Two-Way Causality Between Economic Growth and Environmental Quality: Scale in the New Capital of Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article discusses the topic of two-way causality between economic growth and environmental quality.

I have the following comments on the article:

1. The first two sentences of the Abstract require rewording: environmental improvement is an old challenge? The first sentence mentions the planet, and the second "In other places, including developing nations...". It follows that these places are outside the planet. The abbreviation PPU is not explained in the Abstract.

2. Is environmental sustainability always worth emphasizing? In lines 36-37 it follows that, for example, in ancient times as well.

3. The article often uses phrases from everyday language, e.g. "ironically" (line 42), "apart from that" (lines 121 and 290), "so far" (line 306), "so" (line 530). Some phrases are used incorrectly or entire sentences are written incorrectly, e.g. lines 38-40, 90-92, 120-121, 125-126, 343-344, 348-350, 446-447, 511-513.

4. The sentence in lines 47-49 uses the phrase "good correlation". This is an unclear formulation.

5. The sentence in lines 71-72 uses the future tense for an event that was implemented in 2024.

6. Figure 2 is illegible in the part between the Social and Economic clusters and between the Social and Environmental clusters.

7. There is no need to provide the full name of the program (lines 371-372), IBM-SPSS is enough.

8. There is an inaccuracy in the description of the correlation coefficient: according to the description, the values ​​-1 and 1 simultaneously mean a strong correlation and a perfect correlation.

9. There is no need for such a detailed description of the linear trend (lines 397-420). This is a well-known and widely used method described in every statistical textbook.

10. There is no explanation for the use of parametric and nonparametric correlation coefficients (lines 426-428). It is enough to run the test and choose the appropriate coefficient.

11. One of the biggest objections concerns the panel data regression. The authors wrote that they use this method, although the results are presented in such a way that they suggest a regular linear model. It is not known what kind of panel model is used (fixed effect or random effect?), there are no appropriate tests used.

12. My second biggest objection concerns the linear trend model. First, the authors completely unnecessarily describe r-squared in such detail (lines 464-470) - it is well-known and widely used. Second, I have a concern about the r-squared values ​​presented in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Looking at the data, the results are overstated. Did the authors really consider all the points when fitting the trend lines?

Author Response

Dear: Reviewer (Mr./Mrs./Prof./Dr.),

Warm regards. First of all, we would like to thank you for your valuable time in reviewing this paper. Through limited insight, the authors try to follow up on your instructions. We consider that all commented sections are constructive in nature and are useful for improving the overall quality of the paper. Basically, we agree with most of the recommendations. Meanwhile, for a small number of suggestions cannot be followed based on justification and clarification. Therefore, further correction is required if possible. The revised point by point is attached in two separate files. First, the cover letter form (word). Second, the revised version of the paper (pdf). To make the review process easier, you can find it based on “track changes”. The highlighted points are red/blue according to your device display. We hope you will consider the existing revisions.

Please be advised,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You should carefully review your writing to improve the overall clarity and quality of the article. The conclusion section could benefit from a more detailed discussion of the findings and their broader implications. This will strengthen the relevance and contributions of your research.

Additionally, there are several grammatical issues in the manuscript that should be addressed:

• Line 184: Replace "it’s" with "its" to use the correct possessive form.
• Line 185: Correct "in order improve" to "in order to improve."
• Line 92: The phrase "the data was collected" should be revised to "the data were collected," as "data" is plural.
• Line 128: Replace "which allows to analyze" with "which allows us to analyze" for better readability.
• Line 210: The phrase "results shows" should be corrected to "results show" to match subject-verb agreement.

It would be helpful to conduct a thorough language review of the manuscript to address these and any other errors that may affect the flow and readability of the text.

Furthermore, while the article effectively explores the intersection of economics, geography, and environmental studies, including additional case studies or real-world examples would enrich the discussion. For instance, providing a concrete example of how economic policies influence environmental sustainability could make the analysis more relatable for readers.

Author Response

Dear: Reviewer (Mr./Mrs./Prof./Dr.),

Warm regards. First of all, we would like to thank you for your valuable time in reviewing this paper. Through limited insight, the authors try to follow up on your instructions. We consider that all commented sections are constructive in nature and are useful for improving the overall quality of the paper. Basically, we agree with most of the recommendations. Meanwhile, for a small number of suggestions cannot be followed based on justification and clarification. Therefore, further correction is required if possible. The revised point by point is attached in two separate files. First, the cover letter form (word). Second, the revised version of the paper (pdf). To make the review process easier, you can find it based on “track changes”. The highlighted points are red/blue according to your device display. We hope you will consider the existing revisions.

Please be advised,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Indonesia is moving the center of the Indonesian Capital City (IKN). By opening up new space through consideration of equitable economic development towards a green environment, this study is designed to investigate the impact of economic growth on environmental quality and vice versa.

 

Overall, I think this manuscript is suitable for this journal’s scope. However, there are some issues that may need to be improved.

 

Line 102，the picture is too blurry and the font size is too small.

 

Line 245，furthermore, since the 1980s, the US and UK have been able to reduce CO2 emissions. In general, global emissions growth actually comes from developing countries [40,41]. Here，there is an important article that authors are advised to read. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101141.

 

Lines 473-478，the two diagrams can be combined into one.

 

Lines 559-560，the table should have a table name.

 

The organizational structure and content arrangement of the full text should be considered comprehensively and should strengthen logic and scientific rationality.

 

There are some insufficient graphics in the full text, and some graphs that can reflect the details can be appropriately considered.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Dear: Reviewer (Mr./Mrs./Prof./Dr.),

Warm regards. First of all, we would like to thank you for your valuable time in reviewing this paper. Through limited insight, the authors try to follow up on your instructions. We consider that all commented sections are constructive in nature and are useful for improving the overall quality of the paper. Basically, we agree with most of the recommendations. Meanwhile, for a small number of suggestions cannot be followed based on justification and clarification. Therefore, further correction is required if possible. The revised point by point is attached in two separate files. First, the cover letter form (word). Second, the revised version of the paper (pdf). To make the review process easier, you can find it based on “track changes”. The highlighted points are red/blue according to your device display. We hope you will consider the existing revisions.

Please be advised,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The authors made most of the corrections indicated in the review. The authors did not make some of the corrections indicated, arguing for this in an appropriate manner. Sometimes I do not fully agree with the authors' point of view, but I accept their explanations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It can be acceptable in its present version.