Coupling and Coordination Relationship of Economic–Social–Natural Composite Ecosystem in Central Yunnan Urban Agglomeration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am appreciated that the authors provide me an opportunity to learn from this study. However, I have to say studies, in this direction i.e. coupling analysis towards the issue of strong sustainability at the level of either China or it disaggregate level is superfluous. Similarly, this study lacks novelty because it just used very traditional coupling analysis methods (even though the authors claimed this is new, it is still a very conventional perspective) to reveal a tendency but not causality among a number of common indicators. If I understand this study correctly, it only focuses on 5-6 cities which is very rough and none of econometric models can be further employed due to limited observations. In comparison, a disaggregate analysis has already embraced very detailed datasets at county levels.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish language is accepeted though.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to read our manuscript and provide comments! We have thoroughly reviewed the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers and have been diligently working on incorporating them into the manuscript. For each of your comments, we have provided detailed responses. Please see the attached PDF for more information. We believe these revisions will significantly enhance the quality of the manuscript, ultimately contributing to its acceptance for publication in the journal Sustainability.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript “Coupling and Coordination Relationship of Social-Economic Natural Composite Ecosystem in Central Yunnan Urban Agglomeration” used LUCC data, DEM, temperature, precipitation and other multi-source data to evaluate the regional economic and social development level and analyzed the spatial and temporal evolution characteristics of ecosystem services. The study revealed that the socio-economic, ecological, and social subsystems are highly coupled, with consistent overall development trends and strong interactions. It can be published in “Sustainability” after major revision. The comments are as follows:
1. In the introduction of the manuscript, the relevant literature on the theory of composite ecosystems is relatively old. It is suggested to update it to recent research results.
2. In section 3.2 of the manuscript, the authors mention that “Considering the diverse scales, magnitudes, and attributes of the collected data, this study will employ necessary standardization techniques”, please explain the specific scope and meaning of standardization techniques.
3. The coupling degree measures the integrated development of the systems in the coupled coordination model, and the authors need to clarify the specific values of each parameter in the process of calculating the coupling degree and the variability of the parameters between different systems.
4. In the process of analyzing Characteristics of economic subsystem development chronology in the manuscript, the imbalance of economic development within the city cluster of central Yunnan is highlighted, and the authors should further analyze the factors that cause the emergence of imbalance of development in different cities and regions.
5. For abbreviations, the full name should be given at the first time, otherwise it will cause confusion to readers. For example, “LUCC, DEM, SD” etc. Inappropriate numbering of sections and sub-sections, e.g., "5, (i)", etc. Please check all references one by one. Some references are not consistent in the format.
6. The authors should consider expanding the discussion on the coupling coordination model used in the study, including a more detailed explanation of its underlying principles and assumptions.
7. It would be helpful to include a discussion on the limitations of the study, such as potential uncertainties in the data or assumptions made in the analysis, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the findings.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguagePlease check carefully the language of this manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to read our manuscript and provide comments! We have thoroughly reviewed the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers and have been diligently working on incorporating them into the manuscript. For each of your comments, we have provided detailed responses. Please see the attached PDF for more information. We believe these revisions will significantly enhance the quality of the manuscript, ultimately contributing to its acceptance for publication in the journal Sustainability.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled "Coupling and Coordination Relationship of Social-Economic-Natural Composite Ecosystem in Central Yunnan Urban Agglomeration" investigated economic and social subsystems in the central Yunnan. The main idea of the manuscript is interesting as not many articles published so far provide such detailed data about this region. However, the abstract is not written carefully. I highly recommend improving the quality of text and data presentation and should be majorly revised. It is not possible to highlight all the issues with this manuscript, so I include only the most important ones. Following are some specific comments followed by strengths and weaknesses:
Strengths:
• (+) The problem is well-defined.
• (+) The references are appropriate.
Weaknesses:
• (-) The introduction must be improved.
• (-) The related work section must be enhanced.
• (-) There are issues related to the problem definition.
• (-) Some improvements are needed in the description of the models used.
1) Title: could be specific.
2) Abstract: Long abstract. It would be better if the author stated precisely the scientific novelty and quantitative/key findings in the abstract.
3) Keywords: All the keywords are too long and direct from the title. All the keywords are not taken directly from the title.
4) In the introduction section, the research gap or need for the study is not clearly mentioned. I suggest more literature should be added regarding the pre-processing models used in this research and also clearly mention the novelty of this research.
5) In the introduction section, you all need to connect state of the art to your paper goals. Hence modify the section accordingly and present the specify goals/research objectives in the last part of the introduction section.
6) The authors requested and must add more information and supported studies to the introduction since the introduction is not upto mark and needs to be strengthened.
7) In the introduction section, the authors should add some more standards/references regarding pre-processing models.
8) There should be uniform spaces (single/none) between numbers and units. Kindly check all.
9) Figure 6 contains some Chinese terms. Kindly use correct abbreviation.
10) Figures 7, 8, and 9 are blurred. Kindly use high resolution images only. Kindly provide a clear images.
11) Line 154-Table 2 plz change the fonts in the table heading.
12) Similarly, Table 4 and 6 are not clear, kindly elaborate. Justify it clearly with incremental data, if possible.
13) Figure 2 and 3. The model outcomes are missing error percentage lines. No error percent was found in the models.
14) The use of subscript and superscript needs to be reviewed throughout the manuscript.
15) Authors missed discuss about the source prevention. Kindly, add some information about the prevention methods and regulations.
16) Discussion section is very poorly written. Full discussion section contains only one reference. It is a clear invitation to the rejection.
17) Conclusion must have some quantitative information. Only the main points like what was expected and what was achieved must be written. What significant contribution this study made to society must be mentioned in this section. Please modify it to represent the outcomes of this study. This major deduction from this study does not demonstrate adequate Uniqueness/novelty of findings from this detailed research.
18) Future prospects is recommended as a separate heading.
19) Please use full form for abbreviation in its first appearance.
20) Some typos must be corrected in the whole manuscript (some spaces among words are missing, etc.).
21) Plz check thoroughly the reference section. Kindly check the reference according to journal format in the text.
22) Overall, the quality of study needs to be improved for any scientific journal. Therefore, this article should be considered for changes specified and allow the author to majorly revise the manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to read our manuscript and provide comments! We have thoroughly reviewed the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers and have been diligently working on incorporating them into the manuscript. For each of your comments, we have provided detailed responses. Please see the attached PDF for more information. We believe these revisions will significantly enhance the quality of the manuscript, ultimately contributing to its acceptance for publication in the journal Sustainability.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is written in understandable English. I am not a native speaker, but as far as I can tell, there are no significant linguistic mistakes.
Introduction
The introduction explains why coupling of 3 systems: ecology, economy and society is important and why only coordination of these systems allows for proper development of regions. Then it describes the regions which are going to be analyzed in the study and their stages of development.
Materials and Methods
In this part, Authors describe the exact location of regions they are going to analyze, describe sources of data and the ratios they use to calculate the state of economic, ecological and social of subregions (and their coupling effect). I have no remarks concerning the clarity of arguments.
I would be thankful for an explanation of what coordination degree one would have if ecological development was causing economic development to slow down or if economic or social developments were deteriorating the natural environment.
Results
In this section, the authors present the results of the calculations. They compare the ecological, social and economic development of regions between regions and over time. Every formula and measurement method was clearly explained in the previous chapter, and I have no questions concerning either the method or the results. My only concern is whether climatic changes could have impacted water retention and soil erosion. Precipitation is included in calculations, but how much climatic change could have impacted the results?
The Authors are using a specific measurement system so I am not asking about other factors which could be considered important in the evaluation of the quality of environment or social conditions.
Discussion
The study shows regions where one of the 3 aspects of development is lagging. In the discussion, the Authors precisely explain which regions should improve either ecology or social or economic development. The Authors use the specific measurement method so they cannot draw conclusions that go beyond this model. We can only say whether some of the aspects of development are lagging in some regions, but not why it happens.
Conclusions
Well written, and easy to understand even though it is hard to believe that economic and social growth can be coupled with ecological improvement.
Reviewer opinion:
I believe that the paper is very well-written, with a big focus on explaining clearly every formula and ratio used in the analysis. I suggest publication.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to read our manuscript and provide comments! We have thoroughly reviewed the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers and have been diligently working on incorporating them into the manuscript. For each of your comments, we have provided detailed responses. Please see the attached PDF for more information. We believe these revisions will significantly enhance the quality of the manuscript, ultimately contributing to its acceptance for publication in the journal Sustainability.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll comments have been revised. I suggest that it be published on Sustainability.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form
