Evaluation of Urban Ecological Livability from a Synergistic Perspective: A Case Study of Beijing City, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I reviewed the manuscript "Evaluation of urban ecological livability based on the theory of synergism of five laws: A case study of Beijing City, China." Some sections need improvement, but the manuscript could be published after a few adjustments.
Please stress contributions and research innovation in the introduction.
Section 3.2.1 (line 228) is poor. There is a lack of essential explanations about the stages of constructing the index, including the sub-indicator's weighting process. Reference publications in the composite index literature were neglected. Please provide a paragraph or two on the operating framework of composite indexes. See the works: 1.) Tools for composite indicators Building; and 2.) Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide.
Why use the entropy weighting method? Please, justify after line 248. Note that there are different sub-indicator weighting methods in the composite indicator literature. See the works: 1.) Goal-based participatory weighting scheme: balancing objectivity and subjectivity in the construction of composite indicators; and 2.) Weights and importance in composite indicators: Closing the gap.
Overall, the manuscript is well-structured and clear. The sections have a certain balance. Except for the Discussions section, which contains six pages! Please summarize the content as much as possible. Keep only the essential content and move the rest to an annex.
Sincerely,
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We greatly appreciate your professional review on our article. On behalf of all contributors, I would like to express our sincere appreciations of your comments on our article entitled “Evaluation of Urban Ecological Livability from Synergistic Perspective: A Case Study of Beijing City, China”(ID: sustainability-2426835). As you are concerned, there are several issues that need to be addressed. Based on your nice suggestions, we have made significant modifications to the previous draft. The revised draft highlights the tracking change function of Word software. The detailed point-by-point responses are listed below.
Point 1: Please stress contributions and research innovation in the introduction.
Response 1: Thanks a lot for the comment and suggestion. As suggested, the revised version of the paper emphasizes contributions and research innovation in the introduction.
Point 2: Section 3.2.1 (line 228) is poor. There is a lack of essential explanations about the stages of constructing the index, including the subindicator's weighting process. Reference publicationsin the composite index literature were neglected. Please provide a paragraph or two on the operating framework of composite indexes. See the works: 1.) Tools for composite indicatorsBuilding; and 2.) Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and userguide.
Response 2: Thanks a lot for the comment and suggestion. As suggested, we have explained the stages of constructing the index in section 3.2.1 and explained the subindicator's weighting process in section 3.2.3. Thank you for the references, these references have helped me a lot in my revision and I have read them carefully and cited them in my paper.
Point 3: Why use the entropy weighting method? Please, justify after line 248. Note that there are different sub-indicator weighting methods in the composite indicator literature. See the works: 1.) Goal-based participatory weighting scheme: balancing objectivity and subjectivity in theconstruction of composite indicators; and 2.) Weights and importance in composite indicators:Closing the gap.
Response 3: Thanks a lot for the comment and suggestion. As suggested, we have explained the reasons for adopting the entropy method in section 3.2.3. Thank you for the references, these references have helped me a lot in my revision and I have read them carefully and cited them in my paper.
Point 4: Overall, the manuscript is well-structured and clear. The sections have a certain balance. Except for the Discussions section, which contains six pages! Please summarize the contentas much as possible. Keep only the essential content and move the rest to an annex.
Response 4: Thanks a lot for the comment and suggestion. As suggested, we have reduced the discussion section from 6 pages to 4 pages. We have summarized the relevant content and removed unnecessary tables.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an excellent paper. Authors made a remarkable effort to present, discuss and explain the degree to which Beijing City is considered as an eco-livable city.
1. According to my opinion, Figure 3 seems to be unnecessary. Moreover, I have the sense it creates problems to the readers, as authors mention Beijing as a town and this figure depicts a region.
2. Table 1 can be explained a bit more (especially the last column) - Just 1-2 sentences may be fine. Furthermore, it would be useful, if more references used in this section to support the index system design
3. Data source unit has to be extended. Attribute types and data type can be related.
4. I think that Conclusions have to be extended and generalised in order for scholars to easily apply them in their research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We greatly appreciate your professional review on our article. On behalf of all contributors, I would like to express our sincere appreciations of your comments on our article entitled “Evaluation of Urban Ecological Livability from Synergistic Perspective: A Case Study of Beijing City, China”(ID: sustainability-2426835). As you are concerned, there are several issues that need to be addressed. Based on your nice suggestions, we have made significant modifications to the previous draft. The revised draft highlights the tracking change function of Word software. The detailed point-by-point responses are listed below.
Point 1: According to my opinion, Figure 3 seems to be unnecessary. Moreover, I have the sense it creates problems to the readers, as authors mention Beijing as a town and this figure depicts aregion.
Response 1: Thanks a lot for the comment and suggestion. As suggested, we have deleted the Figure 3.
Point 2: Table 1 can be explained a bit more (especially the last column) - Just 1-2 sentences maybe fine. Furthermore, it would be useful, if more references used in this section to support theindex system design.
Response 2: Thanks a lot for the comment and suggestion. As suggested, we have added in this section an explanation of the construction process of the index system and a description of the indiex attributes in section 3.2.1 (line231-262). In addition, we increase the references in the index system construction part to 12 (References:[33]-[44]).
Point 3: Data source unit has to be extended. Attribute types and data type can be related.
Response 3: Thanks a lot for the comment and suggestion.
(1) As suggested, we have specified the data source and extended the data to the latest year.
The empirical research part of this paper takes Beijing as an example. We have sorted out the development index data of Beijing from 2010 to 2021. The index data mainly come from Beijing Statistical Yearbook, which is the objective data publicly released by the government.
(2) We have explained the relationship between data types and attribute types in section 3.2.1(line 257-262).
Point 4: I think that Conclusions have to be extended and generalized in order for scholars to easily apply them in their research.
Response 4: Thanks a lot for the comment and suggestion. As suggested, we have summarized the problems in building an eco-livable city in Beijing in the conclusion section. In response to these problems, policy recommendations are given based on the comprehensive model of policy-oriented coupling of multiple subjects to promote the coupling of five systems proposed in this paper, in order to provide a reference for other scholars conducting such studies.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Title: Evaluation of urban ecological livability based on the theory of synergism of five laws: A case study of Beijing City, China
This manuscript investigates Beijing based on the theory of synergism of five laws, uses entropy weight methods and the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal methods, and constructs a coupling coordination model of the five systems to explore the development path of Beijing's eco-livable city. The article has been chosen with some novelty and is well structured and well thought out. There are, however, the following problems:
1. In the literature review section, please categorize and summarize the literature and extract the literature related to this article.
2. Please identify the innovation or contribution of the paper.
3. In 2.2 Systematic method of five-law synergy integration. Please elaborate on the linkages between the economy, society, technology, environment, and nature.
4. Figure 1. The relationship of the five laws. Why are the arrows on the right not in the same direction? Please explain.
5. This article uses Beijing as an example, please explain why. Why did the author not choose other places for comparison?
6. The formulae in the article are not the same size, please adjust them.
7. The article uses data from 2010-2019, please update the author to the latest year, if not, please explain.
8. Figure 5-11. the data fluctuates a lot, please explain the reason behind
9. Line 335 Beijing shows a gradual increase during 2020-2019. 2020-2019?
10. Please add policy recommendations, and provide a specific analysis in response to the previous findings.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have improved the quality of their article after the first round of revisions and currently have the following issues:
Firstly, in the abstract section, further revision is recommended
Secondly, Figure 2. Conceptual diagram of five-law coupling. The picture is not clear enough. Please replace it.
Thirdly, Table 4. comprehensive evaluation value of each system and overall over the years. year 202 should be 2021.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We greatly appreciate your professional review on our article. On behalf of all contributors, I would like to express our sincere appreciations of your comments on our article entitled “Evaluation of Urban Ecological Livability from Synergistic Perspective: A Case Study of Beijing City, China”(ID: sustainability-2426835). As you are concerned, there are several issues that need to be addressed. Based on your nice suggestions, we have made significant modifications to the previous draft. The revised draft highlights the tracking change function of Word software. The detailed point-by-point responses are listed below.
Point 1: In the abstract section, further revision is recommended
Response 1: Thanks a lot for the comment and suggestion. As suggested, we have revised the abstract section in detail.
Point 2: Figure 2. Conceptual diagram of five-law coupling. The picture is not clear enough. Please replace it.
Response 2: Thanks a lot for the comment and suggestion. As suggested, we have redrawn and replaced this unclear picture.
Point 3: Table 4. comprehensive evaluation value of each system and overall over the years. year 202 should be 2021.
Response 3: Thanks for your careful checks. We are sorry for our carelessness. We have made the corrections in the revised manuscript.
Point 4: Minor editing of English language required.
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestions. We have done our best to touch up the language in the revised manuscript and we invited another native English speaker to help touch up our article. We hope that the revised manuscript will be acceptable to you.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
