The Spatial Association Network Structure and Influencing Factors of Pollution Reduction and Carbon Emission Reduction Synergy Efficiency in the Yellow River Basin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Attached are my comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors and reviewers,

We would like to resubmit the manuscript entitled "Spatial correlation network structure and Influencing Factors of co-efficiency of pollution reduction and carbon reduction in the Yellow River Basin". The manuscript ID is sustainability-3481303

We thank you and the reviewers for your thoughtful suggestions and insights. The manuscript benefited from these insightful suggestions. I look forward to working with you and the reviewers to bring this manuscript closer to publication at Sustainability.

The manuscript has been rechecked and the necessary changes have been made as suggested by the reviewers. Responses to all comments have been prepared and attached below/given.

Detailed revisions can be found in the annex: Responses to Reviewers 1

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Yellow River Basin is a key area for China's national strategic development. Scientifically assessing the synergy efficiency of pollution reduction and carbon emission reduction, as well as identifying the transmission relationships between different cities, is crucial for revealing the spatial linkage structure. This paper focuses on the spatial association network structure of pollution reduction and carbon emission reduction synergy efficiency (SEPCR) in the Yellow River Basin and its influencing factors. The authors use panel data from cities to measure SEPCR with a super-efficiency SBM model, combined with a gravity model and social network analysis methods to discuss the association structure, and apply the QAP model for empirical analysis of influencing factors. The research methodology is feasible, and the conclusions are reasonable. However, there are some issues in the writing of the paper, and certain explanations raise questions. The specific areas of concern are as follows:

1. In the abstract, the explanation of the abbreviation states “YEPCR: Yellow River Basin,” which is clearly incorrect; please correct it.
2. In the research methodology section, why was the super-efficiency SBM model chosen to measure SEPCR? What are its advantages and disadvantages compared to other models? Please explain the advantages of this model.
3. In the spatial network analysis, how are the transmission relationships between cities defined and quantified? Were other potential influencing factors considered?
4. In the literature review summary section:
   • When mentioning “relatively limited research on the spatial structure of SEPCR in the YRB,” it would be helpful to specify which aspects of the research are lacking, such as a lack of empirical studies or a lack of analysis of specific factors, to enhance the necessity of the research.
   • The last part of the literature review states, “this study aims to fill the gap in the field of spatial structure research on SEPCR in the YRB,” which is repetitive of earlier content. Consider merging or rephrasing to avoid redundancy.
5. In section 3.2, when describing the research area, please add references for the socio-economic characteristics. Additionally, since the Yellow River is not the focus of your study, a brief overview will suffice; please emphasize the regional characteristics of the YRB you have chosen.
6. In the description of the research methodology, there are many formatting errors, such as paragraph spacing and formula formatting; please correct these.
7. Please add reference citations for data sources, and ensure that the formatting for SO2 and other substances uses the correct subscripts.
8. In the results description section:
   • Figure 3's kernel density should have units; please ensure accurate labeling.
   • In section 4.1.2, the software used should be correctly labeled with its version.
   • Figure 4 lacks a scale; additionally, it is recommended to label city names in the regions to make the information conveyed by the figure more complete. When a figure contains multiple maps, please use (a), (b) for labeling.
   • The analysis in section 4.1 describes many place names, which need to be labeled in the analysis map. Additionally, the author should explain the characteristics presented by these regions and whether they exhibit spatial clustering features. Please summarize this conclusion.
   • Section titles should be phrases and should not end with a period; please note this.
   • In section 4.2.1, when discussing “some cities displayed significant advantages in economic levels, resource utilization, and pollution reduction technologies,” it would be helpful to clarify what these advantages are and how they specifically affect the efficiency gap and spatial correlation strength between cities. When proposing to “formulate scientifically sound transformation strategies,” please specify the content or direction of these strategies to provide more actionable recommendations for policymakers. Simply stating that strategies need to be formulated appears vague; please specify the aspects of the strategies.
   • Some paragraphs have inconsistent spacing at the beginning, leading to formatting confusion; please correct this.
9. In the discussion section, when mentioning “compared with previous studies,” it would be beneficial to specify which studies are being compared and what specific shortcomings those studies have to enhance the persuasiveness of the argument. When stating “due to the limitation of data availability,” please further explain which cities were not included in the study and how this affects the results to deepen the discussion of limitations. When mentioning “future studies can further expand the scope of the study,” please specify which cities or data types you hope to include and how more advanced models and methods can be used to analyze SEPCR.
10. The conclusion of the paper should be a concise paragraph summarizing the conclusions drawn from the entire study. The author has divided the policy recommendations into two parts; it is suggested to include the policy discussion in the discussion section.
11. In the policy recommendations section, while some specific measures are proposed, it would be helpful to clarify the expected effects and implementation steps for each recommendation. For example, in “strengthen policy guidance and capital investment,” please specify the concrete policy measures or directions for funding investment.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English descriptions are somewhat verbose and lengthy; please refine the sentences. Additionally, there are many formatting errors, as noted in the comments of the article.

Author Response

February 21, 2025

Sustainability

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

 

We wish to re-submit the manuscript titled ‘The Spatial Association Network Structure and Influencing Factorsof Pollution Reduction and Carbon Emission Reduction Synergy Efficiency in the Yellow River Basin’. The manuscript ID is sustainability-3481303

We thank you and the reviewers for your thoughtful suggestions and insights. The manuscript has benefited from these insightful suggestions. I look forward to working with you and the reviewers to move this manuscript closer to publication in the Sustainability.

The manuscript has been rechecked and the necessary changes have been made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. The responses to all comments have been prepared and attached herewith/given below.

Detailed revision content is attached: Response to Reviewers 2

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good job.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the authors for their meticulous revisions. After a thorough re-evaluation of the manuscript, I believe that the authors have successfully addressed the reviewers' comments and improved the overall quality of the paper. The writing now meets the publication standards of the journal Sustainability. I fully support the acceptance of this manuscript for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some minor revision needed for language.