Assessing the Effectiveness of Market-Oriented Environmental Policies on CO₂ Emissions from Household Consumption: Evidence from a Quasi-Natural Experiment in Carbon Trading Pilots

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the article focuses on current hot topics, utilizes classic models, but lacks strong explanatory power in its text. The research conclusions have significant value and are recommended for publication.


Here are some specific suggestions:


1.The final part of the introduction is written in a vague manner and does not clearly present the main content of the article. It particularly lacks several key perspectives for analyzing the results of this study.


2.The literature review section is too thin, especially in terms of the logical integration of literature content and critical opinions.


3.Please note the lack of blank lines after tables at lines 332, 341, 380, 390, and 412. The overly compact layout makes reading inconvenient.


4.The author has conducted extensive data analysis and obtained valuable results, but the interpretation of these results is insufficient and needs to be further developed.


5.Lines 495-499: The statement "highly industrialized groups with insignificant effects may be more proactive in addressing environmental issues" should be either modified or elaborated upon.

6.The final conclusion section mainly lists the above analyses and would benefit from further explanation.

7.The article provides a comprehensive display of data but might consider reducing some unnecessary content in the appendix. Since these contents are not defined by the author, citing them in the main text with proper references would be preferable to including them in the appendix.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well-structured, demonstrating a reasonable degree of innovation, and its conclusions possess significant policy implications. I recommend that the authors consider the following points to enhance the quality of their manuscript further:

(1) Although the text provides comprehensive explanations, including a clearer conceptual framework diagram would be advantageous. A concise and visually appealing illustration is desired to depict intuitively how market-oriented environmental policies impact household-consumption carbon emissions.

(2) The discussion section is currently absent. This section should not only analyze the study's findings but also compare them with existing literature, emphasizing the innovative contributions of this research while acknowledging any limitations. Additionally, it would be beneficial to suggest directions for future research.

(3) The statement regarding the limitations of prior research is overly simplistic. I encourage the authors to articulate the gaps within this research area better, thereby underscoring the marginal contributions of the current study.

(4) Estimated coefficients should be reported with a minimum of three decimal places.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aims to comprehensively assess the impact of market-oriented environmental policies on HCE in both urban and rural areas of China. The findings of this paper suggest that, in the long term, the policy promotes the adoption of low-carbon lifestyles, with urban areas embracing low-carbon concepts earlier than rural areas.

1.       The objective of the study in the introduction seems to be to describe the research method, which needs to be supplemented and improved.

2.       In section 4.2, the author uses five methods to analyze the data. What are the similarities and differences in the results and why?

3.       Can a schematic diagram of the mechanism be provided in section 4.3?

4.       Can a map of spatial heterogeneity be provided in section 4.4?

5.       It is suggested that a comparison between the results of this study and related studies be added to the discussion.

6.       In the literature review section of this paper, it is suggested to supplement a research framework.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides an insightful analysis of how carbon trading policies impact household carbon emissions in China, especially through a difference-in-differences approach. While the study tackles an important and timely issue, it requires revisions to enhance its clarity and overall contribution to the field.

Here are my comments for improvement:

1. Add specific quantitative findings towards the end of the abstract to highlight the impact of the policies, giving a clearer picture of the results.

2. Include 4-5 key highlights that summarize the main findings of the study, ensuring each sentence does not exceed 85 characters including spaces.

3. A nomenclature section should be added before the introduction, listing all abbreviations used in the paper along with their corresponding SI units to improve readability.

4. The introduction should provide a more comprehensive background and context. Expand it to include more recent and relevant studies, particularly in related fields such as energy efficiency in buildings, which influence CO2 emission reduction. Consider adding references like "Advanced predictive maintenance and fault diagnosis strategy for enhanced HVAC efficiency in buildings."

5. The rationale behind the study needs further elaboration. Better justification of the research problem and the chosen methodology will help contextualize the study more effectively.

6. Explicitly state the novelty and scientific contribution of the study. Highlight how this research advances the field, especially in terms of new insights or approaches it offers.

7. The figures in the paper should be improved in terms of resolution and visual appeal to ensure better clarity and easier interpretation of the data.

8. The results section requires more detailed analysis and interpretation. Providing deeper explanations will demonstrate the significance of the findings and how they align with the study's objectives.

9. The conclusion is currently too brief. Expand it to summarize the methodology, tools used, key findings, limitations, and suggestions for future research directions to provide a more comprehensive wrap-up of the study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall writing needs improvement. Avoid personal pronouns and adopt a more formal academic tone throughout the manuscript for better clarity and coherence.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has reached the level required for publication in the journal, and it is recommended to revise it before publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have effectively addressed the majority of the comments from the first review round, and these changes have enhanced the overall quality of the paper. However, I still recommend minor revisions to strengthen a few remaining aspects.

My comments for minor revisions are as follows:

1. Ensure the newly added reference is smoothly integrated into the relevant sections to maintain the flow and context of the discussion. This addition will support the scientific grounding and context of the work. Consider adding the following reference in the introduction section in lines 65-67; Advanced predictive maintenance and fault diagnosis strategy for enhanced HVAC efficiency in buildings.

2. Double-check that all technical terms and units are clearly defined, either within the main text or a nomenclature section if applicable, to improve clarity for readers.

3. Verify the resolution and clarity of any updated figures based on prior feedback, ensuring they meet publication standards for readability and detail.

4. Consider adding a brief note in the conclusions to summarize the changes and improvements made based on the review process.

With these minor adjustments, the paper will be in strong shape for publication. Thank you for the attention to detail and responsiveness to previous feedback.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall english writing of the paper is good. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx