Multidimensional Evaluation of Urban Land-Use Efficiency and Innovation Capability Analysis: A Case Study in the Pearl River Delta Region, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Please see attached document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your advice, all your suggestions are very important and they will guide me in my future research work！
Point 1: Some formatting is still required, and the figure labels need to be made legible (for example the figure labels in Fig 7).
Response 1: We have redrawn Figures 4, 5 and 7 to make their labels legible.
Point 2: Please define the innovation capability index.
Response 2: We add a definition of the Innovation Capability Index in section 2.3.2 of the article. The details are as follows: To better study the regional differences of innovation capability in the PRD region, we introduced the innovation capacity index. The level of transformation of new knowledge into new products, processes, and services in a given location is represented by the innovation capacity index. The higher the value, the greater the ability to contribute to the regional socio-economic system.
Point 3: Lines 126 and 351 – there are two blanks after “urban land” and “Shenzhen and Guangzhou”.
Response 3: We have double-checked and adjusted all the formatting of the article.
Point 4: Line 160: 100,585.26 billion is written with a “,” as a separator, but line 159, 54769km2 doesn’t have a “,”. Please keep the notation for numbers consistent.
Response 4: We changed 54769km2 to 54,769km2 to keep the numerical annotation consistent.
Point 5: The scale for the elevation seems questionable. Is the low value -111 meters below sea
level? Also please consider making labels more visible. They are fairly pixelated and difficult to
以当前形式阅读。此注释也适用于图 4、5 和图 7。在图 5 和图 7 中
标签无法以当前形式读取。请编辑数字，以便所有地图元素
包括标签清晰易读。
回应5：我们修改了图1中的高程比例，更新后的比例基于海拔0m。此外，我们还重新绘制了图 4、5 和图 7，以使其标签清晰易读。
特点6：表1：指标性质列中的信息可以居中吗？
回应6：我们将指标内容的性质集中在表1中。
要点7：表4：请使字体变小，以便表格元素适合列。
响应 7：我们缩小了字体，并使表 4 中的表格元素居中。
要点8：第225和230行：该线是否应该在E̅的正上方？
回应8：我们调整了格式。
要点9：请界定3个不同的发展阶段（功能失调的衰退、过渡调和和融合协调）。作者不能简单地假设读者熟悉这些术语。
回应9：我们在本文第3.2.4节中增加了耦合协调级别的4个不同发展阶段的定义。具体如下：根据珠三角地区的实际情况，我们将耦合协调国分为3个阶段和10个级别，如表4所示。第一阶段是功能衰退阶段。由于城市土地开发利用不合理，其协调发展与区域创新能力耦合值小于0.4，说明如果不及时实施协调发展措施，区域创新水平的提高将受到明显限制。震颤障碍[0，0.1]、严重障碍[0.1，0.2]、中度障碍[0.2，0.3]和轻度障碍[0.3，0.4]都包括在这个阶段。第二阶段为过渡调和阶段，耦合配位值范围为0.4-0.6，包括临界紊乱[0.4，0.5）和不情愿紊乱[0.5，0.6]。第三阶段为Inte-Gration协调阶段，城市土地效率与创新能力的耦合协调值高于0.6，分为0个状态：初级协调[6.0，7.0）、中间协调[7.0，8.0）、良好协调[8.0，9.0）和最佳协调[9.1，<>]。
特点10：在Y轴上添加水平线将有助于使图形清晰且更容易
跟随。
响应 10：我们在图 3 中的 Y 轴上添加了水平线，以使图表清晰易读。
要点11：A类不符合B类和C类
回应11：我们把A类、2类、3类放在中央。
要点 12：第 322-325 行 – 缺少 3 个空白。还有149、356、366、370、378、390、419、442、444、
466、467、472-474、479 以及文档中的多个其他位置缺少空白。请
检查格式并更正错误
答复12：我们添加了文档空白，并仔细检查和调整了全文的格式。
要点13：表8：考虑缩小字体，以便值更易于阅读
响应 13：我们缩小了表 8 的字体。
要点14：图7非常像素化，标签难以辨认。
回应 14：我们重新绘制了图 7，使其标签清晰易读。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
|
The authors responded to the comments, I recommend to accpet the paper for publication |
Author Response
感谢您的建议，您的所有建议都非常重要，它们将指导我未来的研究工作！
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see document attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: Line 61: spell out PSR acronym.
Response 1: The article adds an explanation of the study area (Pearl River Delta, China) to the abstract on page 1 and adds the study area content on page 6.
Point 2: Line 76: displaying the geographic location of the Pearl River Delta on one of the figure maps would be useful.
Response 2: The article adds a study area (Pearl River Delta, China) section on page 6 and uses Figure 2 to show it’s geographical location.
Point 3: Line 86: why were these 5 aspects of economic development chosen and how is each one
of them defined?
回应 3：在第 2.3.1 节中。（多维评价指标体系），阐述了选择土地利用效率评价指标的原因及其定义。
第 4 点：第 139 和 148 行：等式 1 和 2 应在页面上居中。
响应 4：等式 1 和 2 已调整到页面中心。
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is very interesting and it surely has relevance to the Journal. The adopted methodology and explanation seem excellent. However, I would suggest looking into following recommendations
1. Based on the results, implications and significance of the research should be covered in the end of abstract.
2. Proper and recommended formatting of all the tables should be followed.
3. Texts as well as the numbers placed inside the Table 4 are not clear and should be thoroughly adjusted/formatted for readability and comprehension of the readers.
4. Authors are recommended to carefully check for grammatical/typo errors for consistency and quality of the article. For example, extra space on line 220 after comma should be removed and similar typing errors should be rechecked.
5. Square Kilometer should be properly written with 2 in superscript for the rate of construction land expansion on axis label on vertical axis label of Figure 1.
6. To elaborate the spatial difference in comprehensive performance indicated with Figure 2, map elements are missing. Proper north, scale bar, graticules as well as map border should be added for better understanding the phenomenon at correct scale.
7. Same elements of the maps as mentioned on comment 6 are missing for the Figure 3 and Figure 5. Authors are recommended to use any available geo-spatial software to properly map the phenomenon under study.
8. Formatting of Table 10,12 should be re-checked for revision and it should be completely placed on one-single page.
9. Labels on all the Figure 4 seem quite difficult for the reader to comprehend and should be updated with necessary enhancements in the resolution/quality.
10. Based on your findings/conclusions, suggest a few areas for future research.
11. References in the article should be rechecked for mistakes, because names of a few authors as mentioned on line 601 and 604 are capitalized while others are not. Unique and recommended citation as well as referencing style should be adopted.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Based on the results, implications and significance of the research should be covered in the end of abstract.
Response 1: The implications and significance of the study have been added to the abstract of the article.
Point 2: Proper and recommended formatting of all the tables should be followed.
Response 2: All tables have been formatted as required
Point 3: Texts as well as the numbers placed inside the Table 4 are not clear and should be thoroughly adjusted/formatted for readability and comprehension of the readers.
Response 3: The text and figures in Table 4 have been adjusted as required(includes size and format).
Point 4: Authors are recommended to carefully check for grammatical/typo errors for consistency and quality of the article. For example, extra space on line 220 after comma should be removed and similar typing errors should be rechecked.
Response 4: The author has carefully checked for grammatical errors in the text and has made corrections.
Point 5: Square Kilometer should be properly written with 2 in superscript for the rate of construction land expansion on axis label on vertical axis label of Figure 1.
Response 5: The writing error in Figure 1 has been corrected.
Point 6 :To elaborate the spatial difference in comprehensive performance indicated with Figure 2, map elements are missing. Proper north, scale bar, graticules as well as map border should be added for better understanding the phenomenon at correct scale.
Response 6: The author has added north, scale, grids, and map borders to Figures 2, 4, 5, and 7.
Point 7 : Same elements of the maps as mentioned on comment 6 are missing for the Figure 3 and Figure 5. Authors are recommended to use any available geo-spatial software to properly map the phenomenon under study.
Response7: The author has added north, scale, grids, and map borders to Figures 2, 4, 5, and 7.
Point 8 : Formatting of Table 10,12 should be re-checked for revision and it should be completely placed on one-single page.
Response 8: The format of the table has been rechecked and revised and placed entirely on a single page.
Point 9 : Labels on all the Figure 4 seem quite difficult for the reader to comprehend and should be updated with necessary enhancements in the resolution/quality.
Response 9: The author has redrawn Figure 4 to increase its comprehensibility and readability.
Point 10 : References in the article should be rechecked for mistakes, because names of a few authors as mentioned on line 601 and 604 are capitalized while others are not. Unique and recommended citation as well as referencing style should be adopted.
Response 10: The format and content of the references have been rechecked and corrected.
Point 11 : Based on your findings/conclusions, suggest a few areas for future research.
Response 11: Future research directions have been added to the conclusions section of this paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript "Multidimensional Performance Evaluation of Urban Construction Land and the Coupled and Coordinated Analysis of Regional Innovation Capability: A Case Study of the Pearl River Delta" summarizes the characteristics of changes in construction land in the Pearl River Delta (PRD) region as a whole and the patterns of changes in construction land in nine large cities. It is noteworthy that the text addresses an issue of great current interest. The study deploys a research strategy and provides valuable information for analyzing and understanding the process of intense urbanization underwent in the study area in recent years. The indicators constructed by the authors reveal that they have done a solid and rigorous statistical work, at the same time that these indicators are of great use because of the abundant and useful information they provide both for other scientists and even for those in charge of devising and implementing public policies. In addition to this, the article is clearly written, and the sequence of its reasoning is well organized, so it is easily understood and does not resist reading comprehension. This, unlike those writings that one sometimes comes across, which one cannot understand no matter how many times one rereads its paragraphs. It should also be noted that the methodology is rigorous and coherent with the purpose and object of study. Likewise, in my opinion, the authors are right to consider, adopting a multidimensional perspective, the following five indicators or aspects of the process they are investigating, namely: economic development, livelihood protection, ecological protection, social equity, and innovation capability.
For all these reasons, the work deserves to be published. However, before doing so, its authors should reform it considering the following comments that I make with a clearly constructive purpose and aimed at improving the current version of the manuscript:
1) In line 68 and following it says: "In addition, Xiong [29] and Cao [30] argued that the enhancement of regional innovation capability also in turn accelerates the upgrading of urban industries and promotes market-oriented factor reforms, thus enhancing the sustainable development of cities." Since the term sustainability or sustainable appear in different parts of the manuscript, it is required that the authors explain from the very beginning what they mean by sustainability, sustainable urban development, and sustainable cities.
2) There is a lack of more theoretical background on urban development and land use changes, as well as on the socioeconomic impacts of urban development. Given that these processes have also occurred and are occurring in many other areas of the planet, there is an extensive bibliography, mostly in English, of which the authors should cite at least various of the most significant references.
3) In line with the above, it is recommended that the authors locate, take into account and mention at least briefly the contributions of some key world authors regarding "urban development", "urban planning", "land planning" etc. In this regard, it would be appropriate to introduce a new section at the beginning in which a brief review of the state of the art is carried out, taking into account international bibliographical references. In any case, several additional paragraphs should be added in the Introduction section, at least summarizing the relevant literature that has dealt with these issues worldwide.
4) A new section entitled "Findings and limitations of this work" should be added before the Conclusions, highlighting what the authors consider to be the main limitations of their work and, also, identifying and summarizing their main findings, especially so that potential readers of the manuscript can find lessons of a scientific nature applicable to the study of other similar cases.
5) The scarce or practically non-existent international bibliography of the manuscript is in correspondence with its scarce theoretical foundation. Thus, the general tone of the paper is markedly descriptive, which makes it difficult to obtain adequate theoretical inductions to be extrapolated to the study of other similar cases beyond the patterns of changes in construction land in nine large cities that the authors identify through their statistical work.
6) What has just been said in the previous point leads to the Conclusions also having an accentuatedly descriptive and theoretically weak tone. This, in my opinion, prevents the authors from identifying and mentioning the theoretical bases for identifying and analyzing the distinctive features of the urbanization processes studied. The development of this theoretical foundation would make it possible for the authors and potential readers of the article to be in a position to create bases and/or precedents to consider comparing, even if only very briefly, those features of manifestation of the theory in the empirical case analyzed with those of other similar processes in other regions of China and especially in other parts of the world.
Finally, I hope that the above recommendations do not discourage the authors from making the necessary efforts to revise and improve their work, since these recommendations, I reiterate, have a basically constructive purpose and I hope that they will be of help and guidance in this task.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: In line 68 and following it says: "In addition, Xiong [29] and Cao [30] argued that the enhancement of regional innovation capability also in turn accelerates the upgrading of urban industries and promotes market-oriented factor reforms, thus enhancing the sustainable development of cities." Since the term sustainability or sustainable appear in different parts of the manuscript, it is required that the authors explain from the very beginning what they mean by sustainability, sustainable urban development, and sustainable cities.
Response 1: The author adds an explanation and definition of sustainableability and sustainable urban development in the introduction of the article
Point 2: There is a lack of more theoretical background on urban development and land use changes, as well as on the socioeconomic impacts of urban development. Given that these processes have also occurred and are occurring in many other areas of the planet, there is an extensive bibliography, mostly in English, of which the authors should cite at least various of the most significant references.
Response 2: The authors have added a review of theoretical research by national and international scholars on urban development as well as urban land use to the introductory section of the article and have used all of the English language literature.
Point 3: Texts as well as the numbers placed inside the Table 4 are not clear and should be thoroughly adjusted/formatted for readability and comprehension of the readers.
Response 3: The authors have added a new chapter to the introductory section of the text, in which the findings of scholars from around the world on urban development and urban land use efficiency are reviewed and summarised.
Point 4: The scarce or practically non-existent international bibliography of the manuscript is in correspondence with its scarce theoretical foundation. Thus, the general tone of the paper is markedly descriptive, which makes it difficult to obtain adequate theoretical inductions to be extrapolated to the study of other similar cases beyond the patterns of changes in construction land in nine large cities that the authors identify through their statistical work.
Response 4: The authors have added a total of 70 references in the introduction as well as in the methodological research section, which are essentially international references.
Point 5: A new section entitled "Findings and limitations of this work" should be added before the Conclusions, highlighting what the authors consider to be the main limitations of their work and, also, identifying and summarizing their main findings, especially so that potential readers of the manuscript can find lessons of a scientific nature applicable to the study of other similar cases.
Response 5: The authors have explained the research limitations of the article in the methodological and theoretical research section and in the conclusion section.
Point 6: What has just been said in the previous point leads to the Conclusions also having an accentuatedly descriptive and theoretically weak tone. This, in my opinion, prevents the authors from identifying and mentioning the theoretical bases for identifying and analyzing the distinctive features of the urbanization processes studied. The development of this theoretical foundation would make it possible for the authors and potential readers of the article to be in a position to create bases and/or precedents to consider comparing, even if only very briefly, those features of manifestation of the theory in the empirical case analyzed with those of other similar processes in other regions of China and especially in other parts of the world.
Response 6: The authors have added a comparative analysis with other regions in the interpretation section of the empirical findings.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper presents a good topic related to Multidimensional Performance Evaluation of Urban Construction Land and the Coupled and Coordinated Analysis of Regional Innovation Capability: A Case Study of the Pearl River Delta. The paper should be improved according to the comments in the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: support the discussion by previous studies in RESULTS
Response 1: The authors add the findings of previous studies as supporting evidence in the conclusion section.
Point 2: support the methodology by previous studies 2.3.
Response 2: The authors add to the previous methodological and theoretical studies in 2.3.
Point 3: The introduction contains many ord references and many sentences without citations.
Response 3: The authors have updated the literature in the introductory section with essentially new articles published after 2016.
Point 4: explain more about the methodology.
Response 4: The authors have added an explanation of the research methodology in the abstract of the article as well as in 2.4.
Point 4: It is recommended that the conclusions be listed by point.
Response 4: The authors have presented the findings of the study by key points in the abstract section of the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
