Evolution of China’s Coastal Economy since the Belt and Road Initiative Based on Nighttime Light Imagery

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research background of the paper has a low correlation with the research content, and its theoretical contribution is weak.

The research conclusion has no novelty.

There is no mechanism analysis in the paper.

What is the correlation between carbon emission intensity and the research content of the paper?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the critical comments. We have carefully read the comments from the editorial review, and realized that the comment was relevant and the manuscript was not quality enough. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. We have fully revised our manuscript and have addressed all of the reviewers’ comments, as well as added new content to further strengthen our work. We hope that the revised version may meet your expectations. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The major revisions and new analyses we have undertaken are summarized below.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Based on NPP-VIIRS luminous remote sensing data, land use data and statistical yearbook data, the paper analyzes the spatial-temporal evolution pattern of economic level in China's coastal economic belt from 2012 to 2021 by using the Moran index and standard deviation 20 ellipse.

I read the paper with interest. It presents an interesting and innovative methodology. However, I think the value added of the work should be better highlighted, the results should be more carefully interpreted (not just described) from an economic perspective, and the conclusions should be made more connected with the empirical analysis (why we should implement the suggested policies is in fact not straightforwardly linked to the previous analysis).

Author Response

Thank you for your careful reading, helpful comments, and constructive suggestions, which has significantly improved the presentation of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments from the reviewers and fully revised our manuscript accordingly, as well as added new content to further strengthen our work. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The major revisions and new analyses we have undertaken are summarized in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main question addressed by the research is how to use previously little-used data sources (e.g. NPP_VIIRS luminous remote sensing data, land use data) to investigate the spatial-temporal evolution pattern of economic level in a specific region.

The study makes a distinction between the different economic sectors (primary, secondary, and tertiary industries) and analyses them in the light of these differences.

The conclusions are broadly consistent with the results of statistical analyses

Please check the suggestions below:

1. The sentences between lines 70 and 77 should be inserted earlier, in the paragraph beginning on line 43, as they fit logically better in that context.

2. On page 8, the authors refer to several geographical units that cannot be clearly identified from Figure 1.

3. The quality of the figures needs to be improved, in several cases the numbers and letters are too small and not sharp enough.

4. At the beginning of Sub-chapter 3.3, at the bottom of page 10, Figure 4.

5. Sub-chapters 3.3 and 3.4 are overly descriptive, lacking explanation and discussion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some of the sentences are too long (e.g. lines 405-411), they should be shortened.

Author Response

Thank you for your careful reading, helpful comments, and constructive suggestions, which has significantly improved the presentation of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments from the reviewers and fully revised our manuscript accordingly, as well as added new content to further strengthen our work. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

The subject that you addressed and the methods that you have used are valuable. In order to improve the quality of the manuscript, I suggest some corrections. Please, follow the comments.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your careful reading, helpful comments, and constructive suggestions, which has significantly improved the presentation of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments from the reviewers and fully revised our manuscript accordingly, as well as added new content to further strengthen our work. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors followed and accepted the manuscript's major revisions and improved its quality. Some minor omissions have been noticed:

- Figures 3 and 4 require modification. The authors should add the names of the main cities, like in Figure 1;

- line 403, remove the repetition of the 'process';

- The Conclusion in the revised version is insufficient and it should be supported with the main findings, and their interrelation, putting in wider context regard further application and significance for economic development, as well as providing main conclusions supported by the given results.

Author Response

Thank you for your efforts in reviewing our manuscript, and providing many helpful comments and suggestions. We have studied your comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. We hope that the revised version of the manuscript is now acceptable for publication in Sustainability.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx