Coupling Coordination Development of New-Type Urbanization and Cultivated Land Low-Carbon Utilization in the Yangtze River Delta, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

The authors adopted a comprehensive assessment model and a super-efficient SBM model to assess the level of new type of urbanization and the efficiency of low-carbon land use in cities.

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?

The topic is interesting, presented using appropriate analytical methods and additionally enriched with an appropriate literature review.

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

The presented material perfectly shows the methods of urbanization and low-emission use of legal land. It is an excellent inspiration for the further development of the presented trend.

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

The methodology of the conducted analyzes does not raise any objections. The research is conducted in a manner typical of the presented research issues.

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

Conclusions are drawn correctly and reflect the content of the research assumptions.

6. Are the references appropriate?

The number of the cited bibliographic publications is appropriate and consistent with the current research issues.

7. Please include any assitional comments on the tables and figures.

No critical remarks regarding tables and figures.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear  Reviewer：

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! We have substantially revised our manuscript after reading the comments provided by reviewers. 

Thanks again!

Yue Zhang

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting study. Based on the macro data in the Yangtze River Basin, the author tries to establish an analytical framework for new urbanization and land low-carbon use and empirically analyze their coupling mechanism. In general, the research topic selection has certain significance, and the theoretical and empirical analysis part is relatively solid. However, there are still some shortcomings. A few comments for your reference:   

(1) The marginal contribution of research is not clear. Although the author mentions the marginal contributions of research from the perspectives of research methods, research perspectives and policy implications, why these marginal contributions are important needs further elaboration. For example, from the perspective of research methods, why is it reasonable to add ecological urbanization to the measurement of new urbanization? As far as I know, this is not the author's initiative, and many Chinese studies have this dimension. Similarly, there have been some explorations in the academic circle on the relationship between urbanization and land carbon emissions. Therefore, the author's marginal contribution is not convincing.

(2) The core concepts of the study are not clearly defined. The author does not even give a specific concept, and the current introduction of new urbanization and CLLCU is more background information than definition. It is suggested that the author further focus on the core concept and make a systematic introduction to it, as well as the dimension definition under the concept, so as to match the variable measure content in the following. 

(3) The basis for variable selection needs further clarification. Some of the current core variable measures do not cite a single literature, so what is the basis for the author to select these variables? If there is no basis, fine-tuning of variables can affect the final result. Obviously this is not reasonable. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic is important and the reviewed research is interesting in terms of science and practice. I suggest a bit more international literature review. Fig. 8: you have two times: moderate imbalanced (green and yellow), is it correct?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

I found this paper to be one of the best written I have read for LAND. The English was excellent and unusually clear.

Important topic; thoughtful and creative discussion; deserves publication.

Some suggestions regarding presentation.

1. "environmental consumption" used on line 44 is unclear and should be clarified.

2. "ecological environment" line 53 is redundant and should be simplified.

3. "quantity-quality-ecology" line 59 is unclear and should be clarified.

4. "huge cropland losses" lines 61-62 occur by what causes? should state.

5. "invulnerable regions" lines 63-64;  not clear what is meant.

6. "DEA" and "SBM" models, line 96, since first use, should be spelled out.

7. "one-way perspective, "two-way perspective" lines 100, 102, should be explained.

8. "Compared with the previous research" etc. line 124, needs new paragraph.

9. ending paragraph of Introduction, lines 135-143 is good to provide overall plan of paper.

10. "that" line 167, should be changed to "those".

11. "people-oriented urbanization," line 177; not clear; should be explained.

12. "endowment conditions," line 181, should be explained here.

13. "CCDM" and "RDDM" line 231, since first appearance, should be spelled out.

14. "connotation" line 246. Important concept to paper but not sure how it is being used. Ordinarily, this word means "the meaning of a word" (vs. denotation or application of the meaning of the word's meaning). On this line 246, the phrase of "the connotation of new-type urbanization." Do you mean the "meaning" of the new-type urbanization?" Consider using another word, perhaps or explain how you mean the word "connotation."

15. Primary indicators seems questionably labeled. I question: "economic urbanization," "society urbanization," and "ecological urbanization" in Table 1. Given the secondary indicators in these three labels, they do not appear to involve urbanization, like "per capita GDP," etc. I would suggest the following changes: "economic FACTORS," "SOCIAL WELFARE FACTORS," and "Ecological FACTORS" here in Table 1, page 7.

16. "highlithts" typo spelling error, line 242: "highlights."

17. "agricultural film" lines 277-278; not clear to non-specialist; should be explained.

18. "best mode of production," lines 301-302; on what criteria? should be explained meaning and measures here.

19. "Epanechnikov kernel was adopted in this paper." line 334. Why? should explain.

20. "The new-type urbanization and CLLCU are equally important to the evaluation of the coupling coordination degree . . . ." lines 353-354. Why? should explain.

21. "advantaged belt" line 408, need to clarify meaning and explain further to be rationally useful.

22. "the CLLCUE in the YRD was in a disequilibrium state from 2000 to 2018." Need to clarify further and explain why, if possible.

23. word missing, for Figure 7 title: "Cultivated" before "cropland".

24. "uncoordinated to coordinated development" line 450, should characterize "uncoordinated development" to draw clearer contrast with coordinated development.

25. words missing line 459: "the rest OF THE cities were moderately" etc.

26. "took advantage of provincial capitals" line 464; how? need to explain how being a provincial is advantageous.

27. Figure 10 title lines 485-486 should appear below the actual figure it refers to and not on the next page. If not room, move Figure 10 to the top o the page to have room for the title below it.

28. "economy-society development" line 502; where is the ecology segment of this label? Do you include it within "society?" If so, should indicate and explain.

29. space between words "andante" line 540 needed, but also to explain what "ante promotion of CLLCU" is, line 540.

30. Good to raise paper's "certain inadequacies" line 568, but should discuss these mentioned and their importance further to give reader a clearer idea of what you are referring to and their importance to the subject of the paper.

31. "environmental governance" line 637; what does this mean? need to explain further to be clear.

32. "Matthew effect" lines 646-647; need to explain to non-specialist.

 

OVERALL, A FINE JOB AND IMPORTANT PAPER.

JJK. 6/8/22

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no other comments.