The Interactive Coercive Relationship Between Urbanization and Eco-Environmental Quality in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, multi-source remote sensing and socio-economic data of China in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 are used to analyzes the spatiotemporal distribution characteristics of urbanization and eco-environmental quality (EEQ) in China in the past two decades. Subsequently, the bivariate local spatial autocorrelation model and a coupling coordination model were employed to analyze the spatial dependence and coupling coordination relationship between urbanization and EEQ. While these findings provide valuable insights and experiences for the international community in promoting the sustainable development of global urbanization and EEQ, this study has several limitations that need to be addressed and improved.

 

1. Line44-45: “…, changes in the EEQ will inevitably constrain and limit the development of urbanization”should be changed to“…, negative changes in the EEQ will inevitably constrain and limit the development of urbanization”.

 

2. Line 110: “Ye et al [42] and Wang et al [43] explored the relationship between UR and EEQ in the Yangtze River Basin.” The abbreviation UR appears for the first time without a full name, and there is no need for abbreviation.

 

3. 3. Line71-93: This paragraph introduces the development process of the EEQ model, but lacks a certain summary.

 

4. 4. Line 325-332: The analysis of the spatiotemporal characteristics of urbanization in this section is too simplistic, and additional content can be added appropriately.

 

5. 5. Line 356: The increase in the CCD between urbanization and ecological environment quality does not represent a positive correlation between them. This sentence needs further explanation.

 

6. 6. Line 386: This paragraph should maintain logical consistency with the previous paragraph to enhance reading coherence.

 

7. 7. Line 70 and 404: There are punctuation errors in these places.

 

8. Line 474: The journal abbreviations are inconsistent, please carefully check the reference format.

 

Author Response

Comments 1: In this study, multi-source remote sensing and socio-economic data of China in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 are used to analyzes the spatiotemporal distribution characteristics of urbanization and eco-environmental quality (EEQ) in China in the past two decades. Subsequently, the bivariate local spatial autocorrelation model and a coupling coordination model were employed to analyze the spatial dependence and coupling coordination relationship between urbanization and EEQ. While these findings provide valuable insights and experiences for the international community in promoting the sustainable development of global urbanization and EEQ, this study has several limitations that need to be addressed and improved.

Response 1: Thank you very much for recognizing our research. We have made further revisions based on your valuable suggestions to improve the overall quality of the research.

 

Comments 2: Line44-45: “…, changes in the EEQ will inevitably constrain and limit the development of urbanization” should be changed to “…, negative changes in the EEQ will inevitably constrain and limit the development of urbanization”.

Response 2: Thanks for your useful suggestion. We have replaced “…, changes in the EEQ will inevitably constrain and limit the development of urbanization” with “…, negative changes in the EEQ will inevitably constrain and limit the development of urbanization”.

 

Comments 3: Line 110: “Ye et al [42] and Wang et al [43] explored the relationship between UR and EEQ in the Yangtze River Basin.” The abbreviation UR appears for the first time without a full name, and there is no need for abbreviation.

Response 3: Thanks for the constructive suggestions. We have revised the abbreviation errors.

 

Comments 4: Line71-93: This paragraph introduces the development process of the EEQ model, but lacks a certain summary.

Response 4: Thanks for your useful suggestion. We have revised this section accordingly. The specific modifications include: Urbanization is an inevitable stage of human development and brings many conveniences to the good life of human beings. However, rapid urbanization also brings negative impacts on human living environment, especially on EEQ [5]. As an important foundation for human survival and high-quality development, EEQ provides a large amount of material resources for urbanization construction. Therefore, the rea-sonable evaluation of EEQ has become one of the hot research areas in the current scientific community. Traditional EEQ assessment methods predominantly rely on single evaluation indicators, such as Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Leaf Area Index (LAI), and Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), making it difficult to reveal systematic changes in EEQ. [18]. With the rapid development and continuous advancement of remote sensing technology, it has been widely applied in ecological monitoring due to its advantages such as extensive spatial coverage, rapid measurement capabilities, short revisit cycles, and diverse application scenarios [19-21]. Among them, the Remote Sensing-based Ecological Index (RSEI) developed by Xu et al. [22] has been widely applied for monitoring EEQ across various ecosystem types due to its operational simplicity and reliability [19,20,23]. However, the initial version primarily incorporated four evaluation components: VI (Vegetation Index), LST (Land Surface Temperature), Wet (Wetness component), and SI (Soil Index), which imposed certain limitations on its assessment scope [19,22]. To enhance the predictive capability and accuracy of EEQ evaluation, particularly for large-scale assessments involving multiple land use types (e.g., national-scale), subsequent studies have significantly im-proved the index [24-27]. These refinements have substantially expanded its applicability, leading to widespread adoption at various spatial scales including national [28], watershed [29], provincial [30], and municipal [31] levels. Notably, Xu et al. (2021) augmented the original four-component RSEI framework by incorporating a land cover abundance index, subsequently reapplying the enhanced index to reevaluate EEQ in eastern and central China - an advancement that has gained considerable academic recognition [27]. The National Earth System Science Data Center (NESDC) has officially adopted this refined methodology for nationwide EEQ assessments, establishing it as a reference standard for related research (http://www.geodata.cn). Consequently, this enhanced RSEI demonstrates particular advantages for comprehensive nation-al-scale ecological quality evaluations.

 

Comments 5: Line 325-332: The analysis of the spatiotemporal characteristics of urbanization in this section is too simplistic, and additional content can be added appropriately.

Response 5: Thanks for your useful suggestion. We have supplemented this section with the following specific revisions: This study of urbanization consisted of three main components: population urbanization, land urbanization and economic urbanization. The study showed that China's high-value areas of comprehensive urbanization are mainly concentrated in the North China Plain, the YRD and the coastal areas. This was slightly different from previous studies [4,63]. This was mainly due to the differences in the evaluation index system, but the overall presentation of the pattern of high in the east and low in the west has not changed. On the other hand, the prefecture-level cities in the North China Plain feature relatively flat terrain and well-developed agriculture. Consequently, the dense distribution of population and construction land has contributed to their higher composite urbanization level. And the urbanization growth rate in the east was significantly higher than that in the west, which is consistent with previous studies [64].

 

Comments 6: Line 356: The increase in the CCD between urbanization and ecological environment quality does not represent a positive correlation between them. This sentence needs further explanation.

Response 6: Thank you very much for your helpful suggestions. We have meticulously revised this section to enhance its coherence and logical flow.

The specific modifications include: However, with the continuous progress and development of technology and civilization in human society, the positive impact of urbanization on EEQ cannot be ignored. Our study reveals an increasing proportion of cities demonstrating moderate and high coupling between urbanization and EEQ, particularly in key urbanized regions such as the Yangtze River Delta and Pearl River Delta. This trend indicates a developing synergy between urbanization and EEQ.

 

Comments 7: Line 386: This paragraph should maintain logical consistency with the previous paragraph to enhance reading coherence.

Response 7: Thanks for your useful suggestion. We have consolidated the two sections and refined the logical connections between sentences.

The specific revisions are as follows: Second, it is necessary to increase capital investment, research and development or introduction of green production technology, and renovation of existing industrial facilities and equipment, so as to realize the coordinated development of regional economic development and EEQ [70]. Third, considering the complex relationship between the EEQ and vegetation, climate, land use, etc., the invasion of ecological land, such as forest land and farmland, should be circumvented in urban construction and development [16], the construction and protection of urban wetlands and watersheds should be strengthened [71], and the area of urban parks and green areas should be increased [72], which will in turn improve urban climate and promote ecosystem integrity.

 

Comments 8: Line 70 and 404: There are punctuation errors in these places.

Response 8: Thank you very much for your helpful suggestions. We have corrected the punctuation in this section and conducted a thorough proofreading of the entire manuscript.

 

Comments 9: Line 474: The journal abbreviations are inconsistent, please carefully check the reference format.

Response 9: Thanks for your useful suggestion. We have revised the abbreviated terms in this section and conducted a meticulous review of the reference formatting throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important topic concerning the relationship between urbanization and ecological environmental quality in China. The use of spatial analysis and remote sensing data adds depth to the research. However, the manuscript would benefit from improved clarity in language, more coherent organization, and consistent terminology. Several sections contain awkward phrasing, ambiguous references, and grammatical errors that hinder readability. Additionally, the literature review could be strengthened by incorporating more recent and international studies to enhance the relevance and impact of the research. I recommend careful proofreading and revision to improve the manuscript’s clarity, flow, and academic rigor.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires substantial improvements in English language quality. Many sentences are awkward, grammatically incorrect, or unclear, which affects the overall readability and comprehension of the text. Specific issues include incorrect word choice, inconsistent verb tense, and unclear references to figures or data. The flow of ideas also needs to be improved in several sections. It is strongly recommended that the manuscript be thoroughly edited by a professional English speaker or a language editing service to enhance clarity, coherence, and academic tone.

Author Response

Comments 1: Line 82: It is unclear what ‘this model’ refers to. Xu et al. constructed a remote sensing-based ecological index (RSEI), not a model, so the terminology here should be corrected. Additionally, the sentence should be revised for better clarity and flow.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We have made detailed modifications to this section to improve its overall logical flow.

The revisions are as follows: “Among them, the Remote Sensing-based Ecological Index (RSEI) developed by Xu et al. [22] has been widely applied for monitoring EEQ across various ecosystem types due to its operational simplicity and reliability [19,20,23]. However, the initial version primarily incorporated four evaluation components: VI (Vegetation Index), LST (Land Surface Temperature), Wet (Wetness component), and SI (Soil Index), which imposed certain limitations on its assessment scope [19,22]. To enhance the predictive capability and accuracy of EEQ evaluation, particularly for large-scale assessments involving multiple land use types (e.g., national-scale), subsequent studies have significantly im-proved the index [24-27]. These refinements have substantially expanded its applicability, leading to widespread adoption at various spatial scales including national [28], watershed [29], provincial [30], and municipal [31] levels. Notably, Xu et al. (2021) augmented the original four-component RSEI framework by incorporating a land cover abundance index, subsequently reapplying the enhanced index to reevaluate EEQ in eastern and central China - an advancement that has gained considerable academic recognition [27]. The National Earth System Science Data Center (NESDC) has officially adopted this refined methodology for nationwide EEQ assessments, establishing it as a reference standard for related research (http://www.geodata.cn). Consequently, this enhanced RSEI demonstrates particular advantages for comprehensive nation-al-scale ecological quality evaluations.”

 

Comments 2: Line 163: The paragraph implies a methodological inconsistency. While the authors note that POD, GDD, and PCL have been widely used in prior research as individual indicators of urbanization, they then proceed to combine these indicators into a single composite metric due to their high correlation. This shift in approach is not clearly justified. If previous studies treated these variables separately, combining them represents a significant methodological departure and warrants explanation. The rationale for treating the correlated indicators as a unified construct—rather than analyzing them separately or using established dimensionality reduction methods—should be explicitly stated.

Response 2: Thanks for your useful suggestion. We have revised the description of this section.

The specific modifications are as follows: Specifically, we use population density (POD) to characterize population growth process, GDP density (GDD) to indicate economic development level, and construction land ratio (PCL) to describe urban construction land expansion. In previous studies, these indicators (POD, GDD, and PCL) have been widely used to characterize the level of urbanization [48, 49, 50]. In our study, the raw data were further analyzed to obtain prefecture-level city data by using the zonal statistics tool in ArcGIS v10.8. Consider-ing the magnitude differences among the three indicator groups, this study adopted the commonly used range standardization method for data normalization, and as-signed equal weights to calculate the urbanization development level [48, 49, 50].

 

Comments 3: Line 282: The paragraph discussing CCD trends from 2000 to 2020 is difficult to follow due to vague phrasing, dense statistical reporting, and repetitive sentence structures. For example, the phrase “The average CCD was still in the moderate imbalance” is ambiguous and should be clarified—does this refer to a specific threshold category? Additionally, the listing of percentages (lines 285–289) would benefit from clearer structuring or tabular presentation to enhance readability. The spatial distribution section is also repetitive and should be streamlined to highlight key patterns without redundancy. Consider breaking the paragraph into two—one focusing on temporal changes, and the other on spatial patterns. This would significantly improve clarity and flow.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your helpful suggestions. In this section, we have supplemented a table to present the proportions and annual variations of different CCD types. Additionally, the original paragraph has been divided into two parts to enhance clarity of expression.

The specific modifications are as follows:

From 2000 to 2020, the average CCD between urbanization and EEQ were 0.32, 0.33, 0.34, 0.36, 0.37, respectively, which was in the trend of continuous increase. The average CCD was still in the moderate imbalance. Dividing the prefecture-level cities according to the CCD level, the results showed that the proportion of the number of severe imbalance and moderate imbalance areas were continuously decreasing, from 16.7% and 55.8% to 10.8% and 51.8%, respectively, from 2000 to 2020 (Table 1). How-ever, low coordination and moderate coordination areas were continuously increasing in number, from 31.5% and 1.0% in 2000 to 35.3% and 1.9% in 2020, respectively. High coordination areas only appeared in Shenzhen in 2020.

Table 1. Proportion of prefecture-level cities under different CCD categories

Categories	2000	2005	2010	2015	2020
Severe imbalance	16.7%	15.1%	12.9%	11.3%	10.8%
Moderate imbalance	55.8%	55.3%	55.3%	52.3%	51.8%
Low coordination	27.2%	29.6%	31.0%	34.5%	35.3%
Moderate coordination	0.3%	0.0%	0.8%	1.9%	1.9%
High coordination	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.3%

In terms of spatial distribution, severe imbalance areas were mainly distributed in the west, and gradually shrank towards the west over time; moderate imbalance areas were mainly distributed in the northeast, central, and most of the southern provinces. Low coordination areas were mainly distributed in the North China Plain and were gradually expanding to the northern and southern coastal prefecture-level cities. Moderate coordination areas were mainly distributed in a small number of prefecture-level cities in the PRD and the YRD.

 

Additionally, we have conducted a thorough and meticulous review of all text highlighted by the reviewers, and have implemented precise revisions to address the identified issues. The specific modifications can be found in the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As it now stands, the manuscript has the potential to fill a gap that the scholarly literature almost certainly and arguably requires. On the other hand, while the reviewer understands the extent to which the author(s) have sought to systematically (in other words, empirically) present the objectively determined data of the study, that priority appears to have overshadowed other priorities that would allow this article's potential to become more fully realized. In the first instance, the ending sections of the introduction mention the objectives of the investigation (lines 122 to 128), but the objectives of a scientifically systematic investigation cannot serve as stand-ins for the thesis statement, the nuances and aspects of which this author had some difficulty in discerning.

The section on quantifying urbanization (lines 154~171) should have contained an assessment (presented through the nuances of arguments and reflections from the author(s), and not as mere citations/paraphrases of other scholars) of the evolution of trends in the study of urbanization theory. From where does the field of urbanization theory draw legitimacy in scientific discourse? When did the field begin to receive treatment among scholars in academia? To what extent does urbanization theory draw upon other disciplines (i.e., the obvious candidates such as demography studies, but also the not-so-obvious ones such as anthropology, philosophy, history, and political science)? In point of fact, the author ought to critically expand this section and then rename the section entirely (i.e., "The Interdisciplinary Scholarly Discourse on Urbanization and the Legitimacy of Urbanization as a Methodological Framework for This Study").

In lines 325~332 of the Discussion section, the reviewer fully acknowledges the extent to which the author(s) sought to systematically present findings relating to geographic variations on urbanization, but the discussion of the reasons for those variations seemed somewhat disproportionate to the expectations of a scholarly audience that might arguably expect a more profound engagement with the interdisciplinary nature of urbanization studies. Readers might walk away from the study thinking of these variations as restricted mostly to the "climate-induced changes" mentioned in lines 316~319. Geographic variations in urbanization in nations can have some characteristics that one might generalize across nations and regions across the globe, but the author(s) of this study must consider the cultural, anthropological, ethnographic, ideological, and political reasons that specifically apply to mainland China.

The policy implications section (lines 374~391) have recommendations that the author(s) have clearly invested effort in presenting for the sake of this manuscript, but in order to improve the section's readability and impact, the author(s) should explicitly consider ways in which the presented recommendations have become implemented---albeit in more local and less ambitious ways and not to the scale preferred by the author(s). In this way, the readers can actually understand more nuances about the divergences that exist between the present situation of urbanization concerns and the initatives undertaken by local authorities to address those concerns. As it now stands, the author(s) have left readers with the impression of local/provincial/national authorities utterly oblivious to the recommendations of the paper, when in fact, the divergence between these two notions might seem less than one realizes. The brevity of the conclusion essentially exists as a proof for the major frailty of this manuscript draft, namely the fact that the draft must accomplish a more intimate engagement with other disciplines that relate to urbanization studies. The result of these revisions would entail a manuscript perhaps one-and-a-half to two times lengthier than the current draft, but the second draft would justify the paper's inclusion in an urgently needed discourse in this field.

Author Response

Comments 1: As it now stands, the manuscript has the potential to fill a gap that the scholarly literature almost certainly and arguably requires. On the other hand, while the reviewer understands the extent to which the author(s) have sought to systematically (in other words, empirically) present the objectively determined data of the study, that priority appears to have overshadowed other priorities that would allow this article's potential to become more fully realized. In the first instance, the ending sections of the introduction mention the objectives of the investigation (lines 122 to 128), but the objectives of a scientifically systematic investigation cannot serve as stand-ins for the thesis statement, the nuances and aspects of which this author had some difficulty in discerning.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments. This study primarily investigates the coupling coordination relationship between composite urbanization and ecological environment quality (EEQ) in China, without delving into the multidimensional aspects of urbanization. This approach aligns with common methodologies employed in ecological-environmental research. Your insightful comments have provided valuable inspiration, and future research will indeed explore the multidimensional perspectives of urbanization.

 

Comments 2: The section on quantifying urbanization (lines 154~171) should have contained an assessment (presented through the nuances of arguments and reflections from the author(s), and not as mere citations/paraphrases of other scholars) of the evolution of trends in the study of urbanization theory. From where does the field of urbanization theory draw legitimacy in scientific discourse? When did the field begin to receive treatment among scholars in academia? To what extent does urbanization theory draw upon other disciplines (i.e., the obvious candidates such as demography studies, but also the not-so-obvious ones such as anthropology, philosophy, history, and political science)? In point of fact, the author ought to critically expand this section and then rename the section entirely (i.e., "The Interdisciplinary Scholarly Discourse on Urbanization and the Legitimacy of Urbanization as a Methodological Framework for This Study").

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Urbanization constitutes an exceptionally complex concept, encompassing both theoretical conceptualizations and quantitative measurements, with substantial disciplinary variations [Fang et al. 2013; Chen et al. 2018; Wei et al. 2025]. The present study focuses specifically on quantifying urbanization and examining its relationship with ecological environment quality through coupling coordination modeling, rather than engaging with theoretical debates on urbanization trends.

Fang, C., & Wang, J. A theoretical analysis of interactive coercing effects between urbanization and eco-environment. Chin. Geogra. Sci. 2013, 23, 147-162.

Chen, M., Liu, W., Lu, D., Chen, H., & Ye, C. Progress of China's new-type urbanization construction since 2014: A preliminary assessment. Cities 2018, 78, 180-193.

Wei, L., Cheng, Y., Wang, Z., Pan, Z., & Qi, G. Does multidimensional urbanization help reduce environmental pollution? — Evidence from three major urban agglomerations in the Yangtze River Economic Belt. Sustainability 2025, 17:1202.

 

Comments 3: In lines 325~332 of the Discussion section, the reviewer fully acknowledges the extent to which the author(s) sought to systematically present findings relating to geographic variations on urbanization, but the discussion of the reasons for those variations seemed somewhat disproportionate to the expectations of a scholarly audience that might arguably expect a more profound engagement with the interdisciplinary nature of urbanization studies. Readers might walk away from the study thinking of these variations as restricted mostly to the "climate-induced changes" mentioned in lines 316~319. Geographic variations in urbanization in nations can have some characteristics that one might generalize across nations and regions across the globe, but the author(s) of this study must consider the cultural, anthropological, ethnographic, ideological, and political reasons that specifically apply to mainland China.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. This paper primarily examines the potential changes in ecological environment quality resulting from urbanization. First (Section 4.1), we analyze the spatiotemporal characteristics of ecological environment quality and urbanization to understand their developmental trends in China. Next (Section 4.2), we explore the impact of urbanization on ecological environment quality across both temporal and spatial dimensions. Current research on the relationship between urbanization and the ecological environment primarily involves disciplines such as ecology, geography, and demography. Deeper underlying factors—such as anthropology, ethnography, ideology, and politics—may also influence ecological environment quality, though they are not the focus of this study. However, the reviewers' feedback has provided valuable insights, and we will fully consider their suggestions in future research to conduct more in-depth investigations.

 

Comments 4: The policy implications section (lines 374~391) have recommendations that the author(s) have clearly invested effort in presenting for the sake of this manuscript, but in order to improve the section's readability and impact, the author(s) should explicitly consider ways in which the presented recommendations have become implemented---albeit in more local and less ambitious ways and not to the scale preferred by the author(s). In this way, the readers can actually understand more nuances about the divergences that exist between the present situation of urbanization concerns and the initatives undertaken by local authorities to address those concerns. As it now stands, the author(s) have left readers with the impression of local/provincial/national authorities utterly oblivious to the recommendations of the paper, when in fact, the divergence between these two notions might seem less than one realizes. The brevity of the conclusion essentially exists as a proof for the major frailty of this manuscript draft, namely the fact that the draft must accomplish a more intimate engagement with other disciplines that relate to urbanization studies. The result of these revisions would entail a manuscript perhaps one-and-a-half to two times lengthier than the current draft, but the second draft would justify the paper's inclusion in an urgently needed discourse in this field.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. For a long time, economic development and environmental protection have been viewed as a contradictory pair, particularly in urbanized areas. However, for the sake of sustainable human development, we must resolve this issue. At present, most regions in China still prioritize economic growth over environmental protection, leading to an imbalance between urbanization and ecological environment quality. Nevertheless, with growing environmental awareness, an increasing number of areas—especially cities with higher urbanization rates—are beginning to show a trend of coordinated development between urbanization and ecological quality. Our recommendations include, on one hand, guiding local governments to adopt scientific measures to balance urbanization and ecological environment quality. On the other hand, it is crucial to enhance environmental awareness among the general public and support the implementation of relevant policies. Together, these efforts can contribute to the harmonious development of humanity and nature.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing my comments. The manuscript has made significant improvements. However, there are still some important issues that remain unaddressed.

In particular:

• The references continue to focus heavily on studies conducted in China. Incorporating relevant international literature—especially from countries that have undergone similar urban and ecological transitions—would strengthen the global relevance and contextual depth of the study.

• Several issues related to writing clarity and structure persist throughout the manuscript and should be carefully revised to improve readability and academic tone.

• The explanation for replacing the 2000 EEQ data with 2001 data remains insufficient. A clearer justification is needed, especially if data alignment is the primary reason. Please also clarify any implications this substitution may have on the accuracy and comparability of the results.

Please see the attached reviewed manuscript with detailed comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires significant improvements in English language usage to meet the standards of an academic journal. Issues include grammatical errors, inconsistent sentence structure, subject-verb agreement problems, and awkward phrasing that affects clarity. Additionally, transitional flow between sentences and paragraphs needs to be improved to enhance readability. I recommend thorough editing to improve the overall presentation and ensure clarity and precision in communication.

Author Response

1. The references continue to focus heavily on studies conducted in China. Incorporating relevant international literature—especially from countries that have undergone similar urban and ecological transitions—would strengthen the global relevance and contextual depth of the study.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have replaced some of the Chinese research references in the main text with relevant international studies. Please refer to the final version for specific modifications.

2. Several issues related to writing clarity and structure persist throughout the manuscript and should be carefully revised to improve readability and academic tone.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have thoroughly revised the grammar and improved the logical clarity throughout the entire manuscript. Please refer to the final version for specific modifications.

3. The explanation for replacing the 2000 EEQ data with 2001 data remains insufficient. A clearer justification is needed, especially if data alignment is the primary reason. Please also clarify any implications this substitution may have on the accuracy and comparability of the results.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments. The dataset used in this study was collected from various authoritative sources, and there are indeed certain discrepancies in the time coverage. According to Xu et al.'s research, the interannual fluctuations of EEQ in eastern China are minimal (averaging 1.21E⁻¹⁰a⁻¹). On the other hand, previous studies have employed similar methods for data alignment, which have been recognized by the academic community (Zheng, et al. 2024; Yang, et al. 2024; Zhong, et al. 2025).

 

Xu, D.; Yang, F.; Yu, L.; Zhou, Y.; Li, H.; Ma, J.; Huang, J.; Wei, J.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, C.; Cheng, J., Quantization of the coupling mechanism between eco-environmental quality and urbanization from multisource remote sensing data. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 321, 128948.

Zheng, L.; Wu, J.; Chen, Q.; Wang, J.; Chen, W.; Pan, S., Identifying the interactive coercive relationships between urbanization and eco-environmental quality in the Yangtze and Yellow River Basins, China. Remote Sens. 2024, 16 (23), 4353

Yang, L., Chen, W., Zeng, J., Wang, G., Yuan, T. Gradient differences of the impact of urbanization on habitat quality in the Yangtze River Basin. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2024, 44, 4038-4050.

Zhong, M.; Liu, Q.; Hu, X., Understanding the county-level relationship between population change and ecological environment quality dynamic in China, 2000–2020. Front. Environ. Sci. 2025, 13, 1513998.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author(s) have diligently responded to the substance and spirit of the reviewer's concerns and comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much for recognizing our research.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing my comments. Below are some remaining concerns that I believe need to be addressed before the article can be considered for publication:

1. The website reference should be formatted consistently with the other sources in the reference list. Please consult the journal’s citation guidelines for the correct format for web-based sources. The in-text link should be removed and instead included properly in the reference section

2. The explanation for replacing the 2000 EEQ data with the 2001 data needs to be included in the article for the readers. Furthermore, the authors should clearly demonstrate that this replacement does not affect the results. You responded but did not include in the article.

3. This section mentions confidence levels and correlation; however, the article does not include any correlation analysis. To properly assess the significance of the results, it is important to include statistical metrics such as p-values or z-scores. I recommend adding this information to determine whether the observed spatial patterns are statistically meaningful.

Please check the attached article for all teh highlights.

1.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The english has improved

Author Response

1. The website reference should be formatted consistently with the other sources in the reference list. Please consult the journal’s citation guidelines for the correct format for web-based sources. The in-text link should be removed and instead included properly in the reference section

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have converted the relevant websites within the article into reference format.

“The National Earth System Science Data Center (NESDC) has officially adopted this refined methodology for nationwide EEQ assessments, establishing it as a reference standard for related research [32]”

“The land use/land cover change datasets for in China for the years 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 were obtained from Resources and Environmental Sciences Data Center (RESDC) [49]”

“The administrative division data used in this study were obtained from the National Geomatics Center of China [50]”

32. National Earth System Science Data Center (NESDC). Available online: https://www.geodata.cn/main/face_science_detail?typeName=face_science&guid=190747515712302 (accessed on 15 December 2024)
33. Resources and Environmental Sciences Data Center (RESDC). Available online: https://www.geodata.cn/main/face_science_detail?typeName=face_science&guid=190747515712302 (accessed on 15 December 2024)
34.    National Geomatics Center of China. Available online: https://www.ngcc.cn/dlxxzy/gjjcdlxxsjk/ (accessed on 15 December 2024)
35. The explanation for replacing the 2000 EEQ data with the 2001 data needs to be included in the articlefor the readers. Furthermore, the authors should clearly demonstrate that this replacement does not affect the results. You responded but did not include in the article.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have added relevant explanations to the article to ensure the accuracy and clarity of the data.

“The dataset provides annual EEQ date for the years 2001-2021 at a resolution of 500m. For this study, we selected EEQ data from 2001, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020. To align with urbanization data, the 2001 EEQ data was used as a substitute for the 2000 EEQ data in subsequent analyses (according to Xu et al., China's EEQ exhibits minimal in-terannual fluctuation (average of 1.21E⁻¹⁰a⁻¹), thus having negligible impact on data accuracy) [27]. Additionally, this methodological approach has been widely recognized in the academic community [51-53].”

27. Xu, D.; Yang, F.; Yu, L.; Zhou, Y.; Li, H.; Ma, J.; Huang, J.; Wei, J.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, C.; Cheng, J. Quantization of the coupling mechanism between eco-environmental quality and urbanization from multisource remote sensing data. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 321, 128948

 

51          Zheng, L.; Wu, J.; Chen, Q.; Wang, J.; Chen, W.; Pan, S., Identifying the interactive coercive relationships between urbanization and eco-environmental quality in the Yangtze and Yellow River Basins, China. Remote Sens. 2024, 16 (23), 4353

52     Yang, L., Chen, W., Zeng, J., Wang, G., Yuan, T. Gradient differences of the impact of urbanization on habitat quality in the Yangtze River Basin. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2024, 44, 4038-4050.

53       Zhong, M.; Liu, Q.; Hu, X., Understanding the county-level relationship between population change and ecological environment quality dynamic in China, 2000–2020. Front. Environ. Sci. 2025, 13, 1513998.

3. This section mentions confidence levels and correlation; however, the article does not include any correlation analysis. To properly assess the significance of the results, it is important to include statistical metrics such as p-values or z-scores. I recommend adding this information to determine whether the observed spatial patterns are statistically meaningful.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have added the relevant p-values and z-values to the article.

“The Moran’s I values of urbanization and EEQ during 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 were −0.049, −0.075, −0.076, −0.075, and −0.068, respectively (Fig. 5), with p-values being significant at the 0.001 level and z- scores of -1.953, -2.978, -3.035, -2.951, and -2.694, respectively.  This showed a significant a negative correlation between the spatial distribution of urbanization and EEQ across China’s prefecture-level cities from 2000 to 2020. Moreover, the correlation exhibited a pattern of initial strengthening followed by weakening over time.”

Additionally, we have conducted a thorough and meticulous review of all text highlighted by the reviewers, and have implemented precise revisions to address the identified issues. The specific modifications can be found in the revised manuscript.

Change ' These negative impacts seriously higher the sustainable development of human society and the further enhancement of human well-being [6]. As a foundation for human survival and development, changes in EEQ will inevitably constrain urbanization progress [7]. Therefore, achieving a balance urban development and EEQ is essential to ensure the sustainable development of cities, posing a major challenge facing human society [8,9].' to ' These negative impacts significantly hinder the sustainable development of human society and the further improvement of human well-being [6]. As a foundation for human survival and development, changes in EEQ will inevitably constrain urbanization progress [7]. Therefore, achieving a balance between urban development and EEQ is essential to ensure the sustainable development of cities, presenting a major challenge for human society [8,9].'

Change ' In addition, economic urbanization, resulting from continuous urban development, generates a large amount of waste, including solid waste and wastewater, whose treatment requires significant energy and resources, increasing the risk of ecological deterioration.' to ' In addition, economic urbanization—driven by continuous urban development—generates substantial waste, including solid waste and wastewater. The treatment of these wastes demands considerable energy and resources, thereby increasing the risk of ecological deterioration.'

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx