Impact of Environmental Regulations on High-Quality Development of Energy: From the Perspective of Provincial Differences
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept in present form
Author Response
Please see the attachment for details.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper analyses 420 observed values from the panel data of various provinces in China, and builds econometric models to investigate the impact of both informal and formal environmental regulations on green development of energy (GDE), where the GDE index is calculated with the Malmquist productivity index method. The results distinguish the path of two environmental regulations on GDE, which have certain reference significance. However, some revisions are required to enhance the quality of the paper as follows.
1. The Abstract must contain the manuscript objectives, the method used to achieve the objectives and the results of the research to offer the reader immediate clarity on the paper. Furthermore, the aim of the paper should be made explicit and detailed in detail.
2. The Introduction part should quote more relevant literature, systematically reviews the research status of environmental regulation and green development of energy. At the last of this part, the structure arrangement of this paper should be added.
3. Hypothesis 3 “Formal environmental regulations exhibit a nonlinear relationship with GDE” is proposed from conclusions of previous scholars, which need more explanations of specific action path may exist. What is PFER? It has no explanations?
4. About the data resource, more information is needed. For example, how many provinces and what the year range of various statistical yearbooks?
5. Line 335 “total effect of informal environmental regulations on the GDE index is about 0.00042, and the indirect effect is 0.00002”. How are these data obtained from Table 3?
6. There exist some mistakes in the paper, please check more carefully. For example, is line 96 “The Materials and Methods…and appropriately cited” on the wrong place? Is “R2” in Line 247 and Line 249 should be “R2”.
7. The discussion setting up the need for this study and research on the development of this study is in need of a stronger argument for why it is needed and how it the approach used by the authors can be generalizable, with impact.
Author Response
Please see the attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
You did a great work and the paper is interesting, but unfortunately in the current form it cannot be published in Sustainability, it should be revised.
I would like to highlight main issues that must be taken into account.
Most of the paper devoted to “informal environmental regulations”, but neither in the Introduction section nor in the Literature review this concept is not revealed in detail. What exactly do you include in this concept?
In literature review you wrote “Formal environmental regulations (mandatory environmental regulations) and informal environmental regulations are the two types of environmental regulations [7]” But your source is dated by 2007 year. Is there are more relevant sources concerned to this issue? Also, please check carefully, sources 6 and 7 are the same (“N. Tarui, S. Polasky, Environmental regulation with technology adoption, learning and strategic behavior, J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 50 (3) (2005) 447–467, https:// doi.org/10.1016/ j. jeem.2005.01.004.”)
Also, you wrote “Relevant studies have shown that public participation has played an essential and positive role in the implementation of environmental regulations by relevant departments [31-32]”. The same question – one of these sources is 2008 year. Is there no more recent research?
Also, please check carefully all the text. For example, in the beginning of the Literature review section you have information from the template (line 96-102).
Also, there are following comments for your attention:
1. Introduction.
This part should prove the relevance and the importance of your study. Introduction need to be strengthened with figures and data in order to provide the actuality of the goal. From this section it should be clear what is the goal of the research and why it is important. Also, there are very little references in this section.
2. Methods.
You described very well the model, but I suggest put more attention to describing data and its interconnection with the results. It is very difficult to understand the logic of your conclusions from the calculations. It would be better to describe connection between informal regulations and its interpretation in the formulas. In order reader could track the logic.
Sources should be mentioned for all tables in the paper.
The idea of the paper is really good and I suppose it could be presented in more understandable way.
I hope my comments will be useful and will help you to improve the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors aimed to investigate the, “Impact of Environmental Regulations on High-quality Development of Energy: From 2 the Perspective of Provincial Differences”. Overall, the manuscript is well written in all sections of the manuscript, followed by appropriate research methodology with results and discussions.
The study is meaningful in the current situation and context, however, the authors are investigating the impact (Impact could be investigated through a reference or benchmark), which need to mention in the text of the paper.
Moreover, I would like to provide the following comments and suggestions being considered before being accepted for publication.
Abstract: The result should be a bit more clear to the reader. Could authors re-write the abstract with conclusions to be added.
In the introduction part, I would like to suggest authors add some related literature and explain the impact they are trying to investigate. Method, could authors first describe the outcome variables in detail and then for covariates? Results are expected to be a bit more clear to the reader. Could authors re-write the results section of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Based on suggestions provided last review, authors have made adjustments accordingly.
Firstly, the Abstract has been reorganized more concisely and clearly, and highlights the central content of the paper.
Secondly, the Introduction adds more literature to clarify the research of environmental regulation and the importance of green development of energy. Also, the structure arrangement has been added.
Thirdly, more specific information is provided about the data resource and variables. And there is a clear definition of PFER.
Finally, Reference [46] need to be revised to meet the requirement of journal format.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, you' ve done great work. I suggest you to emphasize Result section in order to make your results more understandable for readers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
