Research on Spatial and Temporal Evolution Trends and Driving Factors of Green Residences in China Based on Weighted Standard Deviational Ellipse and Panel Tobit Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Introduction should specify the novelty of the work and how it is different from other works can be written.
Literature review - content should specify the research gap the author is addressing in this article.
Justification for selecting these 42 cities?
Justification for selecting standard deviational ellipse method?
Author Response
The major revisions in the paper:
We made major revisions to the article, mainly to further highlight the novelty of this paper and its differences from other works, in the abstract, introduction and conclusion; described the mathematical model used in this paper and the results obtained in detail; rewrote the conclusions of the manuscript and made recommendations for future research.
Response to the Comments:
Point 1: Introduction should specify the novelty of the work and how it is different from other works can be written.
Response 1: According to your suggestion. We added this part in the abstract (line 11-13), in the introduction (line 57-64) and in the conclusion (line 610-633). This paper pioneered the study of the spatial and temporal evolution of different star green residences and its driving factors in China, and innovative introduced the improvement of the green building development index (G’-score) to measure urban green residential development level, and introduced the use of mathematical model for the process of empirical study in detail, the conclusion has innovative and practical guiding significance.
Point 2: Literature review - content should specify the research gap the author is addressing in this article.
Response 2: Thank you in particular for your suggestion. We added this part in the literature review (line 72-82), mainly about that few of the existing literatures put forward green residence as a separate concept and studied its spatial-temporal evolution characteristics and driving factors, and this study fills this gap.
Point 3: Justification for selecting these 42 cities?
Response 3: We have added this part (line 145-151) according to your suggestion. In previous studies，we used the development concentration index to compare the number of green residences in cities in various provinces of China (except Tibet), and defined the 42 leading cities with more favorable levels of green residence development. In this revision, we added a reference to that article and briefly introduced the reasons for choosing these 42 cities.
Point 4: Justification for selecting standard deviational ellipse method?
Response 4: We have rewrite this part (line 256-289) according to your suggestion. We introduce the advantages and working principle of the standard deviational ellipse method, and the specific characteristics of the Spatial-Temporal evolution of green residence in China obtained by each formula are described in detail below.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This study analyzes the spatial-temporal evolution characteristics and driving factors of green residences to put forward targeted development plans and improve their development level more effectively. Based on the panel data of green residences at each star rating from 2008 to 2016 in China. The work is within the scope of the journal, however, redaction and structure should be improved as indicated below, especially the methods should be clearer; the author is recommended to identify and practice sophisticated objectives for a journal publication. The author must justify the following points:
Comment 1: The author is using many abbreviations. Hence, it is suggested to include a nomenclature at the beginning of the article.
Comment 2: I couldn't identify the novelty of the paper. The paper should be revised to highlight novelties. Please consider that this lack of novelty starts with the Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion.
Comment 3: The proposed approach in section (3) is not outlined with the necessary vigor. The author needs to include sufficient methodological details in the paper and elaborate on the produced results from the proposed methods. Some sections must be added and others need to be relocated and rewritten to make them clearer for the readers. It is not clear to me if this work was built based on a single case study only, or if it was built based on a proposed approach validated within a case study.
Comment 4: The mathematical model presented in Section (3) should be rewritten and better structured, including a clear explanation for each equation. Symbols for variables, marks, labels, etc. must be identical in the text, equations, figures, tables, and nomenclature. Variables must be in italic style.
Comment 5: Table 2 must be better described and explained.
Comment 6: How the equations presented in section (3) have been applied to achieve the results presented in sections (4 and 5)?
Comment 7: Figures 2, 3, and 4 must be better explained and justified, please
Comment 8: A summary of the limitations of this research as well as the recommendation for future works should be indicated in the Conclusion section.
Comment 9: Some minor comments as follows:
· The author is using (we) too much. Please consider that this is a scientific journal publication, where you need to avoid some phrases like (we, our…). Instead, you can use (this work, this study, this analysis….).
· Proofreading by a native English speaker should be conducted to improve clarity and organization quality.
· Do not start with the title and subtitle without a text in between.
Author Response
The major revisions in the paper:
We made major revisions to the article, mainly to further highlight the novelty of this paper and its differences from other works, in the abstract, introduction and conclusion; described the mathematical model used in this paper and the results obtained in detail; rewrote the conclusions of the manuscript and made recommendations for future research.
Response to the Comments:
This study analyzes the spatial-temporal evolution characteristics and driving factors of green residences to put forward targeted development plans and improve their development level more effectively. Based on the panel data of green residences at each star rating from 2008 to 2016 in China. The work is within the scope of the journal, however, redaction and structure should be improved as indicated below, especially the methods should be clearer; the author is recommended to identify and practice sophisticated objectives for a journal publication. The author must justify the following points:
Point 1: The author is using many abbreviations. Hence, it is suggested to include a nomenclature at the beginning of the article.
Response 1: Thank you in particular for your suggestion. As required by the journal, we have added Appendix A (line 695-696) to the end of the paper and described the 21 drivers selected in this paper and their abbreviations.
Point 2: I couldn't identify the novelty of the paper. The paper should be revised to highlight novelties. Please consider that this lack of novelty starts with the abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion.
Response 2: According to your suggestion. We added this part in the abstract (line 11-13), in the introduction (line 57-64) and in the conclusion (line 610-633). This paper pioneered the study of the spatial and temporal evolution of different star green residences and its driving factors in China, and innovative introduced the improvement of the green building development index (G’-score) to measure urban green residential development level, and introduced the use of mathematical model for the process of empirical study in detail, the conclusion has innovative and practical guiding significance.
Point 3: The proposed approach in section (3) is not outlined with the necessary vigor. The author needs to include sufficient methodological details in the paper and elaborate on the produced results from the proposed methods. Some sections must be added and others need to be relocated and rewritten to make them clearer for the readers. It is not clear to me if this work was built based on a single case study only, or if it was built based on a proposed approach validated within a case study.
Response 3: In accordance with your recommendation, we rewrite the standard deviation ellipse (SDE) method (line 256-289), describe the advantages and working principle of the SDE model in detail, and highlight the results we can obtain by studying the spatial-temporal evolution characteristics of green residence in China before each formula. In the abstract section of the manuscript (line 59-64), we state that this paper is an empirical analysis.
Point 4: The mathematical model presented in Section (3) should be rewritten and better structured, including a clear explanation for each equation. Symbols for variables, marks, labels, etc. must be identical in the text, equations, figures, tables, and nomenclature. Variables must be in italic style.
Response 4: We are very sorry for our incorrect writing. We rewrote all the formulas in the SDE model (line 267-289), and gave a clear explanation of the formula, including the function of the formula, the results obtained, and the meaning of each symbol. At the same time, we checked and corrected all variables, markers and labels in the text (such as line 276, 301-302,336-340, etc) to ensure that all formulas in the text were clearly explained, all variables, markers and labels were consistent in the manuscript, and all variables were in italic style.
Point 5: Table 2 must be better described and explained.
Response 5: We have modified and redescribed Table 2 (line 204-253) according to your suggestion. This part mainly includes: the names of the drivers in the table are adjusted to table A1 in Appendix A and their abbreviations are optimized. In the text section, the role of each factor and the source of data are explained in detail.
Point 6: How the equations presented in section (3) have been applied to achieve the results presented in sections (4 and 5)?
Response 6: According to your suggestion, We rewrite the spatial-temporal evolution results in section 4 (line 341-501) and refine and modify the driver analysis results in section 5 (line502-608). This part mainly includes: We state the purpose of calculating the formula and the results obtained in section 3; and described which software was used to calculate each formula at the beginning of each section; and explained the spatial and temporal evolution characteristics and driving factors of green housing calculated by the formula form the perspective of different stars.
Point 7: Figures 2, 3, and 4 must be better explained and justified, please
Response 7: We have rewrite this part (line 341-501) according to your suggestion. This part mainly includes: we calculated the parameters of SDE model according to Equations 2-5, and obtained the visualization results of the standard deviational ellipse at different star levels (Figures 2-4). We explained the characteristics of the center of gravity movement trajectory, distribution range, direction and shape of each star green residence in order. Finally, the overall spatial-temporal evolution of green residence in China is summarized.
Point 8: A summary of the limitations of this research as well as the recommendation for future works should be indicated in the Conclusion section.
Response 8: We have added this part (line 674-682) according to your suggestion. We summarize the shortcomings of this study and put forward some suggestions for future research.
Point 9: Some minor comments as follows:
Point 9.1: The author is using (we) too much. Please consider that this is a scientific journal publication, where you need to avoid some phrases like. Instead, you can use (this work, this study, this analysis….).
Response 9.1: We are very sorry for our negligence. We have replaced all the phrases in the manuscript such as we with "this paper, this study, this article"(such as line 193, 196, 248, etc).
Point 9.2: Proofreading by a native English speaker should be conducted to improve clarity and organization quality.
Response 9.2: We are very sorry for this comments. We made major revisions to the manuscript, including the adjustment of the logic and structure of the analysis results and conclusions to improve the clarity and organizational quality of the manuscript. Finally, we proofread the final manuscript for many times. Due to the time problem, we did not ask a native English speaker to proofread. But if the manuscript is accepted, the journal will provide professional English revision. We hope to get your understanding, thank you.
Point 9.3: Do not start with the title and subtitle without a text in between.
Response 9.3: Thank you in particular for your suggestion. We examined the manuscript and found that the comment mainly appeared in section 3, which we have added (line 125-132).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstract, self-explanatory, explains the background, objectives and benefits of the research, the methods used and the results of the research.
In the introduction, especially in the background, the author has very clearly outlined the purpose of the paper as Research on Spatial-Temporal Evolution and Driving Factors of 2 Green residences in China Based on Weighted Standard Deviational Ellipse and Panel Tobit Models.
It just needs to be reaffirmed the gap from the literature review.
The method has also been described quite clearly in data collection, but it needs to be emphasized. Re-analyze the data in answering the problem formulation in relation to the formulas and theories that have been described.
The results and discussion are strong enough to describe that the research results show that, along with the development of the city, the area of ​​green open space decreases, the structure is fragmented, and the distribution becomes increasingly disconnected. The novelty needs to be strengthened again from the results of the discussion and discussion.
From grammar, grammar, spelling are very good, it just needs to be improved, the same vocabulary pops up, maybe you need to find another vocabulary or paraphrase it.
Some tables and figures may need to be sourced.
References are complete with updated sources, both books, articles and journals. Just need to check again whether it is in accordance with the template and connect with the citation in the article.
Author Response
The major revisions in the paper:
We made major revisions to the article, mainly to further highlight the novelty of this paper and its differences from other works, in the abstract, introduction and conclusion; described the mathematical model used in this paper and the results obtained in detail; rewrote the conclusions of the manuscript and made recommendations for future research.
Response to the Comments:
Abstract, self-explanatory, explains the background, objectives and benefits of the research, the methods used and the results of the research. In the introduction, especially in the background, the author has very clearly outlined the purpose of the paper as Research on Spatial-Temporal Evolution and Driving Factors of 2 Green residences in China Based on Weighted Standard Deviational Ellipse and Panel Tobit Models.
Point 1: It just needs to be reaffirmed the gap from the literature review.
Response 1: Thank you in particular for your suggestion. We added this part (line 72-82) in the literature review, mainly about that few of the existing literatures put forward green residence as a separate concept and studied its spatial-temporal evolution characteristics and driving factors, and this study fills this gap.
Point 2:The method has also been described quite clearly in data collection, but it needs to be emphasized. Re-analyze the data in answering the problem formulation in relation to the formulas and theories that have been described.
Response 2: According to your suggestion, We rewrite the spatial-temporal evolution results in section 4 (line 341-501) and refine and modify the driver analysis results in section 5 (line502-608). This part mainly includes: We state the purpose of calculating the formula and the results obtained in section 3; and explained the spatial and temporal evolution characteristics and driving factors of green housing calculated by the formula form the perspective of different stars.
Point 3: The results and discussion are strong enough to describe that the research results show that, along with the development of the city, the area of green open space decreases, the structure is fragmented, and the distribution becomes increasingly disconnected. The novelty needs to be strengthened again from the results of the discussion and discussion.
Response 3: According to your suggestion. We first added novelty in the abstract (line 11-13), in the introduction (line 57-64) and in the conclusion (line 610-633). This paper pioneered the study of the spatial and temporal evolution of different star green residences and its driving factors in China, and innovative introduced the improvement of the green building development index (G’-score) to measure urban green residential development level, and introduced the use of mathematical model for the process of empirical study in detail, the conclusion has innovative and practical guiding significance.
And then,We rewrite the spatial-temporal evolution results in section 4 (line 341-501) and refine and modify the driver analysis results in section 5 (line502-608) to highlight the logic and innovation of the analysis results. Finally, we reorganize the conclusion (line 610-673) to make the innovation, research results and significance of this paper more clear.
Point 4: From grammar, grammar, spelling are very good, it just needs to be improved, the same vocabulary pops up, maybe you need to find another vocabulary or paraphrase it.
Response 4: We are very sorry for our writing. We proofread the grammar and spelling of the manuscript, and chose other words to replace the repeated words or rephrased the sentences, for example, We use “ denote” to replace “ represent” (line 217, 276, etc).
Point 5: Some tables and figures may need to be sourced.
Response 5: Thank you in particular for your suggestion. We explain the reasons for selecting these 42 cities (line 145-152), and annotate the sources of data in Table 1 (line 165), and supplement explain the sources of data in Table 2 (line 209-250). And we checked all the tables and figures in the manuscript to make sure they were clearly sourced in the text.
Point 6: References are complete with updated sources, both books, articles and journals. Just need to check again whether it is in accordance with the template and connect with the citation in the article.
Response 6: Thank you in particular for your suggestion. We have replaced the original manuscript's references to Professor Lefever's 1926 article with references to newer research (line 259,774-775). We checked the references in the article to make sure they were properly cited in the manuscript and formatted as per the template.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The work has developed and the author answered most of my previous comments. I still would like to ask not to start with title and subtitle without a text in between. For example, between subsections (3.2.) and (3.2.1.) the author needs to add a small paragraph that explains the context of the subsection and how it has been structured. Please check this issue for the whole paper.
Author Response
Point 1: The work has developed and the author answered most of my previous comments. I still would like to ask not to start with title and subtitle without a text in between. For example, between subsections (3.2.) and (3.2.1.) the author needs to add a small paragraph that explains the context of the subsection and how it has been structured. Please check this issue for the whole paper.
Response 1: We are very sorry for our negligence. We have corrected this error on lines 167 to 170 and 259 to 264. In these two corrections, we introduce the main content of this subsection and outline the purpose of doing this. We check this issue for the whole manuscript and made sure that the error had been corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
