Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the manuscript an important and interesting topic is presented. The quality of the writing and overall quality of the content are quite high. The quality of the tables is satisfactory. The statistical methods are valid and correctly applied. The methods are sufficiently documented to allow replication studies.

 

The limitation and future prospects of the study can be described in the last part of this article.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are very grateful for the comments that we have been given. These comments are valuable for the improvements of our manuscript. In the following, we describe how we have addressed issues raised in the revised paper.

1.The limitation and future prospects of the study can be described in the last part of this article.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We added the limitation and future prospects of the study in the last part of the manuscript (page. 22). The contents added are below:

“The current study may provide fresh evidence for emerging economies. However, there is still potential for improvement. Since the data of our key variables, heterogeneous environmental regulations, are only available at the province level, we employed panel data of 30 provinces in China in the empirical study. Meanwhile, city-level data can also unveil some useful insights into this topic. In the follow-up studies, we will try to improve our empirical analysis by constructing new variables and applying city-level data. Also, considering limited data availability, we will enrich our study by combing case studies and deep qualitative approaches.”

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper explores the association between environmental regulations and industrial agglomeration. It is important. However, in its current state, it is not enough to be published in an excellent journal like Sustainability.

 

Comments

1. What is the contribution of this paper, it is not enough in this current status. There has been lots of research on this topic.

2. This research data comes from a panel data of 30 provinces in China from 2005 to 2015. However, province data has been updated to 2021. Why do you choose such outdated data and why you not choose city-level data instead of province data? It is suggested to use update city-level data to prove your conclusion. 

3. The measurement of the two core key variables is not supported by literature. What is the advantage of the measurement method you choose compared with other researchers?

4. This paper lacks the core theoretical framework and research hypothesis, which is a very important part of the paper.

5. In addition to the control variables you selected, there should be factors such as geographical location, industrial structure, population mobility, etc. How do you solve the problem of missing variables?

6. The article lacks discussion part and the policy proposal is not targeted.

7. Some language mistakes exist in this paper. Therefore, it should invite native speaker to correct these errors.

8. Most of the literature is out of date and it is recommended to add relevant literature in recent years.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment for detailed reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article 'Exploring the role of heterogeneous environmental regulations in industrial agglomeration: A fresh evidence from China' presented for review is a piece of evidence based on general statistics and variables mixed in a model at macro scale but also trying to differentiate the relation between environmental regulations and industrial agglomeration at three spatial levels, one of them, the national level studied through the two classes of regions with increasing concentration degree pollution-intensive industries (PIIR) and with decreasing concentration degree of pollution-intensive industries (PIDR). In addition to the spatial differentiation on the impact of environmental regulations, those are estimated through temporal lenses with the help of procedural classification of beforehand, intermediate and afterwards regulations.

The article is a complex web of research concepts, methods and techniques with interesting results at the edge between environmental and economic policy. The discussion part can be extended into the policy domain in an attempt to interpret the way forward for the regulations considered in order to better adapt those for a more sustainable future of Chinese regions and cities in maintaining the balance between environmental, economic, social and governance imperatives. Certainly there are constraints of this macro statistical quantitative approach based on administrative-statistical units so next steps at case studies level and deep qualitative approaches which can enrich the work in the so calles mixed methods approach can be commented. When considering the typology of countries, between the developed and developing ones, the transition countries can be also considered in terms of deindustrialization.

The content is well introduced and contextualized in global and national terms.

The references are well selected and articulated.

The research design is appropriately described and clear.

The arguements are up to the points of the research foci without unnecessary comments and thus thight and easy to understand.

The results are compactly presented and synthesized, although more detailed look over these can be provided as supplementary material for more transperancy and possibility to be reused in next research efforts.

References are completely described but DOI of the cited articles can be added.

Conclusions sum up well the work.

Several english language corrections can be made.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment for detailed reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript had been improved  by a extensive modification in the revised version. Although there is still a gap from the ideal state, but the current version can be accepted for publication.