Intertemporal environmental efficiency assessment in China: A new network-based dynamic super-efficiency measure

In order to make a complete ranking of intertemporal environmental efficiency in a dynamic manner, this paper combines the network-based dynamic data envelopment analysis (DEA), super-efficiency with the unified efficiency under natural and managerial disposability, and designs a dynamic DEA model and the corresponding dynamic super-efficiency DEA model. Compared with previous studies, the proposed measure can fully rank the overall environmental efficiency of all decision making units (DMUs) in a dynamic manner, and more importantly, it provides the information about when and what factors lead to inefficiency or efficiency of DMUs. The proposed models are applied to examine the environmental efficiency of 30 provinces in China from 2008 to 2017. The results show that there are significant regional differences of environmental efficiency in China. In addition, slack analysis shows that most eastern efficient provinces have no obvious advantages in energy consumption, labor and waste water emission; most central and western efficient provinces have no advantages in sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and GDP. To improve overall efficiency, eastern inefficient provinces should mainly focus on reducing energy consumption, SO2 emissions and labor, and increasing capital investment in right years, central and western inefficient provinces can focus on reducing SO2 emissions and labor in most years, most of provinces need to increase gross domestic capital formation.

Introduction: I can see that the introduction section is lengthy.Exclude unnecessary information and be concise with the study's research problem, gaps, objectives, and innovative contribution if possible.Usually, at the end of the introduction section, the authors describe the innovations and route of the study.Revise accordingly to put the introduction section in the appropriate shape.
Answer: According to this comment, we greatly reduced the content of the introduction section, which briefly introduces the research problems, gaps, objectives, and innovative contribution.Please see the revised introduction section from page 2 to page 3.
After combining the opinions of other reviewers, the penultimate paragraph of introduction describes the main innovations and routes of the study, and the last paragraph describes the structure of the article.Please see the last two paragraphs of the introduction section on page 3.
Methods: Proposed methods are accurate and innovative.Add more citations in the interpretation of the result section.Further, elaborate on the results in detail.
Answer: Combining this opinion with reviewer 2's comments, we significantly modified Section 2 and Section 3, mainly adding the explanation of the model.In the part of empirical results, we mainly added explanations for the selection of indicators, relevant literature citations, and comparisons with existing methods, deleted some unnecessary descriptions, and carried out further analysis of empirical results.I hope the current modification can meet the reviewers' requirements.
Conclusions and policy implications.Add limitations and future research ideas in the conclusion section.Give more practical implications of your proposed model.

Answer:
We have added limitations and future research ideas in the revised conclusion section.More practical implications of the proposed model are also added in the first paragraph of the revised conclusion section.Please see the modification from page 17 to page 18.
Avoid grammatical and typo errors, and revise the manuscripts for these concerns.
Answer: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript many times and have corrected many grammatical and typos.I hope the revised manuscript can meet the reviewers' requirements.
Carefully check and revise the table and figure numbers in the manuscript.
Answer: In the revised manuscript, we have deleted 2 figures, and now there are 4 figures and 7 tables.We also corrected the quotes in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2's Comments:
1.The authors should enhance the clarity and organization of the manuscript by providing a more straightforward introduction that clearly states the research objectives, the significance of the research question, and the methodology employed.Additionally, it would be helpful to provide a brief overview of the structure of the paper to guide readers through the sections.
modification from page 11 to page 12.
5. The findings related to the regional differences in environmental performance should be summarized and discussed concisely and coherently.Provide clear explanations of the implications and policy recommendations that arise from the results.
Answer: Based on this comment and combined with the comments of other reviewers, we have significantly reduced the description of regional differences.The explanations of the results has been revised accordingly and a subsection has been added to present the policies.Please see the modification on pages 12, 13 and 17.
6.The manuscript would benefit from a discussion of the limitations of the proposed models and potential avenues for future research.Addressing these aspects would enhance the paper's contribution and help readers understand the broader context of the study.
Answer: Thanks for this comment!Please see our modification on page 18.

Give a section number to each section
Answer: The template for Plos one requires no numbers in each section.

Revise for typo mistakes
Answer: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript many times and have corrected many typos.I hope the revised manuscript can meet the requirements.Reviewer 3's Comments: 1.The indicators selected should be supplemented by explanations as to why they were chosen for empirical research.
Answer: Thanks for this important comment!We have added the explanations about why the indicators are chosen in the revised manuscript.Please see the modification on page 11.
2. References to policy recommendations or management decisions are overly simplistic, and in-depth discussions are recommended.
Answer: According to this comment, we have added an subsection about policy recommendations.Please see the modification on page 17.And some in-depth discussions are provided on pages 15-17.
3. Please strengthen the discussion of differences between similar studies and those studied, highlighting the contribution of this study.
Answer: According to this comment, we do two main modifications: