Exploring the Spatiotemporal Heterogeneity of Carbon Emission from Energy Consumption and Its Influencing Factors in the Yellow River Basin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled “Exploring the Spatial-Temporal Heterogeneity of Carbon Emission from Energy Consumption and its Influencing Factors in the Yellow River Basin” is about the assessment on spatial-temporal differentiation of carbon emission from energy consumption（CEEC） in Yellow River Basin and the exploration on and its driving factors using LMDI time decomposition method and the multi-regional(M-R) space decomposition method. The topic is definitely interesting from the perspectives of both carbon reduction/carbon neutrality and the high-quality development of the Yellow River Basin. The overall organization is clear, and many analyses look excellent, offering very interesting insights and clever interpretations, which will contribute to knowledge production in this field quite vividly. However, some major details/revisions must be considered in the revised version of this paper.
1. The novelty aspects of this research should be better highlighted in the introduction and in the discussion sections, which can increase the interest of potential readers.
2. In the conclusion section, the practical implications of the research and the potential for future development should be described. This information can help the potential reader to get a fuller picture of the current and future state of the art in this issue.
3. Line 89-93: Research objectives could be more explicit.
4. Almost, all keywords are the same that used in title, it is more suitable to use new keywords instead repetition of title words.
5. Section 3.1: Line 175-181. This section analyzes the differences of CEEC among provinces in the YRB in 2000, 2006, 2012, and 2018, but does not analyze the spatial heterogeneity of carbon emissions per capita. Therefore, it is recommended to combine Figure 3 and Figure 4 for illustration. For example, in 2018, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region had high carbon emissions, while Shandong Province had high carbon emissions, but its per capita carbon emissions were moderate.
6. Line 186-197: This part describes the spatial differentiation pattern of CEEC in the YRB, the reason of differences is less concerned.
7. Line 236-237: The results showing in Figure 7 are very interesting and important. Please enrich the analysis and discussion on the contents of Figure7.
8. Line 246-247: “relying on a industrial development model of " high energy consumption ".”, Please check the grammar.
9. Line 284: “which is closely related to that of Shanxi”, Please explain the reasons.
10. Section 3.3. Line 287-289. It was worth mentioning that Inner Mongolia was criticized in 2019 for failing to complete the dual control energy assessment target. Evidence or references are required. Some sentences are not clear enough and require careful revision by the author.
11. 4.3. Policy Recommendations. Due to the research data in this study as of 2018, have provinces implemented successful measures to control carbon emissions in recent years? The author can list them for reference to other provinces and cities.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
Thank you for your letter and the reviewer’s comments on our manuscript entitled “Assessment of Conservation Effectiveness of the Tibetan Plat-eau Nature Reserves from a Human Footprint Perspective with global lessons”( Manuscript ID: land-2305574). After carefully studying the comments and your advice, we have made corresponding changes to the best of our abilities. We have marked all revisions using the“Track Changes” function. We hope that the revised version of the manuscript is now acceptable for publication in Sustainability. The main comments and our specific responses are detailed below.
Reviewer1:
Point 1: The novelty aspects of this research should be better highlighted in the introduction and in the discussion sections, which can increase the interest of potential readers.
Response 1: Thank you for professional and constructive suggestions. This is a very helpful question for improving the logicality, credibility and importance of our manuscript. As suggested, we made the following modifications:
In the Abstract part, we added the research value in the abstract “This study is designed to investigate the spatiotemporal variations of carbon emissions in the 9 provinces (regions) of the Yellow River Basin, so as to analyze the influencing factors of carbon emissions, which has important reference value for low-carbon transformation in the 9 provinces (regions) of the Yellow River Basin” (Line27-30, page1).
In the Introduction part, we point out the urgent points of current research to expressing why we choose this topic (Lin39-41, Page1). We pointed out the urgent points of current research and the problems in carbon emissions research in the Yellow River Basin (Line91-94). We added the contribution of this study to the existing research (Line105-108, page 3). We modified the main objectives of this work(line 98-104,page3).
Point 2: In the conclusion section, the practical implications of the research and the potential for future development should be described. This information can help the potential reader to get a fuller picture of the current and future state of the art in this issue.
Response 2: Thank you for professional and constructive suggestions. We add the practical implications of the research and the potential for future development” More attention should be paid to further change of the economic growth mode and consumption concept in 9 provinces (regions) of the YRB, and promote the implementation of new energy strategies.”.
Point 3: Line 89-93: Research objectives could be more explicit.
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestions. As suggested, we modified the main objectives of this work (line 98-104, page3).
Point 4: Section 3.1: Line 175-181. This section analyzes the differences of CEEC among provinces in the YRB in 2000, 2006, 2012, and 2018, but does not analyze the spatial heterogeneity of carbon emissions per capita. Therefore, it is recommended to combine Figure 3 and Figure 4 for illustration. For example, in 2018, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region had high carbon emissions, while Shandong Province had high carbon emissions, but its per capita carbon emissions were moderate.
Response 4: Thank you for your good suggestion. We added the analysis on the spatial heterogeneity of carbon emissions per capita(Line 211, page6). The modification is as follows:
There was still a big gap between the economic development level of inland areas and those of these areas. It could also be seen from figure4 that the provinces of Ningxia, Inner Mongolia and Shanxi had the highest carbon emissions per capita, while the provinces of Henan, Sichuan, Gansu and Shaanxi had lower carbon emissions per cap-ita. Therefore, both the total carbon emissions and per capita carbon emissions in the YRB show a large spatial difference. For example, in 2018, Inner Mongolia Autono-mous Region had high carbon emissions, while Shandong Province had high carbon emissions, but its per capita carbon emissions were moderate.
Point 5: Line 186-197: This part describes the spatial differentiation pattern of CEEC in the YRB, the reason of differences is less concerned.
Response 5: Thank you for your good suggestion. We added the reason for the spatial differentiation pattern of CEEC in the YRB(line 197-202, page5).
Point 6: Line 236-237: The results showing in Figure 7 are very interesting and important. Please enrich the analysis and discussion on the contents of Figure7.
Response 6: Thank you for professional and constructive suggestions. We added a figure to enrich this part.
Point 7: Line 246-247: “relying on a industrial development model of " high energy consumption ".”, Please check the grammar.
Response 7: Thank you reading the paper so carefully and pointing out this grammar problem. We modified the sentence (line285-286, page 5) .
Point 8: Line 284: “which is closely related to that of Shanxi”, Please explain the reasons.
Response 8: This is a good question. This sentence aimed to expressed a fact that Shanxi is in second place. To avoid confusion, we changed into “followed by Shanxi province”.
Point 9: Section 3.3. Line 287-289. It was worth mentioning that Inner Mongolia was criticized in 2019 for failing to complete the dual control energy assessment target. Evidence or references are required. Some sentences are not clear enough and require careful revision by the author.
Response 9: Thank you for pointing out this problem. This is a good question. You are right that the fact “Inner Mongolia was criticized in 2019 for failing to complete the dual control energy assessment target.” Need evidence or references to supported. We carefully analyzed this sentence and found that there is no direct relationship with the “Spatial Influencing Factors of CEEC in the YRB”. Therefore, we deleted this sentence.
Point 10: 4.3. Policy Recommendations. Due to the research data in this study as of 2018, have provinces implemented successful measures to control carbon emissions in recent years? The author can list them for reference to other provinces and cities.
Response 10: Thank you for your rigorous and constructive suggestions. We added a part in Policy Recommendations (Line 427-435, page 13-14).
(3) Fast industrial transformation and upgrading, promoting low-carbon development of industries. Upstream regions should rely on their resource endowment ad-vantages, vigorously develop clean energy such as wind energy, electricity, and natural gas, and gradually achieve clean and low-carbon development. The middle reaches of the Yellow River Basin are rich in coal resources, further developing low-carbon environmental protection technologies, promoting the application of carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies, and reducing energy carbon emissions. The lower reaches of the Yellow River Basin should make good use of the existing industrial foundation and further develop and explore new materials and technologies.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The author studied the spatio-temporal heterogeneity and influencing factors of carbon emissions from energy consumption in the Yellow River Basin by province. The research has practical significance, proper methods, detailed data and presentation, but the novelty is weak, so it is recommended to be published as appropriate.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
Thank you for your letter and the reviewer’s comments on our manuscript entitled “Assessment of Conservation Effectiveness of the Tibetan Plat-eau Nature Reserves from a Human Footprint Perspective with global lessons”( Manuscript ID: land-2305574). After carefully studying the comments and your advice, we have made corresponding changes to the best of our abilities. We have marked all revisions using the“Track Changes” function. We hope that the revised version of the manuscript is now acceptable for publication in Sustainability. The main comments and our specific responses are detailed below.
Point: The author studied the spatio-temporal heterogeneity and influencing factors of carbon emissions from energy consumption in the Yellow River Basin by province. The research has practical significance, proper methods, detailed data and presentation, but the novelty is weak, so it is recommended to be published as appropriate.
Response: Thank you for your fair, encouraging, and very constructive advices. To improved the novelty of this work, we made the following modifications:
(1) In the Abstract part, we added the research value in the abstract “This study is designed to investigate the spatiotemporal variations of carbon emissions in the 9 provinces (regions) of the Yellow River Basin, so as to analyze the influencing factors of carbon emissions, which has important reference value for low-carbon transformation in the 9 provinces (regions) of the Yellow River Basin” (Line27-30, page1).
(2) In the Introduction part, we point out the urgent points of current research to expressing why we choose this topic (Lin39-41, page1). We pointed out the urgent points of current research and the problems in carbon emissions research in the Yellow River Basin (Line 91-94, page2).
(3) We added the contribution of this study to the existing research (Line105-108, page 3).
(4) We modified the main objectives of this work (line 98-104, page3).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you so much for the opportunity to review this manuscript. This research is interesting. Overall, this is an interesting and important topic. The paper can potentially make a valuable contribution. However, there are some minor and major concerns that the authors could give consideration based on my reading of the paper, as follows.
Abstract and keywords
1. The abstract should briefly describe this research value.
2. The keyword “carbon emission from energy consumption” is not suitable, and too long.
Introduction
3. The authors did not explain properly why they took up this topic, what they want to get, what they strive for through their analyze, why this research is important, etc.
4. The contribution of this study to the existing research should be presented.
5. The review is not comprehensive, and the main topics in the article need to be reviewed.
Materials and Methods
6. A very important flaw is that the author neglects the data source.
7. The region should be included in Formula 1
Results
8. Figure 2 suggests changing the diagram type, which is not clearly expressed now. Modify the colors in Figure 7 to highlight the contrast.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
Thank you for your letter and the reviewer’s comments on our manuscript entitled “Assessment of Conservation Effectiveness of the Tibetan Plat-eau Nature Reserves from a Human Footprint Perspective with global lessons”( Manuscript ID: land-2305574). After carefully studying the comments and your advice, we have made corresponding changes to the best of our abilities. We have marked all revisions using the“Track Changes” function. We hope that the revised version of the manuscript is now acceptable for publication in Sustainability. The main comments and our specific responses are detailed below.
Abstract and keywords
Point 1: The abstract should briefly describe this research value.
Response 1: Thank you for professional and constructive suggestions. We added the research value in the abstract “This study is designed to investigate the spatiotemporal variations of carbon emissions in the 9 provinces (regions) of the Yellow River Basin, so as to analyze the influencing factors of carbon emissions, which has important reference value for low-carbon transformation in the 9 provinces (regions) of the Yellow River Basin” (Line27-30, page1).
Point 2: The keyword “carbon emission from energy consumption” is not suitable, and too long.
Response 2: Thank you for your rigorous and constructive suggestions. We modified the key words into “Carbon emission; Energy consumption; Log-Mean Divisia Index (LMDI); Yellow River Basin.”
Introduction
Point 3: The authors did not explain properly why they took up this topic, what they want to get, what they strive for through their analyze, why this research is important, etc.
Response 3: This is a very helpful question for improving the logicality, credibility and importance of our manuscript. We point out the urgent points of current research to expressing why we choose this topic (Lin39-41, page1). We pointed out the urgent points of current research and the problems in carbon emissions research in the Yellow River Basin (Line91-94, page2).
Point 4: The contribution of this study to the existing research should be presented.
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestions. As suggested, we added the contribution of this study to the existing research (Line105-108, page 3).
Point 5: The review is not comprehensive, and the main topics in the article need to be reviewed. Thank you for your suggestions. As suggested, we modified the main objectives of this work (line 98-104, page3).
Response 5:
Materials and Methods
Point 6: A very important flaw is that the author neglects the data source.
Response 6: Thank you very much for pointing out this problem. We added chapter” 2.3 Data sources” (line170-179, page 5).
Point 7: The region should be included in Formula 1
Response 7: Thank you for reading our manuscript so carefully. You are absolutely right that the region should be considered in the calculation of carbon emission using formula. Formula 1 is a a universal formula for regional carbon emissions, and each region is calculated like this, so we did not include the region in the formula. Anyway, this is a good question.
Results
Point 8: Figure 2 suggests changing the diagram type, which is not clearly expressed now. Modify the colors in Figure 7 to highlight the contrast.
Response 8: Thank you for your rigorous and constructive suggestions. As suggested, we changed the diagram type of Figure 2, and modified the colors in Figure 7 to highlight the contrast.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
1) List down all the abbreviations in alphabetical order
2) It is a good research work. Needs to be improved
3) Page No 11, Line No 356, policy Recommendations, correct it
4) Please check the Technical English with native speakers.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
Thank you for your letter and the reviewer’s comments on our manuscript entitled “Assessment of Conservation Effectiveness of the Tibetan Plat-eau Nature Reserves from a Human Footprint Perspective with global lessons”( Manuscript ID: land-2305574). After carefully studying the comments and your advice, we have made corresponding changes to the best of our abilities. We have marked all revisions using the“Track Changes” function. We hope that the revised version of the manuscript is now acceptable for publication in Sustainability. The main comments and our specific responses are detailed below.
Point 1: List down all the abbreviations in alphabetical order.
Response 1: Thank you for your rigorous and constructive suggestions. We listed down the abbreviations in alphabetical order in the end of the paper (line505, Page 15).
Point 2: It is a good research work. Needs to be improved.
Response 2: Thank you for your fair, encouraging, and very constructive advices. To improve the novelty of this work, we made the following modifications:
(1) In the Abstract part, we added the research value in the abstract “This study is designed to investigate the spatiotemporal variations of carbon emissions in the 9 provinces (regions) of the Yellow River Basin, so as to analyze the influencing factors of carbon emissions, which has important reference value for low-carbon transformation in the 9 provinces (regions) of the Yellow River Basin” (Line27-30, page1).
(2) In the Introduction part, we point out the urgent points of current research to expressing why we choose this topic (Lin39-41, Page1). We pointed out the urgent points of current research and the problems in carbon emissions research in the Yellow River Basin (line91-94, page2).
(3) We added the contribution of this study to the existing research (Line105-108, page 3).
(4) We modified the main objectives of this work (line 98-104, page3).
Point 3: Page No11, Line No 356, policy Recommendations, correct it.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing out this problem. The optimization of energy structure is a key task in the Yellow River Basin, but it may not immediately achieve effects. The expression in the text is prone to misunderstandings, so we deleted this sentence.
Point 4: Please check the technical English with native speakers.
Response 4: Thank you for your rigorous and constructive suggestions. We polished the language by consulting two native professors in Purdue University.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
