Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study focuses on the Yellow River Basin and attempts to examine the spatiotemporal evolution, coupling and coordination, and influencing factors of high-quality development (HQD) and ecological resilience (ER) over the period from 2008 to 2022. The topic holds practical significance and aligns with the research scope of the journal *Land*, which focuses on regional sustainable development, the evolution of land systems, ecological and environmental governance, and spatial pattern analysis. The paper attempts to integrate high-quality development and ecological resilience into a unified analytical framework and discusses their co-evolution at the river basin scale, which holds certain research value. However, the paper still has several issues regarding research methods, theoretical foundations, and innovative presentation, and requires further revision and refinement. The following are my suggestions:

 

1, Both the title and abstract of the paper emphasize “impact mechanisms,” but the authors primarily rely on PCA results to explain these mechanisms. PCA is essentially a tool for dimensionality reduction and variable structure extraction; it can only identify common patterns of variation among variables and is difficult to use to support strict identification of mechanisms or causal explanations. It is recommended that the authors adopt more suitable explanatory models, such as geodetectors, structural equation modeling, or other methods with greater explanatory power. If the method is not adjusted, it is recommended to change “impact mechanisms” to “impact factors” or “correlated factors.”

2, The literature review in the introduction section tends to be overly descriptive. It is recommended to further distill the current state of research, highlight the shortcomings of existing studies, and more specifically articulate the research gaps and innovations of this paper.

3, The authors selected indicators from different dimensions to characterize ecological resilience, but the theoretical rationale explaining why these indicators represent ecological resilience remains insufficient. It is recommended that the authors further clarify the rationale for selecting each indicator, particularly the justification for using the PSR framework to characterize ecological resilience. Additionally, it is recommended to incorporate recent research on ecological resilience frameworks, such as literature emphasizing the state–function–interaction perspective, to strengthen the theoretical foundation of the ER indicator system in this paper and to compare it with the traditional PSR framework (e.g., 10.1016/j.jenvman. 2026.129436).

4, The authors employed the entropy weighting method to assess the weights of the HQD and ER indicators and provided the direction and units of the indicators in the table, which helps improve methodological transparency. It is recommended that the specific weights of each indicator be further included in the table to enhance the reproducibility of the results and methodological transparency.

5, The application of the coupled coordination model remains somewhat mechanical. The paper directly sets the weights of HQD and ER to be equal (α = β = 0.5) without providing sufficient theoretical or empirical justification. It is recommended that the authors further explain the rationale for this setting and discuss the potential impact of different parameter settings on the results.

6, The paper presents spatial classification maps for HQD and ER but does not specify the criteria for delineating these classification intervals. It is recommended that the authors clarify whether these categories were generated using the natural breakpoint method, equidistant scaling, the quantile method, or other approaches, and explain why the classification intervals differ across years.

7, The HQD indicator system is described as being constructed based on the “Five Development Concepts,” but is ultimately summarized into only three dimensions. It is recommended that the authors further clarify the logical transition from the “Five Development Concepts” to the three dimensions to enhance the theoretical consistency of the indicator system’s construction.

8, The numbering of figures and tables, as well as cross-references in the text, require further verification. There appear to be inconsistencies in the references to table numbers within the text; for example, “Table 3” mentioned in the text may actually correspond to “Table 4.” It is recommended that the authors check and correct these one by one.

9, It is recommended that abbreviations be standardized throughout the text, with full definitions provided upon first use and consistent usage thereafter, such as PCA, KMO, etc.

Overall, I recommend major revision before this manuscript can be considered for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

I have been to China, visiting universities and biodiversity conservation projects. Your country is superlative – in economic, population, and political terms – and certainly the 21st century is the century of China, and of Asia. Despite the enormous Chinese influence on the planet, there is a disproportion between its importance and the publication of scientific articles in international journals such as Land. Your manuscript is, therefore, good news, and its results may inspire managers and scientists in countries with similar socio-environmental challenges.

 

I will recommend to the Editor the publication of the manuscript. However, the text should be greatly improved before publication.

 

I list my recommendations below.

The title is excessively long and does not clearly inform readers what the article is about. I recommend that the authors formulate another title, shorter and in the form of a newspaper headline. The title would be more intriguing if it mentioned the most important discovery of the research.

 

An abstract should be a short text that clearly and concisely presents the content of the article to the reader and explains why it is worth reading. This is not the case in your manuscript: the abstract has almost twice the number of words allowed by Land (200 words) and is not very informative. It should be rewritten.

 

Add more keywords. They help readers understand the content of the paper. Furthermore, keywords make the article more visible to search engines like Google Scholar.

 

The concept of High-Quality Development is recent and seems to be restricted to the Asian continent. Please include a paragraph in the Introduction relating HQD to the concept of sustainable development, which is global and well-established in the scientific literature.

 

The volume of data compiled and the methodological effort for information extraction are commendable, but the authors can improve it. Specifically, Principal Component Analysis is a powerful statistical tool for obtaining reliable data. However, in your research, the use of that tool has a flaw: 1) There is no clear and robust conceptual definition of Factors F1 and F2. I strongly recommend that the authors name the main components and produce a more in-depth interpretation of the factors, from an economic and ecological perspective.

 

English is not my native language, but the text likely needs professional editing. For example, lines 113-116: "Given the increasing emphasis on HQD in the Yellow River Basin, scientifically measuring the evolutionary characteristics and influencing mechanisms of HQD and ER, and subsequently proposing pathways for enhancing ecological development in the region, are important for comprehensively advancing HQD." Shouldn't it be "are important for"? I leave it to the Editor to decide whether to recommend a grammatical review of the manuscript.

 

>>> The Discussion section is certainly the most important part of a scientific article. It is there that the original knowledge produced by the authors after months (or years!) of research is revealed. Surprisingly, you did not delve sufficiently into that section. I strongly recommend that the Discussion be rewritten, incorporating two dimensions. The first: seek similar studies conducted in other basins with socio-environmental importance similar to that of the Yellow River (Amazon, Mississippi, etc.). The second step should be a thorough debate with the international literature, which, in my opinion, is practically absent from the Discussion.

 

Finally, I reiterate to the authors a recommendation that I point out in all the manuscripts I evaluate, both for MDPI journals and other publishers: make abundant use of any graphic elements – photos, maps, infographics, drawings – to enhance the readers' understanding of the various important information and messages in this chapter. William Zinsser, in the excellent On Writing Well: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction, says that the writer's task is to make life easier for the readers – so images are very welcome in this paper. An obvious example is images of the Yellow River Basin and the economic development surrounding it.

Best regards,

 

THE REVIEWER

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author addressed my concerns well, and I recommend publishing it.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

The manuscript has been adequately improved, and I will recommend its publication to the Editor of LAND.

 

Best regards,

 

THE REVIEWER

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments on it.