Ecological Environmental Quality in China: Spatial and Temporal Characteristics, Regional Differences, and Internal Transmission Mechanisms
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Respect,
The review of the literature is placed in the Introduction, although it is more appropriate to create a separate section after the Introduction, which deals with the review of the results of research so far. In this regard, the proposal is to separate the Literature Review from the Introduction and make it a separate section. In that case, the introduction should be conceptualized differently, namely:
- Make a short review to introduce the potential reader to the topic that is the subject of the paper. The introduction should contain enough information for the reader to understand and evaluate the ideas and activity of the author, the achieved results, without first consulting the wider literature.
- The introduction practically hints at what will be presented in the paper.
- In the introduction, state why the author became interested in the given topic.
- Several suggestions are indicated in the paper itself.
Good luck!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: It is recommended that the Literature Review be separated from the Introduction and become a separate section.
Response 1: The literature review has been separated from the introduction into a separate section. The introduction section introduces the topic of the paper, explains why the authors are interested in the given topic, and describes the structure of the paper; the literature review presents the current state of national and international research.
Point 2: The last sentence of the summary needs to be changed. Instead of this sentence, insert a sentence that would include a concise conclusion or proposal based on the research results.
Response 2: The last sentence of the abstract has been replaced with a concise recommendation based on the research results.
Point 3: Insert a sentence in the introduction.
Response 3: A suggested sentence has been inserted in the introduction.
Point 4: Restructuring of the original Part III (Materials and Methods).
Response 4: The framework of the original part 3 (Materials and Methods) has been changed as requested: data source then etc. methods used in research.
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is interesting, and the author has done a great job in realizing the subject. However, there are few areas on the paper that is still lagging and should be addressed properly.
Abstract
1. The authors should motivate the choice of variables with theory and empirical backing on the subject
2. Keywords should be revised to match key element of title
3. Rewrite the title to be more catchy
4. Introduction
1. The objective of the paper presented need more clarifications to suit reader to understand the main idea of the paper especially for the study case is needed
2. Literature review
The literature is well written. However, there is need for more recent studies ranging from 2018-2022 to motivate the study properly. The entire study is too scanty and the related literature is not exhausted
Mitigating emissions in India: accounting for the role of real income, renewable energy consumption and investment in energy. 12(1), pp. 188-192
Methodology
1. This section is generally well motivated, Kindly take note of the following minor additions
2. More benefit of the various techniques utilized should be stated
3. The authors should avoid much mathematical expressions or take some to appendix and make the study reader friendly for other practitioner other than academic with out compromise for study intend and quality.
Discussion
1. The discussion is well written, but the authors should like their findings to the previous studies in the literature.
2. There is need for professional proofreading or consult English native support
3. Conclusion
1. The sub-title should be conclusion and policy recommendation but not only conclusion
2. The policy which is the engine of the study is weak and small. I therefore encourage the authors to elaborate more on the policy recommendations to policy makers for the investigated bloc
3. The authors should add limitation of the study and future recommendation
Author Response
Point 1: In the abstract, the authors should motivate the choice of variables with theory and empirical backing on the subject.
Response 1: A description of the selection of variables has been included in the abstract and a detailed discussion of the selection of variables is given in 3.1.
Point 2: Keywords should be revised to match key element of title
Response 2: Keywords have been changed as suggested: eco-environmental quality; China; the "vertical and horizontal layer by layer" scatter degree method; Thiel index; mediation effects.
Point 3: Rewrite the title to be more catchy
Response 3: The title has been changed as suggested: China's ecological environment quality: spatial and temporal characteristics, regional differences and internal transmission mechanisms.
Point 4: The objective of the paper presented need more clarifications to suit reader to understand the main idea of the paper especially for the study case is needed.
Response 4: The introduction has been supplemented with a statement of the thesis objectives to accommodate the reader's understanding of the main idea of the thesis and the research case.
Point 5: There is need for more recent studies ranging from 2018-2022 to motivate the study properly. The entire study is too scanty and the related literature is not exhausted.
Response 5: The literature review has been supplemented with recent studies from 2018-2022 and enriched with relevant domestic and international research advances; suggested references have been used in the article.
Point 6: More benefit of the various techniques utilized should be stated
Response 6: Additional benefits of the various techniques used have been described, and the focus has been on statements of the role of the various techniques rather than on detailed descriptions of the methods.
Point 7: The authors should avoid much mathematical expressions or take some to appendix and make the study reader friendly for other practitioner other than academic with out compromise for study intend and quality.
Response 7: A large number of mathematical expressions have been placed in the appendix to ease the reader's reading burden.
Point 8: The sub-title should be conclusion and policy recommendation but not only conclusion
Response 8: The subtitle of the last section has been revised to three parts: conclusions, policy recommendations, limitation and prospects.
Point 9: The authors should have elaborated more on policy recommendations for the policy makers of the group surveyed.
Response 9: The policy recommendations section adds some detailed policy recommendations that can be implemented for the decision makers of the surveyed groups.
Point 10: The authors should add limitation of the study and future recommendation
Response 10: The last section adds the limitations of the study and the prospect.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper constructs an index system for evaluating ecological environment quality based on the pressure-state-response (PSR) model, measures the ecological environment quality index in China during 2005-2020, and measures the regional ecological environment quality differences. In general, the idea is clear, the structure is reasonable, the article has certain practical significance. Some suggestions:
1. The second paragraph of the introduction: The author mainly lists the research results of relevant domestic scholars. How about the research on the quality of ecological environment abroad? How is it going? Are there any advanced research methods?
2. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypotheses. This part is too verbose. The PSR model has been widely used by mature penguins. It is suggested to delete the description of the importance of the PSR method and focus on the improvement of the method.
3. Ecological environment quality evaluation index system. What is the basis for selecting these factors?
4. Table 2, 3. Ecological environment quality scores of Chinese provinces and regions. Can the results of national assessments and regional differences be shown in map form? Speaking with Figures is relatively lacking in this article.
5. In the last part, it is suggested to change it into conclusion and discussion. In the discussion part, it is necessary to consider the relationship with relevant government policies and add supplement necessary references.
Author Response
Point 1: The author mainly lists the research results of relevant domestic scholars. How about the research on the quality of ecological environment abroad? How is it going? Are there any advanced research methods?
Response 1: The literature review section focuses on complementing foreign studies on ecological quality, and provides a detailed description of foreign research progress and research methods.
Point 2: It is suggested to delete the description of the importance of the PSR method and focus on the improvement of the method.
Response 2: The description of the importance of the PSR method has been removed.
Point 3: Ecological environment quality evaluation index system. What is the basis for selecting these factors?
Response 3: The reasons for the selection of indicators for the ecological environment quality evaluation system have been added in section 3.2.
Point 4: Can the results of national assessments and regional differences be shown in map form? Speaking with Figures is relatively lacking in this article.
Response 4: Table 2: Ecosystem quality scores by province and region in China has been placed in the appendix, and the data is replaced by a map.
Point 5: In the last part, it is suggested to change it into conclusion and discussion. In the discussion part, it is necessary to consider the relationship with relevant government policies and add supplement necessary references.
Response 5: The last section has been changed to Conclusions and Discussion and some detailed policy recommendations have been added that can be implemented.
