The Spatiotemporal Coupling and Synergistic Evolution of Economic Resilience and Ecological Resilience in Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript. I have several comments on it, which are presented below.

 

1. The content of the manuscript referring to the entire continent of Africa seems to have been constructed by the Authors solely based on numerical data, without any actual knowledge of the situation in Africa, in particular its great diversity in terms of economy and ecology. The consequence is that the obtained results were not discussed in the manuscript. In the "Introduction" chapter, the Authors very superficially referred to the economic and ecological situation of Africa, referring only to one, secondary literature source in the matter of GDP. Moreover, due to the very different levels of social, economic, or administrative development of various African countries, official statistical data do not always reflect the actual state., It may cause some degree of uncertainty in the results of the obtained analyses, which the Authors did not mention in the manuscript.

2. Keywords should not repeat the content of the title.

3. e.g. Lines 10-11 instead of “economic resilience and ecological resilience” just “economic and ecological resilience”.

4. The authors describe ecosystem services in the "Introduction" chapter, although they do not name them that way. In a scientific article, terms commonly used in the field to which the article refers should be used.

5. Line 65 – the Authors refer to Holling. However, the article does not contain any references to this author's publications.

6. Line 108 – “by Martin et al [22]. for analyzing” - an unnecessary dot after quoting literature in the middle of a sentence.

7. The last paragraph of the introduction chapter should present the purpose of the research performed.

8. Figure 1 - the lowest point on land in Africa is Lake Assal which lies 155 meters below sea level. Why does the legend showing Elevation Below Sea Level have a range of -680? The highest point, Mount Kilimanjaro, is 5,895 meters. No information about what the legend shows; no units. The quantities should be used in the metric system and not a mixed one as in the figure (one legend in meters and the other in miles).

9. The African Statistical Yearbook as a source of data used in the study should be included in the bibliography. Likewise, other data sources.

10. Lines 229, 232, 250, 251, 253 e.t.c: „2020[37,38]”; „𝐸𝑆𝑉is”… missing spaces (please correct throughout the manuscript)

11. Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Economic Resilience:

Lines 393-397 – the Authors wrote: “the high-level range accounts for only 2.20% of the area, with these regions primarily concentrated in seven areas: the Nile River Basin, the northern foothills of the Atlas Mountains, the coastal region of the Gulf of Guinea, the Bié Plateau, the southeastern part of the Republic of South Africa, the area surrounding Lake Victoria, and the Ethiopian Highlands.”. However, the discussion should justify the result of the numerical analysis by referring to the specifics of these regions. In the next paragraph, the Authors analyze the calculated variability over time of economic resilience without making references to situations explaining the demonstrated variability.

Similar comments as above for Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Ecological Resilience and the following sections.

12. Conclusion and Discussion

The "Discussion" section should be before the "Conclusion" section. "Conclusion" is a section that should end the manuscript and also include the conclusions of the discussion.

 

5.2 Discussion – despite the title of the subsection, it does not contain a real discussion of the obtained results with references to the literature. The manuscript lacks not only a discussion of the obtained results of the conducted analyses but also an explanation of them and references to information in the available literature. Conducting a scientific discussion is an obligatory element of every scientific article.

Author Response

Comments 1：

The content of the manuscript referring to the entire continent of Africa seems to have been constructed by the Authors solely based on numerical data, without any actual knowledge of the situation in Africa, in particular its great diversity in terms of economy and ecology. The consequence is that the obtained results were not discussed in the manuscript. In the "Introduction" chapter, the Authors very superficially referred to the economic and ecological situation of Africa, referring only to one, secondary literature source in the matter of GDP. Moreover, due to the very different levels of social, economic, or administrative development of various African countries, official statistical data do not always reflect the actual state., It may cause some degree of uncertainty in the results of the obtained analyses, which the Authors did not mention in the manuscript.

Response1:Dear Editor, Thank you for your objective and accurate suggestions, which have greatly inspired me. As you pointed out, the complexity and diversity of African issues should indeed be reflected in the paper. The discussion on economic resilience and ecological resilience was indeed lacking, and I have made the necessary additions as per your instructions. Please refer to lines 990-1059 for the revised section.

The issue you raised regarding the insufficient discussion of Africa's economic resilience in the introduction has been addressed as per your suggestion. Please refer to lines 225-245. The concern you pointed out about official statistical data not always reflecting the actual situation is indeed a challenge in real-world research. I have added an explanation in the discussion section as you instructed. Please refer to lines 1089-1101.

Comments 2：Keywords should not repeat the content of the title.

Response2:Dear Esteemed Reviewer, Thank you for your valuable suggestions regarding the selection of keywords in this paper. Your feedback has prompted me to re-examine the keyword choices, and I would like to take this opportunity to explain the methodology behind them.

According to the "Geographical Paper Writing" (2015, Science Press) edited by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chapter 2 of this book outlines the method for selecting keywords in geographical academic papers (refer to page 13). It states that keywords should primarily be derived from four dimensions: the research object, research methods, research period, and research region.

The research logic of this paper involves separately assessing the economic resilience and ecological resilience of Africa, and then exploring the coupling and synergistic relationship between them using the coupling coordination model and the Haken model. Therefore, "economic resilience" and "ecological resilience" are the research objects, "Haken model" and "coupling coordination model" are the research methods, and "Africa" is the research region. The original manuscript did not explain this, so I am providing this clarification to the esteemed reviewer. Thank you again for your constructive feedback.

Comments 3 e.g. Lines 10-11 instead of “economic resilience and ecological resilience” just “economic and ecological resilience”.

Response 3：Thank you for your suggestion. There was indeed an issue with the phrasing here, and I have made the necessary revisions as per your instructions.

Comments 4:The authors describe ecosystem services in the "Introduction" chapter, although they do not name them that way. In a scientific article, terms commonly used in the field to which the article refers should be used.

Response4 :Dear Expert, Thank you for your rigorous and scientific suggestions. I have made the revisions as per your guidance. I appreciate your valuable feedback.

Comments 5:Line 65 – the Authors refer to Holling. However, the article does not contain any references to this author's publications.

Response5 :There was indeed an omission of a reference in this section. Following your guidance, I have now added the reference to the Holling article, as seen in reference [3].

Comments 6:Line 108 – “by Martin et al [22]. for analyzing” - an unnecessary dot after quoting literature in the middle of a sentence.

Response 6 :There was indeed an error in this section. I have made the necessary correction as per your instructions, as seen in line 229.

Comments 7:The last paragraph of the introduction chapter should present the purpose of the research performed.

Response 7 :Thank you to the reviewer for the constructive suggestions. Indeed, the introduction lacked a clear statement of the research objectives. I have now added the necessary clarification in the introduction as per your instructions, as seen in lines 362-366.

Comments 8:Figure 1 - the lowest point on land in Africa is Lake Assal which lies 155 meters below sea level. Why does the legend showing Elevation Below Sea Level have a range of -680? The highest point, Mount Kilimanjaro, is 5,895 meters. No information about what the legend shows; no units. The quantities should be used in the metric system and not a mixed one as in the figure (one legend in meters and the other in miles).

Response 8 :Thank you for the expert's criticism and correction. Indeed, there was an issue with mixed units in the figure. I have now made the necessary corrections.（Figure1）

Comments 9:The African Statistical Yearbook as a source of data used in the study should be included in the bibliography. Likewise, other data sources.

Response 9 :As per your instructions, I have now added the "African Statistical Yearbook" to the reference list, as seen in reference [66].

Comments 10:Lines 229, 232, 250, 251, 253 e.t.c: „2020[37,38]”; „???is”… missing spaces (please correct throughout the manuscript)

Response 10 :Thank you for the expert's rigorous, thorough, and objective suggestions. I have now made the revisions as per your instructions.

Comments 11:Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Economic Resilience:

Lines 393-397 – the Authors wrote: “the high-level range accounts for only 2.20% of the area, with these regions primarily concentrated in seven areas: the Nile River Basin, the northern foothills of the Atlas Mountains, the coastal region of the Gulf of Guinea, the Bié Plateau, the southeastern part of the Republic of South Africa, the area surrounding Lake Victoria, and the Ethiopian Highlands.”. However, the discussion should justify the result of the numerical analysis by referring to the specifics of these regions. In the next paragraph, the Authors analyze the calculated variability over time of economic resilience without making references to situations explaining the demonstrated variability.

Similar comments as above for Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Ecological Resilience and the following sections.

Response 11 :Thank you for the expert's insightful criticism and suggestions. After thoroughly reviewing the article, I realized, as the expert pointed out, that the paper lacked a discussion and reflection on the spatial-temporal evolution characteristics of Africa's economic and ecological resilience. I have now reorganized the discussion section and, as per your instructions, incorporated existing literature to analyze and discuss the results. Please refer to lines 989-1059.

Comments 12:Conclusion and Discussion

The "Discussion" section should be before the "Conclusion" section. "Conclusion" is a section that should end the manuscript and also include the conclusions of the discussion.

5.2 Discussion – despite the title of the subsection, it does not contain a real discussion of the obtained results with references to the literature. The manuscript lacks not only a discussion of the obtained results of the conducted analyses but also an explanation of them and references to information in the available literature. Conducting a scientific discussion is an obligatory element of every scientific article.

Response 12 :The order of the discussion and conclusion has been adjusted as per your instructions. Thank you for pointing out the lack of discussion in this study. Your suggestion was precisely on point, and we have now reorganized the entire discussion section following your guidance. Please refer to lines 989-1087.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article covers the following topics: The Spatiotemporal Coupling and Synergistic Evolution of Economic Resilience and Ecological Resilience in Africa.

After reading the article, I must admit that the issues raised are important and the authors' effort should be emphasized. Overall, the study is written correctly. Its structure, study design, and the way of describing the study results should be considered appropriate.

The quality of the study should be appreciated. However, I think that a few things could be improved.

Issues for improvement:

1. The sections suggested by the journal should be used, including Introduction, Literature review (optional), Methods, Results and Discussion and Conclusions.

2. In the introduction, add a description of the research problems and the structure of the article.

3. Expand the description of the methodological assumptions and indicate the added value of the selected research approach (why this is the best for solving the indicated research problems), add research objectives, research problems, the scheme of the study itself.

4. I also suggest adding the Literature review section to describe the issues discussed in more detail. In addition, it will also increase the number of cited sources, which in my opinion is too few.

5. The Discussion section should contain references to research and analyses by other authors and comparisons with your own research.

Author Response

Comments 1：The sections suggested by the journal should be used, including Introduction, Literature review (optional), Methods, Results and Discussion and Conclusions.

Response1:Thank you to the reviewer for the objective and constructive suggestions. I have made the necessary revisions as per your instructions, strictly following the template order.

Comments 2：In the introduction, add a description of the research problems and the structure of the article.

Response2:The introduction indeed lacked a description of the research problem and the structure of the paper. I have now added the necessary details as per your instructions，as seen in lines 365-373.

Comments 3：Expand the description of the methodological assumptions and indicate the added value of the selected research approach (why this is the best for solving the indicated research problems), add research objectives, research problems, the scheme of the study itself.

Response3:As per your instructions, a review of the method selection has been added in the introduction, followed by an explanation of the rationale behind the choice of methodology. Additionally, the research objectives, research questions, and research plan have been incorporated, as seen in lines 252-351.

Comments 4：I also suggest adding the Literature review section to describe the issues discussed in more detail. In addition, it will also increase the number of cited sources, which in my opinion is too few.

Response4:Thank you for the thoughtful suggestion. As you pointed out, the literature review was indeed lacking, and I have now added a comprehensive review of related research on the methodology.

Comments 5：The Discussion section should contain references to research and analyses by other authors and comparisons with your own research.

Response5:Thank you for your insightful suggestions regarding the shortcomings in the discussion section. As per your instructions, I have reorganized and revised the discussion. Please refer to the discussion section for the details.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The importance of the problem raised in the article is not in doubt. Investigating the spatiotemporal coupling and coordinated evolution of economic and ecological resilience provides theoretical support and scientific foundation for green and high-quality development.

The few suggestions are aimed at improving the presentation and other possible discussions:

1.Is it reasonable to divide economic and environmental sustainability? According to the concept of sustainable development there should be a balance between environmental, economic and social indicators. Only then synergetic effects arise.  Social aspects are not considered in the article.

2. The research hypothesis and research questions are missing.

3. What do the authors understand by synergy and synergetic indicators?

4. (lines 114-117) The authors use the terms “the clustering of productive services”, “industrial coordination and clustering”, “market integration”. These are different models of network integration. Give a typology/classification of integration models, specifying their advantages and area of application.

5. (line 122) Explain which ecosystems you are describing: natural, business, socio-economic, etc.

6. In the Research Methods section, justify the choice of models used, as well as the limitations and assumptions of their implementation.

7. In my opinion, the authors must reformate the Discussion section and present real discussion content. It is necessary to compare their findings with the results of similar studies internationally oriented. To argue on their study’s originality and the study’s contribution to science, society, and economy. Finally, to discuss and explain the findings in depth.

Author Response

Comments 1：Is it reasonable to divide economic and environmental sustainability? According to the concept of sustainable development there should be a balance between environmental, economic and social indicators. Only then synergetic effects arise. Social aspects are not considered in the article.

Response1:Thank you to the reviewer for your attention to the article and your valuable suggestions. The issues raised have provided great inspiration and reflection for me.

As you pointed out, the concept of sustainable development aims to achieve the collaborative development of economy, ecology, and society. This study currently focuses only on the dimensions of economic resilience and ecological resilience, serving as a starting point for further exploration. The study indeed lacks an in-depth discussion of the social dimension. The article primarily focuses on the relationship between economic and ecological resilience, without making a clear distinction between economic sustainability and ecological sustainability. This will be an important focus for our future research, and we have already acknowledged this shortcoming in the discussion section. See lines 1087-1099.

Comments2：The research hypothesis and research questions are missing.

Response2:Thank you for pointing out the issue of unclear research hypotheses and research questions. As per your suggestion, we have added them in the introduction, see lines 360-364.

Comments3：What do the authors understand by synergy and synergetic indicators?

Response3:Thank you for your insightful question, which has prompted me to reflect further on this study. In this paper, the term "synergy" refers to the collaborative cooperation between economic resilience and ecological resilience subsystems, either between regions or within a single region. This collaboration drives the dynamic transformation of economic and ecological systems from disorder to order, from primary to advanced stages, forming a mutually beneficial and sustainable development effect. In my view, the "synergy indicators" are the elements that influence this synergistic effect.

 

Comments4：(lines 114-117) The authors use the terms “the clustering of productive services”, “industrial coordination and clustering”, “market integration”. These are different models of network integration. Give a typology/classification of integration models, specifying their advantages and area of application.

Response4:Thank you for your thorough and careful reading of this paper. I would like to provide a brief clarification regarding the points you raised. The terms "agglomeration of productive services," "industrial coordination and agglomeration," and "market integration" mentioned in the paper refer to factors that influence economic resilience. These are not the conclusions of this study, and I would like to respectfully clarify this to the esteemed reviewer.

 

Comments5：(line 122) Explain which ecosystems you are describing: natural, business, socio-economic, etc.

Response5:Thank you for your feedback. As per your suggestion, I have added the clarification in the article that the "ecosystem" referred to in line 122 specifically refers to the natural ecosystem. Please see line 246 for the addition.

Comments6：In the Research Methods section, justify the choice of models used, as well as the limitations and assumptions of their implementation.

Response6:Thank you for your accurate suggestion. As you mentioned, the paper lacked sufficient justification for the selection of methods. I have now added a review of the research methods in the introduction, explaining the limitations of various common research methods and how they were addressed in this study. Please refer to lines 252–341.

Comments7：In my opinion, the authors must reformate the Discussion section and present real discussion content. It is necessary to compare their findings with the results of similar studies internationally oriented. To argue on their study’s originality and the study’s contribution to science, society, and economy. Finally, to discuss and explain the findings in depth.

 

Response7:Thank you for your objective suggestions. As per your instructions, I have reorganized the discussion section. Please refer to the discussion chapter for the details.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors answered all questions and made changes to the manuscript

according to my recommendations.

I believe that the article can be accepted for publication.