A Study on the Measurement of Comparative Advantage of Land Use Efficiency, Spatiotemporal Heterogeneity and Its Influencing Factors—An Empirical Test from the Panel Data of China’s Provincial Sub-Industry Types
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article has the following major drawbacks:
- Serious English proofreading is required.
- Abstract does not make sense because of the lack of clarity of its structure. It is also more than 200 words.
- It is difficult to understand the conceptual framework of this study.
- The problem statement is not clear in Introduction. In addition, several statements in Introduction seem general rather than having specific relation to the problem statement and the objectives.
- The relationship between the theory of comparative advantage and the problem statement is difficult to understand. This theory needs to be explained in Introduction shortly as well.
- The objective of the study is not very clear.
- The methodology is not clear as well. For instance, TOPSIS is not explained well and its justification to be selected as the main technique is vague. The choice of the variables and criteria used in TOPSIS is not clear as well. It is not clear what it means by the entropy method as well.
- It is not clear what it means by “Due to space constraints, no further details about entropy method will be given” (Page 5, line 207).
Due to the several fundamental drawbacks in the first three sections of the study as some of them were mentioned, I prefer not to consider the next sections of this article (“Results and analysis” and the next sections), since they do not make sense to me without addressing the mentioned fundamental drawbacks. In conclusion, I do not think that this article is appropriate to be published in this journal.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Serious English proofreading is required.
Response 1: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. We have invited an expert to polish and control the writing and language of the paper, which involves multiple parts.
Point 2: Abstract does not make sense because of the lack of clarity of its structure. It is also more than 200 words.
Response 2: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. Reorganize the content of the abstract section.（The revised parts have been highlighted in red in the paper.）
Point 3: It is difficult to understand the conceptual framework of this study.
Response 3: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. Rerefer to relevant research results and provide a detailed explanation of the feasibility of applying the theory of comparative advantage to this study.（The revised parts have been highlighted in red in the paper.）
Point 4: The problem statement is not clear in Introduction. In addition, several statements in Introduction seem general rather than having specific relation to the problem statement and the objectives.
Response 4:Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. Regarding the introduction section, please refer to the literature on cantaloupe again and revise and improve it.（The revised parts have been highlighted in red in the paper.）
Point 5: The relationship between the theory of comparative advantage and the problem statement is difficult to understand. This theory needs to be explained in Introduction shortly as well.
Response 5: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. The relationship between the theory of comparative advantage and the problem statement was elaborated in detail in the introduction section.（The revised parts have been highlighted in red in the paper.）
Point 6: The objective of the study is not very clear.
Response 6: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. In the introduction section, the explanation of the purpose of this study has been strengthened.（The revised parts have been highlighted in red in the paper.）
Point 7: The methodology is not clear as well. For instance, TOPSIS is not explained well and its justification to be selected as the main technique is vague. The choice of the variables and criteria used in TOPSIS is not clear as well. It is not clear what it means by the entropy method as well.
Response 7: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. This study has elaborated on the model method in detail.
Point 8: It is not clear what it means by “Due to space constraints, no further details about entropy method will be given” (Page 5, line 207).
Response 8: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. This study has rephrased this content.（The revised parts have been highlighted in red in the paper.）
Reviewer 2 Report
Land use is an essential issue for land sustainability. The authors classify the land uses into agricultural lands and non-agricultural land. The data used in the analysis come from the Classification of Land use Status (GBT21010-2007), China Statistical Yearbook, China Rural Statistical Yearbook, and China Urban Statistical Yearbook. The analysis models of land use efficiency, comparative advantage model, spatial model of comparative advantage, and land use efficiency are developed. For those countries, the developed models can be employed if the statistical data sets are available. I do not have any opinion against the paper.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Land use is an essential issue for land sustainability. The authors classify the land uses into agricultural lands and non-agricultural land. The data used in the analysis come from the Classification of Land use Status (GBT21010-2007), China Statistical Yearbook, China Rural Statistical Yearbook, and China Urban Statistical Yearbook. The analysis models of land use efficiency, comparative advantage model, spatial model of comparative advantage, and land use efficiency are developed. For those countries, the developed models can be employed if the statistical data sets are available. I do not have any opinion against the paper.
Response 1: Thank you to the reviewers for their recognition and support of this article. Based on the opinions of other reviewers, the content of this study has been revised and improved. Thank you again to the reviewer.
Reviewer 3 Report
This study employs the theory of comparative advantage and various analytical tools to draw insightful conclusions through empirical testing and data analysis. The findings could provide valuable guidance and decision-making support for improving land use efficiency and optimizing industrial structure in China. This article is realistic and has merits, and I suggest major revisions.
Abstract
1. It is suggested to add a concise background description to reflect the significance of the study.
2. It is recommended to use more specific and concise language to describe the research conclusions and findings to make the abstract easier to understand.
3. It is suggested to add a concrete recommendation or application example to better demonstrate the practical significance and value of this study.
Introduction
1. The introduction of the research background contains excessive details, I recommend rephrasing it more concisely.
2. In the third paragraph, it is crucial to highlight the importance of incorporating the theory of comparative advantage into the study of land use efficiency. This can be achieved by briefly reviewing the current research findings on this topic and demonstrating how your research will contribute to the existing knowledge gap in this field.
Theoretical basis analysis
1. Some of the content is too general and needs to be more specific and detailed. For example, the statement "all human activities can be attributed to industrial development" requires further explanation and elaboration.
2. I suggest further elaborating on the reasons and basic conditions for applying the theory of comparative advantage in the article, particularly by combining China's actual situation and data to comprehensively evaluate the applicability and limitations of the theory in the study of land use efficiency.
3. Please provide further explanation in this section regarding the reasons for dividing the industrial sector into agricultural and non-agricultural sectors in this study.
Method
1. In section 3.4, the existing indicator system for evaluating land use efficiency contains only four or six indicators, with relatively narrow coverage. It is recommended to consider adding corresponding indicators based on specific evaluation targets to ensure the comprehensiveness and scientificity of the evaluation.
2. The entropy method is a commonly used approach for determining weights, but it also has its limitations. It is suggested to use multiple methods in combination, such as expert evaluation and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), to enhance the credibility and reliability of the evaluation results.
3. Please explain the reason for selecting the years 2010, 2015, and 2019 for the study from two aspects: the research object and the research background.
Conclusion
1. The regional difference analysis of land use efficiency is too one-sided. In addition to factors such as natural conditions, agricultural production dependence, and market demand, the influence of factors such as policy support, agricultural technological progress, and industrial structure adjustment should also be considered to have a more comprehensive understanding of regional differences.
2. When analyzing the comparative advantage results of land use efficiency, it is necessary to accurately describe the trend of changes and the reasons for inter-provincial differences, and use it as the basis for policy recommendations later on.
3. The figures could be improved for visual clarity. For example, in Figure 6, the year label above the data and the title description below it are repeated. It is suggested to remove the title and place all the data frames in a single layout view, while also removing redundant decorative elements.
Conclusions and discussion
1. Some sentences are too lengthy and need to paraphrase. It is recommended to focus on presenting the important conclusions and findings of this study and emphasize their significance and impact in the relevant field.
2. The expression of the contribution of this study is not clear enough. Please elaborate on the innovations of this study in terms of methods, theories, and practices, to better demonstrate its value and significance.
Minor comments:
1. The manuscript should be carefully polished in English writing and grammar.
2. Please check the manuscript carefully to avoid errors in details.
3. Please improve the clarity of the picture.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: It is suggested to add a concise background description to reflect the significance of the study.
Response 1: Thank you for the reviewer's feedback and adoption. The relevant background description has been added in the introduction section.（The revised parts have been highlighted in red in the paper.）
Point 2: It is recommended to use more specific and concise language to describe the research conclusions and findings to make the abstract easier to understand.
Response 2: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. Reorganize the entire text, rephrase the research conclusion section, and reorganize the abstract.（The revised parts have been highlighted in red in the paper.）
Point 3: It is suggested to add a concrete recommendation or application example to better demonstrate the practical significance and value of this study.
Response 3: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. In the discussion section of this study, relevant expressions have been added.（The revised parts have been highlighted in red in the paper.）
Point 4: The introduction of the research background contains excessive details, I recommend rephrasing it more concisely.
Response 4:Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. The introduction has been rephrased.（The revised parts have been highlighted in red in the paper.）
Point 5: In the third paragraph, it is crucial to highlight the importance of incorporating the theory of comparative advantage into the study of land use efficiency. This can be achieved by briefly reviewing the current research findings on this topic and demonstrating how your research will contribute to the existing knowledge gap in this field.
Response 5: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. In the relevant parts of this article, targeted statements have been made.（The revised parts have been highlighted in red in the paper.）
Point 6: Some of the content is too general and needs to be more specific and detailed. For example, the statement "all human activities can be attributed to industrial development" requires further explanation and elaboration.
Response 6: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. Related content has been rephrased.
Point 7: I suggest further elaborating on the reasons and basic conditions for applying the theory of comparative advantage in the article, particularly by combining China's actual situation and data to comprehensively evaluate the applicability and limitations of the theory in the study of land use efficiency.
Response 7: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. In terms of model method expression, targeted and comprehensive statements have been made.（The revised parts have been highlighted in red in the paper.）
Point 8: Please provide further explanation in this section regarding the reasons for dividing the industrial sector into agricultural and non-agricultural sectors in this study.
Response 8: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. In response to the reasons for division, this study has added relevant expressions.（The revised parts have been highlighted in red in the paper.）
Point 9: In section 3.4, the existing indicator system for evaluating land use efficiency contains only four or six indicators, with relatively narrow coverage. It is recommended to consider adding corresponding indicators based on specific evaluation targets to ensure the comprehensiveness and scientificity of the evaluation.
Response 9: Thank you for the reviewer's feedback and partial adoption. Re verified the original indicator system, combined with research cases, evaluation units, and data acquisition, the original indicator data was re verified, and no new indicators were added.
Point 10: The entropy method is a commonly used approach for determining weights, but it also has its limitations. It is suggested to use multiple methods in combination, such as expert evaluation and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), to enhance the credibility and reliability of the evaluation results.
Response 10: Thank you for the reviewer's feedback and partial adoption. The overall research results are good, and no expert evaluation and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) has been used.
Point 11: Please explain the reason for selecting the years 2010, 2015, and 2019 for the study from two aspects: the research object and the research background.
Response 11: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. Regarding the reasons for selecting time nodes, this study has added relevant expressions.（The revised parts have been highlighted in red in the paper.）
Point 12: The regional difference analysis of land use efficiency is too one-sided. In addition to factors such as natural conditions, agricultural production dependence, and market demand, the influence of factors such as policy support, agricultural technological progress, and industrial structure adjustment should also be considered to have a more comprehensive understanding of regional differences.
Response 12: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. In the conclusion and discussion section, relevant expressions have been added.（The revised parts have been highlighted in red in the paper.）
Point 13: When analyzing the comparative advantage results of land use efficiency, it is necessary to accurately describe the trend of changes and the reasons for inter-provincial differences, and use it as the basis for policy recommendations later on.
Response 13: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. In the analysis of research results section, relevant expressions have been added.（The revised parts have been highlighted in red in the paper.）
Point 14: The figures could be improved for visual clarity. For example, in Figure 6, the year label above the data and the title description below it are repeated. It is suggested to remove the title and place all the data frames in a single layout view, while also removing redundant decorative elements.
Response 14: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. According to the modification suggestions, new improvements have been made.（The revised parts have been highlighted in red in the paper.）
Point 15: Some sentences are too lengthy and need to paraphrase. It is recommended to focus on presenting the important conclusions and findings of this study and emphasize their significance and impact in the relevant field.
Response 15: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. According to the modification suggestions, improvements have been made in the conclusion and discussion section.（The revised parts have been highlighted in red in the paper.）
Point 16: The expression of the contribution of this study is not clear enough. Please elaborate on the innovations of this study in terms of methods, theories, and practices, to better demonstrate its value and significance.
Response 16: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. According to the modification suggestions, readjust the relevant content.（The revised parts have been highlighted in red in the paper.）
Point 17: The manuscript should be carefully polished in English writing and grammar.
Response 17: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. We have invited experts in the field to polish and control the writing and language of the paper, which specifically involves multiple parts of the paper. We will not provide any examples here.（The revised parts have been highlighted in red in the paper.）
Point 18: Please check the manuscript carefully to avoid errors in details.
Response 18: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. Reorganize the entire text and carefully check the manuscript.
Point 19: Please improve the clarity of the picture.
Response 19: Thank you for the reviewer’s feedback and adoption. Reprocess and output some drawings.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
It has been improved according to the modification suggestions. Agree to publish.
