Regional Differences, Dynamic Evolution and Driving Factors Analysis of PM_2.5 in the Yangtze River Economic Belt

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper suggested that a regional joint prevention mechanism and a comprehensive policy mechanism should be established to deal with PM_2.5 pollution in the Yangtze River Economic Belt. Generally, the topic seems interesting; however, some important questions remain. Improve use of English throughout the text.

Originality, application, and creativity of this study are unclear.

The authors should explain how the accuracy of the PM_2.5 concentration was verified and compared with the annual mean concentration. How to use NASA satellites and Arc GIS software to obtain annual average concentration data?

The unit of PM_2.5 in the article should be double checked.

Formula 15 is not clear and may be improved.

Figures 6, 8, 9, the legends may be defined and throughout. All figures must be self-explanatory.

PM_2.5 the 2.5 may be subscript through the manuscript (also in the Figures).

Extensive English editing is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The Yangtze River Economic Belt's upper, middle, and lower reaches are examined in this study's analysis of the effect of PM2.5 concentration (YREB). According to research, with spatial agglomeration, the characteristics of PM2.5 in the Yangtze River Economic Belt are increasing initially before declining. In the upper and middle reaches of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, the PM2.5 concentration curve has decreased. Financial spending and industrial service levels had a negative effect. Population density had a positive effect.

The content of this article is detailed, and the author has done a lot of empirical work. There are rooms for improvement in writing. The discussion for identification, and robustness check of the results are also insufficient.

Some major concerns

1. The writing clarity of this article needs to be improved. The introduction needs to include a separate paragraph describing the main research question and content of the paper, with the main variables preferably being made clearer and introduced earlier in the paper. The purpose is to enable readers to quickly grasp the content of this article by reading the introduction.

2. Part 2.1 can introduce some background in a broader sense, not just the regional patterns. The introduction of the background at the beginning of the paper is too long, and it is easy for readers to lose their attention. Author can consider moving it to Part 2.1.

3. The method section should also have some discussion on identifying threats and associated solutions.

Some minor concerns

1. There are too many equations in models, better simplify the model presentation.

2. The format of the formula in line 320 needs to be adjusted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I congratulate the authors for the infull approach they made to study PM2.5 and related haze pollution. The paper makes a valuable contribution to the study of spatiotemporal distribution of air pollution taking into account regional differences, differences in resource endowments, climate, and economic development that naturally occur at urban complexes.

It contributes comprehensive and new insights into implementing effective haze mitigation and control measures to improve air quality.

 I just have the following suggestions concerning depited years on the X axis of some figures:

1. Figure 2. On X axis show every two the analyzed years. Ej 2003       2005      2007…………etc

2. Figure 3. What numbers in parenthesis at left side of depited year means?

 3. Table 4. There are not figures in parenthesis. Significance of all Moran indexes is 1% . Therefore, the note at the bottom of the table is irrelevant 

4. Figure 4. Since results área describe in terms of analized years , letter a,b and c are not necessary 

4. Figure 5, 6 and 7. On X axis show every two the analyzed years. Ej 2003       2005      2007…………etc

5. Figure 9. I suggest the following caption:  “The Dynamic evolution of PM_2.5 in the upstream (a), midstream (b), and downstream (c) during 2003-2018.

Leave and arrange letters just bellow the figures and delete the words upstream, midstream and downstream.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The 2.5 of PM2.5 in Figure 8 and Figure 9 should be subscripted. There are no more comments for this article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have done a good job on revision; I believe the manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Sustainability after some minor language checks.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx