The Impact of Technology Innovation on Urban Land Intensive Use in China: Evidence from 284 Cities in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor

This paper's topic is interesting and written with high quality. My recommendations are as follows: 

First: the research goal should be more clearly highlighted in the abstract. 
Second: The research importance should be added to the introduction section. 

Third: the research limitations and recommendations for future research should be added to the conclusion. 

 

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your constructive comments concerning our article (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2186111). These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article. All the authors have seriously discussed about all these comments. According to your suggestions, we have tried best to modify our manuscript. All the revised contents are marked in red in the “manuscript-revision”.Please see the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to review this manuscript. In summary, I found this to be an interesting and topical paper. Here the authors have presented an analysis of The impact of technology innovation on urban land-intensive use in China. Good and balanced literature coverage consisting of classic and up-to-date references. The presented results adequately tie together the other elements of the paper. The paper clearly expresses its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the reviewer and for the overall journal's readership. I have highlighted the following point below. If the author can address them then we can have a good document to build on going forward.

Explain the research gap in more detail.

The discussions can be improved. The author was supposed to cite relevant work and compare it to their work, noting limitations.

The contribution of this case study to those professionals in other communities shall also be highlighted in the concluding section.

A better color scheme should be used for figures 4 and 7. It is recommended not to use spectral colors.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your constructive comments concerning our article (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2186111). These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article. All the authors have seriously discussed about all these comments. According to your suggestions, we have tried best to modify our manuscript. All the revised contents are marked in red in the “manuscript-revision”. Please see the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank the editorial body for the opportunity to know and review the manuscript.

 

The article entitled "The impact of technology innovation on urban land intensive use in China: Evidence from 284 cities in China" presents a systemic approach to technological innovation in relation to land use change in China. This is an extensive work, with a vast sampling effort.

 

The main objective of the authors was "measures the urban land intensive use level index of 284 cities in China from the following four dimensions: the input-output level of economic efficiency, the carrying capacity of ecological environment, the harmony of man-land relationship and the rationality of regional relationship.Secondly, this paper uses the spatial econometric model to empirically analyze the impact of technology innovation on urban land intensive use.

 

In general, the methodological analysis was very thorough and brought a series of scientific rigor. However, some observations about the work follow.

 

Abstract:

 

The abstract does not bring elements of the method (e.g. economic variations or land use in the abstract, but presents a conclusion about spatialization. I suggest adapting the text to fit at least one sentence showing that there is spatial heterogeneity in china, both for production and use of technologies as in land use.

 

Of the 4 keywords, 3 I consider inappropriate. The first 2 are in the title, a fact that makes the change necessary. The word "heterogeneity" is very vague and does not represent a search message by itself.

 

Introduction:

 

Simple and compact. I found it appropriate in terms of general approach to the research problem. The next item "Literature review" brings the necessary elements to raise the hypotheses.

 

Literature review:

 

Although the item offers elements to raise hypotheses, I consider that it could bring a little more information about spatialization in land use, especially in terms of multiple environmental stressors (e.g. air pollution, water and soil pollution, urbanization and farms, etc.).

 

Theoretical analysis and research hypothesis:

 

Lines 113 and 114 - fix the English text. Start the sentence at "Talent agglomeration can..."

 

Research methods and variable selection:

 

In this item, authors can create a sub-item and characterize the study area. Present this in the form of maps or text, but do not fail to characterize the cities studied economically, urbanistically and socially. Starting the method by presenting the model leaves the paper with no basis for understanding the variables.

The methodological effort is interesting, but there is a gap between what is proposed and what is understandable in the use of variables.

 

Results analysis:

 

5.1.1. ULIL - I suggest not starting the results by quoting Figure. Start the text by providing a sentence about the overview, or start the text by describing the result and not quoting the figure that represents it.

 

The position of the figures is not interesting. I suggest placing the figures below the respective texts that describe them... or else assemble boards with figures called "A", "B" and so on.

 

Item 5.1.1. and 5.1.2. could be presented together, with boards for both presentations. Figures 2 and 5 could assemble a board, figures 3 and 6 another and the maps would form the last figure of the item. The section could be called as described in item 5.1. only (without the subdivisions).

 

The discussion is short, but it brings notes that explain the results. The conclusion has implications for policy in China.

 

I believe that the paper has conditions to be approved, but before that it would need to undergo a "major revision".

 

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your constructive comments concerning our article (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2186111). These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article. All the authors have seriously discussed about all these comments. According to your suggestions, we have tried best to modify our manuscript. All the revised contents are marked in red in the “manuscript-revision”. Please see the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Summary:

 This article studies spatial properties of ULIU in different regions of China.

 

General comments:

Can you add thousand-digit comma to all numbers? This would make your article more legible.

For all “promoting effect”, I would say “facilitating effect” to distinguish from “promotion”.

 

Specific comments: [] denotes line number.

[29] To solve the wastage of cultivated …

[36] What is “blind occupation”?

[53] allocating 284 cities into …

[54] differentiating technological innovation …

[62, 107, 111] Capitalize the first word after colon.

[68] There are two mainstream …

[69] One is nonparametric …

[91] no literature that studies …

[109] is achieved …

[115] I think you should consider economies of scope as well because when talents are agglomerated, new ideas can be synthetized and put to use in brand new ways.

[143] which absorb …

[149] Do you end hypothesis 2 with a full-stop similar to hypothesis 1 in line 137-8?

[154] resource curse not resource cursing

[196] Make sure words do not overlap.

[207] The denominator should be parenthesized.

[208-9] Can you italicize i and j?

[234] Why don’t you measure the number of doctorates granted and take a weighted average?

[251] When you say doubling, do you literally mean that economic output is doubled?

[269] Why degree of openness has a negative minimum value? Do you mean the investment by foreign capital is less than one dollar?

[272] You just need results not results analysis

[296] You need a space before opening the parenthesis.

[308] I would refrain from saying “perfect” if it is not; so call it “sophisticated”.

[338] negligence not neglect.

[341] furthermore not furtherly.

[375-6] which both/also pass …

[403] which bring …

[472, 558] further not furtherly

[493/5] This phrase is perplexing to non-Chinese readers.

[583] remove the comma between “cities” and “can”

[591] What is material guarantee? Do you mean rock-solid?

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your constructive comments concerning our article (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2186111). These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article. All the authors have seriously discussed about all these comments. According to your suggestions, we have tried best to modify our manuscript. All the revised contents are marked in red in the “manuscript-revision”. Please see the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for the opportunity to review the comments made earlier.

 

Work has improved significantly. Merging the figures in the result item made the text more coherent and with greater "fluidity". The considerations addressed in the other items also made the manuscript more appropriate at the journal level.

 

The paper brings good contributions and fits within the scope of the journal. In my opinion, the article can be published.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your recognition of our work.

Reviewer 4 Report

25. The keyword "China" is too board. I will suggest removing it. Other keywords can include, for example, technology innovation.

31. Why you have the second digit after decimal place "0"? It's inconsistent.

33. Recommended "abondonment" which is more formal than "wastage".

50. You don't, technically speaking, "choose" but "derive" the path.

78. Simplify as "will all change with land use".

79. I think it's more "pressing" than "important".

83. Should "Fangshan" be capitalized here?

87. What is "economic drive"? Do you mean "economic directives"?

110. It's too bold to say "no literature" blatantly. To be modest, it is more appropriate to say "To the best of the authors' knowledge, there is no existing literature that studies..."

126. You should say "pillars" because they are countable.

192. Why "Hong Kong" is double counted?

199. You don't provide "a guarantee" but "a basis" instead.

277-9. I see no connection between the two sentences; please paraphrase.

294. "Play" is informal, and you should consider "operation".

340-2. For "67", please clarify whether it's percentage or number.

259/434. "Upgradation" is old school, and you can just say "upgrade."

363. You don't need to emphasize "furthermore"; so just remove it.

438. It's awkward to say "the improvement of urbanization level improves" so change the second use of "improves" in verb form to "enhances",

440. Can you simplify "lead to the reduction of" to "reduces"?

530. Can you clarify whether inaccurate is "biased" or "inconsistent", or both? Note that these are two different statistical concepts, and you are required to make your point crystal clear here so readers would fathom.

615. It should be "not only" not just "only"!

618. Should it be "analyzes" if you use "divides" in present tense in 617?

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your constructive comments concerning our article. These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article. According to your comments, we have tried best to modify our manuscript. Please see the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

In line 111, in between "studies" and "ULIU", you can omit the preposition "on" since I would consider the verb "studies" to be transitive here.

Line 278 should change "can make multiplies income and employment increase" to " can increase income and employment" to be more legible, and the word "multiple" should not be plural like the erroneous "multiples".

Line 285 should change "which makes the economic benefit of land use increase. to "which increases the economic benefit of land use." In general, you do not need double verb to present things, as it is grammatically incorrect.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx