Review Reports - Assessing Uneven Regional Development Using Nighttime Light Satellite Data and Machine Learning Methods: Evidence from County-Level Improved HDI in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this paper needs a major revision. Based on the review of the revised manuscript, determine whether it meets the acceptable standards.

The following are the major flaws of the paper:

1. The spatial unbalance of development is a very traditional and outdated theme, and scholars have applied many methods to conduct various empirical analyses. What are the differences or innovations of this article compared to previous research? What new methods, technologies, and knowledge has it brought? This is the most confusing part of this article.

2.The structure of the paper is confusing, and its theme is not very clear. What is the author's purpose, highlighting the research methods or the research content?

3. The literature review was disappointing as it did not clearly identify research gaps.

4. The lack of description of the research question in the introduction section makes it impossible for readers to understand the author's research intention. The author conducted extensive analysis, but what problems are these analyses intended to solve?

5.The description of the study area and the presentation of the paper figures are confusing. Is the research area a province or the whole of China?

6. The selection of indicators lacks sufficient basis, and reviewers are unable to determine whether they are necessary and complete.

8.The content of Policy Insights is vague and lacks practical recommendations. Compared to the extensive analysis, the insights in this section are particularly thin. This makes the entire text appear to lack necessary analysis.

Overall, the paper appears more like an excerpt from a research report rather than an academic paper. The author needs to reorganize and revise the content according to the paradigm of academic papers, especially to better demonstrate its academic and theoretical nature.

Good luck to the authors and look forward to your revised paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well written. The research is described correctly. The inferences are correct. However, there is a certain problematic aspect. It concerns the expected results - they are obvious and could have been done without the research. If the authors had done the research with correction for population size or correction for income, the results would have been more reliable. It seems that even in regions with a small population, the level of development can be high, and in regions with a large population but poor, the level of development will be low, e.g. large African capitals will "shine" more than small European cities, but people migrate to Europe, not from Europe.

I think that in this context, a broader discussion should be held on the use of the method nighttime light satellite data and machine learning methods: Evidence from county-level IHDI in China.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article seems to be very data- and method-driven and lacks a broader theoretical background and justification of the research design as well as proper analysis of the results. This lack is clearly visible even in the title where the authors use a rather controversial term ‘uneven regional development’. In the regional studies literature, there is a very long and rich discussion about the desired pattern(s) of regional development. In numerous studies, various authors from all over the world have been discussing this issue for decades and the authors of the reviewed article seem to be unaware of this discussion. Is uneven regional development really undesired? What does it really mean, uneven? What regional differences are acceptable and from what point they are large enough to call the development uneven? Why unbalanced development is a problem? After all, spatial diversification is an inherent element of all development processes (in contrast to growth).

Secondly, the authors are using a heavily criticised indicator (IHDI) which has numerous flaws discussed in many scientific papers. This indicator may be justified to be used in international comparisons when obtaining comparable statistical data might be difficult, but definitely not in the one-country analysis. I am also confused about the definition of the IHDI the authors are using; I have never heard about the „improved Human Development Index”. UNDP defines IHDI as Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (https://hdr.undp.org/inequality-adjusted-human-development-index#/indicies/IHDI). The fact that the authors cannot properly name the main indicator of their study confirms that they only focus on numbers, formulas and maps, not the real meaning of the results they obtained.

Finally, the results of the study are very descriptive and the authors don’t go beyond presenting „the numbers”. The article lacks a discussion and explanation of the results, within the context of the previous studies on regional development in general and measurement of the level of development in particular. Without adding this element to the article and critically discussing the obtained results this paper is just a methodological exercise without any scientific value.

Detailed comments:

- the literature review is missing the most important publications about the spatial differentiation of socioeconomic and regional development. The authors rely mostly on Chinese publications while the non-Chinese publications are often very old; the authors mention „scholars from all over the world” and then refer only to Chinese studies. Also, the literature review is just a list of studies with a short description of their main topic but without any critical discussion. Even the form suggests that the aim of the authors was just to mention several studies they found.

- the article lacks a proper introduction, identification of the research problem (and its significance), research hypothesis and proper research aim, as well as a critical review of previous studies, and presentation of the theoretical framework, while conclusions and discussion are focused only on methods (the same with limitations of the study and future research directions)

- the discussion section contains many repetitions of the statements made in the introduction and results rather than a proper discussion.

- the policy insights, which should be a series of recommendations, is rather a wishlist, without any suggestions of how to achieve those ambitious goals

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manusctipt is well-written and provides a comprehensive analysis of regional disparities in China through the use of innovative methods, such as nighttime light (NTL) data and machine learning techniques. The topic is timely and significant, given the developmental challenges faced by various regions in China. The structure of the article is well-organized, with a clear introduction, methodology description, presentation of results, and discussion. The authors provide a detailed review of previous studies, highlighting gaps in the literature, which they aim to address with their research.

Regarding its contribution to the literature, the article adds significant value, particularly through the pioneering use of NTL data to predict the IHDI at the local level. This approach offers new tools and methodologies for analyzing regional development, which can be applied to other regions or countries.

Although the article is technically sound and well-documented, it could benefit from minor revisions. I suggest the following changes:

In the introduction, it would be useful to establish a clearer connection between the use of NTL data and its ability to reflect development indices. Including an example or more details about previous research that has used similar data could strengthen the justification for the methodology.
In the description of the machine learning models used, providing more details about the characteristics of the selected models would be beneficial. For instance, a more detailed explanation of why Gaussian Process Regression was the most suitable model compared to others would be helpful.
Some of the graphs and diagrams, such as Figure 2, could be further analyzed in the text. For example, the correlation between the residuals of the predicted and actual values and the significance of their statistical relevance could be more elaborated.
The discussion could benefit from a more critical analysis of the method’s limitations. For example, while NTL data are very useful, potential distortions or errors caused by external factors (e.g., weather conditions, human activity) could be considered.
The conclusions could be strengthened by proposing specific directions for future research.
There are certain areas in the text where the language could be improved for greater clarity:

- In line 26, the sentence "The regions with high spatial economic interdependence are mainly distributed in the eastern coastal areas, while the regions with low spatial economic interdependence are mainly concentrated in the inland areas of the central and western regions" could be rephrased to improve the flow of the text.

- In line 30, the sentence "The development of China's inter-provincial borders, poverty-stricken counties, and mountainous counties is still unbalanced, and geographical conditions and natural conditions still restrict the balanced development of China's counties." could be rephrased to avoid redundancy in the text.

- In line 67, the sentence "Previous studies on GDP analysis, population density, disaster prediction, etc., show that variations in NTL intensity well simulate the temporal and spatial changes of human activities." could be rephrased to improve the syntax.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are certain areas in the text where the language could be improved for greater clarity:

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has given a positive response to the comments and has met the requirements for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for your insightful feedback on my manuscript titled "Assessing Uneven Regional Development Using Nighttime Light Satellite Data and Machine Learning Methods: Evidence from County-Level Improved HDI in China." I have carefully reviewed and addressed all of your comments, making the necessary revisions to align the manuscript with the publication standards.

I am pleased to learn that my responses were satisfactory, and I believe that the manuscript has been significantly enhanced based on your valuable suggestions. I deeply appreciate the time and effort you have invested in reviewing my work.

Thank you once again for your constructive feedback and continued support.

Best regards.

The Authors.

Sep.6th.2024

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the author for their efforts in revising the article and addressing/responding to my comments. However, I still think that the article requires further revision before it can be accepted for publication. In particular, the literature review needs significant improvement. Currently, it is presented as a list of studies, rather than a critical analysis of the existing research, presented and discussed in relation to the study presented in the article. A more in-depth analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the literature is necessary to provide a stronger foundation for your research. Also, the Policy Insights section is still a wishlist. The authors write their recommendations in a very decisive way as if their research unquestionably proved the validity and effectiveness of the proposed solutions. I suggest that this section be rewritten to be less authoritative and decisive (e.g. instead of "should" you can use other phrases: "the authorities should consider...", "our research suggests that...", "a possible direction of development could be...", etc.)

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript and made several corrections, which we believe effectively address your concerns. For your convenience, a point-by-point response is provided below, highlighting the specific revisions. Additionally, all changes and responses are clearly marked in blue for easy reference.

Comments 1: I would like to thank the author for their efforts in revising the article and addressing/responding to my comments. However, I still think that the article requires further revision before it can be accepted for publication. In particular, the literature review needs significant improvement. Currently, it is presented as a list of studies, rather than a critical analysis of the existing research, presented and discussed in relation to the study presented in the article. A more in-depth analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the literature is necessary to provide a stronger foundation for your research. Also, the Policy Insights section is still a wishlist. The authors write their recommendations in a very decisive way as if their research unquestionably proved the validity and effectiveness of the proposed solutions. I suggest that this section be rewritten to be less authoritative and decisive (e.g. instead of "should" you can use other phrases: "the authorities should consider...", "our research suggests that...", "a possible direction of development could be...", etc.)

Response 1: Thank you for your kind suggestions and patience in correcting our manuscript. We have carefully rewritten the literature review section and the Policy insights section as you requested. More details of the revised sections can be found in the Introduction and Policy insights sections of the manuscript. We will still mark the previous changes in red, and the current changes in blue in the revised version.

Line 39-154 at Revised Version

Line 104-113 at Revised Version

Line 592-617 at Revised Version

The Authors.

Sep.6th.2024