China’s Socioeconomic and CO₂ Status Concerning Future Land-Use Change under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic presented in this work is really interesting. However several challenges are required:

I analyze the single sections:

Abstract has inappropriate structure. I suggest to answer the following aspects: - general context - novelty of the work - methodology used (describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied) - main results and related interpretations.

Introduction: This section should briefly place the study in a wide context and emphasize why it is relevant carrying out the analysis. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance. In this perspective, this section is too succinct and fails to effectively point out the relevance of your contribution towards the existing literature.

For example, the author might reinforce the introduction and literature sections with respect to different dimensions of sustainability. You could for example refer to the issue of measuring socio-economic impacts of sustainable domains (e.g. bioeconomy or circualr economy) and focus on policy optimization.

See:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40888-020-00206-4

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619308595

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106794

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120255

 

 

Method section needs to be better explained. I would really appreciate a short resume able to make the reader able to follow what you are explaining later in the text. Moreover, I do not see a proper reference about the relevance of the methods used within the literature. I recommend to have a look at that works and move forward also considering other studies. About conclusions: Where are policy/practical implications. As they are they seem untuneful. Please provide much details.I hope these comments might help in improving the paper and encourage the authors to move forward.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Future socioeconomic and CO₂ status of China in the context of land-use change under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways” analyzed the changes in five major land types in China from the futuristic standpoint. and explored the expected socioeconomic status and carbon dioxide emission in the context of prominent land-use types. The study shows interesting results and can provide a scientific basis for assisting in developing plans for achieving China’s carbon emission targets. My main comments and suggestions are listed below.

 

1. The expression in the Abstract is too specific. I would suggest condensing the texts in this section and highlighting the main findings of the study.
2. The Results section includes six parts currently. Usually, 3-4 chapters in this section are more appropriate. Please consider reorganization and streamlining this section. For example, land use change is the background of this study and the data used was published by predecessors, I would suggest simplifying the results or putting it in supplementary material and then focusing more on the changes in population, GDP, and carbon emissions in the context of land use change and their interactions, which is the main progress of this study.
3. Line 351-352: You stated that CO₂ emissions over China strongly respond to the changes in urban land through the results in Figure 4 without quantitative description. Please consider supplementing some to make your statement more convincing.
4. Line 435: I would suggest supplementing the significance test results of the correlation coefficient(R) in Table 2.
5. Figures in the manuscript need to be further improved. For example, the fonts in Figures 2-7 could be larger and the lines in Figure 4 should be boldened to improve visibility.
6. Discussion, please consider supplementing limitations of this study in this section and state what potentially could be done in further studies based on the progress of this study.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic and research area of the study are interesting. However, my general impression is that the research gaps and literature review are not suitably written, especially for Line 100-127 in Page3. It seems like that the major contribution of this study is coming from the latest LUH2 datasets in CMIP6. Give more explanation of your own scientific contribution to the start-of-art.   

 

In line 126, Page3, you stated that “We also expect this study would assist in developing a plan for achieving China’s carbon emission target.”. Which is too general, could be more detailed about through what kind of plan, through what kind of methods or policy?

 

Line 586, Page 17, you mentioned that “they still exert uncertainties in some aspects”. and you just mentioned one uncertainty in terms of policy interventions. Only this one? The ecological control line has not been discussed in the whole paper?

 

Line 632-633, your recommendation of adopting the lower emission pathways (SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6) to achieve China’s carbon neutrality goal by 2060 could be more specific and policy supportive.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

After careful review of this manuscript, I have the following comments, suggestions, and recommendations for the authors before the publication of this work.

1) The topic of research is very important; however, the title in its present form is very long. It could be made even more precise and concise by avoiding redundant wording.

2) The abstract is too long in its present format. Please reduce its length by keeping the main findings and policy implications to maximum length. Other contents such as objective, background, and methods should each have a single sentence.

3) The results seem robust; nonetheless, the discussions are weak in the present form. Please discuss your results in light of the past works a bit more deeply and critically.

4) It is better to present the discussions and results together to have a critical evaluation of the main findings of this work.

5) The conclusions section should be presented more precisely.

6) The limitations of this research and future research avenues should be documented at the end of the conclusion section.

7) The language quality can be enhanced further.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have done a great job. The manuscript is close to the final acceptance. I suggest the authors in the description of implications and future research to consider SDGs also for reinforcing policy insights. I advice to look at this article for expressing this point: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2021.100506

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The revision is satisfied.

Author Response

Thank you very much to the anonymous reviewer for his time, and patience in reviewing our work carefully.