Partial Correlation Analysis of Association between Subjective Well-Being and Ecological Footprint

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper examines the relationship between ecological footprint (EF) and subjective well-being (SWB) to measure environmental impacts on happiness based on a spatial-temporal panel data collected across 101 countries during 2006-2016 through comparison of partial correlation (PC) and ordinary correlation (OR) models, using as control variables urbanization rate (UR), literacy rate (LR), youth life expectancy (YLE), Wage and salaried workers (WSW), political stability (PS), and voice accountability (VA)

Very interesting results are obtained, as for instance that total bio-capacity (TBC), Ecological crop-land footprints (ECL), ecological grazing-land footprint (EGL), and ecological built-up land footprint (EBL) have significantly positive influences on SWB, while ecological fish-land (EFL) has significantly negative influences. Furthermore the paper is well written, and therefore it is, in my opinion, worthy of publication, although some improvement is needed before.

Please review the paper in order to detect language problems and to improve the standard of scientific English. For instance (amongst very other issues), the sentence “This paper takes advantages data about EF factors” is confusing, or the pronoun “we” is used about 25 times in the text, while usually it is better to write the sentences in passive mode. Just as an instance, instead of “If ki›0, we use formula (1) to normalize data, otherwise choose formula (2).” the following alternative can be used “If ki›0, the formula (1) is used to normalize data, otherwise formula (2) is used.”.

Regarding Formulas (1) and (2) and the mentioned instruction “If ki›0, we use formula (1) to normalize data, otherwise choose formula (2).”, please change all this to one only formula, which says (mathematically) that ki equals to (using a parenthesis) the value of formula (1) if  ki›0 or the value of formula (2) if ki=<0.

After the suggested improvements I consider that the paper will be worthy of publication.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you so much to give us a revision chance for our manuscript (ID: Sustainability-1069013). Many thanks also go to two anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and comments, which are valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied these comments carefully and have made corresponding corrections and responses which we hope could meet the requirement for both the reviewers and the journal. Following are the responses to the reviewers’ suggestions and comments (all suggestions and comments are colored in red).

Reviewer #1:

Genaral comments

The paper examines the relationship between ecological footprint (EF) and subjective well-being (SWB) to measure environmental impacts on happiness based on a spatial-temporal panel data collected across 101 countries during 2006-2016 through comparison of partial correlation (PC) and ordinary correlation (OR) models, using as control variables urbanization rate (UR), literacy rate (LR), youth ife expectancy (YLE), Wage and salaried workers (WSW), political stability (PS), and voice accountability (VA).

Very interesting results are obtained, as for instance that total bio-capacity (TBC), Ecological crop-land footprints (ECL), ecological grazing-land footprint (EGL), and ecological built-up land footprint (EBL) have significantly positive influences on SWB, while ecological fish-land (EFL) has significantly negative influences. Furthermore, the paper is well written, and therefore it is, in my opinion, worthy of publication, although some improvement is needed before.

Thank you so much for your careful reading and positive comments. Special thanks for you to point out some specific issues with the manuscripts for us, and we appreciate that so much, since it allows us to improve the quality of the manuscript and its readability to the readers. Please see the changes-marked revision file and the new manuscript in detail. We hope that the modification could make sense to you.

Specific comments and suggestions

1.     Please review the paper in order to detect language problems and to improve the standard of scientific English.

Thank you so much for your suggestion. We have detected the language problems throughout the manuscript to eliminate all kinds of language issues to our best.

2.     For instance (amongst very other issues), the sentence "This paper takes advantages data about EF factors" is confusing, or the pronoun “we” is used about 25 times in the text, while usually it is better to write the sentences in passive mode.

Thank you so much for your comments and suggestions. We have re-edited this sentence to make the expression clearer, please see the modification in the Conclusion Section of the revised manuscript.

Besides, we have re-wrote the sentences with “we” to avoid the first-person statements, please see the new manuscript.

3.     Just as an instance, instead of “If ki>0, we use formula (1) to normalize data, otherwise choose formula (2）.” the following alternative can be used “If ki>0, the formula (1) is used to normalize data, otherwise formula (2) is used.".

Regarding Formulas (1) and (2) and the mentioned instruction “If ki>0, we use formula (1) to normalize data, otherwise choose formula (2）.”， please change all this to one only formula, which says (mathematically) that k_i equals to (using a parenthesis) the value of fomula (1) if ki>0 or the value of formula (2) if ki=<0.

Good suggestions, and we have accepted them. Firstly, we accepted your suggestion to improve similar sentence expressions. And then, we followed your advice to merge formulas (1) and (2) to new formula (1), and the number of other equations have been adjusted. Besides, we changed the location of new equations (3) and (4). Please see the new manuscript for details.

Thank you so much for teaching us these knowledges.

4.     After the suggested improvements I consider that the paper will be worthy of publication.

Thank you so much for all of your suggestions and comments, and we hope our responses above would make sense to you.

Best,

Xiu Wu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

your research is very interesting. 

I have some comments on your work: 

1. please, see instruction for authors. In that document you will se the structure of paper which is proposed for Sustainability
2. So, by that instruction you will see what is planed to put in Introduction
3. you must put one paragraph - Literature review. In Introduction you putted some results from previous research, but you must have that paragraph - Literature review. In that part you must investigate more authors and their research. By that you will have more references in your Reference list. 
4. Your paragraph Results is main part of your paper. So, after (or before) each table you must put better explanation of results. Now, results have very short explanation. 
5. You dont have table 6, 7 and 8?
6. So your reference list is too short. You must investigate other papers, and find what authors of that papers find out. 

I hope so, that this comments will be valuable to you. 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you so much to give us a revision chance for our manuscript (ID: Sustainability-1069013). Many thanks also go to two anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and comments, which are valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied these comments carefully and have made corresponding corrections and responses which we hope could meet the requirement for both the reviewers and the journal. Following are the responses to the reviewers’ suggestions and comments (all suggestions and comments are colored in red).

Reviewer #2:

General comments

Your research is very interesting.

I have some comments on your work.

Thank you so much for your interest. Special thanks also for you to point out some specific issues with our manuscripts, which help us a lot in improving the quality of the manuscript. Following are our response to your comments, suggestions, and hoping that they will make sense to you.

Specific comments and suggestions

1. Please, see instruction for authors. In that document you will see the structure of paper which is proposed for Sustainability.

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have read the instructions for authors carefully and organized the instruction and sections of our manuscript following the instructions exactly.

2. So, by that instruction you will see what is planned to put in Introduction.

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. The introduction section has been reorganized, please see the introduction section in the new manuscript.

In the first paragraph, the dependent variable of this research is introduced. From the concept of gross national happiness, to the Subjective Well-being, as well as the    commonly related influencing factors.

In the second paragraph, we mainly talked about the core independent variable, i.e., the ecological footprint, including the concept and the contact of ecological footprint and environmental degradation. Then previous research about the influencing of ecological footprint on the environment are reviewed, as well as the relationship between the ecological footprint and Subjective Well-being under certain conditions.

In the third paragraph, we outlined the ecological system is destroyed by political economy, urbanization, and geographic influences.

The fourth paragraph is focusing on the political social-economy.

The fifth paragraph pays attention to urbanization.

The sixth paragraph talked about the previous research of geographic factor in determining the human capabilities and Subjective Well-being.

The last paragraph of the introduction is about the purpose and contribution of this research.

3. You must put one paragraph - Literature review. In Introduction you putted some results from previous research, but you must have that paragraph - Literature review. In that part you must investigate more authors and their research. By that you will have more references in your Reference list.

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. As is mentioned above, we have performed a major modification to the introduction section, and the correction from the third paragraph to the sixth paragraph is mainly focusing on the literature review. Besides, in this part, we reviewed the literatures from social-economy, urbanization and geographical perspective. Now more literatures and authors have been investigated and cited. Please see the introduction section and reference list of the new manuscript.

4. Your paragraph Results is main part of your paper. So, after (or before) each table you must put better explanation of results. Now, results have very short explanation.

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. As is mentioned above, we have performed a major modification to the results section. In the Results part, external contrasts is added two more paragraphs (one is for ordinary correlation results, one is for partial correlation results, the last paragraph is the comparison between two methods.). In temporal distinctions results, four aspects are added more contents of data analysis, combined social reality to support the data outcomes. Please see the results section of the new manuscript.

5. You dont have table 6, 7 and 8?

Thank you for your careful reading, and we have re-numbered all tables in order.

Best regards,

Xiu Wu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

your paper is now fine, by my opinion. 
Congratulate on your effort. 

Best regards,