You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Shuangzhi Li1,
  • Kang Liu1 and
  • Zhongci Deng2,*
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Yongrok Choi Reviewer 2: Abdelmalek Bellal Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors
  • The paper should be revised by the native American Professional English Proofreading Service. There are toooo much grammatical errors. For example (example only) in the title, “critical”, “paths”, “anthropogenic” should be deleted to avoid the confusion. “30 Chinese provinces” -> 30 provinces of China. Most of all the researches on the environment are based on the human activities, and thus “anthropogenic” type of jargon makes confusion only. Make sentences short, clear, precise and accurate!
    - Abstract is not the simple summary of introduction and/or conclusion. It should show the unique contribution and findings such as “numerical results”. There is no number related with the Model, implying no unique findings. In line 20, “The results indicate that Residential sectors in Hebei, Hubei, and Guizhou are the primary contributors to BC emissions“ -> Which is the most with its numbers? What does it implies? So, what should the local or central government do for it? All these are so important that the authors should explain fully. It should be explained in appropriate implications and suggestions. So make it precise, accurate detailed implications with more field-oriented cases.
  • In abstract, “typically treat final demand or income as exogenous variables,”-> I cannot agree with this because IO model uses income as the endogenous inputs and outputs, not exogenous variable! Check it.
  • “consumption → production → income cycle.”-> This kind of explanation is really terrible. Make sentences because it is not report, but logically structured research paper. Same as “consumption → production → income process”
  • The paper should begin with operational definition of the key words such as “black carbon(BC)” compared with regular carbon. Otherwise, BC should not be used without any detailed operational definition.
  • There is No research question at all in the Introduction. There is no clear operational definition of research purpose or aims of supply chain analysis. Make it clear, short, and interesting research questions and/ or purpose of the research first.
  • Figure 1 is difficult to accept because it is against commonsense. In lines 173-174, “Overall, BC emissions in the less-developed inland regions exceeded those in the more-developed coastal areas” -> Why does the less-developed regions emit more without any industrial base? Isn’t it strange? There is logical missing links. Explain more.
  • In Ch.4 Conclusion, there is worries on the fact that due to the central government policies, the heavy polluting industries in western coastal area exports its polluting facilities to the western. The paper should calrifty whether this carbon emission export is true or not. It is not clear in the conc;usion. Make more precise, accurate and field-oriented appropriate implications and SUGGESTIONS.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. Detailed responses to your feedback are provided in the attached document “Response to Reviewer 1.docx”.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study aims to understand how regional disparities in income, final demand, and geographic location contribute to these emissions and how interprovincial trade influences BC generation. The work is original and relevant to the field:  prior structural path analysis studies on black carbon emissions were often limited to single provinces, which could not adequately capture the complex, interconnected supply chain relationships that influence BC emissions across China.

  1. While justified by prior research indicating 80% coverage, a brief discussion on the potential implications of the unanalyzed 20% of emissions could be beneficial.
  2. The actual mathematical steps for endogenizing final demand and income are not explicitly shown
  3. Aggregation, while necessary for data harmonization, inherently leads to a loss of resolution. The authors should acknowledge this limitation in their discussion and, if possible, elaborate on how this aggregation might affect the precision of their policy insights
  4. Figure 1: Integrate the percentage values directly onto the pie chart slices for better readability.
  5. Figure 3: Use more distinctly different color palettes or visual styles for the two maps

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. Detailed responses to your feedback are provided in the attached document “Response to Reviewer 2.docx”.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read this interesting article, which addresses an important research problem in academic discourse concerning black carbon emissions in China, combining a multi-regional input–output (MRIO) model with structural path analysis. After revision, the article has the potential to attract a wide readership.

In the Introduction, the Authors discuss the impact of black carbon on climate and public health quite well, placing the study appropriately within the context of existing literature. A strong point is the identification of limitations in previous provincial-level analyses and the argument for using an MRIO approach. However, there is a degree of redundancy, as the shortcomings of earlier studies are repeatedly emphasized. The abundance of theoretical reflections delays the clear articulation of the study's aim, which in turn postpones the reader’s focused engagement.

The methodological section is based on appropriate theoretical foundations. The Authors clearly present the MRIO model and the application of structural path analysis, as well as the data sources (the 2017 MRIO tables and the MEIC database). A notable strength is the limitation of the analysis to three tiers of the production chain, which makes the calculations practical. However, the mathematical language used is at times too technical for a broader audience. More importantly, the Authors do not clearly state the research objective, research questions, or provide a rationale for the chosen research strategy.

The results constitute the most extensive part of the article, yet they are unconventionally merged with the discussion. The spatial analysis reveals clear differences between more developed and less developed provinces; however, the Authors limit their scope to the year 2017, failing to show temporal trends. Interprovincial relationships are well illustrated through tables and diagrams. A strong point is the finding that consumption in metropolitan areas drives emissions in peripheral provinces. Nevertheless, there is a lack of reflection on the political-economic mechanisms underlying this phenomenon.

The conclusions are consistent with the presented results. The Authors emphasize the need for interregional regulation as well as the modernization of the residential and construction sectors. They propose specific actions, such as the implementation of clean technologies, investment in gas, and the modernization of energy infrastructure. A weakness is the lack of a critical assessment of their own model: the limitations of the MRIO approach are not addressed. As a result, the policy recommendations are not fully supported by the empirical analysis.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. Detailed responses to your feedback are provided in the attached document “Response to Reviewer 3.docx”.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised paper reflects well the comments by the reviewers, and thus can be accpetable for publication. But more precise, accurate, appropriate introduction/conclusion shall be better.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your positive feedback and valuable suggestions. We are glad the revised paper addresses your comments well. As you advised, we have refined the introduction and conclusion for greater precision and appropriateness. We have also streamlined the abstract while keeping key information. Thanks again for your guidance. Sincerely, The Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made substantial changes to the manuscript, and it can be accepted for publication. However, authors are not following MDPI's format when submitting the manuscript. Authors should adhere to it.  

 

Author Response

Thank you for your positive feedback and confirmation that the revised manuscript meets publication requirements. We appreciate your reminder regarding MDPI formatting. We have adjusted the manuscript to fully adhere to MDPI’s guidelines (including layout, reference style, and section formatting) in this submission. Thanks again for your guidance.  

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for including provided suggestions. I wish you good luck with the article promomotion.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your kind feedback and well wishes. We truly appreciate your valuable suggestions, which have been instrumental in improving our manuscript. We will keep working on the article promotion with care, and we are grateful again for your professional guidance throughout the review process.