Urban Land Use Efficiency under Resource-Based Economic Transformation—A Case Study of Shanxi Province

Comments

Response

Actions

Ling 43-44: please clearly describe the difference between the mentioned resource-based and non-resource-based cities which implies the different impacts on land use patterns.

Thank you very much for the time and efforts in providing valuable advices and comments to this paper.

Have added a definition of resource-based cities on lines 46- 51 and pointed out the impact on the lines 109-114.

I recommend the authors replace the section between line

259-272 to the introduction.

Thank you for the constructive

comment.

Have shifted the mentioned paragraph to the introduction

(Refer to line 55-67).

Fig. 1 and 2. Might be restructured since the applied line diagram is a bit confusing.

Thank you for the advice.

Have revised the Figures to bar charts.

Line 357-368 seems a bit too repetitive based on the data in Table 1. It is recommended to rather reveal the spatio- temporal trends behind the numbers than describe those

values which are clear from the table.

Thank you for the constructive comment.

Have revised the mentioned paragraphs and focused on elaborating the meaning behind the numbers (Refer to section 3.1).

The third section might be completed with several discussion statements about the limitation of the methodology, it is

almost never applied before to simulate such aspects.

Valuable suggestion.

The limitation of the method has been pointed out on lines 229-232.

Comments

Response

Actions

Line 55, 'What is the impact of movement of goods, services and people within such transformation? Discuss

such impact as it concerns spatial planning; development and sustainability and resilience.

Thank you for the constructive comment.

Have added a paragraph to describe the impact of transformation reform on the spatial planning and sustainability issue (refer to lines 96-116).

Line 108, Impact when the resource is depleted? Role of functional change.

Thank you for the comment.

The impact when the resource is depleted that causes function changes has been added to lines 109-116.

Line 135, remember the impact of transformation as well as the future through the process of functional change after depletion of the resource base.

Thank you for the constructive comment.

In the conclusion, we have pointed out the need of assessing functional attributes of land use in urban planning.

Line 160, n=?? is n=11. What is the value of k=???

Thank you for the comment.

Have revise to j = (1, 2….n) and k has been indicated.

Line 204, delete DMU_j

Thank you for the comment.

Have deleted

Line 205, Delete DMU_j

Thank you for the constructive

feedback.

Have deleted

Line 209, Text size and format

Thank you for the comment.

Have revised.

Line 231, max_\tetha line 232 must form part of line 231

Thank you for the comment.

Have revised.

Line 240, space

Thank you for the comment.

Have added a space between ‘?�∗  is’.

??

Line 350 delete tool before the word analysis

Thank you for pointing out.

Have deleted the word ‘tool’ before the word ‘analysis’

Comments

Response

Actions

The author(s) failed to highlight the difference of that in resource-based cities from others. Particularly, in lines 103- 106, the author(s) argued that there was a lack of information relating to a targeted evaluation index system in resource-based cities. In the empirical work, they still employed a similar index system including GDP and others.

Thank you so much for the time and efforts in providing valuable advices and comments to this paper.

Have discussed the concept of resource-based cities on lines 46-51 and pointed out the impact on the lines 109-114.

Have added a table (Refer to Table 1) that shows the variables using for developing the indexes.

Regarding the results, potential readers beyond China may have no idea about the list of cities. Particularly, the whole section 3.1 does NOT make sense.

Thank you for your comments. We have revised the section 3.1.

The section 3.1 has been revised by reducing the discussions of individual cities.

They applied only 11 cities as analysis units/samples in their models, which is to some extent less than generally required and may affect the robustness of models.

Thank you for your comments.

Since panel data is used, there are total of 110 data sets are used for the modeling, which is statistically significant. The results of the analysis coincide with other studies (Pu, et al. 2021). However, the limitation of the limited data set has been included at the end of discussion.

Line 378, the average scores was improved from 0.731 (Jinzhong) to 0.875 (Luliang).. For one thing, Shuozhou

Thank you for pointing out. We have revised the section.

The section has been revised (refer to section 3.1).

(0.878) rather than Luliang was the highest. For another, is this ‘Improved”?

This manuscript is theoretically week. The title highlights “economic transition”, while the text (particularly section 4) overlooked this context. Instead, the authors discussed the relationship between technological change and land use efficiency in section 3.2, and also conducted statistical models in section 4 to demonstrate the underlying mechanisms. But these sections are separated from each other, making the mainstream wanders.

Apology for that we might have not explained clearly.

We have provided the background the need of economic transform that leads to an aim of investigating the impacts of land-use efficiency under the economic transformation. We have added a paragraph on the land-use efficiency theory (lines of 174-183). The results of section 3 show the effects of land-use efficiency and the effects of before and after the economic transformation for the 11 cities. We have also analyzed the different input structure on the results of land-use efficiency in 3.2.