Adaption to Tianjin, China, Based on a Retrospective Pattern Study on the Petrochemical Industry Development and the Correlated Process of SO₂ Abatement in Yokkaichi, Japan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

By contrasting common characteristics of Yokkaichi and Tianjin, this study used a retrospective method to describe the characteristics of air pollution in Yokkaichi. To show the viability of Yokkaichi's pattern and the comparison between Yokkaichi and Tianjin, the study employed an extended stochastic regression on a population, affluence, and technology model as a reference. There are two parts to this study. A hypothesis is proven in the first section. The extended STRIPAT model is used in the second section to describe any potential environmental effects that the objects may be experiencing due to the SO2 industry. 

Both the problem statement and the document are written effectively. The goals are distinct and SMART. The technique is carefully thought out. The results are adequately discussed, and the conclusions are sound.

I would want to propose that the theory supporting the hypothesis be used in conjunction with earlier empirical research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1:

We sincerely appreciate your kind comments and valuable questions concerning our manuscript entitled “Adaption to Tianjin, China, Based on A Retrospective Pattern Study on the Petrochemical Industry Development and the correlated Process of SO₂ Abatement in Yokkaichi, Japan” (former title as “A Case Study on the Development Pattern of Petrochemical Industry and Process of SO₂ Abatement in Yokkaichi, Japan”), ID: sustainability-2056279. We thank you for the time and effort that you gave put in to reviewing the previous version of the manuscript.

Based on your precious comments, we have made revisions in our manuscript and re-submitted the revision. All revisions are marked and trackable in the manuscript.

Our responds to the comments are as follow:

Comment 1:

By contrasting common characteristics of Yokkaichi and Tianjin, this study used a retrospective method to describe the characteristics of air pollution in Yokkaichi. To show the viability of Yokkaichi's pattern and the comparison between Yokkaichi and Tianjin, the study employed an extended stochastic regression on a population, affluence, and technology model as a reference. There are two parts to this study. A hypothesis is proven in the first section. The extended STRIPAT model is used in the second section to describe any potential environmental effects that the objects may be experiencing due to the SO₂ industry.

Both the problem statement and the document are written effectively. The goals are distinct and SMART. The technique is carefully thought out. The results are adequately discussed, and the conclusions are sound.

I would want to propose that the theory supporting the hypothesis be used in conjunction with earlier empirical research.

Response:

We sincerely thank you again for the kind comments.

In the field which Yokkaichi’s SO₂ abatement is studied, earlier empirical research mainly focused on the epidemiology with pollution, causation analysis between asthma/mortality and SO₂ pollution in 1950s and 1960s [1-4]. After 1960s, the environmental law, regulations, and policies changes are commonly mentioned [5-7]. In this paper, we made a small but different attempt to re-interpret the Yokkaichi SO₂ abatement process by extend our observation range. The earlier empirical research and literatures on Yokkaichi are insufficient after 1980s. However, according to your suggestion, we properly cited these articles and books in page 7-8 of the manuscript and tried our best to emphasize our grounds accordingly. Therefore, with the change we have made for addressing the foundation of Yokkaichi air pollution in Stage 1, we hope our grounds can be more distinct and can meet your proposal from the comment better.

Reference:

1. Yoshida, K.; Oshima, H.; Imai, M. Air pollution and asthma in Yokkaichi. Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 1966, 13, 763-768.
2. Kitagawa, T. Cause analysis of the Yokkaichi asthma episode in Japan. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association 1984, 34, 743-746.
3. Guo, P.; Yokoyama, K.; Suenaga, M.; Kida, H. Mortality and life expectancy of Yokkaichi Asthma patients, Japan: Late effects of air pollution in 1960–70s. Environmental Health 2008, 7, 1-10.
4. Imai, M.; Oshima, H.; Takatsuka, Y.; Yoshida, K. On the Yokkaichi-asthma. Nippon Eiseigaku Zasshi (Japanese Journal of Hygiene) 1967, 22, 323-335.
5. ICETT. The Journey of Yokkaichi Air Pollution and Environmental Improvement; Yokkaichi, 1996, p8-35.
6. Yoshida, K. Yokkaichi Air Pollution: Lectures and Tasks for 21st Century, 1st ed.; KASHIWASHOBO: Tokyo, 2001, p51-61.
7. Park, H.-S. YOKKAICHI Studies Lecture; Fubaisya: Nagoya, 2006.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:

We sincerely appreciate your kind comments and valuable questions concerning our manuscript entitled “Adaption to Tianjin, China, Based on A Retrospective Pattern Study on the Petrochemical Industry Development and the correlated Process of SO₂ Abatement in Yokkaichi, Japan” (former title as “A Case Study on the Development Pattern of Petrochemical Industry and Process of SO₂ Abatement in Yokkaichi, Japan”), ID: sustainability-2056279. We thank you for the time and effort that you gave put in to reviewing the previous version of the manuscript.

Based on your precious comments, we have made revisions in our manuscript and re-submitted the revision. All revisions are marked and trackable in the manuscript.

Our responds to the comments are as follow:

Comment 1: For the IPAT equation and STIRPAT equation, is there any interdependence between the variables in the right-hand side of the equation? For example, will the technology affect the affluence? Are these equations universal for countries with different culture and social system? What is the term of a, b, c, d, h, k, e? How to decide them?

Response 1:

We thoroughly retrospect the whole history from IPAT model to STIRPAT equation. For the IPAT and STIPAT equation, the original concept is:

Pollution = (Population) x (Production/Capita) x (Pollution/Production)

by B. Commoner and associates, then formally adopted and regenerated as equation by P. Ehrlich and J. P. Holdren, and their initial assumption for the variables was that they are independent with each other, but later changed to not independent [1]. It is commonly believed by other scholars that human population, social organization, environment, technology is connected to each other [2]. Therefore, there is interdependence between the variables in the right-hand side of the equation. Before our work, hereby using the equations in the comparisons of two cities in separate Asian countries, the equation of IPAT was commonly adopted under global, continental, or national scopes. Under these scopes the interdependence is stronger and more obvious. In an ideal situation (as the initial assumption by Ehrlich and Holdren), there should not be interdependence between variables. Of course, it is unrealistic. However, after our literature study on IPAT and STIPAT model, we found that when and how to adopt these equations can be flexible. Equations themselves are universal for countries with different culture and social system, but in actual application the variables need to be adjust based on different circumstances [3].

The interdependence between our variables can be identified, but also, reduced. For instance, number of residents can affect the affluence, growth on population helps bring growth on society affluence. However, when we restrict Affluence as industrial shipment value or industrial product value, it creates uncertainty on the interdependence between affluence and population, which means that Affluence is not necessarily increase at the same pace when Population increase. For Technology, here as efficiency on energy utilization, can reduce the pollution, but not necessarily help increasing industrial product value. Therefore, it makes the variables on the right-hand of the equation more directly correlate with the variable on the left-hand of the equation.

In this paper, we consider a, b, c, d, h, k in the STIPAT equation here as parameters for variables, and e as a residual term for linear fitting analysis, and a = b = c = d = h = k = e = 1, which is a way for simulation and calculation purpose. We choose these letter in alphabetic order, and avoid f, g, i in case of misunderstanding.

Comment 2. How to decide whether the effect of the variables on I is positive or negative in Table 4?

Response 2:

Because this comment, we found that our description of table 4 before was not precise, and with mistakes that may misguide viewers. Therefore, we made change to table 4. In the revised manuscript, title of table 4 is now “Elaboration of positive/negative correlation between variables with I”.

In general, population growth increases the burden to environment, thus Population negatively correlates with I. We decide the effect of the variable Affluence on I be negative mainly because we drop the income or GDP per capita as Affluence, but industrial product value, therefore more growth on industry causes more pressure on I. Higher efficiency on energy utilization help reduce pollution, therefore, positively correlates with I. And Behavior, no matter government’s behavior of issuing punishment, or residents’ behavior as filing complains, even though they were caused by pollution, which is high environmental impacts, all objectively can cause more behavior on reducing pollution, hence, a negative correlation. S for industrial structure, with a higher proportion of secondary industry, I will also be more intensive, therefore, S is positively correlate with I.

Certain changes on symbols in table 4 have been made on page 14. And we have confirmed that the change of the symbols in table 4 doesn’t affect the linear fitting analysis after.

Comment 3. In Table 5, what does the Ln(ƩPATBS) mean? What is the correlation between Ln(ƩPATBS) and the right-hand side of Equation (3)?

Response 3:

After we applied logarithm calculation on equation (2), the result of left-hand side of equation (2) is Ln (I), and the direct result from the right-hand side of equation (2) is Ln (Σ_PATBS). To avoid further problems caused by our ambiguous description, we have added a supplementary explanation on page 14.

Comment 4. Will the development of technologies to mitigate the pollution of SO₂ and the different administration policies induce differences when comparing the Tianjin’s pattern with Yokkaichi’s pattern?

Response 4:

Indeed, the development of technologies induce differences when comparing these two patterns. In this case, the development of technologies could shorten the time length of each stage for Tianjin. In fact, differences not only appeared in the development of technologies, but also for example in the specific regulations to restrict pollutant emission. In Yokkaichi, regional regulations came first and stricter, and the national regulations and laws came later, its autonomous character is more obvious than in Tianjin. This means we cannot just mechanically compare the Yokkaichi in 1960s to Tianjin in 1990s. However, in each stage of Tianjin, we still found the similarities on crucial elements, what way we supposed to study, and we did study is that putting Yokkaichi’s pattern in Yokkaichi’s time scale, which is since 1950s, and putting Tianjin’s pattern in Tianjin’s time scale, which is since 1970s in this paper. Therefore, by absorbing the common but essential points in these cities on their own time scales, the comparison can be possible.

Comment 5. With the experience of Yokkaichi’s abatement process for SO_­­2, can the author provide some suggestions for Tianjin to speed up the process from stage 3 to stage 4?

Response 5:

At first, we considered the main purpose of our study is to retrospect the past abatement process of Yokkaichi and observe the present of both Yokkaichi and Tianjin. Therefore, we didn’t intend to provide suggestions before.

After we recognized the necessity on suggestions, we made adjustments on page 19. The key grounds of entering stage 4 from stage 3 are the reform on industry and environmental awareness. Aside of speeding up the transformation of cities’ industrial structure- reducing the proportion of petrochemical industry in its total industry value (efforts have been made but didn’t bring distinct improvement in Tianjin), we still expect that the residents of Tianjin could be involved much more actively. Yokkaichi asthma and Yokkaichi air pollution were commonly and officially recognized because of the spontaneous petitions and lawsuits from the residents. And the involvement of local citizens can help speed up the process.

What cannot be neglected is that there are obvious differences between Yokkaichi and Tianjin in population, industrial scales, culture, and so on. However, we reckon that if the experience from Yokkaichi air pollution can be flexibly adopted, it could still be proper for Tianjin’s future development and help strengthen the Tianjin’s capability of addressing air pollution issues. After entering the 21^st century, Yokkaichi has been dedicated to creating a Pollution – Environment – SDGs – Carbon neutral society based on its experience from the past [4]. And we see no reason that Tianjin couldn’t achieve an environment-friendly society as Yokkaichi.

Reference:

1. Holdren, J. A brief history of IPAT. the journal of population and sustainability 2018, 2, 66–74-66–74.
2. Dietz, T.; Rosa, E.A. Rethinking the Environmental Impacts of Population, Affluence and Technology. Human Ecology Review 1994, 1, 277-300.
3. Vélez-Henao, J.-A.; Font Vivanco, D.; Hernández-Riveros, J.-A. Technological change and the rebound effect in the STIRPAT model: A critical view. Energy Policy 2019, 129, 1372-1381, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.044.
4. Park, H.-S. “YOKKAICHI Studies” Learned from the YOKKAICHI Air Pollution for Environmental Policy and International Environmental Cooperation in Asia. In Overcoming Environmental Risks to Achieve Sustainable Development Goals; Springer: 2022; pp. 47-53.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

#1 The title of "A Case Study on the Development Pattern of Petrochemical Industry and Process of SO2 Abatement in Yokkaichi, Japan" has a gap with the content of the actual analysis. It is suggested that the author should more clearly state or define the correlation or pouring into the causal relationship of the research question research method or scope.

#2 The representative variables and related parameters of "The original IPAT equation" or "An adjusted and extended STIRPAT equation " are ill-defined or undefined.

#3 The author should introduce the proposed analysis model more objectively or systematically, and at the same time provide a clearer reference for the source data of the research analysis.

#4 The factors of environmental pollution are the overall impact. The author only takes the Process of SO2 Abatement as the main axis of the discussion. Whether it can be clearly separated from other issues affecting the environment remains to be analyzed more rigorously by the author.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3:

We sincerely appreciate your inspiring comments and valuable questions concerning our manuscript entitled “Adaption to Tianjin, China, Based on A Retrospective Pattern Study on the Petrochemical Industry Development and the correlated Process of SO₂ Abatement in Yokkaichi, Japan” (former title as “A Case Study on the Development Pattern of Petrochemical Industry and Process of SO₂ Abatement in Yokkaichi, Japan”), ID: sustainability-2056279. We thank you for the time and effort that you gave put in to reviewing the previous version of the manuscript.

Based on your precious comments, we have made revisions in our manuscript and re-submitted the revision. All revisions are marked and trackable in the manuscript.

Our responds to the comments are as follow:

Comment #1 The title of "A Case Study on the Development Pattern of Petrochemical Industry and Process of SO₂ Abatement in Yokkaichi, Japan" has a gap with the content of the actual analysis. It is suggested that the author should more clearly state or define the correlation or pouring into the causal relationship of the research question research method or scope.

Response #1:

We carefully and thoroughly checked the manuscript. Considering that this study mainly concentrates on the past- the historical development of Yokkaichi’s petrochemical industry, we reckon the importance of emphasizing time-definite for it. Furthermore, since our study on pollution abatement highly related to SO₂ pollution and related industry, energy utilization, and residents’ behavior, we would like to change the original title to “A Retrospective Pattern Study on the Petrochemical Industry Development and the correlated Process of SO₂ Abatement in Yokkaichi, Japan”. We did consider for many times about whether adding Tianjin into the title or not, but due to 2 reasons- Tianjin’s SO₂ pollution issue in this paper appeared as subsidiary content, and the length limit of the title, we intend to keep excluding Tianjin from the title.

Comment #2 The representative variables and related parameters of "The original IPAT equation" or "An adjusted and extended STIRPAT equation " are ill-defined or undefined.

Response #2:

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. According to the comments and suggestions, cautiously reviewed all parts related to these equations. We indeed should have defined the variables and parameters in IPAT equation and STIRPAT equation more precisely. Please see our Response 1 to Reviewer 2. In the meantime, certain changes have been made on page 13-14. In the revised manuscript, representative variables and their related parameters has been given a clearer description.

We thoroughly retrospect the whole history from IPAT model to STIRPAT equation. For the IPAT and STIPAT equation, the original concept is:

Pollution = (Population) x (Production/Capita) x (Pollution/Production)

by B. Commoner and associates, then formally adopted and regenerated as equation by P. Ehrlich and J. P. Holdren, and their initial assumption for the variables was that they are independent with each other, but later changed to not independent [1]. It is commonly believed by other scholars that human population, social organization, environment, technology is connected to each other [2]. Therefore, there is interdependence between the variables in the right-hand side of the equation. Before our work, hereby using the equations in the comparisons of two cities in separate Asian countries, the equation of IPAT was commonly adopted under global, continental, or national scopes. Under these scopes the interdependence is stronger and more obvious. In an ideal situation (as the initial assumption by Ehrlich and Holdren), there should not be interdependence between variables. Of course, it is unrealistic. However, after our literature study on IPAT and STIPAT model, we found that when and how to adopt these equations can be flexible. Equations themselves are universal for countries with different culture and social system, but in actual application the variables need to be adjust based on different circumstances [3].

The interdependence between our variables can be identified, but also, reduced. For instance, number of residents can affect the affluence, growth on population helps bring growth on society affluence. However, when we restrict Affluence as industrial shipment value or industrial product value, it creates uncertainty on the interdependence between affluence and population, which means that Affluence is not necessarily increase at the same pace when Population increase. For Technology, here as efficiency on energy utilization, can reduce the pollution, but not necessarily help increasing industrial product value. Therefore, it makes the variables on the right-hand of the equation more directly correlate with the variable on the left-hand of the equation.

In this paper, we consider constant a, b, c, d, h, k in the STIPAT equation here as parameters for variables, and e as a residual term for linear fitting analysis, and a = b = c = d = h = k = e = 1, which is a way for simulation and calculation purpose. We choose these letter in alphabetic order, and avoid f, g, i in case of misunderstanding.

Comment #3 The author should introduce the proposed analysis model more objectively or systematically, and at the same time provide a clearer reference for the source data of the research analysis.

Response #3:

We indeed lack sufficient description for the reason we adopt the extended STIRPAT model and the details about the process of applying. Please also check our revised manuscript. As our response to comment #2, the introduction of IPAT model and STIRPAT model as been added into the revised paper on page 13-14. And we adjusted the descriptions and added notes to further explain the resources of data appeared in the tables on page 15-17.

Comment #4 The factors of environmental pollution are the overall impact. The author only takes the Process of SO₂ Abatement as the main axis of the discussion. Whether it can be clearly separated from other issues affecting the environment remains to be analyzed more rigorously by the author.

Response #4:

We appreciate your constructive comments. We sincerely recognized the difficulty on discussing only the process of SO₂ abatement. We tried our best to eliminate all factors that are not closely correlated to the regional SO₂ concentration in this paper. For instance, the cities in this paper, Yokkaichi and Tianjin are cities with petrochemical industry as its dominating industry, and comparing to GDP, industrial shipment value and industrial product value are more related with SO₂. The activities of humanity are closely connected with CO₂ emission, but it is not necessary connected with SO₂ emission. SO_x as a certain type of pollutants which closely connects with industrial activities, related factors for studying it also should be more close industry. We consider the discussion part to be appear as a supplementary content for the hypothesis and verification before. And we hope this explanation can help us express our view better.

Reference:

1. Holdren, J. A brief history of IPAT. the journal of population and sustainability 2018, 2, 66–74-66–74.
2. Dietz, T.; Rosa, E.A. Rethinking the Environmental Impacts of Population, Affluence and Technology. Human Ecology Review 1994, 1, 277-300.
3. Vélez-Henao, J.-A.; Font Vivanco, D.; Hernández-Riveros, J.-A. Technological change and the rebound effect in the STIRPAT model: A critical view. Energy Policy 2019, 129, 1372-1381, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.044.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Well done than the previopus version.