Measurement, Distribution Characteristics, and Convergent Analysis of China’s Green Development Level

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of the article is timely and interesting for research. It is in line with the aim and scope of the journal.

The article generally has an acceptable structure, but some parts need improvement.

The abstract is too long (it must have a maximum of 200 words) and poorly structured. It should be reviewed and rewritten more concisely.

Some figures are difficult to follow. Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 are too busy, you need to find another way to render the information contained. There is no Figure 5.

The finding should be linked with previous literature.

Please elaborate more on the limitations of your work.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

   Thank you for the comments of the reviewers on our manuscript (sustainability-2095796). We have revised carefully according to the comments in the revised version by red words. The detailed revisions are listed as follows.

• Comment: The abstract is too long (it must have a maximum of 200 words) and poorly structured. It should be reviewed and rewritten more concisely.

   Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The abstract has been rewritten more concisely in the revised version.

• Comment: Some figures are difficult to follow. Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 are too busy, you need to find another way to render the information contained. There is no Figure 5.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Figures 1, 2, and 3 have been replaced by the corresponding tables. Since the Figure 4 which has been renumbered as Figure 1 is used to show the distribution of the green development level of China from 2010 to 2019, we have redrawn the cures and only provided the change of kernel density curves for four years.

Figure 5 which is the σ-convergence of the comprehensive score of the green development level of each region has been added.

(3)Comment: The finding should be linked with previous literature.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The finding has been consistent with the conclusions of the previous literature as references [32]-[35].

(4)Comment: Please elaborate more on the limitations of your work.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The limitations of our work has been added at the end of the revised version as follows: “The limitations of the study are as follows. First, due to the limitations of data and space, we can only measured green development level of each province and city in China, analyzed the distribution characteristics and differences in each region. Future research could explore whether green development level in developed countries has a different distribution characteristics and differences than in China. Second, some impact mechanisms on economics, carbon emissions and other aspects should be considered to better achieve sustainable development on the basis of harmonious coexistence between man and nature”.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

There are some comments to improve the paper:

1. It is recommended to present the broader description of problem.

2. The citing of literature under literature review section should be unified

3. The authors have to proved methodological stages to get clear picture about research design

4. Before concluding the authors have to present discussion. Herein, it is reccomended to show which theoretical gaps exists and which of them are solved in this paper.

5. Disscussion section should also include further research directions.

6. By the end of conclussions the author have to provide limitations of their research.

7. The English text has to be revised with advanced Grammarly tool, as it has style and writing errors.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 Thank you for the comments of the reviewers on our manuscript (sustainability-2095796). We have revised carefully according to the comments in the revised version by red words. The detailed revisions are listed as follows.

• Comment: It is recommended to present the broader description of problem.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The new additions describe the problem which has been added in the revised version in terms of economy, resources, health and more.

• Comment: The citing of literature under literature review section should be unified.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Literature citations have been unified.

• Comment: The authors have to proved methodological stages to get clear picture about research design.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Figure 2,3,4,5 has been improved to show the study process.

• Comment: Before concluding the authors have to present discussion. Herein, it is reccomended to show which theoretical gaps exists and which of them are solved in this paper.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. At the end of the article, relevant words are added to discuss the construction of a diversified index system from multiple angles, comprehensively measure the green development level of provinces and cities and the spatial differences between regions, effectively expand the selection scope of green development indicators, and provide support for the subsequent optimization of the strategy. The systematic selection criteria for the indicators and the optimal selection criteria for the index system weighting method have not yet been solved.

• Comment: Disscussion section should also include further research directions.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. In the discussion section, the revised version has added that the future research can be developed around the index system weighting method and index selection criteria.

• Comment: By the end of conclusions the author have to provide limitations of their research.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. At the end of the article, the limitations of the spatial region and the influence dimension related to the study are added.

• Comment: The English text has to be revised with advanced Grammarly tool, as it has style and writing errors.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. This revised version has corrected the existing grammar errors in all of the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

The abstract is well stated

In the discussion section, compare with other studies.

The clarity of the shapes is low. A lot of data is shown in graphs.

The conclusion is too long, it is better to be briefer.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 Thank you for the comments of the reviewers on our manuscript (sustainability-2095796). We have revised carefully according to the comments in the revised version by red words. The detailed revisions are listed as follows.

Reviewer 3:

• Comment: The abstract is well stated. In the discussion section, compare with other studies.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The finding has been consistent with the conclusions of the previous literature as references [32]-[35].

• Comment: The clarity of the shapes is low. A lot of data is shown in graphs.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. This revised version has improved the charts to make their expression clearer and some graphs have been redrawn.

• Comment: The conclusion is too long, it is better to be briefer.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. This paper simplifies the conclusion part, and the language becomes more concise.

Reviewer 4 Report

Please see attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

Thank you for the comments of the reviewers on our manuscript (sustainability-2095796). We have revised carefully according to the comments in the revised version by red words. The detailed revisions are listed as follows.

methodological issues

(1)Comment: The authors seem resistant to using (or even mentioning ANOVAs). Results of this test, however, would likely strengthen claims that the authors make about differences between values, specifically, those in Table 4 and Table 6, and Figure 7.

- The authors mention the disparity between groups of values shown in Table 4. An ANOVA that compares combined mean for Beijing and Shanghai, the combined mean for “the last three,” (line 385) and the combined mean for the other locations would provide statistical evidence of the authors’ claims.

- Clearly, the authors’ goal is to present a time series analysis. But, they shouldn’t overlook other obvious results that may emerge from data in Table 6. Just as interesting as the changes over time within regions are the differences between regions. An ANOVA could provide this analysis.

- Figure 7 expands upon the explanation time-series differences suggested in Figure 6. However, results from repeated-measures ANOVA would increase the effectiveness of this argument, as they would identify significant differences from year to year. Please note that I realize the authors have essentially gathered data from their entire population and, thus, do not need to make inferences about the generalizability of sample data. I still believe, however, that inferential tests serve the purpose of demonstrating that their results are applicable to broad contexts.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The article has added an analysis of variance (ANOVA), which is numbered as Table 3. As the combined green development level scores of the provinces in different years showed rejection of the original hypothesis when the homogeneity test of variance was conducted, it indicates that the overall variance of the combined green development level scores of the provinces in different years is significantly different and there is no need to continue with the ANOVA.

 

(2)Comments: Also related to ANOVAs, it seems as though gaps within and between regions, discussed in the context of Gini coefficients (lines 242-243), are comparable to the between and within sum of squares values used in ANOVA calculations. If they are unrelated, then, perhaps the

language in the article should be changed to prevent readers from supposing that they do . If they are related, however, perhaps the authors could acknowledge this relationship.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The article has added an analysis of variance (ANOVA). As the combined green development level scores of the provinces in different years showed rejection of the original hypothesis when the homogeneity test of variance was conducted, it indicates that the overall variance of the combined green development level scores of the provinces in different years is significantly different and there is no need to continue with the ANOVA.

 

(3)Comments: Toward the end of the article (lines 533 and 546-547), the authors make statements regarding causal relationships between their variables. Although the assumption that industrial structure impacts green development may seem logical, it is not necessarily valid. Research involving human or cultural behavior can never establish causality. In this case, for instance, it may be that industrial structure does not directly influence green development. An intervening variable such as governmental policies or public knowledge may account for simultaneous rise in industrial structure and green development as opposed to one directly causing the other. The authors should, at the very least, acknowledge that various causal relationships may explain the trend that they identify Please consider my comments as a reviewer more constructive than disapproving. I believe that the article has good potential and simply wish to help make it as impactful as possible

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added some explanations about the  industrial structure in lines 553-337 in the revised version. As the intervening variable such as governmental policies or public knowledge, we will consider it as the future research.

grammar

Comments:You made four suggestions for the syntactic structure of this article 

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the details of the article according to your suggestions。

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors may consider moving some tables to the Appendix, to give more fluidity to the text.