Study on the Spatial Imbalance and Polarization of Marine Green Aquaculture Efficiency in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The MS analyzes the spatial imbalance and polarization of green mariculture efficiency in China examining 15 quantitative measurements and trying to explore its causes.

Although the topic is relevant and fits with the journal's aims and scope, the quality of the analyses and the scientific soundness are valuable. 

Although this, the MS in this form could not be considered for publication because the low quality of the presentation (especially for the results) and the lack of relevant literature to support the findings make the MS long and hard to comprise.

The MS should be shortened because it is now in the form of a report or a thesis. I tried to shorten some sections (see the pdf attached) but it was only a small attempt and the authors should follow the comments to further shorten, rephrase the entire paragraph, and make the MS more comprehensible. In general, I suggest avoiding the redundant use of the same terms to express a simple concept (see for example lines 301-312  or lines 316-334.

For some results, there is not a relevant explanation of the used methodology in materials and methods (see for example line 386 - details on the pdf attached).

On the other hand, several sentences of the results could be removed because are repetition of materials and methods.

The general structure of the MS is also confused: the section discussion is missed. Maybe could be merged with Results or should be separated or (better) merged to Conclusion and suggestion. But in general the MS lack of the relevant background and also of a comparison based on the relevant literature. The last reference (48) is reported at line 323 and then any other reference is cited.

For all these reasons the MS should be reconsidered after a deep and full revision following all the suggestions given on the pdf attached and trying to restructure the whole text (also in term of English).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Extensive editing of English language is required. Some terms used are not proper and should be changed with the relevant scientific terminology

Author Response

Question 1. The MS should be shortened because it is now in the form of a report or a thesis. I tried to shorten some sections (see the pdf attached) but it was only a small attempt and the authors should follow the comments to further shorten, rephrase the entire paragraph, and make the MS more comprehensible. In general, I suggest avoiding the redundant use of the same terms to express a simple concept (see for example lines 301-312 or lines 316-334.

Response 1. Thanks a lot for reminding us of this point. We have made changes according to the annotated pdf you provided, but we think that lines 301-312 and 316-334 need to be elaborated on, lines 301-312 describe the data source, and lines 316-334 elaborate on the treatment of variables.

Question 2. For some results, there is not a relevant explanation of the used methodology in materials and methods (see for example line 386 - details on the pdf attached).

Response 2. Thanks a lot for reminding us of this point. The author mentioned by you did not explain the research method in line 386. In fact, we have explained that using the ArcGIS10.8 software for visualization processing is not a research method that needs more explanation, but only a method of using or operating the software. The software itself provides a visualization channel, and we believe that the description of the operation process can be completely omitted.

Question 3. The general structure of the MS is also confused: the section discussion is missed. Maybe could be merged with Results or should be separated or (better) merged to Conclusion and suggestion. But in general the MS lack of the relevant background and also of a comparison based on the relevant literature. The last reference (48) is reported at line 323 and then any other reference is cited.

Response 3. Thanks a lot for reminding us of this point. We have perfected as suggested(lines 684-718).

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper describes about the work of the authors on measuring marine green aquaculture efficiency of 9 coastal provinces in China, there spatial imbalance. The MS has come up well and is written nicely. Three-dimensional kernel density estimation, GINI coefficient, Theil index, MLD index and Markov chain are used to explore the characteristics, degree and dynamic evolution trend of spatial disequilibrium, and further use QAP method to analyze the causes of spatial disequilibrium. Wolfson index, DER index and EGR index were used to analyze the trend of spatial polarization, and DER index of multi-level differentiation was decomposed based on the identif-alienation framework to explore the causes of spatial polarization. The policy suggestions were explained well.

However, the following points may be considered for the revision of the MS

1.       Area coverage of the green aquaculture in the provinces is not mentioned in the introduction, total green aquaculture contribution to the total production., the rate of increase last few year etc… will provide a basic overview of the scenario is required for the introduction of the paper, on which the authors have worked in the MS.

2.       Green aquaculture depends on the habitat including water quality, the success of a culture practice depends on a number of factors, the factors are not taken into consideration. The Authors may explain, why these points were not taken into consideration. .  It is not clear which factors are taken into consideration.

3.       In the methodology section, the importance of the methods used may be explained a little bit more is required (e.g. GINI index, MLD index, Theil index used for economic inequality). Many of the indexes are used in economics and all the readers may not have more economics knowledge for a wider reader the authors may explain the importance of the methods used in the methodology section.

4.       The discussion of the result needs to be discussed properly with justification and references.

5.       Few minor comments are mentioned in the PDF version of MS

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

minor modifications are required. 

Author Response

Question 1. Area coverage of the green aquaculture in the provinces is not mentioned in the introduction, total green aquaculture contribution to the total production., the rate of increase last few year etc… will provide a basic overview of the scenario is required for the introduction of the paper, on which the authors have worked in the MS.

Response 1. Thanks a lot for reminding us of this point. Due to the authors’ different disciplinary backgrounds, we cannot obtain the data of "Area coverage of the green aquaculture in the provinces" you mentioned here, and it is not sure whether it is consistent with the concept of Marine green aquaculture defined in this paper. We reviewed the status quo of green transformation of mariculture in China based on the literature (lines 40-110).

Question 2. Green aquaculture depends on the habitat including water quality, the success of a culture practice depends on a number of factors, the factors are not taken into consideration. The Authors may explain, why these points were not taken into consideration. .  It is not clear which factors are taken into consideration.

Response 2. Thanks a lot for reminding us of this point. Due to different disciplinary backgrounds and research fields, we cannot obtain the data of aquaculture practice activities such as water quality you mentioned, especially the data of water quality in the whole province. We mainly start from the economic data of departments and industries to explore the causes of the spatial disequilibrium of efficiency of Marine green aquaculture.

Question 3. In the methodology section, the importance of the methods used may be explained a little bit more is required (e.g. GINI index, MLD index, Theil index used for economic inequality). Many of the indexes are used in economics and all the readers may not have more economics knowledge for a wider reader the authors may explain the importance of the methods used in the methodology section.

Response 3. Thanks a lot for reminding us of this point. We made some additions and improvements to the relevant expressions (lines 147-153).

Question 4. The discussion of the result needs to be discussed properly with justification and references.

Response 4. Thanks a lot for reminding us of this point. We have made some additions and improvements to the relevant expressions (lines 684-716).

Question 5. Few minor comments are mentioned in the PDF version of MS

Response 5. Thanks a lot for reminding us of this point. We have modified according to the pdf version you provided.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have evaluated the revised MS and found that only some minor revisions have been carried on. Most of the required revisions have not been taken into consideration by the authors (only minor changes are reported in red in the new revised MS). For these reasons, I kindly ask the editors to send the MS to a third referee who could evaluate the MS and make a decision.

In my opinion, the revised MS is not worthy of publication in this form and should be rejected or again revised after major revisions (see carefully the old report)  

The English should be revised

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have made a series of revisions based on your comments, and we have also applied for an English editing service to correct the language.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised MS can now be accepted for publication