An Analysis of Policy Transmission Flow in the Chengdu Plain Urban Agglomeration in Southwest China: Towards Building an Ecological Protection Network

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This paper is well argued and has substantial supporting data to bolster the argument. With some revisions it could be made suitable for publication. The following comments are to support this effort.

 

*) The conclusion should not be a set of bullet points but instead an iteration of the key findings and new directions for research. The current conclusion is simply a list

 

* The authors suggest "urban agglomerations serve practical roles  as ecological conservators and ecological barriers, taking on the important responsibility of breaking free from administrative division constraints and achieving environmental  protection and integrated ecological development"

 

How can the authors think this is the case? Agglomeration tends to disrupt ecological conditions rather than acting as a conservator. This requires some justification, as does the key introduction of the text and findings in the Introduction section.

 

*) The paper should engage key works on ecological protection in Chines cities, including work in the Chengdu area, such as: Rodenbiker, Jesse. Ecological states: Politics of science and nature in urbanizing China. Cornell University Press, 2023.

 

*) "Castells" is noted as the progenator of flow space theories. But Castells (the reader must assume Manuel Castells?) is not cited anywhere. Please give a full engagement with the theory and its origins and applicability for the paper's study. The current introductory paragraphs are too long and not centered around a single key idea with a leading topic sentence as a paragraph should be.

 

*) Define these terms: "urban agglomeration scope" - "ecological protection network" - "flow" - "space of flow" - "social network analysis" and why it is important for the key questions the authors are considering.

 

*) Give the whole paper a thorough read for grammar and spelling as there are some errors.

 

*) How is "providing of aesthetic landscape" measured? What makes a landscape beautiful in this system of metrics?

*) Why is grain production included in the city measurement? It is likely because municipal regions hold many rural lands within them, something that is not discussed or detailed for the reader, who may wonder why there is so much rural land in this urban region. For reference, see Rodenbiker above on this point.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is fine.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.   Please summarize the knowledge gap of this study in one sentence in the abstract section.

2.     To enhance the impact of the study, it is recommended that the authors connect their research to recent nature-based solutions trends in the field with 1-2 sentences in the introduction (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172219; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.10).

3． The second paragraph of the introduction is overly lengthy; it is suggested to break it down into 2-3 shorter paragraphs.

4． It is advisable for the authors to clearly articulate the scientific questions that this study aims to address in the final paragraph of the introduction.

5． In Figure 1, it is recommended not to use abbreviations in the figure title.

6． In Section 2.2 Methodology, the authors propose a research framework; please provide evidence for the validity of this framework and whether there is supporting literature.

7． Figures 7 and 8 are difficult to understand; please provide detailed explanations of the meaning of these figures in the figure captions.

8． The font size in Figure 8 is too small to be easily read.

9． The discussion section of the paper is overly simplistic, lacking sufficient comparison with other studies' results and adequate interpretation of the results. It is suggested that the authors further expand the discussion section, preferably using subheadings to present their arguments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I made some observations about the manuscript "Analysis of Policy Transmission Flow in the Chengdu Plain Urban Agglomeration: Towards Building an Ecological Protection Network" with some suggestions. I am inclined to accept this manuscript for publication, subject to minor revisions. Before final acceptance, I would like to recommend a few minor but significant adjustments. 

1) Please add some description about the paper's organization in the last paragraph of the Introduction, for instance, "The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2…";

2) Figura 1 should be reformulated. In which part of the planet is your study area inserted?

3) The results are excellent and very well described. However, they should be better discussed and related to other research on the theme. I suggest that the authors make a more extensive comparison of these results to the others obtained by the literature on this theme;

4) In the beginning, briefly presents what was developed in the study;

5) This item has only the main results in a summary. But what were the main findings and advances of this research clearly?

6) Citations are in disagreement with MDPI standards.

 

Kind regards.

Author Response

Dear reviewer，

Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. These opinions help to improve academic rigor of our article. Based on your suggestion and request, we have made corrected modifications on the revised manuscript. We hope that our work can be improved again Furthermore, we would like to show the details as follows:

1) Please add some description about the paper's organization in the last paragraph of the Introduction, for instance, "The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2…";

Response: Thanks for the insightful comments. Based on your suggestions, we will supplement and improve this section of the content. Modify as follows: The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe the data and methods used in this study. This section includes details about the study area and data sources (Section 2.1), with further subdivisions into study area (Section 2.1.1) and data sources (Section 2.1.2). The methodology is explained in Section 2.2, which covers the policy transmission flow model (Section 2.2.1) and social network analysis (Section 2.2.2).Section 3 presents the results of our study. It starts with an analysis of the ecological conservation network characteristics (Section 3.1), including both the integrated ecological conservation network (Section 3.1.1) and categorized ecological conservation network characteristics (Section 3.1.2). This is followed by the ecological conservation network point degree centrality analysis (Section 3.2), which examines the point-degree centrality of the integrated ecological conservation network (Section 3.2.1) and classified ecological conservation networks (Section 3.2.2). Additionally, this section includes an analysis of cohesive subgroups (Section 3.3) and a core-periphery structure analysis (Section 3.4).Finally, Section 4 provides a discussion of the findings and concludes the paper.

2) Figura 1 should be reformulated. In which part of the planet is your study area inserted?

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised Figure 1 to clearly indicate the geographical location of our study area on a global map. We hope this modification provides a clearer understanding of the study area's context.

3) The results are excellent and very well described. However, they should be better discussed and related to other research on the theme. I suggest that the authors make a more extensive comparison of these results to the others obtained by the literature on this theme;

Response: Thank you for your affirmation and valuable suggestions on our research results. In response to your feedback on the conclusion and discussion section, we have reorganized and revised it, adding comparison and discussion content with other related studies. By comparing our research findings with relevant studies in existing literature, we further explored the significance and impact of our findings. These supplements and modifications aim to enhance the explanatory and persuasive power of our research results, making them better integrated into the existing research system.

4) In the beginning, briefly presents what was developed in the study;

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your suggestion, we have added a brief presentation at the beginning of the manuscript to outline the developments in our study. Here is the revised section:"In this study, we examine the regional ecological conservation network in the Chengdu Plain Urban Agglomeration (CDPUA) using social network analysis and spatial analysis methods. We collected and analyzed 400 ecological environment protection policy documents issued between 2015 and 2022. Our findings reveal the formation mechanism and spatial characteristics of the ecological policy transmission network, highlighting a multi-core triangular pattern with significant intercity linkages and spatial heterogeneity." We believe this addition provides a clear and concise introduction to the scope and findings of our research. Thank you for your consideration.

5) This item has only the main results in a summary. But what were the main findings and advances of this research clearly?

Response: Thanks for the insightful comments.

The main findings and progress of this study include the following points:

Construction of the Regional Ecological Protection Network (EPN): The study is based on 400 ecological environment protection policy documents issued by cities in the Chengdu Plain Urban Agglomeration (CDPUA) from 2015 to 2022. It constructs the genealogy of the ecological policy transmission network and analyzes its complex spatial structure and characteristics.

Spatial Characteristics of the Integrated EPN: It was found that the integrated EPN of the CDPUA exhibits a multi-core triangular pattern with a dense eastern region and a sparse western region. The network density is 60.71%, indicating strong intercity linkages.

Central Nodes in Policy Transmission: Suining acts as the central node in policy transmission, forming the Suining-Chengdu-Mianyang policy transmission triangle. This highlights Suining's pivotal role in the policy transmission process.

Multi-city Dominated Ecological Protection Network: The EPN of the CDPUA is dominated by multiple cities, providing diverse and distinct types of ecosystem services. This demonstrates the crucial role of various cities in ecological protection and management, offering a wide range of ecological services.

Insights for Regional Collaborative Ecological Governance: The study provides insights to enhance regional collaborative ecological governance and protection, promoting sustainable development in the region. By constructing and analyzing the EPN, the study offers theoretical support and empirical evidence for regional ecological protection, emphasizing the importance of intercity cooperation and policy transmission in achieving regional ecological harmony.

These findings contribute to understanding the formation mechanism and spatial characteristics of regional ecological protection networks, offering valuable references for policy-making and practice, and advancing sustainable development in the region.

6) Citations are in disagreement with MDPI standards.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response to your comment, we have revised the citations to ensure they are in full compliance with MDPI standards. We appreciate your attention to detail and believe these adjustments enhance the overall quality and consistency of our manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript aims to analyze policy approaches and documents prepared for achieving "regional ecological conservation" stemming from documents in China. The review is admirable and sheds light on the time series of environmental policy at the study area spatial scale. Unfortunately, the methodological approach is not well detailed, hindering the reproducibility of the study and making it unlikely for the analysis to be upscaled or transferred to another territorial context. The general impression is that the concept of ecosystem services is very confused and used as an approximate indicator. The methods used for the assessment of ecosystem services are not explained, and they seem to be treated as static characteristics of certain urban areas rather than dynamic properties of natural and semi-natural ecosystems, as they actually are. Moreover, not only are the ecosystems that are part of the protection network not described nor shown, but it is also not clear at all how the concept of ecosystem services is linked to the social network occurring in the urban districts, and it is not convincingly explained anywhere. Unfortunately, I am therefore of the opinion that the applied methodology is not suitable for achieving the study's objectives, and the presented results are not helpful in supporting the conclusions. In addition to these general considerations, I would like to add that the results paragraph is presented in the style of "Results and Discussion" sections and should therefore be rearranged.

Here are some other punctual issues that need to be addressed.

Title: please add "chinese Chengdu Plain" or specify "in China" to allow readers understanding where the case study is contextualized.

Abstract: The abstract is difficult to read, perhaps due to the several acronym. I would suggest to avoid acronyms here in the abstract and checking the paragraph for improving fluency and clarity. As for the title, I suggest to specify that Chengdu Plain is located in China. What is meant with "regional ecological harmony"? If it is referring to social-ecological system synergies, please specify better, avoiding figurative and metaphoric language.

L 17: There is no need to mention ArcGIS here, which is a commercial software. Please replace the name with the broader term "GIS".

L 18: ECN is not defined before. Replace the acronym with the full term (I guess it is Ecological Conservation Network).

Introduction: There is confusion in the fact the authors seem to use interchangeably the terms "EPN" and "ECN". Please provide definitions and explain what differentiate Ecological Protection Network from Ecological Conservation Network. Also, there is the need to better contextualize the concept of Ecosystem Services by citing relevant literature.

L 55: The theory by Castells is better known as "Theory of the Space of Flows", not under the term "theory of the flow space". Consider replacing the name here.

L 56: please cite properly the work(s) of Castells you authors are referring to.

L. 87 - 88: here ther is an abrupt shift from the concepts related to urban flows and networks, to ecosystem processes and biodiversity. The paragraph needs to be revised and the concept better presented. Moreover, ES have not been defined, and the acronym is presented withouth the relative term.

 L. 123: ES elements?

The rest of the manuscript needs to be thoroughly restructured to better present results and discuss them in light of local policy-making and governance process.

N.B.: In-text citations should be provided according to the journal editorial guidelines. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is understandable, but certain paragraphs lack fluency.

Several sentences and paragraphs lack a good connection and present a weak syntax.

Author Response

Dear reviewer，

Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. These opinions help to improve academic rigor of our article. Based on your suggestion and request, we have made corrected modifications on the revised manuscript. We hope that our work can be improved again Furthermore, we would like to show the details as follows:

Title: please add "Chinese Chengdu Plain" or specify "in China" to allow readers understanding where the case study is contextualized.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response to your comment, we have revised the title to specify the location of the case study as "Chinese Chengdu Plain." This addition will help readers better understand the context of the study.

Abstract: The abstract is difficult to read, perhaps due to the several acronym. I would suggest to avoid acronyms here in the abstract and checking the paragraph for improving fluency and clarity. As for the title, I suggest to specify that Chengdu Plain is located in China. What is meant with "regional ecological harmony"? If it is referring to social-ecological system synergies, please specify better, avoiding figurative and metaphoric language.

Response: Thanks for the insightful comments. In response to your suggestions, we have made the following revisions to the abstract:

1. Acronyms: We have removed acronyms to improve readability and clarity.
2. Location Specification: We have specified that the Chengdu Plain is located in China.
3. Terminology: We have clarified the term "regional ecological harmony" to better describe the concept of social-ecological system synergies, avoiding figurative and metaphoric language.

We believe these changes enhance the fluency and clarity of the abstract. Thank you for your thoughtful input.

L 17: There is no need to mention ArcGIS here, which is a commercial software. Please replace the name with the broader term "GIS".

Response: Thank you for your insightful suggestion. We appreciate your attention to detail. In response to your comment, we have replaced the mention of "ArcGIS" with the broader term "GIS" in the manuscript. This adjustment ensures a more generalized and inclusive reference to the software used.Thank you again for your valuable input.

 

L 18: ECN is not defined before. Replace the acronym with the full term (I guess it is Ecological Conservation Network).

Response: Thanks for the insightful comments. We have made corrections to this area.

Introduction: There is confusion in the fact the authors seem to use interchangeably the terms "EPN" and "ECN". Please provide definitions and explain what differentiate Ecological Protection Network from Ecological Conservation Network. Also, there is the need to better contextualize the concept of Ecosystem Services by citing relevant literature.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We appreciate your careful review and constructive feedback. In response to your comments, we have made the following revisions: Clarification of Terms: In this study, we emphasize the EPN formed by policy flows among cities. We have corrected the content related to ECN throughout the manuscript. We have added relevant explanations in the introduction to better contextualize the concept of Ecosystem Services, supported by citations from pertinent literature. Thank you again for your insightful feedback. We believe these changes enhance the clarity and depth of our study.

L 55: The theory by Castells is better known as "Theory of the Space of Flows", not under the term "theory of the flow space". Consider replacing the name here.

Response: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We have made the suggested change and replaced the term "theory of the flow space" with the more widely recognized "Theory of the Space of Flows" at L 55. Thank you for pointing this out and helping us improve the accuracy of our paper.

 

L 56: please cite properly the work(s) of Castells you authors are referring to.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have corrected the citation and properly referenced Manuel Castells' work, specifically citing his 1989 book The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic Restructuring, and the Urban Regional Process, where the concept of the "space of flows" was first introduced. Thank you for highlighting this necessary correction.

1. 87 - 88: here ther is an abrupt shift from the concepts related to urban flows and networks, to ecosystem processes and biodiversity. The paragraph needs to be revised and the concept better presented. Moreover, ES have not been defined, and the acronym is presented withouth the relative term.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. I have revised the relevant section to better present the concepts and explain the relationship between the constructed network, ecosystem processes, and biodiversity.

1. 123: ES elements?

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. The issue you mentioned regarding "ES elements" on L. 123 has been revised, and we have clarified the relevant content in our revisions.

The rest of the manuscript needs to be thoroughly restructured to better present results and discuss them in light of local policy-making and governance process.

Response: Thank you for your attention to our manuscript and for your suggestions. We have thoroughly restructured the rest of the manuscript in light of other experts' opinions and our own understanding of the article. These modifications aim to better present the research results and discuss them in the context of local policy-making and governance processes.

N.B.: In-text citations should be provided according to the journal editorial guidelines. 

Response: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for your suggestions. We have made revisions to address the issue you raised regarding the citation format, providing in-text citations according to the journal's editorial guidelines.

Several sentences and paragraphs lack a good connection and present a weak syntax.

Response: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for your feedback. We have noted the lack of good connection and weak syntax in several sentences and paragraphs, and we will do our best to improve this part to enhance the overall quality of the article.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my issues have been well addressed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer，   Thank you very much for your constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your insightful comments have significantly contributed to improving the quality of our work. We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our submission.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for addressing all the concerns raised and improving the manuscript.

Line 220 please correct the word "erosion" (there's a typo there)

Please review the paragraphs 431-436, it lacks clarity. I suggest splitting into two periods, using shorter sentences, if possible.

I suggest you to express explicitly the aims of the work at the beginning of Section 3.2.

Consider adding some considerations in the Discussion section about the difference between having a network of policy documents and "governance willingness" expressing the aim of protecting ecosystems and ecosystem services, and the actual governance actions that are put in place to really achieve the aim.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please check carefully the propositions used after some phrasal verbs. Some typos are still present.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer，

Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. Your feedback has significantly contributed to enhancing the academic rigor of our article. Based on your suggestions and requests, we have made the necessary corrections in the revised manuscript. We hope that these revisions further improve our work. Additionally, we would like to provide the details as follows:

1）Line 220 please correct the word "erosion" (there's a typo there)

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. Regarding your comment on Line 220, I have corrected the typo in the word "erosion." Additionally, I have reviewed the entire manuscript and made necessary corrections and revisions to ensure clarity and accuracy. Thank you again for your careful review and suggestions.

 

2）Please review the paragraphs 431-436, it lacks clarity. I suggest splitting into two periods, using shorter sentences, if possible.

Response: Thanks for your constructive comments. Regarding your comment on paragraphs 431-436, I have revised these paragraphs to improve clarity. The sentences have been split into shorter, more concise statements to enhance readability and comprehension. The revised content is as follows:

Original:

Using the Concor algorithm in Ucinet6 software to conduct a cohesive subgroup analysis of the ecological protection network to describe the clustering phenomenon, when the relationships between certain actors in the network are so close that they form a secondary group, such a group is called a cohesive subgroup in social network analysis. If the network has cohesive subgroups and the density of these subgroups is high, it indicates that the actors within these cohesive subgroups have close connections and frequent interactions in terms of information sharing and cooperation.

Revised:

Using the Concor algorithm in Ucinet6 software, we conducted a cohesive subgroup analysis of the ecological protection network. This analysis describes the clustering phenomenon when relationships between certain actors in the network are so close that they form a secondary group. In this study, the actors are the cities in the Chengdu Plain Urban Agglomeration. In social network analysis, such a group is called a cohesive subgroup. If the network has cohesive subgroups and the density of these subgroups is high, it indicates that the actors within these subgroups have close connections and frequent interactions in terms of information sharing and cooperation.

 

3）I suggest you to express explicitly the aims of the work at the beginning of Section 3.2.

Response: Thanks for the insightful comments. Regarding your comment on expressing the aims of the work explicitly at the beginning of Section 3.2, I have made the necessary revisions. The aims of the work are now clearly stated at the start of this section. The revised content is as follows:

Revised:

The primary aim of this research is to determine the strength of ecological protection policy connections between cities in the Chengdu Plain Urban Agglomeration (CDPUA) and to construct an ecological protection network. This network aims to enhance our understanding of how policy transmission flows shape the ecological protection landscape within the CDPUA. By demonstrating the effectiveness of policy formulation and implementation, this research seeks to refine policy transmission, thereby promoting improvements in regional ecological environment quality and contributing to the practical construction of ecological networks.

 

4）Consider adding some considerations in the Discussion section about the difference between having a network of policy documents and "governance willingness" expressing the aim of protecting ecosystems and ecosystem services, and the actual governance actions that are put in place to really achieve the aim.

Response: Thanks for the insightful comments. Based on your suggestions, we have revised the conclusion section as follows:

With the rapid societal transformation and the demand for high-quality development, the flow of various spatial elements has become more frequent [50]. While past research has explored urban networks, there has been a lack of research from the perspective of policy transmission flow. Under the influence of human activities and self-regulation within ecosystems, the structure and function of urban ecological spaces have undergone significant changes [51], resulting in a more complex and diverse regional ecological space network [52].

When constructing ecological networks, scholars have typically used a research framework based on the "ecological source area - resistance surface - corridor construction" to establish physical spatial ecological networks to ensure ecological security [53]. The innovation in this study lies in the introduction of policy documents to obtain data on policy information between urban clusters. This study constructs an ecological protection network from the perspective of the policy "transmission flow." This approach relies on collaboration among various stakeholders, information sharing, and resource integration to establish a cooperative network relationship. Research on regional policy networks has shown that the strength and structure of inter-regional connections significantly influence policy outcomes. This validates the approach of mapping and analyzing policy networks to understand ecological protection efforts.

The study first selects the urban agglomeration in western China as the research area for ecological protection policy transmission flow, identifying the transmission relationships of ecological protection elements among cities and revealing the structure and characteristics of the ecological protection network within the urban agglomeration. Specifically, the comprehensive ecological protection network of policy transmission flow in the Chengdu Plain Urban Agglomeration presents a multi-core and east-west linkage density disparity spatial pattern. The overall linkage density of the comprehensive ecological protection network in the urban agglomeration is 60.71%, indicating a strong linkage state.

The classified protection networks in the Chengdu Plain Urban Agglomeration exhibit three main spatial structures: "V" shape, single-center radial, and multi-center radial. By employing degree centrality, cohesive subgroups, and core-periphery structure analyses, the study finds that there are three cohesive subgroups in the comprehensive ecological protection network of the Chengdu Plain Urban Agglomeration, indicating a relatively tight network structure. In the classified protection networks, six categories have three cohesive subgroups, two categories have four cohesive subgroups, and one category has two cohesive subgroups.

Analysis of the core-periphery structure of the ecological protection network indicates that the core cities in the classified networks of the Chengdu Plain Urban Agglomeration are mainly Chengdu, Deyang, Mianyang, Leshan, and Ya'an, while the peripheral cities are Meishan, Suining, and Ziyang. By fostering regional cooperation and building network relationships, resource sharing, information sharing, and shared risk-taking can be achieved, thereby reinforcing the regional ecological security pattern [54]. Furthermore, enhancing the density and connection strength of interurban flow space networks and strengthening regional collaborative development are essential goals.

By constructing an ecological protection network in the Chengdu Plain Urban Agglomeration, we can analyze the urban network structure and identify its weak points. This allows for the effective implementation of policy transmission, thereby building a robust ecological protection network. This will help local governments strengthen regional cooperation and governance, adjust network structures, and optimize regional resource allocation, ultimately achieving high-quality social development. The formulation and promotion of the policy transmission network can effectively advance regional ecological protection efforts, with the demonstrative effect of policies being particularly important. Once the demonstration is successful, the policy transmission will be more refined, becoming an important measure and approach in social governance and ecological construction. However, effective governance requires not only a strong policy framework but also the willingness and capacity to execute these policies. The structure of the policy transmission network is just one crucial aspect influencing regional policy effectiveness. It is also necessary to consider potential discrepancies between policy intentions and actual actions during implementation.

Based on the above analysis, the following policy recommendations are proposed:

1. Strengthen the construction of the ecological protection network and enhance regional cooperative governance capabilities. Governments and relevant institutions should enhance the formulation and implementation of ecological protection policies, ensuring smooth transmission and execution of policies between cities, promoting resource sharing and information exchange among cities, thereby improving the overall level of regional ecological protection.
2. Improve the execution and effectiveness of ecological protection policies. Local governments should strengthen their execution capabilities, clearly define responsibilities, and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of policy implementation.
3. Promote diversified cooperation and establish cross-regional ecological protection coordination mechanisms. Actively promote cooperation between cities, build cross-regional ecological protection coordination mechanisms, and enhance coordination and cooperation among cities in ecological protection.

By implementing the above policy measures, the ecological protection network of the Chengdu Plain Urban Agglomeration can be further improved, enhancing regional ecological quality and achieving sustainable and high-quality regional development goals.

The study of policy flow can reveal the complex mechanisms involved in policy formulation and dissemination, enhance the effectiveness of policy implementation, aid in regional policy coordination, and provide new perspectives for policy development and the field of social science. However, this study does have some limitations. One major limitation is its heavy reliance on the analysis of policy document content. While this approach provides valuable insights into the policy landscape, it doesn't consider the actual implementation of policies and their specific effects, which may vary among cities due to differences in execution capabilities and timing. To address this limitation and obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the actual impacts of policies, future research can consider combining policy document analysis with field surveys and data collection. This would enable a more in-depth evaluation of policy effectiveness in practice and a better understanding of the outcomes of ecological protection actions.

In conclusion, this study focuses on the Ecological Protection Network formed by policy transmission flow among cities in the Chengdu Plain Urban Agglomeration in western China. By examining regional urban ecological space organization theory, it extracts the characteristics of regional ecological relationships from the perspective of policy transmission flow, exploring pathways for collaborative urban ecological environment protection. The findings highlight the need for coordinated efforts in physical and policy-driven ecological networks to enhance regional ecological security and sustainability. The insights gained from this research provide a valuable reference for policymakers and stakeholders in their efforts to improve regional ecological environment quality and build robust ecological networks.

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for addressing all the issues that were detected in the previous version.

I know it required some effort but I hope you understand that these improvements were needed to present a robust scientific works.

Kind regards