Spatiotemporal Evolution and Drivers of Ecological Footprint: A Case Study of Sichuan Province from an Economic Area Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the context of global climate change and the increasing depletion of resources, how to promote economic growth while maintaining the ecological carrying capacity has become an important issue in contemporary sustainable development. Ecological footprint, as a key indicator of human demand for natural resources, effectively reflects the environmental pressure caused by economic development. Achieving a balance between ecological footprints and economic growth is not only crucial for environmental protection but also has a profound impact on long-term social and economic stability, making it a topic worthy of in-depth exploration.

 

1. There are errors in the citation formatting throughout the manuscript. It is recommended to thoroughly review and correct all citations across the entire paper.
2. This study analyzes ecological footprints from the perspective of economic regions but does not adequately explain why the analysis is not conducted from the perspective of ecological resource distribution. This aspect warrants further explanation, particularly in justifying the rationale and necessity of using the economic region perspective.
3. The manuscript should provide a more detailed explanation of the development status and current conditions of the five selected economic regions. This would help readers better understand the background and characteristics of the study areas.
4. The study regions lack clear labeling or numbering. It is recommended to assign clear identifiers to each region to improve clarity in subsequent discussions.
5. The data sources should be more clearly referenced and substantiated. Additionally, the manuscript should explain why these specific data sources were chosen and how they support the research results.
6. The manuscript provides limited references to literature that supports the use of the geographical detector method. Is this the only study employing this method? Furthermore, how did the literature select influencing factors in their analyses? This section should be further enriched to provide a more robust discussion of the methodology.
7. The manuscript relies heavily on the author's own interpretations of the data, with insufficient literature support. It is recommended to include more relevant literature to support the analysis, thus enhancing the credibility and authority of the study.
8. Regarding the data changes in the five economic regions from 2013, 2018, and 2022, it is suggested to elaborate on whether specific economic policies have influenced these changes. Analyzing the impact of economic policies on ecological footprints would help provide a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between regional development and environmental sustainability.
9. It is recommended to add more discussion on the results of the single-factor and dual-factor analysis, as well as to supplement this with relevant literature to strengthen the interpretation and understanding of the results.
10. The economic perspective analysis in this manuscript differs from results obtained through analysis based on single geographical or administrative units. It is suggested to further discuss these differences and clearly highlight the innovative aspects and contributions of the methodology used in this study.
11. Although the conclusion proposes new pathways for coordinated development of ecological protection in the five economic regions, it needs further summarization of the main research findings. It should also emphasize the academic contributions and propose directions for future research. This addition would strengthen the depth and insightful nature of the conclusion.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Esteemed Reviewer,

Please find enclosed the following documents for your review:

1.  The document titled "Responses to Reviewer 1" contains our point-by-point responses to all the comments and suggestions you provided.
2.  The document named "sustainability-3952697" is the revised manuscript with all changes tracked using the revision mode, allowing you to easily identify each modification made.
3.  The document titled "sustainability-3952697 Revised Accepted Version" presents a clean version of the manuscript with all revisions accepted, prepared for your convenient reading.

The second and third emails are in the re-uploaded compressed package. We sincerely thank you once again for your meticulous and insightful guidance throughout the revision process. Your constructive comments have been invaluable in helping us improve our manuscript.

We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission.

Respectfully yours,
Huiyao Hu, Xianchao Zhao*   

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper tackles an important topic with clear policy relevance, especially given Sichuan’s role as China’s strategic hinterland. Let me start by saying the figures are exceptionally well-designed—they’re not only visually appealing but also effectively communicate complex spatial patterns. The methodological approach is sound, and the spatial analysis of economic zones adds novelty. 

 

However, there’s inconsistency in citation formatting. Some in-text citations include full names (e.g., "William Rees, W.E. (1992)"), while others use surnames only. Please standardise to surnames (e.g., "William (1992)") and ensure a space before citations.

 

The reference list seems sparse (22 entries) for a journal of this calibre. For example:

1. The discussion on China’s ecological environment could cite recent studies (e.g.: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2025.104347).
2. The "Green Footprint" concept (p. 2) needs more comparative literature to contextualise Sichuan’s case globally (more than reference 9).
3. Update pre-2020 references where possible (e.g., Wang et al., 2018b/c) to reflect ecological trends.
4. Add references on agricultural sectors carbon, which could provide a broader context on the agricultural carbon perspective like: Ma，S., Yan, H., Li, D. Liu H., & Zeng H. (2025). The Impact of Agricultural Mechanisation on Agriculture Carbon Emission Intensity: Evidence from China. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 62: 99-110.

 

While the ecological footprint model and geographical detector approach are appropriate, the methods section would benefit from more detailed justification to enhance reproducibility and scientific robustness. For example: Explain why certain factors were chosen as drivers in the research. Were these based on prior literature or preliminary tests? A sentence or two would help readers assess potential selection bias. Additionally, briefly mention how model outputs were validated.

 

The policy implications are pragmatic but generic. please tailor them to each zone’s specific drivers and contexts.

 

The reference format doesn’t match Sustainability’s style (e.g., "Huiyao, H.U." vs. "Hu, H."). Check the guide for author initials and italics rules.

 

Therefore, Major Revisions required. The core analysis is valuable, but with the changes, the paper would better justify its contribution to ecological-environment-economics literature.

Author Response

Dear Esteemed Reviewer,

Please find enclosed the following documents for your review:

1.  The document titled "Responses to Reviewer 2" contains our point-by-point responses to all the comments and suggestions you provided.
2.  The document named "sustainability-3952697" is the revised manuscript with all changes tracked using the revision mode, allowing you to easily identify each modification made.
3.  The document titled "sustainability-3952697 Revised Accepted Version" presents a clean version of the manuscript with all revisions accepted, prepared for your convenient reading.

The second and third emails are in the re-uploaded compressed package. We sincerely thank you once again for your meticulous and insightful guidance throughout the revision process. Your constructive comments have been invaluable in helping us improve our manuscript.

We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission.

Respectfully yours,
Huiyao Hu, Xianchao Zhao*   

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting and timely subject. The text is difficult to read and shows a series of weaknesses. These include among others:

• Choise of words (e.g. line 251 "In contrast" )
• Use of "the" (e.g. line 13 "the Sichuan province...")
• Writing style (e.g. use an active style where indicated
• Avoid spelling mistakes (e.g. line 21 "need" instead of  'needs"
• The quality of most figures should be improved. Pay attention to readability.
• Figures do not explain themselves. The core information of each figure (e.g. figure 2 should be described in the text).
• Table 1: provide units.
• M&N: The text uses rarely used and/or quite unused parameters. The reasons why you use them should be explained more clear.
• Use and follow "Instructions for authors". E.g. reference on line 287
• The text might benefit from the comments of a native English speaking colleague.

Interesting conclusion.

Author Response

Dear Esteemed Reviewer,

Please find enclosed the following documents for your review:

1.  The document titled "Responses to Reviewer 3" contains our point-by-point responses to all the comments and suggestions you provided.
2.  The document named "sustainability-3952697" is the revised manuscript with all changes tracked using the revision mode, allowing you to easily identify each modification made.
3.  The document titled "sustainability-3952697 Revised Accepted Version" presents a clean version of the manuscript with all revisions accepted, prepared for your convenient reading.

The second and third emails are in the re-uploaded compressed package. We sincerely thank you once again for your meticulous and insightful guidance throughout the revision process. Your constructive comments have been invaluable in helping us improve our manuscript.

We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission.

Respectfully yours,
Huiyao Hu, Xianchao Zhao*   

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made good revisions, addressing the previously raised issues and meeting the standards for publication.

Author Response

We would like to express our most sincere gratitude to reviewer for the valuable insights and constructive feedback provided during the initial review round. Your expertise and thoughtful comments have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work. We are truly appreciative of the time and effort you dedicated to evaluating our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text has been improved as compared to the original version. Nevertheless rgere are stil minor comments on the style, but ib particular the repeatability by other researchers is still hampered.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text was improved as compared to the original  submission. Still some impeovements are possible.

Also adopt a neutral style. Use the 3th person ( "one") instead of the first one (e.g. line 198)

Author Response

Dear Esteemed Reviewer,

Please check the attached point-by-point responses to your comments.

We sincerely thank you once again for your meticulous and insightful guidance throughout the revision process. Your constructive comments have been invaluable in helping us improve our manuscript.

We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission.

Respectfully yours,
Huiyao Hu, Xianchao Zhao*   

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf