Analysis of Ecological Environment Quality and Its Driving Factors in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region of China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, ‘’Analysis on the pattern evolution of ecological environment quality and its driving factor in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region of China’’ was investigated. The title is relevant to the scope of Sustainability, but the manuscript requires significant improvement to exhibit quality and capture immense readability. Therefore, my comments are indicated below in bold red colour:
Title
I suggest that the title of the manuscript be rephrased
Abstract
The abstract mentions the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region five times; please reduce it.
The ecological environment is the focal point of the manuscript, and it was mentioned too many times that it becomes redundant. Please revise the abstract to high quality and for comprehensive readers’ attention.
A brief recommendation for the study in the abstract based on the empirical outcomes of the manuscript is important.
Introduction
Lack of relevance and statistics about the exact focus of the research is missing. I suggest you rewrite the introductory section to show a clear line of thought. In the present form, the introduction is structurally deficient.
It would be better if the authors could discuss the environmental quality targets of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. It would be best if you also explored the policy and regulatory reforms that can spur the public-private partnership to fully tap the potential for investment and innovation for environmental development projects
With the use chart, please discuss the historical air quality trends in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. Also, the authors need to highlight the actions plans of the region to improve its air quality
Discuss how the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region is encouraging low-carbon corporate strategies in state-owned enterprises, including the adoption of carbon accounting and targeting to support national goals
A mere mention of how water resources deteriorate is insufficient for the research quality. I expect the authors to explore the level of river water quality, water supply management and, range of water resources policies, legal and regulatory requirements in the region.
Concerning land poisoning, please explore the land use act and land use change in the region
The authors repeatedly used environmental and ecological together in a sentence; thus, it becomes unnecessary. For example, on page 2, lines 51-53. Note that environment and ecology are Nouns; therefore, has the same meaning when used together in a sentence. Please revise the use of both words thoroughly.
Page 2, lines 34: write NDVI in complete form in its first appearance. Please do the same for other short forms in their first appearances.
Page 2, line 60: Please revise ‘’ This The method’’
Page 2, line 66: the authors said, ‘’Ecological environment quality is affected by regional complexity’’ The authors should expound on how various regional complexity affects environmental quality in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. For more information, please consult Karlsen (2010). Regional complexity and the need for engaged governance. EKONOMIAZ. Revista vasca de Economía, 74(02), 90-111.
What is the source of Figure 1?
Merely describing the study area is insufficient for vast readers’ attention. The authors should discuss the contribution of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region to China's economy. What factors contribute to the region's fast-growing economy, and how important is it to national economic growth? This aspect is necessary.
I could not find the research question and objective in the manuscript.
Materials and Methods
Do you follow only Xu et al. (2018) to develop all the equations (1-25)? The research should specify the models followed.
It would be best if you could tell us more about variable selections and the justification accompanying each of them
Please identify the theory guiding the research methods.
Also, the authors need to discuss the methodological gap. How has your study contributed to the body of literature?
Analysis
Page 8, lines 262-265: the authors claimed that ‘’The main reason is that in the early 20th century, the rapid development of big cities in China sacrificed ecological construction to a certain extent, which caused ecological damage to a certain extent, which made RSEI showed a downward trend’’
First, did your data cover the 20th century? If not, your reason is not valid. Second, did you measure the impact of construction on ecological quality? If yes, based on the time frame of your data, discuss the extent to which ecological quality was affected. The mere mention of the extent of the effects is insufficient in discussing high-quality research.
Page 8, lines 277-279: you claim that’’ It was found that from 2000 to 2020, the RSEI of the mountain ecological zone was generally higher than that of other regions’’ it would be best if you could discuss/link the contextual reason why RSEI was higher in mountain ecological region compare with other regions
Also, merely describing results means the authors perhaps lack sufficient information for analysis—for example, the RSEI, EQI, and REI analyses. Therefore, I suggest the authors validate the results interpreted with earlier arguments in the introduction.
A significant review of the result for interaction detection is lacking. I strongly advised that the authors calculate the interaction variables' marginal effect so appropriate interpretations can be applied.
For an appropriate approach to discussing interaction, please visit the study by Sulaiman et al. (2022). Curbing environmental degradation through energy transition in ASEAN‐9: Does the interactive role of political will matter? OPEC Energy Review. 2022, 46(4), pp. 492–501
The conclusion need thorough improvements and more policy recommendations should be added.
A native speaker of the English language must proofread the manuscript, as it contains too many sentence fragments.
I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript upon major corrections.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Professor:
Thank you very much for your helpful comments. Considering the comments, we tried our best to improve the manuscript (Manuscript ID: 2325655) and made changes in the present revised manuscript.
Please refer to the attachment for the modification explanation.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments
The manuscript focused on the pattern of ecological environment quality change and its driving factors in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. The study seems meaningful. However, there are still so many problems, which need careful revisions, such as:
1. Generally, ecological indices such as NDVI and NPP are greatly influenced by climate change. It is necessary to use a multi-year average or a multi-year slope to represent its changes. The calculation of REI includes NDVI and NPP. When explaining the change pattern, there was a downward trend in 2020, and the author's explanation is not convincing. Therefore, it is recommended that the author not simply use a certain year for change explanation, but should replace the results of the current year with at least a three-year average. Namely, the years 1999 to 2001 represent the situation in 2000, 2004 to 2006 represent the situation in 2005, and so on. Therefore, it is best to update all data.
2. What is the data source of land use data? How about resolution and classification? Due to the large amount of data used in this article, it is recommended to list the source, time and spatial resolution of each data, whether it is spatial or statistical, to enhance the credibility of the data in this article.
3. There are several Chinese in Figure 5 and Table 6.
4. The county name in Table 6 seems meaningless because we don't know where they are all distributed only in the manuscript.
5. In Line 485, and what? Not finished writing.
6. In Figure 7 and 8 and the other Figures, the color legend needs to be modified. Usually, green represents areas with good ecology, while red represents areas with poor ecology.
7. In Figure 2, the color legend needs to be modified. The current color cannot well show the spatial patten.
8. In Figure 1, “Nighttime Liight data” should be “Nighttime Light data”.
9. What do WDBSI and TCW mean? There are no complete spelling of WDBSI and TCW in the entire manuscript. Besides, WDBSI or NDBSI? TCW or Wet？It needs carefully checked.
Author Response
Dear Professor:
Thank you very much for your helpful comments. Considering the comments, we tried our best to improve the manuscript (Manuscript ID: 2325655) and made changes in the present revised manuscript.
Please refer to the attachment for the modification explanation.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In my opinion, the originality and research depth of this manuscript is limit. The used methods, especially geographic detector, were unreliable or robust. The description of the methods processes was incomplete. There is no description on the use of software and other people's code. The overall level of figures and tables is poor and the layout is very messy. More specific comments can be found in the attachment pdf file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Professor:
Thank you very much for your helpful comments. Considering the comments, we tried our best to improve the manuscript (Manuscript ID: 2325655) and made changes in the present revised manuscript.
Please refer to the attachment for the modification explanation.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments
In the previous round of review, there are 9 comments. The authors have only modified five to six simple comments. And there are still 4 comments without good revised. Carefully revision again is necessary. I didn't see that the author was making serious revisions. For example:
1. In the “sustainability-2325655-coverletter”, the authors responsed:
“6. In Figure 7 and 8 and the other Figures, the color legend needs to be modified. Usually, green represents areas with good ecology, while red represents areas with poor ecology. Response: The image has been modified according to the suggestions. green represents areas with good ecology, while red represents areas with poor ecology.”
However, the figure 7 and 8 and the other figures in the revised manuscript haven’t been revised.
2. In the “sustainability-2325655-coverletter”, the authors responsed:
“9. What do WDBSI and TCW mean? There are no complete spelling of WDBSI and TCW in the entire manuscript. Besides, WDBSI or NDBSI? TCW or Wet？It needs carefully checked. Response: Spelling of NDBSI and TCW has been checked and added to the manuscript.”
However, there are still WET in the Section 2.3.1.
3. Besides, the second comment “ What is the data source of land use data? How about resolution and classification? Due to the large amount of data used in this article, it is recommended to list the source, time and spatial resolution of each data, whether it is spatial or statistical, to enhance the credibility of the data in this article.” The authors not improved much in new version, which need be more revised again.
Author Response
Dear Professor:
Thank you very much for your helpful comments. We sincerely accepted your criticism, and had tried our best to improve the manuscript according to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
My previous concerns had been addressed. Figs 2 and 4 should join the subplots into one canvas to maintain the integrity of the figure rather than several separated images. I have no more comments on this revised manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Professor:
Thank you very much for your helpful comments. We accepted your suggestion and joined the subplots into one canvas. These changes can be seen in the new version.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
In the new version of the revised manuscript, the author made careful revisions based on the review comments. The manuscript can be published after careful examination of its format.
