Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made some good modifications to the opinions I raised last time. I think it can be accepted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

none

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The authors made most of the corrections indicated in the review. However, they did not justify why the years 1995-2003 were selected for analysis. In the opinion of the Reviewer, this data is outdated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “The Impact of Environmental Regulation Policy on Regional Technological Innovation: A Case Study of China” addressed an interesting and important issue. This paper may be accepted if the following problems can be clarified.

(1) The parallel trend test results shown in Figure 2 do not pass the test. This could be caused by not removing the base period.

(2) The administrative level of cities is also an important distinguishing factor between Chinese cities. I suggest adding a part of the heterogeneity analysis based on differences in city administrative levels.

(3) Table 4 is obviously misplaced, it is the same as Table 3.

(4) The references should be updated.

(5)A more targeted policy implication is suggested

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study takes China's Two Control Zones Policy as a case study and attempts to ascertain the nature of impacts this policy presents on regional technological innovation.Has a certain degree of innovation. But there are still specific issues as follows:

1.The research period is from 1995 to 2003, which is earlier. A 9-year time series has been studied, and the time series is relatively short. Policy regulation has a lag, and whether it is sufficient to reflect policy effectiveness is questionable. Suggest extending the research period.

2. The author, citing the reasons of the Cleaner Production Promotion Law and the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment, has decided whether the research decision year is reasonable and worthy of discussion. If according to the author's logic, the two laws were implemented on January 1 and September 1, 2003 respectively, the research period should have ended in 2002, not 2003.

3. Regarding the selection of research areas, the two control areas are areas that have already produced or may produce acid rain, or other areas with severe sulfur dioxide pollution. Atmospheric pollution emissions may exceed those of other areas, and there may be endogeneity in the selection of areas, that is, the original industrial technology level of the area is relatively low. It is recommended to increase the comparison of technology indicators at the overall and urban mean levels of the two control areas and non two control areas, and further analysis.

4. In terms of spatial comparison, according to the author's analysis of the differences between the western and eastern central regions, the differences are caused by the level of economic development. So, how can we explain that the impact on the central region is lower than that on the eastern region? The rationality of the reason is worth discussing.

5.Tables 3. and Tables 4. report two identical results, please replace them.

6. In policy recommendations, it is repeatedly emphasized that the recommendations for developing countries come from which part of the manuscript's research. Is this research proposal not suitable for emissions reduction in developed countries? Why?

7.Where is the analysis of spatial differences reflected in the policy section?

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The environmental protection policy of developed countries focuses on counteracting the negative consequences of climate change, as well as implementing mechanisms that reduce the harmful effects of various anthropogenic factors. It should be emphasized that in a significant number of cases, activities that pose a threat to the environment have been restricted, among others: as a result of implementing innovations. The title of the article indicates that this type of topic will be analyzed, but unfortunately to no avail. I propose that the authors make significant additions to the text submitted for evaluation:

1. The abstract does not have a research purpose.

2. In the introduction, you should specify exactly what the research problem is and pose research hypotheses (not statistical) and research questions.

3. In the literature review, please carefully analyze Porter's hypothesis. In my understanding, it has little to do with the innovation compensation theory. I propose that the authors describe Schumpenter's innovation theory (this is the basis), compensation theory, and Porter's hypothesis. And then they characterized innovative technologies (they were not mentioned even though the title of the article indicates them).

4. In the methodology chapter, you should thoroughly describe the double difference method, which is based on regression analysis, and prove that the research method used is appropriate for the analysis conducted. In addition, the procedure for collecting data that was analyzed should be thoroughly described, explaining what data and why. Remember to provide database search criteria and terms.

5. In the Policy Background chapter we learn that the authors mainly analyzed SO2, in my opinion, this is too narrow a research area because environmental protection policy concerns not only the emission of pollutants. If the authors do not decide to supplement the remaining factors, the title should be modified so that it does not mislead the reader.

6. The work should be focused either on cities or on enterprises and the reader cannot be misled.

7. The years selected for analysis (1995–2003) are also questionable because the data are already outdated. I leave the decision in this respect to the Scientific Editor of the journal. It is also incomprehensible to refer to later years, i.e. 2009, in which air quality monitoring was carried out. So it wasn't conducted in previous years? So where did the authors obtain data from 1995-2003?

8. The article is missing a discussion chapter, which should be added to the text

9. I propose to supplement the research conclusions, which should be answers to the research questions and recommendations.

10. The English language requires correction, some incomprehensible statements.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language requires correction, some incomprehensible statements.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The endogeneity issue has not been resolved, and the manuscript has not undergone substantial revisions.