers in this rapidly urbanizing region. However, some concerns and areas need improvement, as outlined below.

 1.      In the introduction, provide more context on why studying the ecological environment quality and driving factors of the Jiaodong Peninsula is essential. What are the unique characteristics and challenges of this region?

2.    Provide more information on the data preprocessing steps, such as cloud masking and gap-filling techniques, used for the remote sensing data. This will enhance the methods' transparency and reproducibility.

3.      Temporal scale and long-term trends: The study period from 2000 to 2020 may not be sufficient to capture long-term trends and patterns in EEQ changes, especially considering the lagged effects of urbanization and climate change processes. The authors should discuss the limitations of the temporal scale and, if possible, consider extending the analysis to include historical data or future projections.

 4.      Limited consideration of spatial heterogeneity: The study area, the Jiaodong Peninsula, likely exhibits significant spatial heterogeneity regarding land cover, topography, soil characteristics, and other environmental factors that can influence ecological processes and EEQ. However, the paper does not seem to account for this spatial heterogeneity in its analyses, potentially oversimplifying the complex relationships between driving factors and EEQ across different landscapes or ecosystems within the study area. How do authors justify this question?

 5.      Proofread the entire manuscript carefully for grammar, spelling, and formatting consistency. A few instances of awkward phrasing can be polished.

Spelling: Line 5 “cor-relation”; Line 123 “Secendly”; Line 143 “caculated”…

Proofread the entire manuscript carefully for grammar, spelling, and formatting consistency. A few instances of awkward phrasing can be polished.

Spelling: Line 5 “cor-relation”; Line 123 “Secendly”; Line 143 “caculated”…

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

It's evident that you've carefully considered the comments and suggestions, and your revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript. I am OK with the current version.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript (sustainability-2930563), your comments have broadened our horizons. We greatly appreciate your positive feedback on our last revision. In this revision, we primarily focused on enhancing the following aspects:

(1)We double-checked the English to polish the language.

(2)we carefully revised the Discussion, added corresponding figure and table numbers to the conclusive statements discussing the findings derived from our study data.( line 336-405)

(3)We carefully revised the Conclusions to make it clearer and more definitive( Line 416-441 ).

Hoping our further revisions could meet your satisfaction.