Coupling and Coordination Relationship between Urbanization Quality and Ecosystem Services in the Upper Yellow River: A Case Study of the Lanzhou–Xining Urban Agglomeration, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The overall structure of the paper is reasonable, with clear logic and relatively insufficient innovation. The main suggestions are as follows:
(1) The selection of indicators is unreasonable. In the urbanization part, the author selects two aggregate indicators, fixed assets investment and total retail sales of social consumer goods, representing the level of economic development, which is unscientific. For example, if the total amount of fixed assets investment in Henan Province is higher than that in Beijing, will the level of economic development in Henan Province be higher than that in Beijing? There are still many errors like this.
(2) For the northwest region, the land area of some cities is relatively large, and using the indicator of output per unit land area is unreasonable. Because people often gather in very few oasis areas.
(3) There are various types of ecosystem services, and the reason for choosing these four types of ecosystem services must be explained, rather than being randomly chosen.
(4) The relationship between urbanization and ecosystem services requires theoretical analysis, rather than simply using a coupled coordination model to determine.
(5) The discussion section of the paper needs to be rewritten.
Extensive editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear reviewer，
We are very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According to your comments and suggestions, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. All of your questions were answered one by one. Please see the attachment.
Good luck in your work and happy life
Best Regards,
Wusheng Zhao
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
The study used a multi-dimensional assessment system to evaluate the urbanization quality and ecosystem services in the Lanzhou-Xining urban agglomeration (LXUA). The efficacy function model, entropy weight method, and Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) model were employed to quantitatively assess the state of development of different subsystems. This indicates that the study utilized a combination of established methodologies to provide a robust assessment of the urbanization quality and ecosystem services in the study area.
Furthermore, the study employed coupling model (CD) and coordination degree (CCD) model to explore the coupling coordination relationship and spatial-temporal change characteristics of the composite system.
The findings of the study, as mentioned in the article, indicate that the quality of urbanization in LXUA showed a "double core" pattern, and the development of urban centers in each city was insufficient. Integrated ecosystem services showed an increasing distribution pattern from the northeast to the southwest, and the composite system of each county was in the run-in stage or highly coupled stage. Overall, the methodology used in this study appears to be rigorous and appropriate for assessing the coupling and coordination relationship between urbanization quality and ecosystem services in the Upper Yellow River, China. However, there are several areas for improvement in the article:
-Lack of comparison with existing literature: The article does not provide a comprehensive review of existing literature on the topic. It would be valuable to compare the findings of this study with previous research in the field to highlight the novelty and contribution of the current study.
-Use of subjective terms: The article uses subjective terms such as "insufficient," "highly coupled," and "lagging behind" without providing clear definitions or objective criteria. The use of such subjective terms without proper justification could weaken the scientific rigor of the study. It would be beneficial to provide clear definitions or objective criteria for these terms or avoid using them altogether.
-Limited generalizability: The article focuses on a specific case study of the Lanzhou-Xining urban agglomeration in China, and the findings may not be generalizable to other regions or contexts without appropriate justification. It would be useful to discuss the limitations and generalizability of the study findings to ensure the appropriate interpretation and application of the results
originality of the study.
- The title of the article is too long.
- Introduction doesn’t have any scientific structure to highlight the problem of the study or the gap in the literature. The introduction of the manuscript is not well-organized author may use the strategy of “ big umbrella” to focus on the main problem of the manuscript.
- The authors may need to justify why this case study (s) and how the findings can be generalizable.
- The conclusion needs to restructure, some essential information which supposes to be in the conclusion part is missing. For example, what are the findings to support the hypothesis of the study? how the author(s) described the contribution of their study to the existing literature? etc., the Conclusion of the study could be much more descriptive in the findings that the author (s) mentioned on the discussion part.
-Suggestion for future study is also missing from the last line of the conclusion. It should be used to point out any important shortcomings of the manuscript, which could be addressed by further research or to indicate directions for further work could take.
Author Response
Dear reviewer，
We are very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According to your comments and suggestions, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. All of your questions were answered one by one. Please see the attachment.
Good luck in your work and happy life
Best Regards,
Wusheng Zhao
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The study presented in this paper evaluates the relationship between urban development and ecosystem conservation in the Lanzhou-Xining urban agglomeration in China. The authors constructed a multi-dimensional assessment system for urbanisation quality and ecosystem services using various models (such as the efficacy function model, entropy weight method, and the well-known Stanford’s, InVEST). The study found that the quality of urbanisation in LXUA showed a "double core" pattern, indicating insufficient development of urban centres in each city and a high proportion of counties with low-level urbanisation. The study also explores the hybrid system's coupling coordination relationship and spatial-temporal change characteristics, indicating that many counties are on the verge of disorder.
The results provide valuable insights into the current state of urbanisation and ecosystem conservation in the investigated region. The evaluation framework constructed in the paper has specific references and guiding significance for understanding the man-land relationship in similar contexts. Still, subsequent research will continue to be supplemented and improved.
A shortcoming of the work relates to the bibliography. Some references, eight to be more exact, are in Chinese only. This limits the readers' possibilities to compare or elaborate. It is recommended to look for pertinent literature in English.
Other minor flaws are as follows:
On line 128, "(Table 1)" stands between two full stops.
On lines 171 - 175, the sentence's intention is unclear. It would be better to rephrase it more succinctly and directly. Also, the symbols Xs and Xh are written with displaced superscripts.
Line 198 refers to a parameter in the formula (9), Yij "...Where, Yij denotes the..." whereas, in the equation, Zij is indicated instead. Please correct.
One of the parameters in formula 12, “sik”, is not given in the subsequent explanatory text on lines 220-223.
The manuscript exhibits commendable use of English in terms of grammar and style. Nevertheless, reviewing the content for any inadvertent errors may be worthwhile.
Author Response
Dear reviewer，
We are very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According to your comments and suggestions, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. All of your questions were answered one by one. Please see the attachment.
Good luck in your work and happy life
Best Regards,
Wusheng Zhao
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 4 Report
Recenzowany artykuÅ‚ porusza bardzo ważnÄ… kwestiÄ™ wpÅ‚ywu postÄ™pujÄ…cej urbanizacji na ekosystem Górnej Å»óÅ‚tej Rzeki: studium przypadku aglomeracji miejskiej Lanzhou-Xining w Chinach.
SiÅ‚Ä… artykuÅ‚u jest jego metoda badawcza, która zdaniem autorów lepiej oddaje przebieg badanego zjawiska. W artykule jasno wyjaÅ›niono, dlaczego zaistniaÅ‚a potrzeba doskonalenia metod badawczych badanego zjawiska, tak aby uzyskane wyniki i ich interpretacja bardziej odpowiadaÅ‚y rzeczywistoÅ›ci. Wyniki i wnioski sÄ… napisane w sposób jasny i przystÄ™pny.
To, czego artykuÅ‚owi trochÄ™ brakuje w dyskusji, to nawiÄ…zanie do innych tego typu badaÅ„, zwÅ‚aszcza poza Chinami. Po przeczytaniu tekstu nie do koÅ„ca wiemy, jak obserwowane zmiany wpisujÄ… siÄ™ w globalne wydarzenia. Ponadto, ponieważ w artykule kÅ‚adzie siÄ™ duży nacisk na metodÄ™ badawczÄ… i konieczność jej modyfikacji, przydaÅ‚oby siÄ™ dodać informacjÄ™, w jaki sposób (być może da siÄ™ to obliczyć) proponowana metoda badawcza lepiej opisuje badane zjawisko.
Podsumowując, przedstawiony do recenzji artykuł i zaproponowana w nim metoda badawcza poprawiają zdolność zrozumienia wpływu i związku między rozwojem urbanizacji a ekosystemem. Artykuł nadaje się do publikacji po drobnych poprawkach.
Author Response
Dear reviewer，
We are very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According to your comments and suggestions, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. All of your questions were answered one by one. Please see the attachment.
Good luck in your work and happy life
Best Regards,
Wusheng Zhao
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After the author's revisions, the paper has made significant improvements. However, there are still the following issues:
The author's writing on the discussion section is completely irrelevant. The most important aspect of the discussion section is to explain the similarities and differences between the findings of this study and existing relevant research, and to provide explanations for the consistent and inconsistent parts separately. Special attention should be paid to the differences with existing research, which is also an important way to reflect the innovation of this study. The author still overlooks this important content.
The author did not carefully analyze the writing of the English paper, and this part of the content must be revised.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear reviewer，
We are very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According to your comments and suggestions, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. All of your questions were answered one by one. Please see the attachment.
Good luck in your work and happy life
Best Regards,
Wusheng Zhao
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
