City Health Assessment: Urbanization and Eco-Environment Dynamics Using Coupling Coordination Analysis and FLUS Model—A Case Study of the Pearl River Delta Urban Agglomeration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere remain some aspects which necessitate further refinement.
(1) The description of the research background and significance in the initial three sentences of the abstract lacks clarity.
(2) The intended meaning of the sentence in Lines 13-14 (“Simulation...pressure”) is requested.
(3) The reference format in the main text is incorrect and requires a thorough review and modification throughout the entire paper.
(4) In Section 1.2, China's policy response to this issue did not solely commence in 2019; it should align with the initial year of the research period specified in this article.
(5) While this article primarily delves into the research conducted by Chinese scholars on this issue, it is worth noting that the over-representation of Chinese researchers has somewhat influenced the international perspective and academic contributions presented in this paper.
(6) The sentences in Lines 171-175 would be more appropriate for inclusion in the introduction section.
(7) The text contains several errors, such as the occurrence of “Error! Reference source not found.” in Lines 180, 204, 259 and 267. It is advisable to conduct a comprehensive review of the entire document to rectify these minor inaccuracies.
(8) What do C, T, and D in Figure 1 mean?
(9) It is recommended to assign labels (a, b, c) to each subgraph and provide concise explanations in the captions of Figure 2 . The boundaries of the research area should be indicated on the comprehensive map of China. Furthermore, it is advisable to offer a succinct introduction in the study area overview regarding regional disparities in population, urban distribution, and economic development.
(10) The sentences in Lines 231-244 would be more appropriate for inclusion in the introduction section.
(11) What was the rationale behind selecting the research period as 1999-2018 in this article? Moreover, there appears to be inconsistency between the time periods mentioned in Lines 260 and 268. Is it appropriate to have such disparity?
(12) The entire text contains numerous instances of bolded terms; however, the majority of them appear to be redundant, such as Lines 262-270.
(13) The introduction to the coupling coordination degree method should incorporate pertinent references in Lines 304-334.
(14) The improvement of table 2 and 3 is necessary.
(15) The excessive inclusion of documents and policy backgrounds in the results section necessitates their relocation to more appropriate sections such as the introduction or discussion, for instance Lines 450-462, 474-482, 487-502, and 679-701.
(16) In Figure 6, the font size of place names is insufficient for clear identification. Please revise accordingly and ensure that similar issues are addressed in other images.
(17) The content spanning from Lines 864 to 941 on Pages 27-30 pertains to the section of methodologies.
(18) The content of Figure 16 is not closely aligned with the primary focus of the article.
(19) The discussion section should be positioned prior to the conclusion. Furthermore, it is essential for the discussion to be meticulously organized with subheadings encompassing comparative analysis of findings in relation to previous research, elucidation of core results, exploration of practical implications and policy recommendations derived from this study, acknowledgment of research limitations, and provision of future directions.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCity Health Assessment: Urbanization and Eco-Environment Dynamics Using Coupling Coordination Analysis and FLUS Model - A Case Study of the Pearl River Delta Agglomeration
General: This is a broad overview on diagnosing the urbanization-environment interaction during the evolution of the Pearl River Delta area. The paper is interesting to read and presents an application of novel methods to achieve the aim. That is, it should be published with some amendments which should make the paper easier accessible to a not so well informed but interested reader. It should also state what is new regarding the methodological approaches. And, possibly the authors may consider to present (in an appendix, possibly) a max simplification of their methodological approach. Furthermore, some of the papers attached may find the interest of the authors, as they are not too unrelated; it is not the intention that any of these papers should be referenced but they may broaden the authors’ view on the achievements of other (Chinese) research groups dealing with urbanisation.
The following further points are noted:
Figure 1: This schematic figure is very welcome as a flow chart. Could the authors add more to the meaning of the variables: Either in the panels and/or in the caption. The reader should fully grasp definitions, methods of analysis and why all these steps are required. This also includes the numbers presented in the ‘Data’-panel: what are the variables being used etc. An insightful figure may help a fast reader to really grasp the setting immediately ….
L230 footnote below this line
… “after determining objective weights using the panel entropy method, along with a secondary analysis conducted using the gravity model.”…
Where is the gravity model being introduced?
L258… 634 etc: As illustrated in …”Error! Reference source not found.”
This occurs here, before and thereafter, and I guess that the contents of these undisclosed references are essential for the understanding of the paper. Therefore, my review is reduced to a minimum.
L358: …in predicting the future quantity of various types of land (Meng et al., 2015).
This reference is in Chinese with English abstract. This should be noted in the references. Plus, I discovered it by discovering the Chinese paper ‘Partition method of urban development boundary based on constrained cellular automata model by Chen Weiqiang, Pan Yuanqing, Ma Yuehong, Ma Huining
L381: The general formula is as follows (Zhu et al., 2019)…. I could not find this reference in search machines.
Further literature for authors’ convenience.
Deng, Rui et al 2023: Supervised versus semi-supervised urban functional area prediction: uncertainty, robustness and sensitivity. Remote Sensing 15, 341-364
Huang, Siyi et al 2023: Driving mechanisms of urbanization: Evidence from geographical, climatic, social economic and night-time light data. Ecological Indicators 148, 110046
Yu, M et al 2021: Spatiotemporal heterogeneity analysis of Yangtze River Delta urban agglomeration: Evidence from nighttime light data (2001 to 2019). Remote Sensing 13, 1235
Cai, D. et al 2019: Causality of Biodiversity Loss: Climate, vegetation, and urbanization in China and America, Sensors 19, 4499
Cai, D. et al 2019: Remote sensing greenness and urbanization in ecohydrological model analysis: Asia and Australasia (1982-2015), Sensors 19, 4693
Cai, D. et al 2019: Urbanization and climate change: Insights from eco-hydrological diagnostics, Science of the Total Environment (STOTEN) 647, 29-36
Zhang, X. et al 2018: Urbanization and spillover effect for three megaregions in China: Evidence from DMSP/OLS nighttime lights. Remote Sensing 10, 1888-2004.
Cai, D. et al (2017): Urbanization and the thermal environment of Chinese and US-American cities. Science of the Total Environment (STOTEN), 589, 200–211
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work presented is a case study of the Pearl River Delta (PRD) and its component cities (Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Dongguan, Foshan, Zhongshan, Huizhou, Jiangmen, Zhaoqing). It responds to the research needs related to the unprecedented increase in urbanisation in China over the last half century (50 years). The innovative element of the study is the author's compilation of existing methods, appropriately selected to obtain the result. A combination of panel entropy methods, coordination analysis and then the FLUS model was used to simulate land use changes in the spatial policy scenarios "Unconstrained", "Growth Machine" and "Urban Renewal", focusing on representative city of the PRD group (Guangzhou).
The work has an appropriate structure and layout, with a logical flow of content. However, a noticeable shortcoming of the work is the lack of discussion of the research findings presented with the findings of other researchers. Figure 17 is a valuable element of the work, illustrating the scheme of urban regeneration as a paradigm of sustainable development, and is a visualisation of the results of the work. Item "5.2. Discussion" is actually a description of Figure 17. This point should be expanded to include a comparison with the results of other scientists' research on this topic, the current state of research on this subject. The bibliography at the end of the article focuses mainly on articles dealing with China (which is justified). Sources relating to areas outside China are from the years 1999-2009. It is advisable to update the review of literature on other continents, which will serve the discussion of research results and their globalisation.
An effective principle of dissemination of scientific works seems to be not to repeat words from the title of the work in the set of keywords.
The submitted work is long, more like a part of a monograph than a scientific article, which does not serve its further dissemination.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors(1) Revised version of the paper failed to provide a clear indication of the modifications made, thereby posing greater challenges for the reviewers.
(2) The font size in the images throughout the text is generally small, which poses challenges for recognition.
(3) In the previous version of the manuscript, several errors were identified, including “Error! Reference source not found.” Furthermore, there were multiple Chinese references listed in the bibliography at the end of this version. Therefore, it is recommended that the author exercise greater attention to detail and place increased emphasis on adhering to scientific writing standards and fundamental requirements for scholarly papers.
(4) The existing abstract exhibits insufficient alignment with the title and neglects to explicate the relationship between this research and urban health evaluation.
(5) The core research findings are presented in a rather simplistic manner in the abstract, lacking the necessary depth and complexity. Furthermore, there is insufficient elaboration on the FLUS model with regards to its various scenarios.
(6) The sentences in Lines 63-66 (“These...14.”) seem more appropriate to be placed in section 1.1.
(7) When was the policy framework for urban assessment, mentioned in section 1.2, first developed in China? The current section 1.2 lacks conciseness and fails to provide an introduction to the specific aspects evaluated in this urban evaluation.
(8) The logical coherence of sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 is currently lacking clarity in explaining the concept of urban evaluation comprehensively. The author consistently avoids providing a precise definition for urban evaluation to readers, which persists even in section 3.1. Therefore, despite presenting a technical roadmap and corresponding explanations, this article still lacks sufficient clarity regarding its research direction and logical coherence at present. To address this issue effectively, it is recommended that the article begins by clearly stating the problem and gradually expands on its analysis.
(9) The article lacks the necessary elucidation for Figure 2.
(10)Should we present formulas 2-6 individually on separate lines?
(11) What is the rationale for commencing the research period in section 4.1.1 from 1999?
(12) As mentioned in the previous review comments, there is an overabundance of irrelevant information in this section.
The results analysis section primarily focuses on presenting the core findings of this paper, without delving into excessive explanation of reasons or policy analysis. For instance, in sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3, these extensive analyses of reasons should be relocated to the discussion section instead. Therefore, throughout section 4, it is necessary to significantly reduce and condense language to adhere to academic writing standards as journal's requirements.
(13) What does the shaded area in Figure 9 represent?
(14) The formula in Line 852 should be appropriately numbered. Furthermore, it appears that the formula lacks an explanation in the main text. Moreover, it is worth considering whether this formula should be placed here or in the methods section.
(15) Is the utilization of the term “Growth Machine”appropriate in Line 893?
(16) The process of simulating land use using FLUS should be excluded from the analysis of results. Therefore, it is recommended to relocate this content to the methods section or include it as supplementary material. Here, only the final results simulated by the FLUS model and corresponding research findings need to be presented.
(17) Although the ongoing discussion possesses a certain level of depth and significance, as previously mentioned in the review comments, we strongly recommend enhancing the organization and structure of the discussion section. This can be achieved by subdividing it into subheadings such as comparison with prior studies, interpretation of key findings, practical implications and policy recommendations derived from this study, research limitations, and future directions. Consequently, it would be more appropriate to incorporate the last two paragraphs of the conclusion section within the discussion.
(18) The central focus of this article revolves around urban health, thus it is recommended to provide a fundamental assessment of the constituents of health and unhealthiness in the main body. This entails addressing and emphasizing the subject of “urban health” as indicated in the title within the concluding section as well.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe literature which I entered into my review were not necessarily meant for citation in this paper but to inform the authors about not unrelated China based research groups working in the same or similar field
Author Response
Thanks for your precious comments!
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsUpon verification, it was found that the author did not address some of the previous review comments.
1) The second point of the previous review commences highlighted that "the font size in the images throughout the text is generally small, posing challenges for recognition." Despite these comments, the issue persists in Figure 2 (b-c), Figure 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8 in the current manuscript.
2) Lines 247-248, there is a repetition of "Figure 2". Please check for similar detail errors.
3) The third point of the previous review commences highlighted that “Furthermore, there were multiple Chinese references listed in the bibliography at the end of this version. Therefore, it is recommended that the author exercise greater attention to detail and place increased emphasis on adhering to scientific writing standards and fundamental requirements for scholarly papers.” However, the author failed to address the issue of Chinese characters appearing in the references. Repeatedly committing this error undermines the rigor of scientific research papers.
4) The fourth point of the previous review commences highlighted that “The existing abstract exhibits insufficient alignment with the title and neglects to explicate the relationship between this research and urban health evaluation.” The author's response to this question fails to persuade me.
5) The fifth point of the previous review commences highlighted that “The core research findings are presented in a rather simplistic manner in the abstract, lacking the necessary depth and complexity.” The author neither addressed nor revised this issue.
6) The eleventh point of the previous review commences highlighted that “What is the rationale for commencing the research period in section 4.1.1 from 1999?” The author should provide a detailed explanation and illustration of the issue within the main text, rather than confining the response in the cover letter.
7) The twelfth point of the previous review commences highlighted that “As mentioned in the previous review comments, there is an overabundance of irrelevant information in this section.The results analysis section primarily focuses on presenting the core findings of this paper, without delving into excessive explanation of reasons or policy analysis. For instance, in sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3, these extensive analyses of reasons should be relocated to the discussion section instead. Therefore, throughout section 4, it is necessary to significantly reduce and condense language to adhere to academic writing standards as MDPI journal's requirements.” The author failed to make the necessary revisions to address this issue, and the response was insufficient to persuade me.
8) The thirteenth point of the previous review commences highlighted that “What does the shaded area in Figure 9 represent?” The author should provide a detailed explanation and illustration of the issue within the main text, rather than confining the response in the cover letter.
9) The thirteenth point of the previous review commences highlighted that “The process of simulating land use using FLUS should be excluded from the analysis of results. Therefore, it is recommended to relocate this content to the methods section or include it as supplementary material. Here, only the final results simulated by the FLUS model and corresponding research findings need to be presented.” The author's response to this question fails to persuade me.
10) A series of policy documents mentioned in the main text are excessive and hinder the comprehension of the article's core content. Given that the thesis is primarily aimed at an international audience, these detailed policy documents may be unfamiliar to foreign readers. To improve the readability of the article and enhance its theoretical value and scientific significance, it is recommended to remove unnecessary information and avoid merely listing a lengthy array of policy backgrounds (e.g. the issuance of The Pearl River Delta Urban-Rural Integrated Planning (2009-2020) and the release of The Outline of the Plan for the Reform and Development of the Pearl River Delta Region (2008-2020) in Lines 492-494, New 500 Ten-Notice on Firmly Curbing the Rapid Increase in Housing Prices in Certain Cities(2010), 501 Eight-Notice on Further Strengthening the Regulation of the Real Estate Market (2011), and 502 Five -Notice on the State Council Executive Meeting's Discussion and Deployment of Strengthened Real Estate Market Regulation (2013)- Regulations” (2010-2013) in Lines 499-504.)
Meanwhile, please note that English does not typically use book titles in the same way as other languages; however, the author has included numerous book titles in these texts. Please review the entire document to identify and correct similar inconsistencies.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
