Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

In general, I think this is a valuable piece of work, improving New Quality Productivity Impact Land Use Efficiency? Empirical Insights from the Central Plains Urban Agglomeration.

My comments can be completely resolved.

Best regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This topic aligns closely with current academic priorities in China and demonstrates strong policy relevance by using the Central Plains Urban Agglomeration (CPUA) as a case study. However, the manuscript still have the following issues:

1. The authors have included ‘railway transportation land area’, ‘highway route mileage’ and ‘urban per capita road area’ within the NQP evaluation framework. Further clarification is required regarding the definition of ‘digital infrastructure’ and how these metrics demonstrate novelty (NEW).
2. Section 6.3 is more of a literature-based explanation of how ‘technological progress’ specifically translates into ‘land use efficiency’. It is recommended that, in combination with the data, specific descriptions be added detailing how particular industrial upgrades reduce the demand for industrial land.

3. Table 6 indicates that in ‘Small Cities’ and ‘Low Development Level’ cities, the impact of NQP on LUE is negative, albeit not statistically significant.

   This is a very interesting finding. The authors' current explanation is ‘lack of technological absorption capacity’. Can the discussion be deeper?

4. The author may have ignored the spatial attributes of the urban cluster. The central city within the study area exhibits exceptionally strong spatial spillover effects, employing ordinary panel regression alone may lead to biased estimation results.

5. The manuscript contains some spelling errors; please review it carefully.
   Introduction: Theoretically, optimzed land resource allocation...
   Section 5.4.2: economies in large-scale cities (e.g., Zhengzhou...

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is focused on the impact of new quality productivity (NQP) on land use efficiency (LUE) in the Central Plains Urban Agglomeration, based on China’s strategic orientation to innovation as main factor for development. The integration of NQP—a relatively new conceptual framework—into land use studies adds originality and policy relevance. The manuscript provides a solid theoretical approach,  in which is targeted the conceptual basis of NQP and its connections with land resource allocation. The distinction between H1 (overall effect) and H2 (mechanism via technological progress) is well-structured.

First remark: The authors should  development more the idea of linking existing economic geography theories (e.g., agglomeration effects, spatial mismatch) to the proposed mechanisms, because some ideas are more descriptive  than analytical.

As a plus for this paper, both hypotheses are logical, coherent, and derived from existing literature. H1 captures the direct and holistic effect of NQP on LUE. H2 operationalizes the mechanistic pathway by specifying technological progress as the transmission channel. The distinction is appropriate and conceptually good. Also a second remark, the authors should extend the discussion, to answer why technology—among multiple possible channels—is hypothesized as the primary mediator. My third recommendation for authors is to make a better transition from results to discussion.  Also at the beginning the authors have to change and better structure the research question which is implied, but not directly stated.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

The authors have done a good work, revisiting my comments. I am satisfied with the corrections.

Kind regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All issues have been addressed.