Favorable Fiscal Self-Sufficiency Enables Local Governments to Better Improve the Environmental Governance—Evidence from China’s Lower-Pollution Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper tries to study local environmental governance efficiency score and its determinants by using a traditional index approach. In my opinion, the topic is important and relevant, but the paper does not take us much further, and I have the following observations for the authors' reference.

 

1.      The authors should make a strong case why such a study was carried out. What are the

2.      Literature review should be better structured in a way that addresses the research gap. Many statements read subjective and lack reference support. The method used in the paper is very standard, and even the database is not quite new in the literature. For example, the exact same method has been used applied by Zhou et al., (2018) to the same region with a similar database, so the real contribution is somehow very limited.

3.      The variable selection should be better explained. Are they supported by other research?

4.      Moreover, the author should make more effort to explain the results. For example, the efficiency score from stage 1 is not well explained.

 

Refernce:

"Zhou, C., Shi, C., Wang, S., & Zhang, G. (2018). Estimation of eco-efficiency and its influencing factors in Guangdong province based on Super-SBM and panel regression models. Ecological Indicators, 86, 67-80."

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Thank you so much for your kind help and precious suggestions. We have revised the article according to your comments and added 15 references in total. All the changes have been highlighted in red.

1. We used the most recent data from 2001 to 2020 for 21 cities in Guangdong Province. We took a two-stage study method. When estimating the efficiency value in the first stage, we enriched the selection of indicators for the undesirable output. We added explanations in both Part 1 Introduction and Part 2 Literature Review.
2. In the Literature Review part, according to the suggestion of the reviewers, we add comments on some literatures of DEA methods which use the Super SBM method.
3. In 3.2 Variables, we supplement the research background of the selection of explanatory and explained variables. At the same time, combining with the development characteristics and future trends of Guangdong Province, we explain the basis for the selection of control variables.
4. In Conclusion, we describe the research contributions when using DEA method.
5. In 6.2, We have added the prospect of future research from the perspectives of taxation, transfer payments and legal and administrative supervision.

Thank you again for what you have done for us and we appreciate that.

 

Yours,

Shujian Zhang

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors.

Congratulations for the effort to develop this article, it contributes to the scientific literature, but it demands some improvement points.

 

I suggest some review points:

Introduction: Include in the introduction, a more robust discussion, identifying the state of the art of the topic related to the main studies that have already been carried out, as well as their main results. I also suggest highlighting the advances that the current study has in relation to others, in addition to carrying out a deeper contextualization on the subject of fiscal self-sufficiency of local governments. Also in the introduction, clarify the problem and the research objectives, presenting the gaps that gave rise to the problem, as well as their references in the literature;

Literature Review: Expand and develop a literature review more focused on the state of the art of the researched topics, deepening the literature more aligned with the subject fiscal self-sufficiency and environmental governance;

Methods: Better explain the definition of variables and data collection;

Results: The results are well presented, but at the end of Figure 03, complement with a text explaining these data.

Discussion: The discussion can be more robust, including a comparison with the results already found in the literature, indicating what are the gains of this study;

Conclusions: In the conclusions section, you need to go a long way. I suggest highlighting contributions to this thematic area, in addition to previous research. As well as the opportunities arising from this study more specifically;

 

I hope to have contributed to the improvement of the study.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Thank you so much for your kind help and precious suggestions. We have revised the article according to your comments and added 15 references in total. All the changes have been highlighted in red.

1. We used the most recent data from 2001 to 2020 for 21 cities in Guangdong Province. We took a two-stage study method. When estimating the efficiency value in the first stage, we enriched the selection of indicators for the undesirable output. We added explanations in both Part 1 Introduction and Part 2 Literature Review.
2. In the Literature Review part, according to the suggestion of the reviewers, we add comments on some literatures of DEA methods which use the Super SBM method.
3. In 3.2 Variables, we supplement the research background of the selection of explanatory and explained variables. At the same time, combining with the development characteristics and future trends of Guangdong Province, we explain the basis for the selection of control variables.
4. In Conclusion, we describe the research contributions when using DEA method.
5. In 6.2, We have added the prospect of future research from the perspectives of taxation, transfer payments and legal and administrative supervision.

Thank you again for what you have done for us and we appreciate that.

 

Yours,

Shujian Zhang

Reviewer 3 Report

The aim of the article is to test the impact of abundant fiscal revenue of local governments on the efficiency of regional environmental governance in China.

The purpose of the study is clear but needs to be better defined in the document and in the abstract.

The introduction section presents interesting information for study but there is a need to better highlight the research gap.

The background provides interesting information to understand the state of the art.

The methodological section clearly describes the sample examined and the assumption on which the study is based. However, to better clarify the analysis carried out is suggest a figure representing the research design.

A comparison with other studies in the literature should be introduced in the discussion section.

The conclusions and implications section provides interesting information. To increase the quality of the paper, I would suggest reinforcing the implications of the study at research level.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Thank you so much for your kind help and precious suggestions. We have revised the article according to your comments and added 15 references in total. All the changes have been highlighted in red.

1. We used the most recent data from 2001 to 2020 for 21 cities in Guangdong Province. We took a two-stage study method. When estimating the efficiency value in the first stage, we enriched the selection of indicators for the undesirable output. We added explanations in both Part 1 Introduction and Part 2 Literature Review.
2. In the Literature Review part, according to the suggestion of the reviewers, we add comments on some literatures of DEA methods which use the Super SBM method.
3. In 3.2 Variables, we supplement the research background of the selection of explanatory and explained variables. At the same time, combining with the development characteristics and future trends of Guangdong Province, we explain the basis for the selection of control variables.
4. In Conclusion, we describe the research contributions when using DEA method.
5. In 6.2, We have added the prospect of future research from the perspectives of taxation, transfer payments and legal and administrative supervision.

Thank you again for what you have done for us and we appreciate that.

 

Yours,

Shujian Zhang

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am happy with this revised version

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors.

 

Congratulations on the improvements made to the article.

Reviewer 3 Report

The required revisions have been made.