Spatial-Temporal Variance of Coupling Relationship between Population Modernization and Eco-Environment in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the paper the variation coefficient method, the coupling degree model and a geographical detector to analyze the coordination degree of population modernization and the ecological environment have been used. A very important scientific problem has been taken up. The study concerns Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei. However, in the article a number of drawbacks and inaccuracies have been noticed. Major corrections should be made.
General comments:
Title
The title reflects the content of the article.
Keywords
Keywords should simplify the search for content contained in the article. Meanwhile, they are a repetition of the title, which is a mistake.
Abstract
The summary reflects the content of the article. It contains the purpose of the work, a description of the used methods and the main results.
Introduction
The introduction should be extended. The author should refer to similar research conducted all over the world. Hierarchical analysis methods are commonly used to analyze many other phenomena (e.g. problem areas). Please provide examples of their use on the basis of a very rich literature. From the 12th position, the literature of authors from Asia is mainly quoted. Please refer to the literature of authors from other continents. This will allow for a deeper and more global recognition of the issue.
Materials and Methods
It is not explained why 11 indicators were used. The statement that it was based on a literature analysis is insufficient and unconvincing. In addition, X3 and X4 are absolute numbers and do not match the other indicators.
There is no convincing justification for the fact that the coordination types of the two systems are divided into six levels.
Results
Subsection 3.2. – The results for specific years have been developed. Perhaps it is worth considering the time intervals.
Discussion and Conclusions
A different time period has been given than in line 87.
The conclusions apply only to the study area. They should show the possibilities of implementing this approach in a broader context.
Specific comments:
56-59 Too few literature positions supporting the use of the described methods. The paper presents the research on the example of one city. One of the listed methods – Hierarchical analysis methods – can also be used for a research at the regional level. I recommend expanding the literature review with the use of the methods listed by the author in studies at the supra-local level. It is recommended to analyze the latest items, for example for the Hierarchical analysis methods:
1. Senetra A., Szarek-Iwaniuk P., 2018, The
implementation of the Wroclaw taxonomic method for the identification
and evaluation of problem areas in the Warmia and Mazury Region in
Poland – A case study, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, article in press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2018.09.003
2. Ozus, E., Akın, D.&Çiftçi, M. (2012). Hierarchical Cluster Analysis of Multicenter Development and Travel Patterns in Istanbul. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 138(4):303–318
3. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000121
Petrisor A., AndronacheI.C., Petrisor L.E., Ciobotaru A.M., Peptenatu D., 2016. Assessing the fragmentation of the green infrastructure in Romanian cities using fractal models and numerical taxonomy. Procedia Environmental Sciences 32, pp. 110-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.03.016
4. Šimpach O., Pechrová M., 2016. Cluster analysis of EU's regions according to demographic criteria, The 10th International Days of Statistics and Economics, Prague, Pages: 1806-1815. https://msed.vse.cz/msed_2016/article/166-Simpach-Ondrej-paper.pdf
79-82 Justify the choice of indicators. In the reviewer’s opinion, the number of the analyzed components is too poor to draw conclusions. A work based on the analysis of indicators includes a much larger set.
Table 1. Indicators X3 and X4 are the absolute numbers. The others are the indicators. In analyzing indicators different approaches should not be used.
129-130 Justify the fact that the coordination types of the two systems are divided into six levels.
175 Why were the results for years given and no equal time intervals were applied, e.g. every 4 years?
314 In line 87, the years 2006-2017 were mentioned. However, in this place the period covers the years 2005-2016?
Tables and figures lack sources.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Spatial-temporal variance of coupling relationship between population modernization and eco-environment in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei” (ID:sustainability-431212). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments and have made revisions. Attached please find the detailed reply.
Thanks for your help.
Kindest regards,
Meicun Li
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting topic that is raising people attention not only in China but also all over the world. The modeling analysis proposed in the present manuscript also revealed some valuable results. But the English of the manuscript is really awful. I experienced hard time in understanding what does the author are presenting. It is not possible to be published if the language is not significantly improved.
1. Line 11: “inevitable requirement” ???
2. Line 18: “distributed”???
3. Line 19: what is the “east-west part”???
4. Line 30 and 32: firstly, secondly. Delete “from” in line 32.
5. Line 37: what does the author mean by “demand…was enhanced”???
6. Line 54: the “regards” is not properly used.
7. Line 63: change to “which may be due to the”
8. The abstract need to be improved significantly, it is really hard to understand what does the author mean.
9. Line 153: the change of “rate” should be either high or low. But not “fast” or “slow”.
10. Line 161: what does the “realizing” mean? Should it be “meeting”?
11. The results of coupling coordination degree as shown in Figure 1, the author discussed by dividing into two phases. Actually, I did not see any huge difference between phase 2005-2010 and phase 2011-2016. The population modernization level and ecological environment level tied very closely too between 2005 and 2008.
12. In figure 2, why only three years (2008,2013 and 2016) are analyzed, but not all years from 2008 to 2016?
13. The conclusion section need to be revised to be more concisely.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Spatial-temporal variance of coupling relationship between population modernization and eco-environment in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei” (ID:sustainability-431212). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments and have made revisions. Attached please find the detailed reply.
Thanks for your help.
Kindest regards,
Meicun Li
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author(s)
The topic developed is of interest and relevance. The research on the relationship between population and the environment is a significant issuein the sustainability context due to its impact on chances for achieving sustainable development, especially in developing countries. This topic could provide an important contribution to this research area. However, in my opinion, the overall quality of your paper needs to be improved for its possible publication in SUSTAINABILITY. I think the paper should be enhanced if the following remarks were taken into account:
i. The wording of the abstract should be improved. The main goal of the paper should be accurately formulated. Note that the ‘Abstract’ must be able to stand-alone and the objective is an essential element of a paper.
ii. In formulating his manuscript seem confused objective and methodology,the difference in the text –at least for me– it is not clear.It is important distinguish between objective and methodology. This allows identify the type of journal article and permits a comprehensive assessment of outcomes.
iii. The optimistic and pessimistic positions seem to be at odds. On the other hand, in my opinion, I do not see the contradiction between them according to the argument given in the text (lines 42-50).
iv. I think the follow sentence should be justified: “Because the contribution of the modern population system and the ecological environment system to the coupling coordination relationship is equivalent, we take α=β=0.5” (lines 127-129).
v. It is not clear to me in the text when you use the term growth, whether it refers to economic growth or population growth. When you refer to the latter, do you consider that modernisation of population and population growth are, in all situations, equivalent terms?
vi. Methodological aspects should be avoided in the Results section.
The manuscript contains a section entitled Discussions and Conclusions, however, I only see a brief description of the results presented as conclusions. Note that the Discussion section provides the interpretation of the results in the context of the existing knowledge. On the other hand, the discussion typically ends with implications for theory, future research or possible practical applications of the results. Finally, the Conclusions section should be improved. Note that the Conclusions section –like the Abstract– is often read in isolation before the other sections.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Spatial-temporal variance of coupling relationship between population modernization and eco-environment in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei” (ID:sustainability-431212). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments and have made revisions. Attached please find the detailed reply.
Thanks for your help.
Kindest regards,
Meicun Li
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The responses to the review are satisfactory. The revised manuscript is an original scientific achievement. It presents interesting content.
Reviewer 2 Report
It could be accepted for publication.
