Evaluation of Atmospheric Environmental Efficiency and Spatiotemporal Differences in the Yangtze River Delta Region of China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper uses the three-stage DEA model and Malmquist index to analyze the atmospheric environmental efficiency of the Yangtze River Delta region. The following recommends are provided for reference in this article.
1. The content of Line 161~Line 165 should explain the connotation as well as operation of equation (1). It is recommended to supplement the content of the objective function and constrain functions of equation (1) and its relationship with the title of this article.
2. Equation (4) is an investigation model explaining the dynamic efficiency index. Provide sources of references.
3. Line 206 shows the variables selected in this article. Add the principles and basis for selection of these variables.
4. Line 206 and Line 249 are duplicate titles. Integrate them.
5. Show the descriptive statistics of the variables in Table 3.
Author Response
Evaluation of Atmospheric Environmental Efficiency and Spa-tiotemporal Differences in the Yangtze River Delta Region of China (2801406)
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
- Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed
responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in
the re-submitted files.
- Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: The content of Line 161~Line 165 should explain the connotation as well as operation of equation (1). It is recommended to supplement the content of the objective function and constrain functions of equation (1) and its relationship with the title of this article.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out and we agree with this comment. We have further explained the correlation between the title of the article and the model design in the article (lines 157~168) to ensure that readers can understand the relationship between the two more clearly. In addition, we have not only added explanations of the connotations of the relevant mathematical symbols, e.g. , but also simplified the meanings of the formula symbols, and we believe that such adjustments will make the paper more complete and easy to understand. Thank you for your professional advice and guidance!
Comments 2: Equation (4) is an investigation model explaining the dynamic efficiency index. Provide sources of references.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out and we agree with this comment. We have flagged it in the article, see line 200 of the article and reference [40]. Thank you for your expert opinion and guidance!
Comments 3: Line 206 shows the variables selected in this article. Add the principles and basis for selection of these variables.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. In the original text, the selection, analysis, and details of all variables are integrated and placed in the section "2.2 Analysis of Variables" (lines 230). Thank you for your professional advice and guidance!
Comments 4: Line 206 and Line 249 are duplicate titles. Integrate them.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out, the article title has been corrected and I apologize for any distress caused by the repetition of the title. Thank you for your professional advice and guidance!
Comments 5: Show the descriptive statistics of the variables in Table 3.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out and we agree. Table 1 has been added to the article in the section "1.3 Data Sources" (lines 263) to provide descriptive statistics for all the variables involved in order to present a more comprehensive picture of the results of the study. Thank you for your professional advice and guidance!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would advise the authors to please work on your presentation of results, discussion, conclusion and recommendations. At the moment, they are not concise and understandable.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor grammatical errors.
Author Response
Evaluation of Atmospheric Environmental Efficiency and Spa-tiotemporal Differences in the Yangtze River Delta Region of China (2801406)
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
- Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed
responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in
the re-submitted files.
- Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
2.1 General comments
Comments 1: The title refers to spatiotemporal, but not much of this is spoken of in the discussion section, or in my view, it is not clear.
Response 1: Response 1: Thank you for your feedback, and we partially agree. It seems that the expression of "spatial and temporal differences" in our paper is not clear enough.
(1) To be more precise, we hope to show the evolution of atmospheric environmental efficiency in the time dimension by comparing the data changes in different years in the YRD region, and the distribution of atmospheric environmental efficiency in the spatial dimension by comparing the data differences in different regions, so as to show the differences and changes of atmospheric environmental efficiency in the YRD region in all aspects in the spatial and temporal perspectives, and the interaction of the two comparisons can reveal the characteristics of the spatial and temporal evolution of the environmental efficiency. The comparison of the two can fully reveal the spatial and temporal evolution of environmental efficiency. This is the "spatial and temporal differences" that this study aims to reflect.
(2) In the specific analysis, we measured the atmospheric environmental efficiency and TFP index at different times and in different regions based on the three-stage DEA model and the Malmquist index model to show the spatial and temporal differences in different dimensions in the YRD region. In the static analysis of the atmospheric environmental efficiency using the three-stage DEA model, "2.1 Empirical Results of the First Stage" shows the differences in the efficiency of different regions in different years without removing the systematic bias in two tables, and "2.3 Empirical Results of the Third Stage" shows the differences in the efficiency of different regions in different years without removing the systematic bias in two tables, respectively. Figure 1...Time Trend" and "Figure 3...Spatial Distribution" show the efficiency differences in different years and different regions without removing the influence of environmental factors and random errors, while "2.3 Empirical Results of the Third Stage" shows the efficiency differences in different years and different regions within removing systematic bias in two tables. The comparison shows the differences in efficiency across time and across regions, excluding the effects of environmental factors and random errors. In the part of dynamic efficiency analysis using malmquist exponential model to calculate TFP index, "Table 6 Time perspective..." and "Table 7 Spatial perspective..." show the differences of TFP value in different time and space. differences in TFP values in time and space.
（3）However, we have to admit that the presentation of the results is not very good and there is too little direct analysis of the data content, so we have described the results section in more detail. We thank you for your expertise and guidance!
Comments 2: While the paper has a good research design, I am not convinced the results are presented in the best possible way. Perhaps authors need to relook and clearly outline the results.
Response 2: Response 2:Agreed, First of all, thank you for recognizing and encouraging the research design of our paper, and thank you very much for your feedback on the way the results are presented. We have carefully reviewed and reorganized the presentation of the results, taking into account the content of the article title and discussing them in detail from a temporal and spatial perspective, respectively, in order to ensure that the results of the study are clearly and accurately summarized. Thank you for your professional advice and guidance!
Comments 3: Figure 3 legend is not very clear; please improve the resolution
Response 3: Response 3: Thank you very much for your feedback and suggestion. We have noticed that the resolution of the legend in Figure 3 was not clear enough. The legend has been re-updated and we appreciate your professional input and guidance!
Comments 4: Instead of the word Formula, perhaps you can use Equation
Response 4: Agreed, and the full text has been revised accordingly. Thank you very much for your suggestions and guidance!
Comments 5: Generally, tables need to be formatted better and headings in bold.
Response 5: Agreed, have bolded the table headings throughout the text, and tried to standardize the widths of all the tables (reduced the length of the table in Table 4, Table 6 had more content and could not be further reduced in width), thank you very much for your suggestions and guidance!
Comments 6: The Malmquist Index Model assumes constant returns to scale, meaning that changes in input and output levels are proportional. In reality, production processes may exhibit increasing or decreasing returns to scale, leading to potential inaccuracies in productivity measurement. How was this addressed in this study?
Response 6: The question you raise is very valuable, and the issue of the strong assumption of "constant returns to scale" in the Malmquist index, which may lead to errors in the measurement of total factor productivity, is of great academic value.
(1) Indeed, the traditional Malmquist index model assumes constant returns to scale. However, in this study, I first adopt the BCC model with variable returns to scale to measure atmospheric environmental efficiency (line 158 in the text), and then analyze the total factor productivity changes based on the Malmquist index.The BCC model relaxes the restriction of constant returns to scale, allowing the assessment of efficiency in an environment with increasing or decreasing returns to scale. Therefore, this study combines the advantages of the Malmquist index with the flexibility of the BCC model and avoids the measurement error caused by constant returns to scale.
(2) Referring to Andersen and Petersen's (1993) BCC-Malmquist index methodology on the assumption of weakened returns to scale, our study adopts the DEA model under the premise of variable returns to scale to calculate the efficiency of atmospheric environments, and then calculates the change in total factor productivity based on the Malmquist index. This approach combines the respective advantages of DEA and Malmquist index (Førsund and Hjalmarsson, 1994). In contrast to the traditional "constant returns to scale" assumption, the BCC model allows for the assessment of technical efficiency under conditions of increasing or decreasing returns to scale (Banker et al., 1984). The Malmquist index built on this basis can improve the adaptability of total factor productivity measurement to changes in returns to scale, avoid the possible bias of the Malmquist index based only on the CRS model, and enhance the robustness of the conclusions.
(3) I hope the above explanations can clearly answer your questions and clarify the differences in the studies. Thank you again for your constructive comments!
reference ：
Andersen, P., & Petersen, N. C. (1993). A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Management science, 39(10), 1261-1264.
Førsund, F. R., & Hjalmarsson, L. (1994). On the measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 5(2), 141-166.
Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management science, 30(9), 1078-1092.
- Abstract
Comments : For a very quantitative paper, the abstract does not highlight this. Please add quantitative values to the abstract of the key findings.
Response 1: Response 1: Thank you for your feedback on our abstract. We take the points you have raised very seriously, and in response to the issues you have mentioned, we have revisited the abstract and recognize that there is a real need to highlight the quantitative values of the main findings in it. To this end, we have revised it accordingly and thank you again for your valuable comments!
- Introduction
Comments : Line 143 – Do not use the word “literatures”
Response 1: Thank you for the reminder and we agree. We will avoid the use of the word 'literatures' and opt for a more appropriate expression such as 'research'. Thank you for your professional advice and guidance!
- Research Design and Data processing
Comments 1: Line 303, in Figure 1, please change around Stage 3 and Stage 1.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your feedback. In order to better fulfill your request, I would like to know in more detail whether you are referring to the modification of the image style, resolution, data content or English expression. Can you provide more specific details so that I can make adjustments accordingly? The image has been replaced with a higher resolution image, hopefully it meets your requirements, thank you for your professional advice and guidance!
Comments 2: Line 158 – What does the BCC stand for, and Line 159 CCR model?
Response 2: Thank you for your question, BCC stands for "Boundedness Criterion CCR", a model used in Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to assess the relative efficiency of an organization. In DEA, CCR stands for Charnes-Cooper-Rhodes (an acronym for the last names of the three scholars from which the model is derived), which is the most basic model of DEA and applies only to the case where the returns to scale are constant, whereas BCC indicates that the input and output constraints are taken into account in assessing the relative efficiency and that the case where the returns to scale are variable can be considered. The article's introduction to the BCC model is in line 154, and this may not be detailed, so we have expanded on it. However, since this is a very mature linear programming method, we have not elaborated its content, development history and origin due to space constraints. We focus on providing the reader with a basic understanding of the BCC formulation and try to keep the information as concise as possible. If needed, we can further expand the section to cover more details and background knowledge. You can refer to the section on BCC in the article for more detailed information.
- Headings Static Analysis of AEE in the YRD Urban Agglomeration (Line 256) and Dynamic Analysis of AEE in the YRD Urban Agglomeration (333) have the same number, “3”. Please correct this.
Response : Response 1: Thanks for the heads up, we agree. We apologize for the issue with the headers having the same number. We have corrected the headings and will make sure to review them again to avoid a recurrence of this issue. Thank you for pointing this out and we will pay more attention to ensuring the quality and accuracy of our articles.
- The above headings should be renamed into a results section. At the moment, the reader is rather confused.
Comments 1: Figure 4, please make sure the diamonds do not overlap the words
Response 1: Thank you for your careful review and for your valuable comments, which we agree with. We have modified the image details as per your request to ensure the accuracy and quality of the article. Thank you again for your guidance and support!
Comments 2: Table 3 – LR? Is it linear regression
Response 2: Thank you for your question, Table 3 is not LR. in a three-stage DEA, the second stage usually uses stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) to assess the level of technical efficiency. the goal of SFA is to estimate the level of technical efficiency and take into account the effects of stochastic and non-stochastic errors, so the methodology and the model structure are different from that of LR. In the second stage of SFA, we usually analyze the data using a model specifically designed for efficiency assessment, rather than simple linear regression.
Comments 3: Table 4 – ‘type” And “city” should begin with capitals.
Response 3: Thanks for the correction, we agree with this. We have changed the 'Type' and 'City' columns in Table 4 to ensure they begin with a capital letter. Thank you again for your careful scrutiny and we will ensure the accuracy and standardization of the article.
Comments 4: Figure 4 quadrants need to be restructured. At the moment, it isn't very clear.
Response 4: Thank you for your careful review and for your valuable comments, which we agree with. We have revised the image details as per your request to ensure the accuracy and quality of the article. Thank you again for your guidance and support!
- Conclusion and Discussion
Comments 1: It would help if you split this section into a discussion and a conclusion
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion and we agree with it. We have divided the conclusion and discussion sections into two separate parts as you suggested.
(1) In the Discussion, we have interpreted and analyzed the results of the study and compared the findings with the existing literature, pointing out the consistencies and inconsistencies with previous studies and suggesting feasible recommendations for the real situation.
(2) In the conclusion section, we briefly summarize the main results, highlight the key findings, and point out the limitations of the current study as well as directions and suggestions for future research.
(3) We expect that these revisions will not only make the structure of the paper clearer, but also help readers understand the content and significance of our study more deeply. Your guidance is of great significance to our work, and we will continue to work hard to ensure that the quality of the paper is at its best. Thank you again for your review and suggestions. We look forward to your valuable comments on our further work.
Comments 2: You need to add recommendations
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion and we agree with it. Not only have we added realistic comments and suggestions to the discussion section in the revised manuscript, but we have also provided suggestions for future research directions. Thank you again for your guidance and support!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has been revised to my satisfaction for publication. Please proofread the paper for and rectify minor grammatical errors
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Just minor language edits are required.
Author Response
感谢您对我的论文所做的令人满意的修改。我校对并纠正了轻微的语法错误，以确保论文符合发表要求，请参见附件。此外，如果还有其他需要注意的地方，请随时告诉我。再次感谢您的耐心和支持，祝您生活愉快。
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
