Decoupling Characteristics between Coupling Coordination Degree of Production-Living-Ecological Function and Carbon Emissions in the Urban Agglomeration of the Shandong Peninsula

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Exploring the relationship between land production-life-ecological function and carbon emission can provide theoretical basis for land efficient use. I have a few amendments:

1. Please further clarify the key scientific questions of this paper and combine them with the research objectives.

2. Please further explain the representativeness and typicality of the study area.

3. Please introduce the source of the data in this paper and the reliability analysis of the data.

4. Some calculation formulas of the article, if possible, please add references.

5. The discussion part can be properly combined with the key conclusions of this paper and fully analyze the reasons.

6. Conclusion It is suggested to further compress and summarize.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Brief summary:

The author created a decoupling index to analyse carbon emissions on the Shandong Peninsula from 2001 to 2021. This topic is particularly pertinent to understanding the spatial and temporal dynamics of carbon emissions, as well as the degree of coupling coordination, especially amidst the escalating climate change crisis.

General concept comments:

The manuscript is well-written, addressing highly pertinent topics within the context of climate change. The thorough review of literature, detailed methodology description, and comprehensive results analysis contribute to its overall standard.

Specific comments:

In my opinion, a few adjustments are necessary.

The main goal of the piece must be presented in the end of the Introduction.

Introduction:

Defining the “Dual Carbon” is imperative. Also, the motivation of the study is not well described. Again, the main goal of the piece must be presented.

Figure 1 must be improved.

Results:

Figure 3 and Figure 4 must be improved. Figure 7 also must be improved.

The rationale behind selecting the specific time interval needs to be elucidated and supported with justification.

The strategies for integrating geographic data need to be outlined, along with providing details regarding the accuracy of each dataset utilized.

Discussion:

I propose focusing the discussion here on potential policy implementations carried out at both the national and provincial levels.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the article, under the dual-carbon background, 16 cities in Shandong Peninsula are taken as the study area to implement the evolution of urban production, living and ecological functions from the perspective of land use, and decouple the three life functions with carbon emissions. The study obtained the relationship between land function and carbon emission reduction. The content of the article is relatively complete, the research idea is clear, the research method is scientific, but there are still problems such as unclear expression and insufficient exposition of some contents in the article, the specific suggestions are as follows：

1. In the abstract section, key information is missing from the results of the study, e.g. Line18 “with noticeable spatial disparities between the eastern and western regions.” Suggest adding specific differences between the east and west, who is higher and who is lower, and for what reasons? 2. What do the three results of the study in the proposed additional summary article suggest? What are the reasons for insisting on “two circles and four regions”？ 3. Line 49：“Among these pollutants, the negative effect of carbon emissions ……” Is there a need for additional conceptual supplements? Can't carbon emissions be defined directly as a pollutant? 4. Lines 56-60：The importance of this study mentioned the study of temporal and spatial changes, but the general direction of the change was already mentioned before this paragraph (line 48), so the study of the change alone can not be the central significance. It is suggested to add relevant content. 5. Lines 61-88：The review is not comprehensive enough, only summarize the content of carbon emissions, from the latter, the production-life-ecological function part of the length is much larger than the carbon emissions, it is recommended to increase the production-life-ecological function of the review, the coupling and coordination of research in the past in the study of the use of the review of the contents of the content; compared with the previous study, what is the progress of this article? 6. Lines 86-88：“However, few studies have delved into the relationship between land multifunctionality, especially the coordination of various functions, and carbon emissions.” It is recommended to write what are the shortcomings of such a study. 7. Lines 89-91：“To address the aforementioned problems, the decoupling theory was employed, and the decoupling model was introduced following the examination of the production-living-ecological function coupling coordination.” It is suggested to explain the meaning of decoupling model. 8. Line 103：2.1. Theoretical Framework, this section does not ask the scientific question and it is suggested to add why is this study being done? 9. Line 110：“It represents the quality of life and reinforces the production function” The function of life is mentioned here as representing the quality of life, but in fact the function of land is the role that land plays. Thus, the function of life refers to the role that land can play in human life, rather than “represents the quality of life”. 10. Line 124-125：How can there be references when this part is the research for the article? 11. Line 130：2.2. Study Area and Data Sources, the concept of the Yellow River Basin appears for the first time in this section and is repeatedly emphasized. What are the characteristics of the production-living-ecological function of this basin? What is the research value of comparing this region with the urban area of the Yangtze River Delta if it is to measure population, economic power, and other issues mentioned in this paper? 12. Line 143：Why are two formats of scale used in Figure 2? What is the intended meaning? 13. Line147：2001, 2006, 2011, 2016, and 2021 are not whole years, and the authors should explain why these years were chosen for this study. 14. Lines 204-206：The format of the paragraph is inconsistent with other paragraphs and harmonization is recommended. 15. Line 219：In Table 1, why does this study consider Proportion of secondary industry in GDP as a negative indicator? Does the higher the value of secondary industry, the worse the productive function of the city?

Per capita domestic water consumption and per capita domestic electricity consumption are also categorized as negative indicators. This study suggests that the higher the per capita water and electricity consumption, the lower the functionality of life?

Also, why does the indicator system have more public functions than other indicators? This seems incongruous.

16. Line 227：The grading of coupling coordination in Table2 and Table3 should be expressed in terms of open versus closed intervals to avoid ambiguity at breakpoints. 17. Line 228：It is recommended that the header of Table 3, “Coupling coordination scheduling (d)”, be modified to read “Coupling coordination degree”. At the same time, it is suggested that Table 2 and 3 should be revised so that a word is not divided into lines as much as possible. 18. Line 262：In Figure 3 ∆D denotes the value of change in carbon emissions and ∆L denotes the change in coupling coordination harmonization, but above line 252 ∆D denotes the change in coupling harmonization, which is easy to cause ambiguity, and it is recommended to change the notation. Also, what is the meaning of w in Figure 3? 19. Line 279：“The production function index increased from 51.14 to 61.75 but experienced periodic declines between 2001 and 2011. This trend might be attributed to the relatively backward industrial structure of the Shandong Peninsula urban agglomeration, with an overly high proportion of manufacturing industries and insufficient industrial diversification, leading to a lack of power for production development.” The decline in productive capacity due to the high share of manufacturing is due to the fact that the share of manufacturing is a negative indicator in the indicator system of this paper. This contradicts the statement in Lines 160-169 that urban development depends on the secondary and tertiary sectors, and the authors should explain why the share of the secondary sector is a negative indicator in the appropriate place. 20. Lines 282-283：“The production function index increased from 51.14 to 61.75 but experienced periodic declines between 2001 and 2011.” The graph shows a decline from 2001-2011, so it is recommended to check for writing errors. 21. Lines 289-292：The increase in the living function index is mentioned here as a result of the large influx of people into the city due to rapid urbanization. In the previous Table 1, this study regarded per capita domestic water consumption and per capita domestic electricity consumption as negative indicators. But in fact, when the urban population increases, water consumption and electricity consumption are bound to increase, so how to explain the inconsistency? 22. Line 321：Figure 4's line and curve diagram need a legend. What does the black curve represent? Did the authors fit a functional index to the five years? What is the significance of doing so? The authors should add that in the article. But with only five folds on the fold line, the fitted curves are not really accurate, and the three fitted curves are not that different, so it is recommended to consider whether to remove them. Also, why are the spatial plots in Figures 4 and 6 only 3 years, it is suggested to explain why. 23. Line 415：Table 5 and Figure 7, 2006, 2011, and 2016 are repeated, which time period should they belong to or do both time periods include 2006, 2011, and 2016? 24. Line 354：The third graph (histogram) in the first row of Figure 5 has an incomplete vertical axis. The map compass in the center is incomplete. It is recommended that Figure 5 be divided into (a), (b), (c) and so on. In Figure 5, it is recommended that the map be divided into a, b, and c subfigures, and that the corresponding subfigures be labeled in the text. The quality of the figure also needs to be improved, and it is recommended that it be checked and modified. 25. Line 608：The current results section is sparse, homogenized and previously described, and it is recommended that it be expanded appropriately. 26. Carbon emission is an important part of this article, however, the paper does not seem to account for the source of the carbon emissions data, is it from a statistical yearbook, or did the authors do their own calculations? 27. Suggest checking and revising the reference format to ensure it is consistent with the journal’s requirements. 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

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form