Boosting Sustainable Urban Development: How Smart Cities Improve Emergency Management—Evidence from 275 Chinese Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper assesses the effects of smart city construction on emergency management capabilities using a panel data set from 275 Chinese cities between 2006 and 2021. The topic is pertinent and current, with academic and managerial relevance, considering the interdisciplinary nature of this topic, with effective contributions to the areas of urban studies and smart cities research. The paper is very well written and structured, with relevant results.
Among the positive points of this study, it can be mentioned that the theme is adequately contextualized in its introductory section, using relevant and current references. The objective of the study is clearly defined, aligned with the development of the paper. The three research hypotheses are theoretically supported. The study method is clearly described, and the results presented are well presented, fulfilling the proposed objectives. Below are some points for improvement that could enhance the quality of the manuscript:
1.  In the Introduction section, the theme of Smart Cities is introduced, including its relationship with strengthening resilience to urban risk. However, I believe that the concept is fundamentally supported by the theoretical current associated with the use of digital technologies. There is an opportunity to conceptualize the concept of Smart City more broadly, considering other important aspects that make up the concept of smart city, such as governance, well-being, and sustainability. A clear concept of smart city, from the perspective of this study, is crucial.
2. The literature review covers the main themes of the article, but it could be improved as it does not consider some relevant studies on this topic. Some examples of articles that can be consulted:
Nitoslawski, S.A.; Galle, N.J.; Van den Bosch, C.K.; Steenberg, J.W.N. Smarter ecosystems for smarter cities? A review of trends, technologies, and turning points for smart urban forestry. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 51, 101770
Yigitcanlar, T.; Cugurullo, F. The Sustainability of Artificial Intelligence: An Urbanistic Viewpoint from the Lens of Smart and Sustainable Cities. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8548. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12208548.
3. The results of the study are adequately presented, with a relevant description of the main findings. However, I see an opportunity to expand the relationship between these results and the theory. I consider it relevant to increase the quality of the results by including a section discussing the results, which considers the relationship between the results obtained and other studies in the literature.
4. It is important that the limitations of the study be recognized and pointed out in the final section of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article evaluates the emergency management capabilities of more than two hundred Chinese cities under smart city initiatives in 15 years using a multi-period difference-in-differences (DID) approach. Three hypotheses were proposed based on theoretical analysis and two corresponding equations were built for validation. Results show that regional and population-size heterogeneity exists concerning the smart cities technological influence on emergency management. The article is well structured and grounded with data and analysis.

A key question is that there is no detailed explanation about rationale between the three hypotheses and the equations and the indicators in table 1, which are the core parts of this work. A map is needed to show where the cities are and what are the corresponding population size, together with an accompanied explanation of the city selecting process, which cities each of the three regions includes. It can also better support the analysis results.

1. please confirm the data cited in the first paragraph, “according to the world disaster report 2022…”.
2. What does it mean by saying “…a statistically significant average increase of 1.8% in…”?
3. What is a “quasi-natural experiment”?
4. The idea of smart cities was coined 30 years ago, not “…the last twenty years”. Please refer the following article to help readers build a full image of relevant works:

Wang Tao (2013) Interdisciplinary Urban GIS for Smart Cities: Advancements and Opportunities. Geo-Spatial Information Science, 16, 25-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10095020.2013.774108

 

5. Some abbreviations should be given in full spellings at their first appearance.
6. Not all variables and coefficients are explained in equations 1 to 7.
7. What is “Wind database”? Detailed explanations about where the readers can find the data source are expected.
8. The analysis could be further enriched with focused explanations about typical cities.
9. Further language polishing is needed. And it can be more concise and clear. There are non-English labels in some figures.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

• In line 65, the phrase “in recent years” should specify the timeframe (e.g., 2010–2025 or 2021–2025).

• Provide a short paragraph explaining the significance of the study, emphasizing its contribution to theory, practice, and policy.

• Replace the pronoun “we” in line 114 with “the study” when describing the research objectives to maintain an academic tone.

• Clearly state the main research question the study seeks to answer.

• Clarify the meaning of panel data in line 112 and explain why it is important for the study (e.g., its ability to capture temporal dynamics and control for unobserved heterogeneity).

Literature Review

• Explain the rationale for including the marginal contributions of the study (lines 211–219) in this section. This content should be moved to the Conclusion section, as it summarizes the paper’s contributions rather than reviewing past literature.

Research Design

• Provide a clear justification for using a quasi-natural experiment and why it is appropriate for this study.

• Before describing the entropy method, include a short paragraph explaining what urban emergency management capability entails and why it matters.

• In lines 352–366, clarify why specific control variables were chosen and their expected direction of influence on the outcome variable.

• Ensure the methodology section is detailed enough for replicability. Lack of clarity in this section compromises transparency and academic rigor; the authors should revise Section 4 accordingly.

Results and Analysis

• For the heterogeneity analysis, briefly discuss why effects are stronger in central regions and in megacities/small cities from a theoretical perspective.

• Improve the clarity and readability of Figures 1 and 2, ensuring they are legible and properly labeled.

• The discussion should consider the global implications of the findings for relevance in other urban contexts beyond China.

• Where possible, support the mediation analysis with a formal Sobel test or bootstrap confidence intervals for indirect effects.

• Address potential risks associated with digital expansion, including privacy concerns, cybersecurity threats, and digital inequality.

Conclusions

• Include a section on the limitations of the study and suggest directions for future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf