How Do Population Changes and Land Use Policies Affect the Relationship between the Urban Economy and Public Services?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title of the manuscript is insufficiently clear - it reads as a (rather obvious) conclusion. Although the introduction is well formulated and provides an insight into the issue of the shrinking cities, the other parts of the manuscript are not as good. In the methods section, the authors failed to provide a sound justification for selecting the public service indicators. The selected methods are unnecessarily complicated, thus providing insufficiently clear results and discussion. As the result, the manuscript does not provide a clear contribution to the field.

The text would need only minor language revisions.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to comment on our manuscript. Here are our explanations and revisions. Specific revisions have been shown in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper aims to investigate the interplay between population change from 1990 to 2020, PUL 10 change from 2000 to 2020, and the coordinated dynamics of the economy and public services. However, there are notable shortcomings that warrant careful consideration by the authors.

Firstly, it's essential to recognize that population change encompasses more than mere numerical fluctuations; various demographic characteristics significantly influence economic and developmental outcomes. Factors such as education levels, average age, health status, and occupational distribution wield considerable influence. Simply correlating population numbers with economic indicators risks oversimplification and potential misinterpretation. Instead, the authors should draw insights from demography literature to grasp the intricate dynamics of population composition. Rather than attributing economic shifts solely to changes in population size, it's imperative to delve into the nuanced impacts of demographic shifts on economic dynamics.

Moreover, the relationship between a burgeoning economy and a youthful population profile is complex and bidirectional. One shapes the other in a symbiotic manner, necessitating a nuanced analysis. Asserting that shrinking cities inherently impede economic growth overlooks the intricate interplay between economic forces and demographic trends. For instance, the economic decline in areas like the Detroit region cannot be solely attributed to population shrinkage; factors such as industrial relocation play a pivotal role. Authors should draw insights from scholars like David Harvey to enrich their analysis with a more nuanced understanding of these complexities.

Certain assertions, such as "The presence of a population brings about demands that, in turn, drive the sustainable progress of a city," appear overly simplistic and lack empirical grounding.

Furthermore, the use of thematic maps could be enhanced by incorporating spatial autocorrelation indexes like Local and Global Moran’s I to identify statistically significant spatial concentrations of variables of interest. Such advanced analytical tools would offer deeper insights than descriptive maps alone.

While the exploration of China's population, land, and economy nexus is intriguing, the authors could augment their contribution by delving deeper into the complexities inherent in these relationships. By incorporating insights from diverse disciplines and employing advanced analytical techniques, the authors can enrich their analysis and contribute more substantially to the existing body of knowledge in this field.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to comment on our manuscript. Here are our explanations and revisions. Specific revisions have been shown in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is interesting, but I have very serious reservations about the selection of public service indicators (Table 1):
- it is not justified why exactly these indicators are valuable and should be used to verify the hypotheses;
- the number of hospital beds - the data was taken from public hospitals, or was the data taken from all hospitals (private, belonging to the Ministry of the Interior, etc.).
- the number of schools is a bad indicator because there can be a school with 100 pupils and a school with 1000 pupils;
why only electric buses were taken into account and not all buses in operation?
- the second column mentions electric buses and the last column mentions buses and trams: so all buses are here? what about trolleybuses?
- I do not understand what the unit - a means.
In my opinion, the authors should rethink the choice of indicators, or at least justify very strongly the advisability of using them in this article.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to comment on our manuscript. Here are our explanations and revisions. Specific revisions have been shown in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is timely, addressing the contemporary issue of urban shrinkage, which is of global concern and especially relevant for China's rapidly urbanizing society. Findings contribute to a deeper understanding of China's unique land use policy implications, potentially guiding future reforms and urban planning strategies. There are still some minor issues with the article:

1. Expand the literature review to include a broader range of theoretical perspectives and previous studies from different geographical contexts to enhance the paper's relevance.

2. The paper might lack a comprehensive theoretical framework that connects the empirical findings with broader urban economic theories. Please improve the theoretical framework and make it as a separate chapter.

3. Please adjust the color scheme of the images in the article and try to choose low saturation colors if possible.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to comment on our manuscript. Here are our explanations and revisions. Specific revisions have been shown in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In comparison to the first draft of the manuscript, this version was improved significantly. The methods, results and discussion are much clearly presented. There are still some minor issues to be considered (see attached file).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The manuscript needs minor English language editing.

Author Response

感谢您在百忙之中抽出时间对我们的稿件发表评论。您的专业建议对本文的修订非常重要和有效。我们已经修改并解释了您最近的稿件提交和回复中反映的每条评论。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Given that the authors have not incorporated the suggestion to analyze the characteristics of the population alongside its volume, I would recommend acknowledging this as a limitation and proposing it as a potential avenue for future research.

Author Response

Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to comment on our manuscript. Your professional suggestions are very important and effective for the revision of this article. We have revised and interpreted each of your comments as reflected in the most recent manuscript submissions and responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

After the corrections, the article is much better. In my opinion, now it is already suitable for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to comment on our manuscript. Your professional suggestions are very important and effective for the revision of this article. Thank you for your affirmation and recognition. We wish you all the best in your work.