The Evolution of Ecological Well-Being Performance and Its Effects on Population Longevity: A County-Level Spatiotemporal Analysis of Hubei Province, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript investigates the relationship between ecological well-being performance (EWP) and population longevity at the county level in Hubei Province, China, over a 20-year period. The authors apply a robust methodological framework—combining super-SBM efficiency modeling, spatial econometric models, and geographical detectors—to analyze temporal and spatial patterns and explore causal mechanisms.
The topic is relevant and timely, especially in the context of regional sustainability and public health policy. The study provides valuable empirical insights into how environmental and socioeconomic factors interact to influence population health outcomes.
However, several clarifications and improvements are needed, especially in terms of conceptual framing, data interpretation, and writing clarity.
I recommend minor revisions.
- Title and Abstract
The title is informative and accurately reflects the study content.
The abstract is dense and covers all relevant points, but some sentences are long and overly complex. Consider simplifying the language slightly for clarity.
- Introduction
The introduction appropriately contextualizes the relevance of ecological well-being and longevity.
However, the theoretical framing of EWP could be expanded. Consider briefly explaining how EWP differs from other sustainability or health indicators.
The rationale for choosing Hubei Province as a case study could also be reinforced, especially given the COVID-19 background.
- Methodology
The methodology is a strong point of the paper.
Please clarify the inputs and outputs used in the super-SBM model in more detail. How was population well-being operationalized?
In the spatial econometric models, were spatial weights matrices based on geographic contiguity or distance? Clarifying this would strengthen the interpretation of spillover effects.
In the section on geographical detectors, explain briefly how interaction effects are quantified (e.g., q-values) for readers unfamiliar with the method.
- Results
The spatial-temporal evolution of EWP is clearly described and illustrated.
Figures are informative, but Figure 4 would benefit from improved readability (larger labels, clearer legends).
The description of the "core-edge" structure is insightful. It might help to refer to established literature on spatial inequality or core-periphery models to support the interpretation.
- Discussion
The discussion appropriately links empirical findings to policy implications.
However, some claims regarding spillover effects and environmental health pathways could be better supported with references from public health or environmental epidemiology.
It may be worth discussing how local government policies or investments might mediate EWP and longevity outcomes.
- Conclusion
The conclusion accurately summarizes the main findings.
It could be made more concise by removing repeated phrases and emphasizing key policy messages.
- Language and Style
The manuscript is mostly well-written but requires minor language editing to improve clarity and flow.
Several long or technical sentences (especially in abstract and discussion) should be simplified for readability.
COMMENTS ON THE QUALITY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE
The English is generally clear and acceptable, but a professional editing service or a native speaker review is recommended to improve sentence structure and flow, especially in key sections.
REVIEWER COMMENTS TO THE EDITOR
This is a well-designed and methodologically sound study that addresses an important research question with practical implications for sustainable development and public health. While the paper could benefit from minor edits and added clarifications in several sections, its overall scientific merit is high.
Recommendation: Accept after minor revisions.
- Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?
Yes - Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?
Yes
- Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?
Can be improved - For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?
Yes - Is the article adequately referenced?
Yes - Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?
Yes - Quality of English Language
English is understandable but requires minor editing to improve clarity.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The English is generally clear and readable, but a professional language review is advisable to improve fluency and reduce overuse of complex or passive constructions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Pages 12-29:
In the abstract, the research objectives are not clearly stated (pages 69-73); therefore, it is necessary to refer to them.
- LINES 602-631:
In the "Conclusions" section, the achievement of all the research objectives outlined in lines 69-73 is not fully addressed. The extent to which they were achieved must be clearly indicated. This will demonstrate that the study was conducted in a structured manner and with a clear purpose. It is necessary to highlight the contributions and limitations of the research in relation to the formulation of the stated study objectives.
I remind the authors that The research objectives indicated in the research work are the following:
“This study aimed to evaluate the EWP on the basis of the input ‒ output relationship at the county scale and analyze its spatiotemporal evolution, on the one hand, and to examine and summarize the mechanism of EWP changes on the population longevity level through the lens of spatial spillover and interaction, on the other hand.”
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
