Ecological Environmental Quality in China: Spatial and Temporal Characteristics, Regional Differences, and Internal Transmission Mechanisms
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRespect,
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
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis 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.
