Spatio–Temporal Patterns and Driving Mechanisms of Urban Land High-Quality Use: Evidence from the Greater Pearl River Delta Urban Agglomeration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript focuses on the land use changes in the Pearl River Delta urban agglomeration, aligning well with the scope of the journal and my own interests.

After a thorough review, I recommend that the authors address the following concerns during the revision:

1. The introduction and literature review sections are well-written, and the author references literature concerning the Yangtze River Delta region. However, is there currently no literature addressing the same research objectives for the Pearl River Delta urban agglomeration? What achievements have these studies made?

2. Please include a map of the study area in the section on the research region.

3. In Line 206, is the data solely collected from one city within the Pearl River Delta urban agglomeration?

4. In Table 1, how did the author determine these indicators? How was the frequency of environmental keywords quantified? Was it from a specific newspaper or news source?

5. How did the author obtain the amount of government research and development expenditures?

6. How was the data on the sales of new products by industrial enterprises acquired?

7. I suggest the author add a subsection to provide a detailed description of the research steps and present a flowchart for clarity.

8. I recommend that the author separate the results and discussion into two sections.

Author Response

Please see the attached files. Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study titled "Spatial-temporal Patterns and Driving Mechanisms of Urban Land High-quality Use: Evidence from the Pearl River Delta Urban Agglomeration" provides a comprehensive analysis of the spatio-temporal patterns and driving mechanisms of urban land high-quality use (ULHU) in the Pearl River Delta (PRD) urban agglomeration. The researchers employ various analytical methods and measurement index systems to evaluate ULHU and explore its evolution over time.

The study's methodology seems robust, as it utilizes the entropy method and multi-period fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis to assess ULHU and identify driving mechanisms.

While the study highlights the significant improvement in ULHU levels in the PRD region, the text fails to provide a thorough analysis of the underlying reasons for this improvement. It mentions factors such as population density, industrial structure, and talent resources but does not delve into their specific contributions. A more in-depth exploration of these driving factors and their relative importance would strengthen the study's findings and provide a clearer understanding of the dynamics shaping ULHU in the PRD region.

Additionally, the text could benefit from a more critical examination of the limitations and potential biases within the study. For example, there may be other relevant factors impacting ULHU that were not considered or adequately addressed in the analysis. Discussing these limitations would help readers interpret the results more accurately and encourage further research in areas that require additional investigation.

 

The study briefly mentions the global challenges associated with uncontrolled urban expansion and the importance of achieving ULHU for sustainable development. However, it would be beneficial to provide a more comprehensive discussion of the broader implications and policy implications of the research findings. How can the insights gained from this study inform urban planning strategies and policies aimed at achieving sustainable land use? Expanding on these aspects would enhance the study's practical relevance and applicability.

Author Response

Please see the attached files. Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the concept of green development and high-quality development, this paper attempts to analyze the status of ULHU and driving factors of high-quality land use development in the research area, which is very meaningful. It is feasible to use fsQCA 3.0 to diagnose driving factors. However, the purpose of the author is to analyze the high-quality application of land use, but there is no clear definition of high-quality land use. Thus, there is no credible basis for the relationship between the selected output indicators and land use, which leads to the subsequent driving analysis and unclear causality of land use change.s This results in the separation of indicators and evaluation objects. The paper also doesn't have anything about land use.

Suggestion:

1. The selection of high-quality development indicators still needs to be rethought, especially the content of land use spatial layout should be increased. The paper analyzes the high quality of land use, but lacks the relevant content and index of land use.

2. In the result analysis, please interpret the results based on the selected indicators.

3. Add the discussion part and explain the theoretical and practical significance of the relevant results through the comparison of literature and policies.

4. Please remove the land use part.

 

Other Suggestion:

1. The selection of high-quality development indicators still needs to be rethought, especially the content of land use spatial layout should be increased. The paper analyzes the high quality of land use, but lacks the relevant content and index of land use.

2. In the result analysis, please interpret the results according to the selected indicators.

3. Add the discussion part and explain the theoretical and practical significance of the relevant results through the comparison of literature and policies.

4. It is suggested to remove the land use part.

There are others, discussed with diagnostic recommendations below：

Abstract,

"In terms of spatial distribution, there is evident heterogeneity in the levels 21

of ULHU among different cities within the PRD region, displaying a distinct spatial agglomeration trend characterized by significant “core-periphery” features." what is the heterogeneity ?  and what is the distinct spatial agglomeration trend？

Introduction

Line 74-82, it is said that "For instance, Li et al. [12] employed 74

remote sensing to assess spatial and temporal changes in land use, revealing that urban 75

expansion primarily occurred along the Belize River, while other regions experienced 76

slower development. Similarly, Song et al. [13] utilized the Super-SBM model to calcu- 77

late urban land use efficiency in the Yangtze River Delta region and analyzed influenc- 78

ing factors using the fixed effects model.", But there are only 2 cased, which are both in China. Are the any more research besides China ?

 

Line 95， What do you mean by "existing boundaries"? is there any specific expression ?

 

Section 2

 

Line 139, Please remove or replace “However”.

Line 151, only  international investments contribute to ULHU? 

 

Section 3

Line 182-185, what is this judgment from ? is there any reference ?

It is better to use a map to show the study area in Section 3.1.

 

Line 276-257,  What is this " comparative analysis"？ Please explain it in detail.

 

Section 4.1, Please show the weight of each indicator with a table.

 

Table 3, What is the reason for The index  of Shenzhen increased from 0.4748 in 2015 to 0.7011 in 2020, what is the reason? do you check the data ? or which indicator contributed most in these 5 years? The same question is about heyuan in 2010.

 

line 379, "“high in the central region and low in the peripheral area", The first and second maps did not show this trend. 

 

line 381, "The level of land use in most cities has been on the rise." Table 3 shows, index in all the cities rised, except heyuan in 2010.  

 

line 402-417. How can you get these findings ? from other references? or from your indicators? I think you should give findings,based on your indicators and their weights.

 

Figure 2, too much blank area in these maps and the color make readers very uncomfortable. Please revise them. Which is the index in 2005? which is 2020?

 

Line 491-492, "Similarly, the configuration in 2015 (H2b) also follows the same simple solution with the same core conditions." This sentence is obscure and its meaning is not clear. What is h2b on earth?

 

 

Reference

 

Too many researcher are from China. Please add more from other regions to enhance your research.

Author Response

Please see the attached files. Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the author's response, and the revisions made have addressed most of my concerns. However, there are still some details that require the author's attention.

 

1. The addition of the research area map in the revised manuscript is noted, but the current images lack aesthetic appeal. The visual representation, including the visualization of Figure 4, is subpar and does not meet the standards of mainstream journals. I suggest that the author draw inspiration from high-quality papers in GIS or urban planning to enhance the visual presentation. Additionally, I observed that Taiwan Province is not labeled as part of the green legend (Provinces of China) in the figure. Please address this discrepancy in your revision.

 

2. In Section 3.6, the author should provide a brief introduction to each step (concise yet highlighting key steps) to enhance the transparency of the research.

 

3. Kindly ensure that the source of data is explicitly mentioned at the bottom of all tables.

 

4. The manuscript requires a thorough check for academic English writing issues. For instance, the title of Section 5.1, "In-depth analysis of the results," is not a common academic expression. Throughout the manuscript, there are several uncommon phrases; therefore, I recommend the author consider submitting the manuscript to a professional language editor or seek guidance from a mentor for revisions.

 

5. It is suggested that the author consolidate Section 5.2 into Section 5.4 for better organization and clarity.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires a thorough check for academic English writing issues. For instance, the title of Section 5.1, "In-depth analysis of the results," is not a common academic expression. Throughout the manuscript, there are several uncommon phrases; therefore, I recommend the author consider submitting the manuscript to a professional language editor or seek guidance from a mentor for revisions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the authors have revised the manuscript. I can accept it at the present forms. thanks.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and comments.