A View of Industrial Agglomeration, Air Pollution and Economic Sustainability from Spatial Econometric Analysis of 273 Cities in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled “A View of Industrial Agglomeration, Air Pollution, and Economic Sustainability from Spatial Econometric Analysis of 273 Cities in China” treats an interesting topic. It is well-presented and written. However, some glitches need should be taken into account. My introductory remarks are raised below:
1. The authors used too long sentences (three lines or plus) that sometimes make the idea ambiguous. I invite the authors to reduce them to the maximum and explain their ideas using short and direct sentences.
2. Please, give the definition of acronyms such as GDP the first time used, then they can be used without definition.
3. Please, follow a coherent method when citing references. For example, the following “Canh et al. (2021) believe that haze pollution does have a significant negative impact on economic development [27]” can be written as “Canh et al. [27] believe that haze pollution does have a significant negative impact on economic development”.
4. Equations should be arranged. They can be centered or aligned left.
5. How is the reliability of models presented in Tables 2 to 7?
6. Please, give indications for asterixis used in Tables.
7. Tables should be adjusted to margins or used in a landscape-oriented form.
Author Response
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive entitled “A View of Industrial Agglomeration, Air Pollution, and Economic Sustainability from Spatial Econometric Analysis of 273 Cities in China”.
We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.
We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you and best regards.
Point 1: The authors used too long sentences (three lines or plus) that sometimes make the idea ambiguous. I invite the authors to reduce them to the maximum and explain their ideas using short and direct sentences.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion, we have polished the native language and modified the long sentence.
Point 2: Please, give the definition of acronyms such as GDP the first time used, then they can be used without definition.
Response 2: We have defined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the first time in the revised manuscript.
Point 3: Please, follow a coherent method when citing references. For example, the following “Canh et al. (2021) believe that haze pollution does have a significant negative impact on economic development [27]” can be written as “Canh et al. [27] believe that haze pollution does have a significant negative impact on economic development”.
Response 3: We have made the changes in the revised manuscript.
Point 4: Equations should be arranged. They can be centered or aligned left.
Response 4: We have used the fixed mode to center all the equations.
Point 5: How is the reliability of models presented in Tables 2 to 7?
Response 5: We use the derivation formula of the authoritative journals and test the stability of the model.
Point 6: Please, give indications for asterixis used in Tables.
Response 6: We have marked it under the form of the revised manuscript. Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Point 7: Tables should be adjusted to margins or used in a landscape-oriented form.
Response 7: We have left aligned the contents of the table in the reworked manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1 1. Line 18-20. In the introduction, the material is presented in such a way that the readers understand that the authors claim a certain level of scientific novelty, not only of an applied, but also of a scientific and theoretical nature. If this is so, then it is necessary to more clearly formulate the subject of research and name it correctly. I do not understand the logic of the construction of this sentence in the text of the introduction: «The logical framework of the research shows that the relationship between industrial agglomeration, air pollution and sustainable economic development is explained by the mechanism of "industrial agglomeration -- air pollution -- sustainable economic development"». The same terms are simply repeated here. It is necessary to find a new name for the «mechanism» proposed by the authors: «mechanism of "industrial agglomeration -- air pollution -- sustainable economic development"»
2. Line 27-28 The sentence needs to be restructured. The following terms contradict the scientific style of the article: «development of a city's "temperature", expand its "width", improve its "concentration" and focus on its "density».
3. Line 105-196. The literature review should be supplemented with at least a few fundamental works of American and European scientists who have long been developing the topic to which the reviewed article is devoted. For example, these articles:
Grossman G., Krueger A. (1991). "Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement". National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 3914, NBER. Cambridge MA.
Grossman G., Helpman E. Innovation and growth in the global economy . — Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1993. — ISBN 9780262570978.
4. Line 205. The components of the model should be explained in the text immediately after the formula. The text is difficult to read if there is no clear systematization of the components of the formula.
5. Line 345-346 For cities with light individual data missing in the sample size, linear interpolation method was used to complete... Is it possible to apply the linear interpolation method in cases where the relationships between indicators are non-linear?
6. Line 369. It is necessary to indicate the literary source in which the Moran’ I test is described.
7. Line 377. It is necessary to indicate the literary source in which LMerr and R-LM-err test is described.
8. Line 380-383. It is necessary to explain what SEM and SAR models are. There are no explanations in the text. Perhaps this is known only to the authors of the article.
9. Line 483-507. The discussion of the conclusions is too short and unconvincing. In fact, almost everything that was said at the beginning of the article, starting with the introduction, is repeated. And where is the comparison with the works of other authors? What is the novelty of your research? What is common with the works of other researchers? What differences were found?
Author Response
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive entitled “A View of Industrial Agglomeration, Air Pollution, and Economic Sustainability from Spatial Econometric Analysis of 273 Cities in China”.
We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.
We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you and best regards.
Point 1: Line 18-20. In the introduction, the material is presented in such a way that the readers understand that the authors claim a certain level of scientific novelty, not only of an applied, but also of a scientific and theoretical nature. If this is so, then it is necessary to more clearly formulate the subject of research and name it correctly. I do not understand the logic of the construction of this sentence in the text of the introduction: «The logical framework of the research shows that the relationship between industrial agglomeration, air pollution and sustainable economic development is explained by the mechanism of "industrial agglomeration -- air pollution -- sustainable economic development"». The same terms are simply repeated here. It is necessary to find a new name for the «mechanism» proposed by the authors: «mechanism of "industrial agglomeration -- air pollution -- sustainable economic development"»
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We want to clarify the mechanism between "industrial agglomeration, air pollution and sustainable economic development". And then reveal the connotation of this mechanism. We have rewritten the abstract to present the results more directly so that readers can better understand them.
Point 2: Line 27-28 The sentence needs to be restructured. The following terms contradict the scientific style of the article: «development of a city's "temperature", expand its "width", improve its "concentration" and focus on its "density».
Response 2: Sorry for the trouble caused by our colloquial language. We have rewritten the abstract to more directly elaborate the results of the study.
Point 3: Line 105-196. The literature review should be supplemented with at least a few fundamental works of American and European scientists who have long been developing the topic to which the reviewed article is devoted. For example, these articles:
Grossman G., Krueger A. (1991). "Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement". National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 3914, NBER. Cambridge MA.
Grossman G., Helpman E. Innovation and growth in the global economy. — Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1993. — ISBN 9780262570978.
Response 3: Thanks for your advice, we have added your recommended works to the revised manuscript.
Point 4: Line 205. The components of the model should be explained in the text immediately after the formula. The text is difficult to read if there is no clear systematization of the components of the formula.
Response 4: Thank you for your advice. We have given a systematic explanation in the body following the formula. Industrial agglomeration and sustainable economic development both have spatial spillover effects, so it is biased to continue to analyze them under spatial homogeneity. In order to more objectively measure the spatial correlation and heterogeneity between industrial agglomeration and sustainable economic development in cities across China, and improve the explanatory ability of spatial econometric models, the spatial Dubin model is constructed by using the spatial weight matrix of geographical distance on the basis of model formula (1).
Point 5: Line 345-346 For cities with light individual data missing in the sample size, linear interpolation method was used to complete... Is it possible to apply the linear interpolation method in cases where the relationships between indicators are non-linear?
Response 5: We refer to the linear interpolation method used in Huang et al. (2023)’s article to supplement the data. Meanwhile, some missing data are calculated by using the annual average growth rate.
Huang, Z., An, X., Cai, X., Chen, Y., Liang, Y., Hu, S., et al. (2023). The impact of new urbanization on PM2.5 concentration based on spatial spillover effects: Evidence from 283 cities in China. Sustainable Cities and Society 90, 104386. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2022.104386.
Point 6: Line 369. It is necessary to indicate the literary source in which the Moran’ I test is described.
Response 6: Thanks for your care, we have supplemented the Moran Index literature source.
Point 7: Line 377. It is necessary to indicate the literary source in which LMerr and R-LM-err test is described.
Response 7: Thanks for your care, we have supplemented the LMerr and R-LM-err test literature source.
Point 8: Line 380-383. It is necessary to explain what SEM and SAR models are. There are no explanations in the text. Perhaps this is known only to the authors of the article.
Response 8: Sorry for the trouble caused to you by our lack of rigor, we have revised the Space error model (SEM) model and space lag model (SAR) model. At the same time, we supplement the methods and literature of applying the model (Fang et al., 2015).
Fang, C., Liu, H., Li, G., Sun, D., and Miao, Z. (2015). Estimating the Impact of Urbanization on Air Quality in China Using Spatial Regression Models. Sustainability 7, 15570–15592. doi: 10.3390/su71115570.
Point 9: Line 483-507. The discussion of the conclusions is too short and unconvincing. In fact, almost everything that was said at the beginning of the article, starting with the introduction, is repeated. And where is the comparison with the works of other authors? What is the novelty of your research? What is common with the works of other researchers? What differences were found?
Response 9: Thanks for your suggestions, we have rewritten the abstract, introduction and discussion part in the revised manuscript, clarified the continuation and supplement of the research with other authors, and mainly described the research focus of this paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The research period is from 2015 to 2018? Why not extend the research period to recent years (2015-2021)?
2. “6 air pollutants data from 2015 to 2018 of 273 cities at or above prefecture level in China were adopted in the 16 statistics analysis.” Please modify the language format. Full text language expression needs to be carefully revised.
3. This paper selected 273 cities as research area to study the relationship between population agglomeration, air pollution and economic sustainability. Are there any differences in the analysis results of different regions and cities of different sizes? Please clarify.
4. For the six kinds of pollutants, are studies conducted separately for different pollutants? What are the differences between different pollutants?
5. Line 330. “For cities with light individual data missing in the sample size, linear interpolation method was used to complete the data.” Please highlight how to deal with the missing data in the text. Why the absence of data? What percentage of the data is missing?
6. Can the result be expressed as a graph?
Author Response
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive entitled “A View of Industrial Agglomeration, Air Pollution, and Economic Sustainability from Spatial Econometric Analysis of 273 Cities in China”.
We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.
We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you and best regards.
Point 1: 1. The research period is from 2015 to 2018? Why not extend the research period to recent years (2015-2021)?
Response 1: Dear reviewer, as for the question about the research time you raised, China has experienced relatively strict control from 2019 to 2022. And due to the impact of the COVID-19, many enterprises are faced with the suspension of production, which will greatly affect industrial agglomeration and indirectly lead to the temporary improvement of air quality, all of which will affect the results of the research. Meanwhile, only in 2014 did the national statistical office have open and accessible data. Therefore, 2015-2018 is selected.
Point 2: 2. “6 air pollutants data from 2015 to 2018 of 273 cities at or above prefecture level in China were adopted in the 16 statistics analysis.” Please modify the language format. Full text language expression needs to be carefully revised.
Response 2: The statistical analysis used the air pollutant data of 273 prefecture-level cities in China from 2015 to 2018. At the same time, we embellished the revised manuscript in our native language.
Point 3: This paper selected 273 cities as research area to study the relationship between population agglomeration, air pollution and economic sustainability. Are there any differences in the analysis results of different regions and cities of different sizes? Please clarify.
Response 3: Dear reviewers, the sample cities we selected are major cities above the prefecture level, and county-level cities are removed. We used control variables for different regions and cities of different economic sizes. At the same time, we will further study the influence degree of different regions and scales in subsequent studies. Industrial agglomeration itself is a dynamic development concept, involving many fields. At the same time, industrial agglomeration is a process that is constantly changing driven by the dual dimensions of time and space. The continuous agglomeration of industries to big cities is the inevitable result of social system changes and economic development, and an important manifestation of the rational allocation of resources. How to coordinate the relationship between industrial agglomeration and sustainable economic development is a subject worthy of further study in the future. In the short term, industrial agglomeration leads to the increase of energy consumption and emissions in crowded cities, which aggravates air pollution and restricts the sustainable development of economy. In the long run, industrial agglomeration attracts the agglomeration of various elements, the innovation ability improves the technical level and the urban comprehensive management development level improves to reduce the environmental burden on the sustainable development of the economy, the positive impact of industrial agglomeration is highlighted, and the economy is promoted to a new trend of more sustainable development.
Point 4: For the six kinds of pollutants, are studies conducted separately for different pollutants? What are the differences between different pollutants?
Response 4: Dear reviewer, in this study, we did not study the six kinds of pollution separately. Our group studied NO2 in another study (Han et al., 2022).
Han, C.-Y., Gu, Z.-L., and Yang, H. (2022). Investigate the Effects of Industrial Agglomeration on Nitrogen Dioxide Pollution Using Spatial Panel Durbin and Panel Threshold Models. Front. Environ. Sci. 10. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.844479.
Point 5: Line 330. “For cities with light individual data missing in the sample size, linear interpolation method was used to complete the data.” Please highlight how to deal with the missing data in the text. Why the absence of data? What percentage of the data is missing?
Response 5: We refer to the linear interpolation method used in Huang et al. (2023)’s article to supplement the data. Meanwhile, some missing data are calculated by using the annual average growth rate. Provincial industrial clusters do not include Chongqing. In order to fully cover the 31 provincial regions and take into account the actual situation of Chongqing, which is a city under the jurisdiction of Sichuan Province, this paper separately calculates the industrial agglomeration of Chongqing by taking the proportion of the total investment of Chongqing in Sichuan Province and the proportion of the technical level.
Huang, Z., An, X., Cai, X., Chen, Y., Liang, Y., Hu, S., et al. (2023). The impact of new urbanization on PM2.5 concentration based on spatial spillover effects: Evidence from 283 cities in China. Sustainable Cities and Society 90, 104386. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2022.104386.
Point 6: Can the result be expressed as a graph?
Response 6: Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestions. The attached figure shows the impact of industrial agglomeration on sustainable economic development in 2015 and 2018. Our team takes this into consideration. Our study follows the research paradigm in the field of environmental economics and analyzes the results of the paper from the perspective of statistical significance, which is different from the research paradigm of ecological environment which is presented with pictures.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I recommend to accept the article in present form
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept in present form
