Analysis of the Factors Influencing the Spatial Distribution of PM2.5 Concentrations (SDG 11.6.2) at the Provincial Scale in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript addresses the critical and relevant issue of the impact of heterogeneous factors on PM2.5 air pollution, including its spatiotemporal characteristics, potential synergies, and spillover effects. This study's focus is both timely and necessary given the global challenge of air pollution and its adverse effects on health and the environment. To further refine and strengthen the paper, I propose the following suggestions:

1. The methodology employed for determining the directionality of the relationships presented in Table 1 (the last column) requires further explanation. It would be beneficial for the readers if the authors could elaborate on techniques/approaches used to ascertain these directional influences among the variables studied.
2. The choice of variables included in the study is crucial for its validity and relevance. A detailed rationale behind the selection of these particular variables would be beneficial. 
3. The literature review section appears to be incomplete, particularly in its identification of the research gap this paper aims to fill. This would help in precisely articulating the unique contribution of the current study to the body of knowledge.
4. While the manuscript implicitly suggests its relevance and importance, explicitly stating the rationale behind this particular study would provide clarity, including contribution to the field, relevance to policy, and potential impact on addressing the challenges of air pollution.
5. the discussion section would benefit from a broader comparative analysis with similar studies in the field. Such a comparison could highlight the novel contributions of the present research and position its findings within the global context. 
6. I recommend to include specific policy recommendations to the Conclusions derived from the study's findings to enhance practical value of the study. 
7. The alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) underscores the study's relevance. However, I would suggest to remove the specific SDG number from the title.

8.      The text in line 122 does not correspond to Tab 2

Author Response

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your insightful comments and suggestions，which are helpful for enhancing the quality of the manuscript. Thank you for your time and effort. Please see the attachment for point-by-point revision feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for allowing me to review this manuscript.

The study explores the spatiotemporal characteristics and influencing factors of PM2.5 concentrations at the provincial scale in China.

The introduction is a mix between setting the general background for the research and discussing several previous studies on topics related to the current one. The general background is adequately described. However, the literature coverage is insufficiently developed. Please address this issue by extensively improved the literature review, critically discussing previous results, such as:

https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2920

https://doi.org/10.3390/en14102775

Additionally, please emphasize the original contribution this study has for expanding the knowledge in the field.

Please explain the rationale for choosing the econometric apparatus and the relevance of it for this research main objectives.

Please discuss the main results in the context of current knowledge, explaining the support to be found in previous research. Additionally, to emphasize the contribution of this study, please indicate and discuss the differences from other similar publications.

At the end, please connect the main findings with specific policy recommendations. Avoid listing generic recommendations. Instead, try to reflect the practical use of this research for local and national public policy design.

Please review the entire manuscript for typos and styling errors. 

Author Response

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your insightful comments and suggestions，which are helpful for enhancing the quality of the manuscript. Thank you for your time and effort. Please see the attachment for point-by-point revision feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Title: Analysis of factors influencing the spatial distribution of PM2.5 concentrations (SDG 11.6.2) at the provincial scale in China

The selection of the full paper has certain theoretical and practical significance, but there are some problems:

1. In the selection of explanatory variables, the land consumption indicator is identified as a positive indicator, but the PM2.5 concentrations brought by a high land consumption rate should increase, and there is no literature basis for the selection of variables. Please add the basis for the selection of these variables.

2. The literature review is somewhat confusing and the authors are advised to update and categorise it.

3. The text in the next paragraph of Table 1 explaining the significance of the variables is not consistent with the content of Table 2, "and SDG 7.1.2 (Disseminate modern clean energy) has the smallest standard deviation value of 15.87. "

Please revise the text according to Table 2.

4. The discussion of the empirical results is inadequate and too simplistic. For example, the second sentence of section "3.3.2 Analysis of results from provincial scale regions" describes the fact that the total effect is higher in some regions, but does not explain the reasons for this.

5. Is there an error in the description of the standard deviation in part 2.1 of the article? The lowest value of the standard deviation should be SDG 11.3.1, which corresponds to a value of 15.87, instead of SDG 7.1.2.

6. Part 3.2 of the article states that the LM test rejects the original hypothesis at the 5% significance level, indicating that there is spatial autocorrelation between the variables. However, the table shows that the significance level values of some regions are not less than 0.05. Is it possible to consider adding an explanation and description of the LM test for the whole region?

7. The format of the full paper needs to be revised.

8. It is suggested that the authors read the whole paper to improve and revise the content of the whole paper.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your insightful comments and suggestions，which are helpful for enhancing the quality of the manuscript. Thank you for your time and effort. Please see the attachment for point-by-point revision feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed the comments and suggestions for improving the manuscript. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable review of our manuscript. We have carefully read through the article again and have polished the English throughout the text. Thank you for your attention and guidance.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been improved, and the interpretation of the empirical results and the specification of the article need to be continued and revised. The authors are requested to revise it carefully.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful review. We have added some empirical interpretations to the content of Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 of our results, and we have also polished the English throughout the document. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.