Spatiotemporal Analysis of Economic and Ecological Coupled Coordination: A Case Study of the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Urban Agglomeration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI was pleased to read this paper, which seems to represent a greater degree of clarity and practical and substantive scientific contribution going beyond novel esoteric methodological contributions. However, there were quite a number of clarifications needed in order to make the paper clear and publishable:
A. There is a systematic problem with definitions of key terms and use of abbreviations, a number of which were introduced appropriately in the abstract but not in the article and not always explained or defined. Each of the terms should be clearly explained and/or defined in the actual article, and abbreviations should be spelled out the first time they are used in the actual article and not just in the abstract.
1. There is no definition of “ecosystem services.” There are measures and endnote 27 indicates that Zhu and Xue have studied it, but there is no mention that ecosystem services are the benefits provided by ecosystems, which seems to be a rather key concept.
2. Regional economy (RE) is specified in the abstract but should also be specified in the main text.
3. Ecological quality (EQ) is specified in the abstract but should also be specified in the main text.
4. The Beijing-Tianjian-Hebei agglomeration (BTH) is specified in the abstract but should also be specified in the main text. Further, there are instances the text needs further clarification.
5. Coupled coordination degree (CCD) is specified in the abstract but should also be specified in the main text.
6. Net primary production (NPP) is never defined nor explained nor the abbreviation specified, not even in the abstract.
7. Poverty-stricken counties around Beijing-Tianjin (PSC-BT) is specified in the abstract but should also be specified in the main text. Further, it is incredibly clumsy in most uses in the text where it would be clearer to refer to the “poor counties” where the referent is clear. Line 83 refers to the “Poverty Belt around Beijing and Tianjin”-is this an official designation? If so, this should be indicated and referred to when describing PSC-BT.
8. Is “settlements” the best name for an ecosystem? Is there some more descriptive term like “urban” or “populated” or “dense human” or “concentrated human” or even “human settlements” that could be used?
9. Could sand fixation be defined and briefly explained?
B. The MODI7A3 dataset could use more explanation, along with a brief explanation of MODIS and MODIS products, just making sure to mention that this is regular satellite data.
C. Briefly explain Biome-BGC.
D. Table 1
1. “Data phase” seems to mean “Data periods”
2. Is sheets necessary to go with attribute data?
3. Soil data do not list any periods-is this intentional or an oversight?
E. I did not see any explanation for the system of weighting specified in Table 2 in the text. Could an explanation and rationale be provided? Does the top paragraph on page 6 refer to this? If so, could it be made more explicit?
F. No formula or explanation for RWEQ in lines 160-161. Either a brief explanation of what it entails or a formula are needed.
G. Equations (9), (10), and (11) would be much clearer if labelled RE lags, EQ lags, and synchronized for clarity.
H. There seems to be a systematic use of “unbalance” (weight not equally distributed) in the place of “imbalance” (a lack of proportion).
I. Table 4 has unclear numbers for the totals for Beijing and Tianjin.
J. The paragraph below Table 4 on page 8 (lines 220-232) presuppose greater knowledge of the geography of BTH than non-Chinese scholars may have. Could the Bohai Sea coastal areas be indicated by locations on the Figure 2a maps, along with any other unclear locations not indicated on the maps?
Likewise, the Discussion contains similar references to mountains and other places with no other reference for those not already familiar with the geography.
K. Figure 4 would be clearer if the labelling were clearer:
Beijing Comprehensive RE index
Tianjin Comprehensive RE index
Hebei Comprehensive RE index
PSC Comprehensive RE index
Beijing Comprehensive EQ index
Tianjin Comprehensive EQ index
Hebei Comprehensive EQ index
PSC Comprehensive EQ inde
L. Figure 5 would be clearer as (A: Lagging RE; B: Lagging EQ; and C: RE and EQ synchronized).
M. There appears to be a missing percentage in line 344.
N. The use of first-person plural (“we”) is best avoided as it makes a formal paper sound more like an informal presentation and weakens the credibility of the argument. Third person is more appropriate for an academic paper.
O. There are also many English problems, particularly where artifacts from L1 (presumably Chinese) make the English clumsy and hard to understand.
1. Line 62 should read “provide development paths”
2. Lines 65-66 make it unclear what needs improvement-the economy and ecology or the degree of coordination? As written, it sounds as though the RE and EQ are fine but they are not coordinated to a sufficient degree. This should be clarified.
3. Line 72 would sound clearer as BTH agglomeration.
4. Line 78 mentioned “human-land conflicts” as though the meaning were inherently clear but should clarify what is meant.
5. Line 89 “certain” should be deleted
6. Line 97 should read “plains” instead of “plain area”
7. Lines 107-109 should read: These ecosystems are then converted into seven ecosystems: farmland, forests, grassland, wetlands, settlements, deserts, and other ecosystems.
8. Line 121 should read “All the data are converted into 1 km×1 km raster data to unify the spatial resolution.”
9. Lines 124-5 should read “A comprehensive evaluation of each subsystem is necessary for evaluating the CCD of RE and EQ.”
10. Lines 128-9 should read “…by its resilience and ability to resist disturbances”
11. Lines 136-139 should read “Therefore, the evaluation indicators of both the EQ and RE were selected based on the socioeconomic and ecological background of the Poverty Belt around Beijing and Tianjin (PSC-BT) following scientific, operable, dynamic, and systematic principles in establishing the indicator system.”
12. Line 145 should read “Precipitation storage was used to estimate the water retention in Northeastern China:”
13. Line 147 should read “Please refer to Huang et al. for the detailed calculation process.”
14. Lines 161-2 should read “Please refer to Wang et al. for the detailed calculation process.”
15. Lines 164-5 should read “The multi-objective linear weighting method [53] is used to calculate the comprehensive development index:”
16. Lines 169-172 should read “The higher the entropy, the more uniform the system structure is and the smaller the differences are. In contrast, the more uneven the system structure is, the larger the differences are. The degree of variation is calculated and the weights are determined according to the size of the entropy value of each index.”
17. Line 194 should read “and the RE and EQ synchronized type”
18. A thousand billion is a trillion so that lines 238-9 could have 3.28 trillion, 1.25 trillion, and 3.16 trillion yuan.
19. Line 272 should read “upward trend”
20. Line 272 should read “relative increase was highest”
21. Line 276 should read “The relative increase in soil conservation was highest”
22. Lines 289-294 should read “The comprehensive RE and EQ index in the BTH from 2000 to 2020 showed an upward trend (Fig. 4), in which the comprehensive RE index grew significantly faster than EQ and the comprehensive RE index of Tianjin and Hebei exceeded the composite EQ index from 2005–2010, and Beijing's transition occurred between 2010 and 2015, while the two types of composite indices of the poor counties (PSC-BT) were always in a parallel state with weak changes.”
23. Lines 294-299 should read “The comprehensive RE index was low in 2000 separate from the changes in the two comprehensive indices. Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei grew faster between 2000 and 2010. The growth rate slowed after 2010, while the PSC-BT index continued to show weak changes between 2000 and 2020, which indicates that there were large differences in economic development within Hebei Province and that the rapid development of the neighbouring areas did not occur in the PSC-BT.”
24. Lines 308-309 should read “rapid development, Phase I (2000-2010) and steady growth, Phase II (2010-2015).”
25. Line 311 should read “Phase II had been steadily increasing but the rate of increase dropped,”
26. Lines 312-315 should read “Rapid economic development led to a transition from lagging RE to lagging EQ in the Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei CCD, while the CCD in the poor counties (PSC-BT) was low and represents the lagging RE type, indicating that the poverty-stricken areas failed to effectively transform ecological assets into economic benefits.”
27. Lines 319-320 should read “The gap in the level of regional coupled coordination gradually widened in terms of spatial distribution (Fig. 6), growing gradually from a three-level gap in 2000 to a five-level gap in 2020.”
28. Lines 376-379 should read “The main reason is that the government has invested large amounts of money in ecological management and ecological barrier construction, and it has successively implemented ecological restoration projects since 2000, including the "Beijing-Tianjin Sand 375 Source Control Project", "Returning Farmland to Forest (Grass) Project", and "Capital Water Resources Sustainable Utilization Project in the 21st Century", which have resulted in the conversion of more farmland to forests or grasslands, the management of water pollution in watersheds, and the restriction of the heavy industrial sector.”
29. Lines 381-384 should read “In summary, the EQ of the BTH as a whole tended to improve from 2000 to 2020 under the combined effects of climate change and related ecological restoration projects, among which the contribution of the PSC-BT was more prominent, bearing nearly half of the increase in supply and regulating services;”
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageA. The use of first-person plural (“we”) is best avoided as it makes a formal paper sound more like an informal presentation and weakens the credibility of the argument. Third person is more appropriate for an academic paper.
B. There are also many English problems, particularly where artifacts from L1 (presumably Chinese) make the English clumsy and hard to understand.
1. Line 62 should read “provide development paths”
2. Lines 65-66 make it unclear what needs improvement-the economy and ecology or the degree of coordination? As written, it sounds as though the RE and EQ are fine but they are not coordinated to a sufficient degree. This should be clarified.
3. Line 72 would sound clearer as BTH agglomeration.
4. Line 78 mentioned “human-land conflicts” as though the meaning were inherently clear but should clarify what is meant.
5. Line 89 “certain” should be deleted
6. Line 97 should read “plains” instead of “plain area”
7. Lines 107-109 should read: These ecosystems are then converted into seven ecosystems: farmland, forests, grassland, wetlands, settlements, deserts, and other ecosystems.
8. Line 121 should read “All the data are converted into 1 km×1 km raster data to unify the spatial resolution.”
9. Lines 124-5 should read “A comprehensive evaluation of each subsystem is necessary for evaluating the CCD of RE and EQ.”
10. Lines 128-9 should read “…by its resilience and ability to resist disturbances”
11. Lines 136-139 should read “Therefore, the evaluation indicators of both the EQ and RE were selected based on the socioeconomic and ecological background of the Poverty Belt around Beijing and Tianjin (PSC-BT) following scientific, operable, dynamic, and systematic principles in establishing the indicator system.”
12. Line 145 should read “Precipitation storage was used to estimate the water retention in Northeastern China:”
13. Line 147 should read “Please refer to Huang et al. for the detailed calculation process.”
14. Lines 161-2 should read “Please refer to Wang et al. for the detailed calculation process.”
15. Lines 164-5 should read “The multi-objective linear weighting method [53] is used to calculate the comprehensive development index:”
16. Lines 169-172 should read “The higher the entropy, the more uniform the system structure is and the smaller the differences are. In contrast, the more uneven the system structure is, the larger the differences are. The degree of variation is calculated and the weights are determined according to the size of the entropy value of each index.”
17. Line 194 should read “and the RE and EQ synchronized type”
18. A thousand billion is a trillion so that lines 238-9 could have 3.28 trillion, 1.25 trillion, and 3.16 trillion yuan.
19. Line 272 should read “upward trend”
20. Line 272 should read “relative increase was highest”
21. Line 276 should read “The relative increase in soil conservation was highest”
22. Lines 289-294 should read “The comprehensive RE and EQ index in the BTH from 2000 to 2020 showed an upward trend (Fig. 4), in which the comprehensive RE index grew significantly faster than EQ and the comprehensive RE index of Tianjin and Hebei exceeded the composite EQ index from 2005–2010, and Beijing's transition occurred between 2010 and 2015, while the two types of composite indices of the poor counties (PSC-BT) were always in a parallel state with weak changes.”
23. Lines 294-299 should read “The comprehensive RE index was low in 2000 separate from the changes in the two comprehensive indices. Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei grew faster between 2000 and 2010. The growth rate slowed after 2010, while the PSC-BT index continued to show weak changes between 2000 and 2020, which indicates that there were large differences in economic development within Hebei Province and that the rapid development of the neighbouring areas did not occur in the PSC-BT.”
24. Lines 308-309 should read “rapid development, Phase I (2000-2010) and steady growth, Phase II (2010-2015).”
25. Line 311 should read “Phase II had been steadily increasing but the rate of increase dropped,”
26. Lines 312-315 should read “Rapid economic development led to a transition from lagging RE to lagging EQ in the Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei CCD, while the CCD in the poor counties (PSC-BT) was low and represents the lagging RE type, indicating that the poverty-stricken areas failed to effectively transform ecological assets into economic benefits.”
27. Lines 319-320 should read “The gap in the level of regional coupled coordination gradually widened in terms of spatial distribution (Fig. 6), growing gradually from a three-level gap in 2000 to a five-level gap in 2020.”
28. Lines 376-379 should read “The main reason is that the government has invested large amounts of money in ecological management and ecological barrier construction, and it has successively implemented ecological restoration projects since 2000, including the "Beijing-Tianjin Sand 375 Source Control Project", "Returning Farmland to Forest (Grass) Project", and "Capital Water Resources Sustainable Utilization Project in the 21st Century", which have resulted in the conversion of more farmland to forests or grasslands, the management of water pollution in watersheds, and the restriction of the heavy industrial sector.”
29. Lines 381-384 should read “In summary, the EQ of the BTH as a whole tended to improve from 2000 to 2020 under the combined effects of climate change and related ecological restoration projects, among which the contribution of the PSC-BT was more prominent, bearing nearly half of the increase in supply and regulating services;”
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Reviewer #1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
“I was pleased to read this paper, which seems to represent a greater degree of clarity and practical and substantive scientific contribution going beyond novel esoteric methodological contributions. However, there were quite a number of clarifications needed in order to make the paper clear and publishable:”
Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. We also appreciate your clear and detailed feedback and hope that the explanation has fully addressed all of your concerns. We discuss each of your comments individually along with our corresponding responses.
Comment A:
There is a systematic problem with definitions of key terms and use of abbreviations, a number of which were introduced appropriately in the abstract but not in the article and not always explained or defined. Each of the terms should be clearly explained and/or defined in the actual article, and abbreviations should be spelled out the first time they are used in the actual article and not just in the abstract.
Response A:
We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. According to your suggestion, we have added accordingly in the text.
- There is no definition of “ecosystem services.” There are measures and endnote 27 indicates that Zhu and Xue have studied it, but there is no mention that ecosystem services are the benefits provided by ecosystems, which seems to be a rather key concept.
We have supplemented as suggested by the reviewer (line 65-66 in the revised manuscript).
- Regional economy (RE) is specified in the abstract but should also be specified in the main text.
We have supplemented (line 58-59 in the revised manuscript).
- Ecological quality (EQ) is specified in the abstract but should also be specified in the main text.
We have supplemented (line 59 in the revised manuscript).
- The Beijing-Tianjian-Hebei agglomeration (BTH) is specified in the abstract but should also be specified in the main text. Further, there are instances the text needs further clarification.
We have supplemented (line 71-72 in the revised manuscript).
- Coupled coordination degree (CCD) is specified in the abstract but should also be specified in the main text.
We have supplemented (line 61-62 in the revised manuscript).
- Net primary production (NPP) is never defined nor explained nor the abbreviation specified, not even in the abstract.
We have supplemented (line 92 in the revised manuscript).
- Poverty-stricken counties around Beijing-Tianjin (PSC-BT) is specified in the abstract but should also be specified in the main text. Further, it is incredibly clumsy in most uses in the text where it would be clearer to refer to the “poor counties” where the referent is clear. Line 83 refers to the “Poverty Belt around Beijing and Tianjin”-is this an official designation? If so, this should be indicated and referred to when describing PSC-BT.
We have supplemented as suggested by the reviewer (line 60 in the revised manuscript). In addition, we have amended "PSC-BT" to "PSC".
- Is “settlements” the best name for an ecosystem? Is there some more descriptive term like “urban” or “populated” or “dense human” or “concentrated human” or even “human settlements” that could be used?
We have amended "settlements" to "urban".
- Could sand fixation be defined and briefly explained?
We have supplemented (line 180-182 in the revised manuscript).
Comment B:
The MODI7A3 dataset could use more explanation, along with a brief explanation of MODIS and MODIS products, just making sure to mention that this is regular satellite data.
Response B:
We have supplemented as suggested by the reviewer (line 122-126 in the revised manuscript).
Comment C:
Briefly explain Biome-BGC.
Response C:
We have supplemented (line 128-129 in the revised manuscript).
Comment D:
Table 1
- “Data phase” seems to mean “Data periods”
- Is sheets necessary to go with attribute data?
- Soil data do not list any periods-is this intentional or an oversight?
Response D:
We have supplemented and modified (line 137 in the revised manuscript).
Comment E:
I did not see any explanation for the system of weighting specified in Table 2 in the text. Could an explanation and rationale be provided? Does the top paragraph on page 6 refer to this? If so, could it be made more explicit?
Response E:
Thanks. We have supplemented (line 160-161 in the revised manuscript).
Comment F:
No formula or explanation for RWEQ in lines 160-161. Either a brief explanation of what it entails or a formula are needed.
Response F:
We have supplemented (line 185-192 in the revised manuscript).
Comment G:
Equations (9), (10), and (11) would be much clearer if labelled RE lags, EQ lags, and synchronized for clarity.
Response G:
Changed (line 229-230 in the revised manuscript).
Comment H:
There seems to be a systematic use of “unbalance” (weight not equally distributed) in the place of “imbalance” (a lack of proportion).
Response H:
We have amended " unbalance" to "imbalance".
Comment I:
Table 4 has unclear numbers for the totals for Beijing and Tianjin.
Response I:
Thanks for your suggestion. We deleted the extra Spaces to make the data clearer.
Comment J:
The paragraph below Table 4 on page 8 (lines 220-232) presuppose greater knowledge of the geography of BTH than non-Chinese scholars may have. Could the Bohai Sea coastal areas be indicated by locations on the Figure 2a maps, along with any other unclear locations not indicated on the maps?
Likewise, the Discussion contains similar references to mountains and other places with no other reference for those not already familiar with the geography.
Response J:
Thanks for your suggestion. We have supplemented these locations in Figure 1 (line 110 in the revised manuscript).
Comment K:
Figure 4 would be clearer if the labelling were clearer:
Beijing Comprehensive RE index
Tianjin Comprehensive RE index
Hebei Comprehensive RE index
PSC Comprehensive RE index
Beijing Comprehensive EQ index
Tianjin Comprehensive EQ index
Hebei Comprehensive EQ index
PSC Comprehensive EQ inde
Response K:
We have supplemented these labels in Figure 4 (line 350 in the revised manuscript).
Comment L:
Figure 5 would be clearer as (A: Lagging RE; B: Lagging EQ; and C: RE and EQ synchronized).
Response L:
We have supplemented these labels in Figure 5 (line 367 in the revised manuscript).
Comment M:
There appears to be a missing percentage in line 344.
Response M:
We have supplemented (line 396-398 in the revised manuscript).
Comment N:
The use of first-person plural (“we”) is best avoided as it makes a formal paper sound more like an informal presentation and weakens the credibility of the argument. Third person is more appropriate for an academic paper.
Response N:
Thanks for your suggestion. We have amended " we" to "this study" or "this paper".
Comment O:
There are also many English problems, particularly where artifacts from L1 (presumably Chinese) make the English clumsy and hard to understand.
- Line 62 should read “provide development paths”
Changed (line 64 in the revised manuscript).
- Lines 65-66 make it unclear what needs improvement-the economy and ecology or the degree of coordination? As written, it sounds as though the RE and EQ are fine but they are not coordinated to a sufficient degree. This should be clarified.
Changed (line 69 in the revised manuscript).
- Line 72 would sound clearer as BTH agglomeration.
Changed (line 77 in the revised manuscript).
- Line 78 mentioned “human-land conflicts” as though the meaning were inherently clear but should clarify what is meant.
Changed (line 83-85 in the revised manuscript).
- Line 89 “certain” should be deleted
Changed (line 97 in the revised manuscript).
- Line 97 should read “plains” instead of “plain area”
Changed (line 105 in the revised manuscript).
- Lines 107-109 should read: These ecosystems are then converted into seven ecosystems: farmland, forests, grassland, wetlands, settlements, deserts, and other ecosystems.
Changed (line 117-118 in the revised manuscript).
- Line 121 should read “All the data are converted into 1 km×1 km raster data to unify the spatial resolution.”
Changed (line 135-136 in the revised manuscript).
- Lines 124-5 should read “A comprehensive evaluation of each subsystem is necessary for evaluating the CCD of RE and EQ.”
Changed (line 139-141 in the revised manuscript).
- Lines 128-9 should read “…by its resilience and ability to resist disturbances”
Changed (line 144-145 in the revised manuscript).
- Lines 136-139 should read “Therefore, the evaluation indicators of both the EQ and RE were selected based on the socioeconomic and ecological background of the Poverty Belt around Beijing and Tianjin (PSC-BT) following scientific, operable, dynamic, and systematic principles in establishing the indicator system.”
Changed (line 153-155 in the revised manuscript).
- Line 145 should read “Precipitation storage was used to estimate the water retention in Northeastern China:”
Changed (line 166 in the revised manuscript).
- Line 147 should read “Please refer to Huang et al. for the detailed calculation process.”
Changed (line 168 in the revised manuscript).
- Lines 161-2 should read “Please refer to Wang et al. for the detailed calculation process.”
Changed (line 177 in the revised manuscript).
- Lines 164-5 should read “The multi-objective linear weighting method [53] is used to calculate the comprehensive development index:”
Changed (line 194-195 in the revised manuscript).
- Lines 169-172 should read “The higher the entropy, the more uniform the system structure is and the smaller the differences are. In contrast, the more uneven the system structure is, the larger the differences are. The degree of variation is calculated and the weights are determined according to the size of the entropy value of each index.”
Changed (line 200-204 in the revised manuscript).
- Line 194 should read “and the RE and EQ synchronized type”
Changed (line 228 in the revised manuscript).
- A thousand billion is a trillion so that lines 238-9 could have 3.28 trillion, 1.25 trillion, and 3.16 trillion yuan.
Changed (line 272-273 in the revised manuscript).
- Line 272 should read “upward trend”
Changed (line 306 in the revised manuscript).
- Line 272 should read “relative increase was highest”
Changed (line 306 in the revised manuscript).
- Line 276 should read “The relative increase in soil conservation was highest”
Changed (line 310-311 in the revised manuscript).
- Lines 289-294 should read “The comprehensive RE and EQ index in the BTH from 2000 to 2020 showed an upward trend (Fig. 4), in which the comprehensive RE index grew significantly faster than EQ and the comprehensive RE index of Tianjin and Hebei exceeded the composite EQ index from 2005–2010, and Beijing's transition occurred between 2010 and 2015, while the two types of composite indices of the poor counties (PSC-BT) were always in a parallel state with weak changes.”
Changed (line 324-329 in the revised manuscript).
- Lines 294-299 should read “The comprehensive RE index was low in 2000 separate from the changes in the two comprehensive indices. Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei grew faster between 2000 and 2010. The growth rate slowed after 2010, while the PSC-BT index continued to show weak changes between 2000 and 2020, which indicates that there were large differences in economic development within Hebei Province and that the rapid development of the neighbouring areas did not occur in the PSC-BT.”
Changed (line 329-334 in the revised manuscript).
- Lines 308-309 should read “rapid development, Phase I (2000-2010) and steady growth, Phase II (2010-2015).”
Changed (line 354-355 in the revised manuscript).
- Line 311 should read “Phase II had been steadily increasing but the rate of increase dropped,”
Changed (line 357 in the revised manuscript).
- Lines 312-315 should read “Rapid economic development led to a transition from lagging RE to lagging EQ in the Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei CCD, while the CCD in the poor counties (PSC-BT) was low and represents the lagging RE type, indicating that the poverty-stricken areas failed to effectively transform ecological assets into economic benefits.”
Changed (line 358-362 in the revised manuscript).
- Lines 319-320 should read “The gap in the level of regional coupled coordination gradually widened in terms of spatial distribution (Fig. 6), growing gradually from a three-level gap in 2000 to a five-level gap in 2020.”
Changed (line 370-372 in the revised manuscript).
- Lines 376-379 should read “The main reason is that the government has invested large amounts of money in ecological management and ecological barrier construction, and it has successively implemented ecological restoration projects since 2000, including the "Beijing-Tianjin Sand 375 Source Control Project", "Returning Farmland to Forest (Grass) Project", and "Capital Water Resources Sustainable Utilization Project in the 21st Century", which have resulted in the conversion of more farmland to forests or grasslands, the management of water pollution in watersheds, and the restriction of the heavy industrial sector.”
Changed (line 428-434 in the revised manuscript).
- Lines 381-384 should read “In summary, the EQ of the BTH as a whole tended to improve from 2000 to 2020 under the combined effects of climate change and related ecological restoration projects, among which the contribution of the PSC-BT was more prominent, bearing nearly half of the increase in supply and regulating services;”
Changed (line 443-446 in the revised manuscript).
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We hope you will find this revised version satisfactory.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMajor Issues:
1. In the concluding section of the Introduction, elaborate on the relationship between PSC-BT and CCD.
2. Provide a more detailed discussion on why PSC-BT was chosen as the primary study area, highlighting the significance of this selection.
3. Expand the Discussion Section to include more insights into the development and changes of CCD within PSC-BT.
Minor Issues:
1. In the third row in Table 4, the presentation of GDP is misleading. Ensure that the GDP numbers are presented on the same row rather than split across two rows.
2. Align the three rows labeled "Settlement," "Deserts," and "Others" in Table 5 to the center of the unit column for consistency.
3. The boundaries of each city in the BTH region are unclear, which may confuse readers unfamiliar with the area. Additionally, the font size of the city names is too small to be easily recognizable.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
Major Issues:
Comment 1:
- In the concluding section of the Introduction, elaborate on the relationship between PSC-BT and CCD..
Response 1:
Thank you for your suggestions. In the last part of the introduction (line 92-100), we added a paragraph to specify the impact of the interaction between various elements (such as economy, environment, society, etc.) in the poverty-stricken county, which is a region under a specific socio-economic background, on the CCD.
Comment 2:
- Provide a more detailed discussion on why PSC-BT was chosen as the primary study area, highlighting the significance of this selection.
Response 2:
In the last paragraph of the introduction (line 100-107), we add a detailed discussion on the selection of poor counties as research areas. We elaborate from the policy background, social significance, academic value and other perspectives.
Comment 3:
- Expand the Discussion Section to include more insights into the development and changes of CCD within PSC-BT.
Response 3:
Thanks for your suggestion. In the discussion part (line 436-444), we added a specific analysis of the change of the CCD in the PSC in the research results, including its change trend, influencing factors, policy effects and other aspects.
Minor Issues:
Comment 1:
- In the third row in Table 4, the presentation of GDP is misleading. Ensure that the GDP numbers are presented on the same row rather than split across two rows.
Response 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have modified it according to your suggestion (line 270).
Comment 2:
- Align the three rows labeled "Settlement," "Deserts," and "Others" in Table 5 to the center of the unit column for consistency.
Response 2:
Thanks. We have modified it according to your suggestion (line 314).
Comment 3:
- The boundaries of each city in the BTH region are unclear, which may confuse readers unfamiliar with the area. Additionally, the font size of the city names is too small to be easily recognizable.
Response 3:
Thanks for your suggestion. We changed the boundaries of the districts in the map and increased the font size to make the map clearer (Fig 1, 2, 3, 6).
Comments on the Quality of English Language:
Moderate editing of English language required.
Response:
We have meticulously revised the linguistic aspects of this article, addressing issues such as grammar, spelling, and punctuation, to streamline the text and enhance its readability, making it more concise and fluent.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all your time involved and this great opportunity for us to improve the manuscript. We hope you will find this revised version satisfactory.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCongratulations for article. I liked. All article is clear and well written, except CONCLUSIONS. It seems that is incomplete. I suggest to rewrite it, presenting briefly context of the research, objetctive of the research, state that objective was accomplished and justify this statement, presenting briefly results. At the end I suggest to write limitations of the research, suggest new studies about topic and what kind of contribution this research has for academy and society.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Reviewer #2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
“Congratulations for article. I liked. All article is clear and well written, except CONCLUSIONS. It seems that is incomplete. I suggest to rewrite it, presenting briefly context of the research, objetctive of the research, state that objective was accomplished and justify this statement, presenting briefly results. At the end I suggest to write limitations of the research, suggest new studies about topic and what kind of contribution this research has for academy and society.”
Response:
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have rewritten the conclusion section, encompassing the research background, objectives, methodologies, results, as well as the significance and contributions. The limitations and shortcomings of the study have already been addressed in the Discussion section. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We hope you will find this revised version satisfactory.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCongratulations for the research work. It is a visionary approach of regional sustainability taking into consideration high concentration urban areas as Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region by using a CCD model from the synergic point of view of both regional economics (RE) and ecological quality (EQ). However some observations have to be made:
1. The title is ok, suggestive for the content
2. The abstract is ok containing relevant summarized information of the research
3. Keywords could be improved adding (suggestion) - sustainabile development, green policies, regional development, statistics analysis
4. JEL Classification is missing
5. Introduction is OK
6. Literature review is not well underlined
7. Methodology of research - Methods used are well presented, however, research hypothesis should be better underlined, coupled with research results in discussions and conclusions
8. Discussions and conclusions are ok
9. References are well selected
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor revision of text is required to avoid mistakes.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Reviewer #3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
“Congratulations for the research work. It is a visionary approach of regional sustainability taking into consideration high concentration urban areas as Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region by using a CCD model from the synergic point of view of both regional economics (RE) and ecological quality (EQ). However some observations have to be made:”
Thank you for your positive comments on our manuscript. The comments are laid out below in italicized font and specific concerns have been numbered. Our response is given in normal font and changes/additions to the manuscript are given in the red text.
Comment 1:
- The title is ok, suggestive for the content.
Response 1:
Thank you for your encouraging comments.
Comment 2:
- The abstract is ok containing relevant summarized information of the research.
Response 2:
Thank you.
Comment 3:
- Keywords could be improved adding (suggestion) - sustainable development, green policies, regional development, statistics analysis.
Response 3:
Thanks for your suggestion. We have added "regional development" and "statistics analysis" as new keywords.
Comment 4:
- JEL Classification is missing.
Response 4:
Thank you for pointing this out. This research spans the disciplines of regional economics, environmental economics, and sustainable development. In the JEL (Journal of Economic Literature) classification system, this paper could fit under the "Q" category, specifically "Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics." More precisely, it could be classified under the "Q5" subclass, which deals with "Environmental Economics".
Comment 5:
- Introduction is OK.
Response 5:
Thanks.
Comment 6:
- Literature review is not well underlined.
Response 6:
Thanks for your suggestion. The literature review of this paper is conducted from the following three perspectives: the relationship between economic development and ecological conservation, methods of coupling studies, and examples and limitations of studies on the coupling relationship between economy and ecology. We have made appropriate revisions and additions to the introduction and discussion sections.
Comment 7:
- Methodology of research - Methods used are well presented, however, research hypothesis should be better underlined, coupled with research results in discussions and conclusions.
Response 7:
Thanks for your suggestion. Based on your comments, we have made appropriate revisions and additions to the discussion and conclusion.
Comment 8:
- Discussions and conclusions are ok.
Response 8:
Thanks.
Comment 9:
- References are well selected.
Response 9:
Thanks.
Comments on the Quality of English Language:
Minor revision of text is required to avoid mistakes.
Response:
We have meticulously revised the linguistic aspects of this article, addressing issues such as grammar, spelling, and punctuation, to streamline the text and enhance its readability, making it more concise and fluent.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all your time involved and this great opportunity for us to improve the manuscript. We hope you will find this revised version satisfactory.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed the changes made to the manuscript and am satisfied seeing it in print in the present revised form. The clarity has been significantly improved, and the language is much more readable.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Reviewer #1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
“I have reviewed the changes made to the manuscript and am satisfied seeing it in print in the present revised form. The clarity has been significantly improved, and the language is much more readable.”
Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. We have added an introduction and a discussion section to make the article more complete. We hope you will find this revised version satisfactory.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI commend the authors for their considerable efforts to improve the paper and extend my congratulations on their progress. However, there are still some issues that need to be addressed.
Although the authors have added two lines to briefly introduce the relationship between PSC and CCD, a more detailed elaboration is necessary to highlight the research's significance in practical terms.
The original comment regarding the Discussion Section has not been fully addressed. The authors should explain why the CCD in the PSC area transitioned from type C in 2000 to type A in 2005 (Fig 5).
Finally, in the legend of Figure 6, the correct terms should be "seriously imbalanced" and "moderately imbalanced."
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Reviewer #2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
“I commend the authors for their considerable efforts to improve the paper and extend my congratulations on their progress. However, there are still some issues that need to be addressed.”
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript.
Comment 1:
Although the authors have added two lines to briefly introduce the relationship between PSC and CCD, a more detailed elaboration is necessary to highlight the research's significance in practical terms.
Response 1:
We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. According to your suggestion, we have added the relationship between PSC and CCD (line 96-129).
Comment 2:
The original comment regarding the Discussion Section has not been fully addressed. The authors should explain why the CCD in the PSC area transitioned from type C in 2000 to type A in 2005 (Fig 5).
Response 2:
We have supplemented as suggested by the reviewer (line 379-394 in the revised manuscript).
Comment 3:
Finally, in the legend of Figure 6, the correct terms should be "seriously imbalanced" and "moderately imbalanced."
Response 3:
As pointed out by the reviewer, the legend in Figure 6 has been changed to "seriously imbalanced" and "moderately imbalanced."
