Natural Capital Evolution and Driving Forces in Energy-Rich and Ecologically Fragile Regions: A Case Study of Ningxia Province, China
Yung-Jaan Lee
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
p.1
Line 16: “1.64 gha/cap to 3.85 gha/cap” → It is not just changing the unit. The authors have to cite the reference and use the equivalence factor to convert “ha” to “gha.”p.4
Line 135: “revised concept of…” → “revised the concept of…” Line 138: “which more scientific and comprehensively reflects…” → “which more scientifically and comprehensively reflects…”p.11
Line 332: “Partial least square model (PLS)…” → “Partial Least Square model (PLS)…”p.12
Line 335-336: “In view of indicators in relevant literatures [10, 11, 17] are mainly selected from four aspects:” → meaning unclear. Line 337: “to comprehensively analysis…” → “to comprehensively analyze…” Line 339: “Based on PLS model…” → “Based on the PLS model…”p.13
Line 387: “For technological level…” → “For the technological level…”p.14
Line 440: “urban build-up land” → “urban built-up land”p.17
Line 556-557: “48. Yang, C.; Zhu, Y. Analysis on driving force factors of ecological footprint in Hunan Province from the 557 perspective of green development. Econo. Geogr. 2019, 1-15” → please double-check this reference.Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “Research on natural capital evolution and driving forces in the energy-rich and ecologically fragile region: A case study of Ningxia Province, China” concerns an important problems of capital evolution and driving in energy-rich and ecologically fragile regions. The methods and results are valuable and maybe of international interest. The authors demonstrated a good knowledge of the problematic and of the related literature.
However I have some comments and suggestions:
Think about paraphrasing the title. I suggest the following: “Natural capital evolution and driving forces in the energy-rich and ecologically fragile regions: A case study of Ningxia Province, China”
Lines 57 - 67: Rearrange different models as a separate sentences
Lines 120 - 121: Rephrase the sentence.
Methods section need to be refined. For example historical retrospective of the model must be removed, even more, it’s duplicated in Introduction. e.g. Lines 128 - 139:
Please, check again punctuation. There were several missing spaces. Use proper characters e.g. Table 1 -《
Figure 4. It’s better to remove background elements of the graph.
Use a comma after the penultimate item in a list of three or more items, before 'and' or 'or' (Oxford comma) (e. g. lines 116, etc).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have successfully addressed reviewers' comments. Overall, the quality of the manuscript is significantly improved.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
p.1
Line 16: “1.64ha/cap to 3.85ha/cap” → the authors should use “gha”, rather than “ha”, as the literature has already suggested. Line 24: “build-up land” → “built-up land” Line 30: “but also has policy…” → “but also have policy…” Line 31: “in energy-rich ecologically fragile region” → “in energy-rich ecologically fragile regions”p.2
Line 55: “Wackernagel[19]” → “Wackernagel and Rees [19]” Line 66: “Niccolucci and Galli [20] introduced…” → “Niccolucci et al. [20] introduced…” Line 72: “But Niccolucci's 3D EF method is…” → “But Niccolucci et al.'s 3D EF method is…” Line 77-78: “Fang and Heijungs [23-25] improved the Niccolucci's 3D…” → “Fang and his (or her?) colleagues [23-25] improved the Niccolucci et al.'s 3D…”p.3
Line 101: “hm2” → “ha” Line 109: “…in ecological frangible region.” → “…in ecological frangible regions.” Line 115: “energy-rich ecologically fragile region.” → “energy-rich ecologically fragile regions.”p.5
Line 153: “build-up land” → “built-up land” Line 167: “build-up land” → “built-up land” Line 171: “…is yield factor.” → “…is the yield factor.” Line 181: ““Fang and Heijungs [23-25] improved…” → “Fang and his (or her?) colleagues [23-25] improved…”p.7
Line 225-230: “Where EF’ depth region (t)…in the same direction with EF size, region.“ → The authors should cite relevant references. Line 235 “3.07 ha/cap to 5.46 ha/cap” → Since the authors already adopted “Equivalence factor” and “Yield factor” (Table 1, p.4), “gha” should be used rather than “ha”. Line 234-236: “As shown in Figure 2a, during the past 14 years, natural capital consumption (ecological footprint) increased from 3.07 ha/cap to 5.46 ha/cap in Ningxia Province, with an average annual rate of 4.52%” → how about the comparison between these values (3.07ha, 5.46ha…) of this study and those of China as a whole? Line 243: “build-up land” → “built-up land” Line 252: “was only showed in 2012” → “was only shown in 2012”p.8
Figure 3: “build-up land” → “built-up land” Line 276-278: “This mainly attributed to the economic structure optimization and industrial upgrade in Ningxia Province promoted by the initiatives of Silk Road Economic Belt and Ningxia Inland Opening-up Pilot Economic Zone in 2013.” → This is a strong argument; therefore, more evidences and/or references are needed.p.11
Line 319: “The build-up land…” → “The built-up land…” Line 327: “fissile energy land…” → “fossil energy land…” Line 337, Table 3: “build-up land” → “built-up land” Line 346: “the indexes X1 to X14 were selected…” → the authors should elaborate on the reasons why they selected these 14 indexes.p.12
Line 350: “meant that the…” → “meaning that the…”p.13
Line 379: “build-up land area” → “built-up land area”p.14
Line 431 and 433: “build-up land” → “built-up land” In the conclusion part, the authors should add a few sentences related to the limits of the research, the application of findings and conclusions to other setting/cultures.Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I think both the data used and statistical methods adopted justify publication but the ms as it stands is not at an acceptable standard. Data sources are not evaluated but might be accepted as reliable. Statistical methods are explained. There are problems. The use of technical English language is not at an acceptable level [the meaning needs to be clear and the correct word used, and that all sentences have verbs]. Parts of the ms need to be extensively remodeled. There is too much description of the region, too little evaluation of the method, results and implications for the method and for policy. The added value of a novel method is that it provides novel results not obtained using previously adopted EF methods. More explanation is needed on what was found that might not have been anticipated, to justify developing previously adopted EF methods. The well published limitations of using EF as an indicator are not evaluated. Your conclusion section provides more results rather than a synthesis of findings. The final section on policy implications is poorly developed: based on results, how might the development of this region be changed to make it sustainable, thus making the ms more relevant to the mission of the journal. You need to explain how sustainable development of your study area can be achieved, as you state that coal is its most important resource. Very long description of the study area takes up a lot of pages and is not of clear relevance to the international readership. This section can be greatly shortened by relying more on tabulated data, and reviewing the two reports cited in italics on pages 9 and 11, which you do not reference. The first one mentioned forms the subject matter for at least one previously published paper in an English language scientific journal, which is very relevant to this ms [based on online search for these titles] and which you need to cite and reference. The second is available in English and provides much regional information. Other concerns: there is need to avoid value judgements, eg 'unreasonable' on p3, 'good' on p7, 'more and more serious' p13. Percentages should be as whole numbers, or if necessary to one decimal place. Line 433 data source for post-2017 should be provided. Copyright for Fig. 1, permission required?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
While the ms has been clarified by new text, it is not clear that the conclusions are based securely in the results. The complex and lengthy calculations have resulted in a set of conclusions which are [1] not always clearly based on the results presented, and [2] are already well known, generic, and [3] do not appear to reflect current global concerns in relation to the need to de-carbonise our economy and society. It is not clear that this ms adds to what has been published many times already. It is not clear that adoption of a modified EF indicator has produced additionally interesting results. Conclusions do not adequately reflect the current strong scientific consensus in relation to the need for urgent action to reduce carbon emissions.
