Spatiotemporal Characteristics and Factors Driving Exploration of Industrial Carbon-Emission Intensity: A Case Study of Guangdong Province, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript combined remote sensing data and panel data to study the carbon emission intensity and its driving factors in Guangdong. Generally, this paper's content is good. However, the english is too poor. Authors must undergone extensitive modification of your writting. Other suggestions were as follows：
Line 2-3: this title is confusing. What element you want to explore? Is industrial carbon-emission intensity? If it is so, suggest you change your title into "Spatiotemporal characteristics and factors driving exploration of industrial carbon-emission intensity, a case study of Guangdong province, China"
Line 9: Studies on spatiotemporal characteristics of what? This sentence is not clear.
Line 12: is analyzed should be was analyzed. Please modify these tense description in abstract part.
Line 16: "Urbanization level, energy structure, industrial scale, industry demand, and labor productivity all influence", which factor had the highest contribution. In addition, in abstract part, when you get the result, you had better to divide them into several points, such as (1)..., (2)..., (3)... Generally, abstract part must undergone extensive change.
Line 51: )to there should have one space.
Line 52: CO2 should be CO2.
Line 89: southernmost is it a word?
Line 108: Suggest you provide all data you used into one table including years, resolutions, data type, et al.
Line 275: How you get the spatial raster data of carbon intensity?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- keywords should be shortened
- In the manuscript whenever you quote a value in your LCU (yuans) put a conversion to "dollars or euros"
- Figure 4 is captivating. But at the macro level, it is essential to support with literature that there was no transfer of polluting production to other regions.
- I suggest presenting the GTWR results vs GWR results vs TWR results vs OLS results, to show the robustness of the results.
- F-statistic value of each variable and its corresponding p-value needed to be presented.
- The post-Covid-19 crisis effect can intensify carbon emissions for economic recovery as the literature shows. Suggestions for measures as barriers to unsustainable growth should be presented (on discussion).
- No reference was made to the Covid-19 phenomenon that greatly affected Chinese production in 2020 (the last year of the series) and consequently contributed (directly or indirectly) to a reduction in emissions. To what extent are the policies working or does the crisis factor explain the reduction found results?
- References must be standardized with the journal's guidelines
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have addressed all my concerns.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I realize that the manuscript has been moderately improved in comparison to the original version. However, I have come to the conclusion that the authors were in a hurry, and they were sloppy in finalizing the manuscript. For instance, I see that they have removed labor productivity from the analysis so that they stick to the STIRPAD model (in line with my former comments); nevertheless, they still interpret the coefficient on labor productivity in the last paragraph on page 13. Furthermore, my comments on the command of English are still relevant. For these reasons, I would like the authors to take their time and revise their manuscript for reconsideration for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript underwent significant changes. But the suggested methodologies were not applied, at the same time new variables were added (POP and PGDP) and the regression was re-estimated.
With the addition of new variables, some coefficients changed their sign, which makes me uncomfortable about the results presented.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper must be checked for potential English grammar mistakes.
Reviewer 3 Report
The new version of the article is substantially improved.
