Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Yuling Wu 1,
  • Pei Zhang 1 and
  • Jiao Hou 1
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: K.K. Basheer Ahammed Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.       The authors should introduce the study significance briefly in the abstract part.

2.       I suggest the authors add “Hubei” in the keywords.

3.       In the introduction part, the authors introduced the context related to cultivated land of China in details, however neglected to introduce why select Hubei province as the study area.

4.       In line 114, I guess the data inclusion analysis maybe referred to data envelopment analysis (DEA). However, the term “data inclusion analysis” are not always used. Therefore, I suggest the authors cite the following articles.

5.       Liu, W., Zhan, J., Wang, C., Li, S., & Zhang, F. (2018). Environmentally sensitive productivity growth of industrial sectors in the Pearl River Delta. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 139, 50-63.

6.       Liu, W., Zhan, J., Zhao, F., Wang, P., Li, Z., & Teng, Y. (2018). Changing trends and influencing factors of energy productivity growth: A case study in the Pearl River Delta Metropolitan Region. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 137, 1-9.

7.       Line 122, SBM should be spelled out.

8.       In the 2.1 research area part, I suggest the authors introduce the situation related to the agriculture, e.g. change trends of arable land area, the output of agriculture, population…..

9.       The agricultural ecosystem also has the carbon sequestration function, I think if you consider the carbon emission as the undesirable outputs, you should also consider the carbon sequestration. Take the net carbon emission as the undesirable outputs.

10.   I think part 5 and 6 should be merged as the discussion part, and put the discussion before conclusion.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Please open to the attachment (Reply-1) for specific revision instructions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript entitled “Spatial distribution evolution and optimization path of eco-efficiency of cultivated land use: A case study of Hubei Province, China” is presents an approach to estimate the eco-efficiency change in agricultural land using various statistical reports and geospatial tools. The abstract of the paper is nicely presented. ‘County-level cities’ – a definition of this administrative boundary will give an idea to the readers, what the term is refers to, as this term is used in People's Republic of China, while the readers could be from around the world. The introduction needs to be improved, literature on other models for such study can be added, how this model different from other kind of approaches. How is the model validated.? Result and discussion should be separated: Follow the journal format. Restructure the result as per the journal standard. Manuscript missing proper discussion, should be improved. Figure 2 can be modified. Major modification required in the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Please open to the attachment (Reply-2) for specific revision instructions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

 

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The abstract needs to be modified. The research results in the abstract should be concise conclusions. The current description is not clear, it is suggested to revise it.

 2. The title of 2.2.2. is Undesired Super-efficiency SBM Model, but the content does not correspond to the title. Please further verification it.

 3. Please modify the picture in the article, such as Figure 2. the lines are too thick.

 4. Add explanations of the relevant results of the article, for example, why the ECLU was the lowest in 2011?

 5. The conclusion needs to be improved. I suggest the author revise the conclusion to highlight for instance the new work that has been undertaken, the novelty of the approach, and benefits it provides.

 6.The manuscript has some grammatical issues. Some sentences are complex and difficult to understand. Please modify them carefully.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Please open to the attachment (Reply-1) for specific revision instructions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the authors have addressed all the questions. however, there are still some minor errors, e.g. data inclusion analysis is rarely mentioned in the papers, you should correct it as data envelopment analysis.

Reviewer 2 Report

The English language and grammatical checking can be done before acceptance.