Spatial Correlation and Convergence Analysis of Eco-Efficiency in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract:

- the abstract is not self-explanatory. In the abstract results should be clear underlining their importance for the policy-makers;

Introduction:

The text from 62 to 102 mainly focuses on methodology rather than on results. In the introductive section I suggest to cite only the main findings identified in the literature related to eco-efficiency in China and in the world.

Methodology:

- better describe the limits of the SBM Model and others equations (1 to 6) using relevant literature (see text from 62 to 102);

Data source:

- section 233 to 236 – present a short descriptive statistics for the main variables used in the article to explain the results;

Results:

- the text repeat the findings from tables and figures. The text is too long focusing mainly on methodological consequences rather on results that can be used by policy-makers;

- there are no discussions of the main results;

Conclusion section – too long, repeating some of the text from the previous section.

Author Response

A response document has been upload

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overview:

This paper employed Slack-Based Measure model to analyze the spatial characteristics of eco-efficiency and the convergence of eco-efficiency’s total factor productivity of 31 provinces in China. The study showed that the eastern region of China exhibited the high-high and low-high clustering areas. Authors further found that the conditional convergence is represented in all regions except the western region in China.

Major comments:

Although this study has done an intensive review on eco-efficiency and the results are interesting, the notation of different models and description of different models are very confusing. For instance, on page 4 line 155,  what is the difference between Dc and Dv? On page 4, line 138, page 5, line 160 and line 177, authors used x, and I don’t think they mean the same x, but authors used the same notation, which is very confusing. On page 6, line 189, authors did not explain how they define public side and public point. 

Author Response

A response document has been upload。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper can be published.

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have addressed all my concerns.