Spatiotemporal Patterns and Influencing Factors of Carbon Emissions in the Yangtze River Basin: A Shrinkage Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author

Happy New Year. I have read your manuscript, "The Spatiotemporal Pattern and Influencing Factors of Carbon Emissions in the Yangtze River Basin from the Perspective of Shrinkage,” which has helpful ideas and information, which means a command of authors on the issue. Still, I prefer to provide some recommendations that are not mandatory to be applied, but they help to provide better quality for your manuscript. These are as follows:

1.     the first issue that is apparent is the whole parts and sections of this manuscript are very wordy and long, and this makes reading and reviewing this article very challenging; this issue is evident in the entire manuscript, even the title, the abstract, and other sections are also wordy and long without clear reason. My recommendation is to summarize the manuscript; otherwise wise I believe it cannot be suitable research and, whether pass the peer review process, cannot be able to attract citations.

2.     The tile has to be shortened.

3.     According to the regulation, the abstract must be a maximum of 250 words and need to be summarized. On the other hand, using abbreviations in the abstract is not recommended, and only in essential circumstances are they accepted. Then please try to resolve these issues.

4.     The last sentence of the abstract must explain the different sections of the manuscript, and please try to provide it within the standard word count limitations.

5.     Keywords must be revised and don’t need to be bold. “Along the Yangtze Region” cannot be a keyword.

6.     The entire manuscript suffers from unsuitable paragraphing. Each paragraph has to be 4-8 lines, depending on the context. This amount is variable depending on other issues, but the entire manuscript has many long paragraphs that are more than 13,14 lines and are not suitable. Try to rectify this issue.

7.     The introduction section must include the research gap's central concept, the issue's novelty, and the target audience. The final paragraph/s of the introduction must also provide information about the following sections. Authors must provide these issues.

8.     The information between lines 51-67, which includes much information about conferences, a country's carbon neutrality, and this program's goals, needs references, but I cannot find any references for these explanations.

9.     Subsection 2.1 has some information that is categorized, and the bullets are not correct. In this case, I think we should make a title for each bullet and then begin to explain the context. The issue can be applied to subsection 2.2, too.

10.  If formulas are provided by authors, please mention them; otherwise, explain the resources; the formulas are standard formulas that are used based on GHG protocols or IPCC recommendations, and then why are suitable references not available and not mentioned?

11.  Subsections 2.1.1 till 2.1.4 requires references. Plz provide them.

12.  Subsection 2.2.2 requires citations. Plz provide.

13.  In general, the entire manuscript lacks referencing; all scientific statements have to have relevant references alongside them, and the authors haven’t paid attention to this critical issue.

14.  All Abbreviations like T1 and others must be explained; why is the economic factor T1?

15.  Figures are retrieved from other studies; plz provide the resources.

16.  Although the subsections of 3.1 are very wordy, the authors can explain 370-399 clearly and concisely and don’t need to repeat themselves. The same factor can be considered for interpretations of Figures 2 to 8, too.

17.  What are highlighted citations in subsection 3.3???

18.  Figure 9 and Figure 10 can merge with each other. Please, if practicable, provide it.

19.  In general, all parts of subsection 3.3. including 3.3.1 to 3.3.4, are very wordy. The information is helpful, but why is much irrelevant information mentioned?

20.  What are Chinese words inside Table 5??????

21.  Discussion is the heart of a research article, but it has to be clear and explain the interpretations of the information in a very scientific and clear manner. Different factors and subfactors overlap, like social factors. It's better to totally revise this section, and of course, don’t use AI to generate the main idea.

22.  The conclusion is well done; please add some sentences or one short paragraph regarding your recommendation for future studies.

 

Thanks for your attention. I look forward to the revisions and to sending them back for reconsideration, but the manuscript needs major revisions and summarizing and cutover using AI, otherwise I never accept in this form.

Author Response

1. the first issue that is apparent is the whole parts and sections of this manuscript are very wordy and long, and this makes reading and reviewing this article very challenging; this issue is evident in the entire manuscript, even the title, the abstract, and other sections are also wordy and long without clear reason. My recommendation is to summarize the manuscript; otherwise wise I believe it cannot be suitable research and, whether pass the peer review process, cannot be able to attract citations.

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello!

First of all, please allow us to extend our most sincere gratitude to you! Your valuable comments and suggestions are of great significance to us and have provided a clear direction for improvement. We fully understand the issue of the manuscript being overly lengthy that you have pointed out and are well aware of the inconvenience it has caused during the reading and review process. We recognize that this problem of verbosity is not only present in each section of the article but is also quite evident in the title and abstract, which are key parts of the manuscript. This issue indeed requires our high attention and improvement.

To address this, we have optimized and streamlined the title and abstract of the article based on your suggestions, striving to be concise and highlight the key points. At the same time, we have conducted a comprehensive and thorough revision of the manuscript, eliminating redundant content while ensuring that the presentation of core viewpoints and research details is clearer and more accurate. However, in incorporating feedback from other reviewers, we have also added some content to certain sections to enhance the completeness and persuasiveness of the article. Additionally, we have adjusted the paragraphs and supplemented relevant references. Therefore, despite significant efforts to condense the text, the overall page count has not changed substantially.

We believe that with these improvements, the readability and academic value of the article will be significantly enhanced. Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback, which has provided us with a clear direction for improvement. We will continue to refine the manuscript according to your suggestions and submit the revised version as soon as possible.

Thank you sincerely for your understanding and support!

 

 

2: The tile has to be shortened.

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! Thank you very for much your attention to our manuscript and your valuable comments. Your observation regarding the overly lengthy title is very insightful. We also recognize that a concise and clear title is crucial for the readers' understanding and the dissemination of the article.

Following your suggestion, we have revised the title to: “Spatiotemporal Patterns and Influencing Factors of Carbon Emissions in the Yangtze River Basin: A Shrinkage Perspective.” The new title retains the core content of the original while being more concise and clear, which will better attract readers' attention and convey the focus of our study.

Thank you again for your advice. We believe these improvements will make our manuscript more complete. If you have any further comments or suggestions, please do not hesitate to let us know. We will take them seriously and continue to make improvements.

 

 

3: According to the regulation, the abstract must be a maximum of 250 words and need to be summarized. On the other hand, using abbreviations in the abstract is not recommended, and only in essential circumstances are they accepted. Then please try to resolve these issues.

Response:

Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have carefully reviewed the issues you pointed out regarding the abstract: first, the word count exceeds 250 words and needs to be further condensed; second, the excessive use of abbreviations in the abstract does not meet the required standards. We are well aware that these issues may affect the clarity and standardization of the abstract, and consequently, cause inconvenience for readers' understanding.

To address these issues, we have taken the following targeted measures for improvement:

• Condensing the abstract: We have restructured the abstract, removed redundant information, and ensured that the core viewpoints and research highlights are fully retained. This has made the abstract more concise and clear, with the word count precisely controlled at 242 words.
• Standardizing the use of abbreviations: We have completely eliminated abbreviations from the abstract and provided full explanations for any abbreviations at their first appearance in the main text, strictly adhering to the required standards.

We have now completed the revision of the abstract and believe that these improvements will meet your requirements. Thank you once again for your meticulous guidance. We will continue to refine the manuscript according to your suggestions and submit the revised version as soon as possible.

 

For a detailed overview of these changes, please refer to the Abstract (lines 17-34) in the revised manuscript (Sustainability-3280231, Clean Version without Track Changes).

 

 

4: The last sentence of the abstract must explain the different sections of the manuscript, and please try to provide it within the standard word count limitations.

Response:

Dear Reviewer,

Regarding the last sentence of the abstract must explain the different sections of the manuscript: We have added a brief description of the article’s structure and main sections at the end of the abstract, ensuring that the overall framework of the article is clearly presented within the word limit. The specific content is as follows: This study addresses gaps in previous research on shrinking cities and carbon emission reduction by considering the dynamic nature of shrinking processes and analyzing carbon emission patterns.

Thank you once again for your meticulous guidance! If you have any further suggestions or if there is a need for additional revisions, please let us know at any time.

 

For a detailed overview of these changes, please refer to the Abstract (lines 32-34) in the revised manuscript (Sustainability-3280231, Clean Version without Track Changes).

 

 

5: Keywords must be revised and don’t need to be bold. “Along the Yangtze Region” cannot be a keyword.

Response:

Dear Reviewer,

Hello! Thank you very much for your attention to our manuscript and your valuable comments. We fully agree with your suggestions regarding the keywords and have made the corresponding revisions.

(1) Revision of Keywords:

We have reviewed and revised the list of keywords, removing “Along the Yangtze Region” and replacing it with more representative and relevant terms, including “national census,” to better reflect the core content and focus of our study. The new list of keywords is as follows: national census; shrinking cities; carbon emissions; population change; influencing factors

(2) Formatting of Keywords:

In accordance with your suggestion, we have adjusted the formatting of the keywords so that they are no longer in bold, in compliance with the journal's formatting requirements.

We believe these changes will make the keywords more accurately reflect the content of our research. We also appreciate your concern and support for improving the quality of our manuscript. If you have any further comments or suggestions, please let us know at any time, and we will take them seriously and continue to make improvements.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback!

 

 

6:  The entire manuscript suffers from unsuitable paragraphing. Each paragraph has to be 4-8 lines, depending on the context. This amount is variable depending on other issues, but the entire manuscript has many long paragraphs that are more than 13,14 lines and are not suitable. Try to rectify this issue.

Response: Hello! Thank you very much for your valuable comments on our manuscript. Regarding the issue of paragraph division you mentioned, we have fully recognized its importance. During the revision process, we will follow your suggestions to re-adjust the paragraphs throughout the manuscript, ensuring that each paragraph is no longer than 14 lines and preferably within 4-8 lines. This will improve the readability and logic of the article. For those paragraphs exceeding 13-14 lines, we will either condense them or split them into several shorter paragraphs while ensuring that the coherence and integrity of the content are not affected.

We will carefully review and adjust the paragraph division in the revised manuscript to meet your requirements and ensure that the format and structure of the entire manuscript are more standardized and clear. Thank you again for your suggestions. We will strive to bring our manuscript up to a higher quality standard.

If there are any further questions or if you need us to provide additional information, please let us know at any time.

 

 

7: The introduction section must include the research gap's central concept, the issue's novelty, and the target audience. The final paragraph/s of the introduction must also provide information about the following sections. Authors must provide these issues.

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have revised and supplemented the Introduction section according to your requirements. Please see Section 1. Introduction for details. The specific revisions are as follows:

1. Research Gap and Limitations

Despite a substantial amount of domestic and international research on the relationship between urban shrinkage and carbon emissions, most studies have focused on the national and provincial levels, as well as specific regions such as the middle reaches of the Yellow River and the Yangtze River Delta. This research distribution is likely closely related to China's unique policy orientation. However, studies on carbon emissions in cities along the Yangtze River remain relatively limited. Currently, research on carbon emissions often centers on key factors such as the economy, industry, and land use, while the exploration of population decline as a factor remains insufficient. Most studies classify shrinking cities based on specific time frames, with few delving into the analysis of carbon emissions from the perspective of population evolution.

For detailed information regarding these changes, please refer to Section 1 “Introduction” of the revised manuscript (Sustainability-3280231, Clean Version without Track Changes), which is located on lines 94 to 103.

 

2. Filling the Gap and Structure of the Paper

To fill this research gap, this study first selects 45 cities along the Chinese section of the Yangtze River as samples. With a rigorous scientific attitude, it uses the permanent resident population dataset from the three national censuses between 2000 and 2020. Taking the continuous change in urban population as the starting point, cities are divided into four categories (as detailed in Table 3 for specific classifications). Secondly, the study focuses on three types of carbon emissions: direct emissions, energy-related indirect emissions, and other indirect emissions. It also covers seven categories of carbon emission sources to explore the carbon emission patterns of the four categories of cities. Thirdly, the study analyzes the influencing factors of carbon emissions for these Four Categories of Cities. Finally, based on the carbon emission patterns and influencing factors, targeted suggestions are provided to policymakers of the four categories of cities. The cities mentioned in this study are the 45 prefecture-level cities along the Yangtze River. The dataset for these prefecture-level cities represents the entire urban area.

For detailed information regarding these changes, please refer to Section 1 “Introduction” of the revised manuscript (Sustainability-3280231, Clean Version without Track Changes), which is located on lines 104 to 116.

 

3. Research Innovations and Target Audience

The contributions of this study are significant and can be summarized as follows: Firstly, this study addresses the research gap by providing a valuable supplement to the analysis of the impact factors of urban shrinkage on carbon emissions in cities along the Chinese section of the Yangtze River. Secondly, this study innovatively approaches the issue from the unique perspective of the continuity of population evolution. It categorizes cities into four types, laying a new theoretical foundation for subsequent in-depth research and expanding the facets of studies on the link between population and carbon emissions. Thirdly, the analysis of carbon emission patterns focuses on four types of cities, examining three types of carbon emissions and the patterns associated with seven emission sources. It aims to explore the reasons behind the changes in the proportion of carbon emissions from these sources. Fourthly, the methods, ideas, and results of this study provide valuable references for cities in similar stage of industrialization or urban growth, as well as developing countries in the process of promoting urban low-carbon economic transformation.

For detailed information regarding these changes, please refer to Section 1 “Introduction” of the revised manuscript (Sustainability-3280231, Clean Version without Track Changes), which is located on lines 117 to 130.

 

Thank you again for your valuable comments. We will continue to work hard to improve the quality and readability of our manuscript. Please let us know if you have any further questions or suggestions.

 

 

8: The information between lines 51-67, which includes much information about conferences, a country's carbon neutrality, and this program's goals, needs references, but I cannot find any references for these explanations.

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for pointing out the issue regarding the need for references in lines 51-67. We take your comments very seriously and have conducted in-depth research and supplementation in response. After further study and analysis, we have added sources for this section, specifically three authoritative documents released by the official website of the Chinese government. These documents not only provide a solid policy basis for the relevant content but also enhance its credibility and academic rigor. For details, please refer to the citations in the text (References 2-4).

If there are any further needs, please let us know at any time.

 

 

9.  Subsection 2.1 has some information that is categorized, and the bullets are not correct. In this case, I think we should make a title for each bullet and then begin to explain the context. The issue can be applied to subsection 2.2, too.

Response: Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback on Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of our manuscript. We fully agree with your observation that the use of bullet points in the categorized information was not sufficiently accurate, which might lead to unclear expressions. To address this issue, we have decided to add clear headings for each bullet point and then elaborate on the relevant content. We hope that this approach will make the presentation of information more organized and easier for readers to follow.

In Section 2.1, we have reorganized the content of items (1), (2), and (3) and created third-level headings as follows:

2.1.1 Vector Dataset of Administrative Boundaries for 45 Prefecture-Level Cities in the Yangtze River Region

2.1.2 Vector Dataset of the Yangtze River Region Boundary

2.1.3 Population Data

2.1.4 Carbon Emission Data

This structural adjustment not only clarifies the hierarchy of information but also enhances the logical coherence and readability of the content. Similarly, we have optimized Section 2.2 by ensuring that each bullet point has a clear heading and by further refining the relevant content.

The revised text can be found in Section 2.1 for your reference. We believe that these improvements will significantly enhance the quality and readability of our manuscript.

Thank you once again for your meticulous review and constructive suggestions. Your feedback has been instrumental in refining our research and improving the quality of our article.

For detailed information regarding these changes, please refer to Section 2 “Dataset sources and research methodology” of the revised manuscript (Sustainability-3280231, Clean Version without Track Changes), which is located on lines 132 to 272.

 

 

10.  If formulas are provided by authors, please mention them; otherwise, explain the resources; the formulas are standard formulas that are used based on GHG protocols or IPCC recommendations, and then why are suitable references not available and not mentioned?

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments. Regarding the issue of carbon emission calculation formulas, the Emission Factor Method adopted in this study is based on the standard approach for greenhouse gas emission accounting. These formulas are primarily derived from the GHG Protocol and the recommendations of the IPCC. The GHG Protocol is an authoritative framework in the field of carbon accounting and provides widely accepted guidelines for greenhouse gas emission accounting. Additionally, the IPCC guidelines offer scientific basis and technical support for the compilation of greenhouse gas inventories. In calculating carbon emissions, this study mainly refers to these two authoritative documents and applies them in the context of the specific research background.

Should there be any further needs, please let us know at any time.

 

For a detailed overview of these changes, please refer to line 194 in the revised manuscript (Sustainability-3280231, Clean Version without Track Changes), and see References 49 and 50.

 

 

11.  Subsections 2.1.1 till 2.1.4 requires references. Plz provide them.

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments you provided during the review process. In response to your suggestion that “Subsections 2.1.1 to 2.1.4 require additional references,” we have carefully reviewed and supplemented the references, strictly following the national standard GB/T 7714-2015 for citation formatting. The newly added references are labeled as 31-35, with specific details as follows:

31. National Platform for Common GeoSpatial Information Services. Available online: https://www.tianditu.gov.cn/ (accessed on 3 February 2025).
32. Open Street Map. Available online: https://www.openstreetmap.org/ (accessed on 3 February 2025).
33. Council, C.O.o.t.S. Census Data of 2000 in China; China Statistical Publishing House: 2002.
34. Council, C.O.o.t.S. Population Census of China 2010; China Statistical Publishing House: 2012.
35. Pingping, W. China Census Yearbook. 2020; China Statistical Publishing House Limited: 2022.

These references cover the latest research findings and authoritative data in the relevant fields, providing solid theoretical and data support for the content in Subsections 2.1.1 to 2.1.4, thereby enhancing the academic value and credibility of our article.

If there are any further adjustments or supplements needed, please feel free to let us know. Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback and careful guidance!

 

 

12.  Subsection 2.2.2 requires citations. Plz provide.

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments you provided during the review process. In response to your suggestion that “Subsection 2.2.2 requires additional citations,” we have carefully reviewed and supplemented the references, strictly following the national standard GB/T 7714-2015 for citation formatting.

The newly added references are as follows:

Xianyu, L. China Energy Statistics Yearbook. 2000-2002; China Statistical Publishing House: 2003.

Jianwu, W. China Energy Statistics Yearbook. 2011; China Statistical Publishing House: 2011.

Bureau, S. China Energy Statistics Yearbook. 2021; China Statistical Publishing House: 2021.

These references cover the latest research findings and authoritative data in the relevant fields, providing solid theoretical and data support for the content in Subsection 2.2.2, thereby enhancing the academic value and credibility of our article.

If there are any further adjustments or supplements needed, please feel free to let us know. Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback and careful guidance!

 

 

13.  In general, the entire manuscript lacks referencing; all scientific statements have to have relevant references alongside them, and the authors haven’t paid attention to this critical issue.

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We are truly grateful for your review of our manuscript and the valuable comments you provided. We fully recognize the importance of citing references in scientific research. It is not only a sign of respect for the achievements of predecessors but also a key to ensuring the scientific rigor and accuracy of our study.

Regarding the issue you pointed out, “the entire manuscript lacks referencing,” we sincerely apologize. During the writing process, we failed to pay sufficient attention to the citation of references, resulting in many scientific statements not being accompanied by relevant references. This oversight not only affects the academic standards of the paper but may also cause inconvenience for readers in understanding our work. We deeply regret this.

After receiving your comments, we took the matter very seriously and took immediate action. After careful verification and supplementation, the number of references in the original manuscript has increased from 35 to 67. The newly added references include 12 statistical yearbook references, 3 national policy references, and other international references. These additional references not only enrich the theoretical foundation of our research but also provide stronger support for our scientific statements.

During the process of adding references, we strictly selected the sources of the literature to ensure their reliability and authority, and we accurately formatted them according to the journal’s requirements. We believe that with these revisions, the academic standards and scientific accuracy of the manuscript will be significantly improved.

Thank you again for your reminders and suggestions. We will approach this issue with a rigorous attitude and ensure that all scientific statements in the revised manuscript are fully supported by references. If you have any further suggestions or questions, please let us know at any time, and we will actively cooperate with the modifications.

 

 

14.  All Abbreviations like T1 and others must be explained; why is the economic factor T1?

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments you provided during the review process. In response to your suggestion that “all abbreviations (such as T1) must be explained, for example, why is the economic factor T1?” we have carefully reviewed and supplemented the explanations.

In Table 2 of the manuscript, the use of the letter “T” is based on a systematic classification and ordering of the influencing factors and their sub-factors. For example, the economic factor is labeled as T1, the policy factor as T2, and the social factor as T3. For the sub-factors of the economic factor, we further name them as T11, T12, etc., to reflect their hierarchical relationships and logical order. Additionally, considering scientific rigor and precision, we have optimized the naming of each indicator of the influencing factors by replacing them with the first letter “D” of the word “Driver,” thereby enhancing professionalism and readability.

To avoid any potential ambiguity, we have provided clear definitions and detailed explanations of the letter “T” and its related naming rules in the text, ensuring that readers can fully understand their meanings and usage logic. If there are any further adjustments or supplements needed, please feel free to let us know. Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback and careful guidance!

 

 

15.  Figures are retrieved from other studies; plz provide the resources.

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments you provided during the review process. In response to your suggestion that “Figures are retrieved from other studies; plz provide the resources,” we have carefully documented and explained the sources of the relevant figures.

The map data used in this study is sourced from the official Tianditu service platform provided by the National Administration of Surveying, Mapping, and Geoinformation. Specifically, it is based on the standard map (Approval Number: GS(2024)0650) released by the Map Technology Review Center of the Ministry of Natural Resources. The boundaries in the map have not been altered in any way.

If there are any further adjustments or additional information needed, please feel free to let us know. Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback and careful guidance!

For a detailed overview of these changes, please refer to line 361-363 in the revised manuscript (Sustainability-3280231, Clean Version without Track Changes)

 

 

16.  Although the subsections of 3.1 are very wordy, the authors can explain 370-399 clearly and concisely and don’t need to repeat themselves. The same factor can be considered for interpretations of Figures 2 to 8, too.

Response: Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback on Section 3.1 of our manuscript. We fully agree with your observation regarding the verbosity of the text and have thoroughly revised the relevant parts. Specifically, we have reorganized the content on pages 370-399 to ensure that the expressions are clearer, more concise, and free of unnecessary repetition. For example, when discussing the spatial layout of regions, we have strictly limited the number of cities mentioned, focusing on a maximum of three key cities to highlight critical information and avoid redundancy.

In addition, we have optimized the interpretations of Figures 2 to 8, adhering to the same principle of brevity and clarity. These revisions aim to enhance the readability and logical coherence of the article, enabling readers to more efficiently grasp key information.

The revised sections are attached to this response for your reference. We believe these improvements will significantly enhance the quality of our manuscript.

Thank you once again for your meticulous review and valuable suggestions. Your feedback has been instrumental in refining our research and improving the quality of our article.

 

 

17.  What are highlighted citations in subsection 3.3???

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments you provided during the review process. In response to your question, “What are the highlighted citations in Subsection 3.3?” we have conducted a thorough check. Upon verification, we found that the highlighted parts were marked during the proofreading of the references for easier cross-checking, but were inadvertently left highlighted. This may have caused confusion during your review, and we apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

We have now addressed the highlighted parts, ensuring that all citations are formatted consistently and in accordance with academic standards. If there are any further adjustments or additional information needed, please feel free to let us know. Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback and careful guidance!

 

 

18.  Figure 9 and Figure 10 can merge with each other. Please, if practicable, provide it.

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments you provided during the review process. In response to your suggestion that “Figure 9 and Figure 10 can be merged,” we have given this matter serious consideration and conducted a thorough discussion.

After careful deliberation, we have found that Figure 9 and Figure 10 each serve distinct purposes in terms of logic and function, and thus, we have decided to maintain their independence. Specifically:

• Figure 9 focuses primarily on the comparison of carbon emissions, carbon emission growth rates, and per capita GDP among four types of cities. It aims to present the macro-level differences and developmental trends between different types of cities, providing readers with an overall perspective.
• Figure 10, on the other hand, is more dedicated to a detailed comparison of three types of carbon emission sources among the four types of cities. It reveals the specific differences in carbon emission structures between different types of cities, offering a more in-depth analysis.

Given the significant content dimensions and information volume covered by both figures, merging them might result in an overly complex chart, which could detract from the clarity with which readers can understand the core information of each. Therefore, we have chosen to keep the two figures separate to ensure the simplicity and readability of the charts.

If there are any further adjustments or additional information needed, please feel free to let us know. Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback and careful guidance!

 

 

19.  In general, all parts of subsection 3.3. including 3.3.1 to 3.3.4, are very wordy. The information is helpful, but why is much irrelevant information mentioned?

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your detailed review and valuable comments on Section 3.3 (including Subsections 3.3.1 to 3.3.4). We fully understand the issue you pointed out regarding the “verbosity and inclusion of excessive irrelevant information.” When drafting this section, our intention was to provide comprehensive background information and research details to help readers better understand the research context and methods. However, we also recognize that this approach may have led to redundancy, affecting the conciseness and readability of the article.

In response to your suggestions, we have thoroughly revised and optimized Section 3.3 to ensure that the information is more focused and concise. The specific revisions are reflected in Section 3.3. We have removed content that is not closely related to the core research questions, retained key information, and optimized the overall structure to ensure that readers can efficiently access valuable research details and analyses.

Thank you again for your suggestions! We will take them seriously and incorporate them into the revisions of our article to enhance its quality and readability.

For a detailed overview of these changes, please refer to line 651-811 in the revised manuscript (Sustainability-3280231, Clean Version without Track Changes).

 

 

20.  What are Chinese words inside Table 5??????

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments you provided during the review process. In response to your question, “What are the Chinese words inside Table 5?” we have conducted a thorough check and made the necessary corrections.

Upon verification, the Chinese words in Table 5 resulted from incomplete translation or unclear annotation during the data organization process, which led to their failure to be converted into English in a timely manner. We are well aware that this may have caused inconvenience during your review, and we sincerely apologize for any confusion. In fact, the content of Table 5 is closely related to Table 2 and is designed based on the structure and content of Table 2. We defined and explained the relevant terms in Table 2, and thus directly referenced these terms in Table 5 without re-translating them. This approach was initially taken to maintain the logical coherence and consistency between the tables.

To ensure the clarity and internationalization of the table, we have now thoroughly reviewed and revised Table 5. All Chinese terms that were not previously translated have been supplemented with accurate translations, and we have ensured that all terminology is clearly and accurately expressed.

If there are any further adjustments or additional information needed, please feel free to let us know. Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback and careful guidance!

 

 

21. Discussion is the heart of a research article, but it has to be clear and explain the interpretations of the information in a very scientific and clear manner. Different factors and subfactors overlap, like social factors. It's better to totally revise this section, and of course, don’t use AI to generate the main idea.

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello!

We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments on our manuscript, especially those regarding the “Discussion” section. We fully agree with your perspective that the discussion is the core of a research article. It must clearly and scientifically interpret the findings and accurately elaborate on the interrelationships between different factors and their subfactors.

In response to the issues you raised, we have thoroughly revised the “Discussion” section to ensure that each part is clearer, more accurate, and more logical. During the revision process, we did not use AI to generate the main ideas. Instead, we conducted an in-depth analysis and reorganization of the discussion content based on research data, existing literature, and the background and practical significance of the study.

The revised content framework is as follows:

4.1 Analysis of Common Influencing Factors of Carbon Emission Intensity in Four Types of Cities

4.1.1 GDP has a significant inhibitory effect on carbon emission intensity.

4.1.2 D35 has a negative impact on carbon emission intensity.

4.1.3 D37 has a negative impact on carbon emission intensity.

4.1.4 D38 has a positive impact on carbon emission intensity.

4.2 Analysis of Non-Common Influencing Factors of Carbon Emission Intensity in Four Types of Cities

4.2.1 Under economic factors, D13 promotes the increase in carbon emission intensity, while D15 suppresses it.

4.2.2 Policy factors help suppress carbon emission intensity, with particularly significant effects in LS and SS cities.

4.2.3 Under social factors, both D31 and D36 inhibit carbon emission intensity across the four types of cities, but to varying degrees.

We believe that the revised discussion section now better presents the core findings of our study and provides a clearer interpretation for readers. Thank you again for your suggestions, and we will continue to strive to improve the quality of our manuscript.

For a detailed overview of these changes, please refer to line 813-981 in the revised manuscript (Sustainability-3280231, Clean Version without Track Changes)

 

 

22.  The conclusion is well done; please add some sentences or one short paragraph regarding your recommendation for future studies.

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We sincerely appreciate your affirmation of the conclusion section of our study. Following your suggestion, we have added a brief paragraph on future research directions in the conclusion. Drawing on the issues and limitations identified in our study, we propose the following directions for future research: to further develop a scientific and comprehensive framework for carbon emission data collection, to broaden the research perspective, and to conduct an in-depth analysis of the complex relationship between urban contraction and carbon emissions. We hope that the proposal of these directions will provide valuable references and inspiration for subsequent studies.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback! If you have any further suggestions or if there is a need for additional revisions, please let us know at any time.

 

 

 

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback! We have thoroughly revised and improved the manuscript based on your suggestions. We believe that these revisions will significantly enhance the quality of the article. Should there be any further questions or suggestions, we are ready to make additional adjustments at any time.

Thank you very much for your support and assistance!

 

 

Xiujuan Jiang

2025.2.21

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper analyzes the spatiotemporal patterns and influencing factors of carbon emissions in 45 cities along the Yangtze River Basin. The findings reveal distinct carbon emission trends among shrinking and growing cities, highlighting key economic, policy, and social drivers, with implications for urban planning and carbon reduction strategies. The research topic and foundation are interesting and solid with a well-structured methodology. However, the writing style, clarity, and logical context need substantial improvement and discussions need to be more analytically deep. Therefore, the paper is suggested Minor Revision before publication. Some comments list below:

1. The paper has numerous awkward phrasings, direct translations from Chinese, and redundancy. This affects readability and clarity. Requires thorough language editing by a native English speaker or a professional editor.
2. Some China policy name such as Carbon Peak in abstract may not be appropriate since it refers to a famous mountain in Colorado, US. For readers without background of China policy, it could be confusing. Therefore, more explanation on the policy terms in introduction would be an improvement.
3. For context, the literature review lacks a clear articulation of the research gap. The transitions between sections are not smooth, making it difficult to follow the argument. Besides, the discussion section does not sufficiently connect findings to policy implications.
4. Most references are from Chinese first authors, which makes the study less internationally accessible. Although the topic is focus on Yangtze River area, the engagement and comparison with global research on urban shrinkage and carbon emissions would improve the paper.
5. Some citations are incomplete or improperly formatted. Reference list needs to be cleaned up and standardized.
6. Table 5 contains Chinese words. Needs translation at least.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing quality in this paper is generally clear, but there are numerous instances of awkward phrasing, grammatical errors, and structural inconsistencies. Some issues appear to stem from direct translations of Chinese sentence structures into English, resulting in unnatural phrasing and redundancy.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Hello!

First of all, we would like to extend our sincere gratitude for taking the time out of your busy schedule to review our manuscript and provide valuable comments and suggestions. Your professional insights are of great significance in helping us improve our research and enhance the quality of our paper. In light of your suggestions, we have specifically invited the professional editing team from MDPI to conduct a comprehensive language polish and revision of the article. The detailed modifications are highlighted in blue font within the revised manuscript (sustainability-3280231, Revised with Track Changes). Below are our detailed responses to each of your comments:

 

1. The paper has numerous awkward phrasings, direct translations from Chinese, and redundancy. This affects readability and clarity. Requires thorough language editing by a native English speaker or a professional editor.

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We sincerely appreciate your review of our manuscript and the valuable comments you have provided. We fully agree that the accuracy and fluency of language expression are extremely important for the readability and clarity of a paper, especially in international academic communication. Clear expression can more effectively convey our research findings.

Regarding your comment that “the manuscript contains many awkward expressions, direct translations from Chinese, and redundancies, which affect readability and clarity,” we apologize sincerely. This may be because we were too focused on the research content itself during the writing process and overlooked the naturalness and fluency of the language expression.

We fully accept your suggestion that the language needs thorough editing. To address this, we have engaged a professional editing team from MDPI to conduct comprehensive language polishing and layout optimization for the manuscript. They will help us correct awkward expressions, eliminate redundancies, and ensure that the language is more natural, fluent, and in line with English writing conventions.

We believe that through these measures, the language quality of the manuscript will be significantly improved. Thank you again for your suggestions and reminders. We will approach this issue with a rigorous attitude and ensure that the revised manuscript has more standardized and fluent language expression.

If you have any further suggestions or questions, please let us know at any time, and we will actively cooperate with the necessary revisions.

Note: For details of the language editing conducted by the professional editing team, please refer to the blue text in the revised manuscript (Sustainability-3280231, Revised with Track Changes).

 

2. Some China policy name such as Carbon Peak in abstract may not be appropriate since it refers to a famous mountain in Colorado, US. For readers without background of China policy, it could be confusing. Therefore, more explanation on the policy terms in introduction would be an improvement.

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback. Regarding the potential confusion caused by policy terms such as “Carbon Peak,” we have removed the relevant content from the abstract to avoid using terms that may lead to misunderstandings. Meanwhile, we have provided detailed explanations of these policy terms in the introduction to help readers better understand their background and meaning.

Thank you again for your meticulous guidance! If you have any further suggestions or if there is a need for additional revisions, please let us know at any time.

For a detailed overview of these changes, please refer to line 48-49 in the revised manuscript (Sustainability-3280231, Clean Version without Track Changes).

 

 

3. For context, the literature review lacks a clear articulation of the research gap. The transitions between sections are not smooth, making it difficult to follow the argument. Besides, the discussion section does not sufficiently connect findings to policy implications.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions.

（1）Research Gap and Limitations

Despite a substantial amount of domestic and international research on the relationship between urban shrinkage and carbon emissions, most studies have focused on the national and provincial levels, as well as specific regions such as the middle reaches of the Yellow River and the Yangtze River Delta. This research distribution is likely closely related to China's unique policy orientation. However, studies on carbon emissions in cities along the Yangtze River remain relatively limited. Currently, research on carbon emissions often centers on key factors such as the economy, industry, and land use, while the exploration of population decline as a factor remains insufficient. Most studies classify shrinking cities based on specific time frames, with few delving into the analysis of carbon emissions from the perspective of population evolution.

For detailed information regarding these changes, please refer to Section 1 “Introduction” of the revised manuscript (Sustainability-3280231, Clean Version without Track Changes), which is located on lines 94 to 103.

 

（2）Filling the Gap and Structure of the Paper

To fill this research gap, this study first selects 45 cities along the Chinese section of the Yangtze River as samples. With a rigorous scientific attitude, it uses the permanent resident population dataset from the three national censuses between 2000 and 2020. Taking the continuous change in urban population as the starting point, cities are divided into four categories (as detailed in Table 3 for specific classifications). Secondly, the study focuses on three types of carbon emissions: direct emissions, energy-related indirect emissions, and other indirect emissions. It also covers seven categories of carbon emission sources to explore the carbon emission patterns of the four categories of cities. Thirdly, the study analyzes the influencing factors of carbon emissions for these Four Categories of Cities. Finally, based on the carbon emission patterns and influencing factors, targeted suggestions are provided to policymakers of the four categories of cities. The cities mentioned in this study are the 45 prefecture-level cities along the Yangtze River. The dataset for prefecture-level cities represents the entire urban area.

For detailed information regarding these changes, please refer to Section 1 “Introduction” of the revised manuscript (Sustainability-3280231, Clean Version without Track Changes), which is located on lines 104 to 116.

（3）The Discussion Section Does Not Sufficiently Connect Findings to Policy Implications

we have revised and supplemented the discussion section. Specifically, we have conducted in-depth discussions and analyses of the four types of cities based on four key policy indicators. This approach better translates our research findings into concrete policy recommendations. These analyses not only reveal the strengths and challenges of different types of cities in the process of carbon emission reduction but also provide more targeted guidance for policymakers.

For detailed information regarding these changes, please refer to Section 4.2.2 in Chapter 4 “Discussion” of the revised manuscript (Sustainability-3280231, Clean Version without Track Changes), which is located on lines 938 to 955.

Thank you once again for your meticulous guidance! If you have any further suggestions or if there is a need for additional revisions, please let us know at any time.

 

4. Most references are from Chinese first authors, which makes the study less internationally accessible. Although the topic is focus on Yangtze River area, the engagement and comparison with global research on urban shrinkage and carbon emissions would improve the paper.

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We sincerely appreciate your review of our manuscript and the valuable comments you have provided. We fully agree that the international accessibility of a study is crucial for enhancing its academic impact. In recent years, with the implementation of China’s low-carbon policies, many international journals have featured studies linking carbon emissions to urban areas, focusing primarily on China. This has, to some extent, led to a higher proportion of Chinese first authors in our reference list. Your comment that “the majority of references are from Chinese first authors, which limits the international accessibility of the study” is very insightful. We also recognize that engaging in broader dialogue and comparison with international research is key to improving the quality of our study.

In response to your suggestion, we have thoroughly re-examined our manuscript and added over 30 new references, more than 20 of which are international sources. The specific improvements are as follows:

（1）Increased citation of international literature: We have supplemented our references with cutting-edge international studies on urban shrinkage and carbon emissions. These additional sources not only enrich the theoretical framework of our research but also help us examine the issues in the Yangtze River region from a more global perspective, thereby enhancing the international scope of our study.

（2）Enhanced comparison and connection with global research: We have systematically reviewed international studies on urban shrinkage and carbon emissions and included comparative analyses with global research in our manuscript. Through these comparisons, we not only highlight the unique characteristics of the Yangtze River region but also explore commonalities with other regions facing similar issues, further emphasizing the universality and innovativeness of our research.

（3）Optimized research methods and perspectives: Drawing on advanced methods and techniques from international studies, we have refined our research methods to make them more scientific and universally applicable. Additionally, we have reinterpreted our research findings from the perspective of global sustainable development, further deepening and broadening the scope of our study.

We believe that through these improvements, our research will not only better serve the academic development of related fields in China but also play a more significant role on the global academic stage. Thank you again for your suggestions and reminders. We will approach every aspect of our research with a more open and rigorous attitude.

If you have any further suggestions or questions, please let us know at any time, and we will actively cooperate with the necessary revisions.

 

5. Some citations are incomplete or improperly formatted. Reference list needs to be cleaned up and standardized.

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We sincerely appreciate your review of our manuscript and the valuable comments you have provided. We fully agree that standardized reference formatting is crucial for the rigor and readability of academic papers. Regarding your comment that “some citations are incomplete or improperly formatted, and the reference list needs to be cleaned up and standardized,” we have taken this issue very seriously. After initially inviting a professional editor from MDPI to adjust and standardize the references, we have further improved them through the following measures:

• Comprehensive Review and Cleanup of References: We have reviewed each entry in the reference list, removing any duplicates or irrelevant items. This ensures that all references are closely related to the content of our study, thereby enhancing the relevance and accuracy of the reference list.
• Standardization of Citation Formats: In accordance with the requirements of the National Standard of the People's Republic of China: Rules for the Bibliographic References and Citations to Information Resources (GB/T 7714—2015), we have standardized the formatting of all references. The specific measures include:
• Using punctuation marks appropriate to the language of the references (Chinese punctuation for Chinese literature and English punctuation for English literature) to ensure consistency.
• Strictly adhering to the prescribed formats for different types of literature (such as monographs, journal articles, conference papers, and theses) to ensure that the formatting is standardized and clear.
• Carefully checking and completing all necessary information for each citation, including authors, titles, publication details, and page numbers, to ensure completeness.
• Enhancing Traceability of References: For online resources and electronic literature, we have added access paths and dates of retrieval (where applicable) to enhance the traceability of the references and ensure that readers can easily access the original sources.

Through these improvements, we believe that the standardization and accuracy of the reference section will be significantly enhanced. Thank you again for your suggestions and reminders. We will continue to approach every detail of academic writing with greater rigor.

 

6.Table 5 contains Chinese words. Needs translation at least.

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments you provided during the review process. In response to your question, “What are the Chinese words inside Table 5?” we have conducted a thorough check and made the necessary corrections.

Upon verification, the Chinese words in Table 5 resulted from incomplete translation or unclear annotation during the data organization process, which led to their failure to be converted into English in a timely manner. We are well aware that this may have caused inconvenience during your review, and we sincerely apologize for any confusion. In fact, the content of Table 5 is closely related to Table 2 and is designed based on the structure and content of Table 2. We defined and explained the relevant terms in Table 2, and thus directly referenced these terms in Table 5 without re-translating them. This approach was initially taken to maintain the logical coherence and consistency between the tables.

To ensure the clarity and internationalization of the table, we have now thoroughly reviewed and revised Table 5. All Chinese terms that were not previously translated have been supplemented with accurate translations, and we have ensured that all terminology is clearly and accurately expressed.

If there are any further adjustments or additional information needed, please feel free to let us know. Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback and careful guidance!

 

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback! We have thoroughly revised and improved the manuscript based on your suggestions. We believe that these revisions will significantly enhance the quality of the article. Should there be any further questions or suggestions, we are ready to make additional adjustments at any time.

Thank you very much for your support and assistance!

 

 

Xiujuan Jiang

2025.2.21

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Some strengths of the article are: comprehensive methodology, uses multiple analytical methods including GIS, employs both qualitative and quantitative approaches, LISA clustering, and association analysis, and good use of domain literature. The results are presented in a detailed manner, and the outcome has practical applications with awareness of potential data constraints.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language should be improved significantly as stated in the main text. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Hello!

First and foremost, we would like to extend our sincere gratitude for taking the time out of your busy schedule to review our manuscript and provide valuable comments and suggestions. Your expertise and insights are of great significance in helping us improve our research and enhance the quality of our paper. In light of your suggestions, we have specifically invited the professional editing team from MDPI to conduct a comprehensive language polish and revision of the article. The detailed modifications are highlighted in blue font within the revised manuscript (sustainability-3280231, Revised with Track Changes). Below are our detailed responses to each of your comments:

1. Inconsistent Capitalization throughout the text

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! Thank you for pointing out the inconsistent capitalization in the text. We have carefully reviewed and corrected the entire manuscript to ensure that the capitalization of headings, proper nouns, and the beginnings of paragraphs conforms to academic standards. We have also conducted a comprehensive check and adjustment for any oversights.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

 

 

2. Punctuation Errors throughout the text

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! Thank you for pointing out the improper use of punctuation in the text. We have carefully reviewed and corrected the entire manuscript, standardizing the use of punctuation marks to ensure they comply with the requirements of academic writing and grammatical rules. At the same time, we have also clarified some potentially ambiguous expressions to enhance the readability and accuracy of the article.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

 

 

3. Formula Formatting throughout the text

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! Thank you for pointing out the inconsistent formatting of the formulas in the text. We have conducted a comprehensive review and adjustment of all formulas throughout the manuscript to ensure they meet the standards of academic publishing. This includes the proper use of symbols, correct labeling of subscripts and superscripts, and appropriate formatting of the formulas. Additionally, we have provided further clarification for the variables and parameters within the formulas to enhance the clarity and readability of the article.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

 

 

4. Irregular spacing in reference entries

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! Thank you for pointing out the irregular spacing in the reference entries. We have conducted a comprehensive review and correction of the reference section to ensure that all entries conform to the standards of academic publishing. This includes the proper use of punctuation, standardized spacing, and accurate identification of the type of publication. Additionally, we have reviewed the relevant formatting requirements and standardized the use of punctuation for both Chinese and English references.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

 

 

5. Formatting Inconsistencies throughout the text

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! Thank you for pointing out the formatting inconsistencies in the manuscript. We have carefully reviewed and corrected the entire text to ensure that all formats comply with the standards of academic publishing. Specific measures include:

Standardizing the format of headings and paragraphs to ensure consistency and compliance.

Reformatting figures and formulas to meet the journal’s style requirements.

Checking and correcting the citation format to ensure the accuracy of the reference list.

We have also detailed the changes in the revised manuscript for your convenience. Should there be any further issues, we will continue to make the necessary adjustments.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

 

 

6. Variable formatting of headings and subheadings

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! Thank you for pointing out the inconsistent formatting of headings and subheadings in the manuscript. We have conducted a comprehensive review and unified adjustment of all headings and subheadings throughout the text to ensure they comply with the standards of academic publishing. This includes consistency in font, size, bolding, and numbering.

We have also detailed the changes in the revised manuscript for your convenience. Should there be any further issues, we will continue to make the necessary adjustments.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

 

 

7. Inconsistent table and figure numbering styles

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We are truly grateful that you pointed out the inconsistent numbering styles of tables and figures in our manuscript. After carefully reviewing the specific requirements for table and figure numbering set by the Sustainability journal once again, we have conducted a comprehensive review and unified adjustment of the numbering throughout the manuscript to ensure full compliance with the standards of academic publishing.

We believe that with these revisions, the numbering styles of tables and figures will be clearer and more consistent, thereby enhancing the overall quality of the article. Should there be any further issues or suggestions, we are ready to make additional adjustments at any time.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

 

 

8. Irregular line spacing between sections

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We are truly grateful for your pointing out the inconsistent line spacing between sections in our manuscript. Following your suggestion, we have adjusted the line spacing throughout the text to ensure consistency and compliance with the standards of academic publishing.

We believe that with these revisions, the format of the manuscript will be more standardized and the overall readability will be enhanced. Should there be any further issues or suggestions, we are ready to make additional adjustments at any time.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

 

 

9. Grammatical Errors throughout the text

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We are truly grateful for your identification of grammatical errors in the manuscript. To ensure the accuracy and standardization of the language, we have engaged a professional editor from MDPI to conduct a comprehensive grammatical review and polish of the article. On this basis, we have also meticulously examined and revised the entire text, carefully identifying and correcting grammatical errors to further enhance the clarity and precision of the language. Additionally, we have refined some potentially ambiguous expressions to improve the overall linguistic quality of the manuscript.

We believe that with these revisions, the grammatical accuracy and readability of the article will be significantly enhanced. Should there be any further issues or suggestions, we are ready to make additional adjustments at any time.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

 

 

10. Unit Formatting throughout the text

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We are truly grateful for your pointing out the inconsistent formatting of units in our manuscript. We have conducted a comprehensive review and unified adjustment of the unit formatting throughout the text to ensure full compliance with the standards of academic publishing.

We believe that with these revisions, the format of the manuscript will be more standardized and its readability will be enhanced.

Thanks!

 

 

11. Inconsistent spacing between numbers and units throughout

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! Thank you for pointing out the inconsistent spacing between numbers and units in the manuscript. We have carefully reviewed and standardized the spacing throughout the text to ensure it complies with the standards of academic publishing.

Thanks.

 

 

12. Irregular percentage symbol usage

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! Thank you for pointing out the inconsistent spacing between numbers and units in the manuscript. We have carefully reviewed and standardized the spacing throughout the text to ensure it complies with the standards of academic publishing.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

 

 

13. Technical Terms

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! Thank you for pointing out the improper or non-standard use of technical terms in the manuscript. We have conducted a comprehensive review and correction of the technical terms throughout the text to ensure their accuracy and compliance with the standards and norms of our field. The specific measures include:

Accuracy of Terms: We have verified the definitions and usage of all technical terms to ensure they are accurate and clear in the context of the manuscript, avoiding any ambiguity.

Consistency of Terms: We have standardized the use of technical terms that appear multiple times in the text, ensuring consistency in their expression and preventing the use of different terms for the same concept.

Balancing Professionalism and Readability: While maintaining the professionalism of the terms, we have also provided appropriate explanations or replacements for some terms that might be difficult for non-specialist readers to understand, thereby enhancing the readability of the article.

Reference to Authoritative Literature: We have consulted authoritative literature in the relevant fields to ensure that the use of technical terms conforms to industry standards and the latest research findings.

Should there be any further issues or suggestions, we are ready to make additional adjustments at any time.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. We will continue to improve the quality of the manuscript and submit the revised version as soon as possible.

 

 

14. Line 19: "Demographic figures" unnecessarily capitalized

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We are truly grateful for your pointing out the unnecessary capitalization of “Demographic figures” on line 19. We have promptly addressed this issue by correcting it to “demographic figures” to ensure compliance with academic writing standards. Additionally, our professional editing team from MDPI also identified this issue during their review and has assisted us in conducting a comprehensive check and adjustment of language norms throughout the manuscript.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback!

 

16. Line 19-20: "This research endeavor classifies cities into four categories As revealed by their population dynamics" ("As revealed" incorrectly capitalized)

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello！The relevant issues have been adjusted and corrected according to your requirements.

Thanks!

 

 

17. Line 45: Inconsistent capitalization in keywords improper usage of spaces semicolums are capitalised for no reason"carbon emissions；population change ;；"

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! Thank you for pointing out the improper capitalization and punctuation in the keywords on line 45. We have conducted a comprehensive review and correction of the keywords to ensure they comply with academic standards. The specific measures are as follows:

Capitalization Rules for Keywords: According to academic writing conventions, keywords should be formatted in Title Case, meaning the first letter of each major word is capitalized, while articles, prepositions, and conjunctions are not.

Punctuation Usage: Keywords should be separated by semicolons (;) with a single space after each semicolon. We have standardized the punctuation by correcting any irregularities (such as extra spaces or incorrect semicolons).

The revisions have been made as follows: national census; shrinking cities; carbon emissions; population change; influencing factors

Thanks!

 

 

18. Lines 287-289: Inconsistent spacing around mathematical symbols

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello！The relevant issues have been adjusted and corrected according to your requirements.

Thanks!

 

 

19. Line 342: Missing spaces around mathematical operators

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello！The relevant issues have been adjusted and corrected according to your requirements.

Thanks!

 

20. Line 1219-1304: Inconsistent formatting of reference numbers and periods

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We have thoroughly reviewed and adjusted the reference section in accordance with your valuable suggestions.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback!

 

 

21. Multiple instances of irregular spacing after periods throughout the text

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! We have conducted a comprehensive review and correction of the manuscript’s formatting and punctuation in accordance with your valuable suggestions to ensure full compliance with academic standards.

 

 

22. Etc.

For chapter 5.2, Suggestion, or wherever the authors finds it relevant, we recommend addressing one two phrases, given the high carbon emissions particularly in cities with stage growth (SG) and lasting growth (LG) patterns, on the fact that policymakers should actively explore and implement underground carbon capture and storage (CCS) solutions. The Yangtze River Basin has several geological formations potentially suitable for CO2 storage, particularly in depleted oil and gas reservoirs and deep saline aquifers in which the different CO2 trapping mechanisms are possible. A references for this which may help the authors to address this part is:

Dumitrache, L.N. et al; Using Numerical Reservoir Simulation to Assess CO2 Capture and Underground Storage, Case Study on a Romanian Power Plant and Its Surrounding Hydrocarbon Reservoirs. Processes 2023, 11, 805. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11030805

Suditu, S.et al; Carbon Capture and Storage Subsurface Study for a Natural Gas-Burning Power Plant in Oltenia, Romania. Processes 2024, 12, 1648. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12081648

Response: Dear Reviewer,

Hello! Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. In response, we will emphasize in Section 5.2 and other relevant parts that policymakers should actively explore and implement solutions for underground carbon capture and storage (CCS).

To support the addition of this content, we have referred to the following literature (see References 23 and 24 in the manuscript):

1. Dumitrache, L.N., et al. Using Numerical Reservoir Simulation to Assess CO₂ Capture and Underground Storage, Case Study on a Romanian Power Plant and Its Surrounding Hydrocarbon Reservoirs. Processes 2023, 11, 805.
2. Suditu, S., et al. Carbon Capture and Storage Subsurface Study for a Natural Gas-Burning Power Plant in Oltenia, Romania. Processes 2024, 12, 1648.

These two papers provide detailed insights into the geological conditions, storage mechanisms, and technological applications of underground carbon storage. They will offer strong support for our discussion on the CCS potential in the Yangtze River Basin. We will supplement and revise the relevant sections of our manuscript according to your suggestions.

 

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback! We have thoroughly revised and improved the manuscript based on your suggestions. We believe that these revisions will significantly enhance the quality of the article. Should there be any further questions or suggestions, we are ready to make additional adjustments at any time.

Thank you very much for your support and assistance!

 

Xiujuan Jiang

2025.2.21

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors.

I red the revised manuscript and I can see many improvement, also based on using English proofreading the English tough is well. Your answered were satisfactory and the revised version and presentation are satisfactory too. I have no issue with the current version of the manuscript.

Thanks 

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work has been substantially improved and meets the standards for publication.

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 paper focuses on the spatiotemporal patterns and influencing factors of carbon emissions in shrinking cities within the Yangtze River Basin. The research topic is of practical significance and possesses a certain degree of innovation. The paper comprehensively utilizes various methods, including population shrinkage dimension identification, coupling coordination degree model, spatial autocorrelation analysis, and correlation coefficient analysis, to conduct a detailed analysis of the spatiotemporal evolution characteristics of shrinking cities, the spatiotemporal patterns of carbon emissions, and the spatiotemporal heterogeneity between the two. The findings are relatively comprehensive. The overall objectives of the paper are clear, and the logic is coherent. However, there are several notable deficiencies:

(1) Although the paper mentions the collection and calculation methods for carbon emission data, the accounting process for carbon emission sources such as industrial processes, product use, and land-use activities is not comprehensive.

(2) When using the coupling coordination degree model, there is a lack of in-depth discussion on the rationality of the method for determining the weight coefficients in the model. Different weight coefficients could potentially lead to different results.

(3) The research data is primarily based on the three time points of 2000, 2010, and 2020. What is the reason for this? Why doesn't it cover more recent data?

(4) The analysis of the impact of policy factors on carbon emissions remains at a general level, failing to delve into how specific policies affect carbon emissions.

(5) The conclusion and recommendation section of the paper proposes some relatively broad strategies, lacking differentiated suggestions tailored to specific cities and regions.

(6) What is the manifestation of "shrinkage" in the Yangtze River Basin? This is related to the time points, but the paper lacks sufficient argumentation in this regard.

(7) The quality and clarity of the figures are significantly lacking. Some sentences are incomprehensible.

(8) The overall innovation of the paper is insufficient.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The coupling coordination degree model relies heavily on arbitrary weightings (α and β both set at 0.5) without strong justification, could you explain better this point?

Another issue is the classification thresholds for urban types that appear somewhat arbitrary. There is certainly theoretical information to support this information.

At the discussion level, the authors could improve by conducting a comparative analysis with other studies on carbon emissions. On the other hand, the impact of COVID-19 on the data does not appear to have been addressed.

At the data level, they could have included environmental indicators.

The spatiotemporal maps should improve their legends. And in the correlation table, the applied algorithm should be indicated.

Despite the limitations, this study makes a contribution to urban development and environmental impacts and provides a basis for future research. I would like to see more developed statistics.

Congrats

Best Regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.            The “abstract” is well done, but my recommendation is to brief outcomes, which are numerated from 1 to 4, and briefly explain the structure and different sections of the manuscript, too.

2.            The “Introduction” seems reasonable enough, but the introduction needs to mention the “research gap” and “novelty of the issue” alongside the main objective and target audience.

3.            Section 2 is well explained; only tables can be better designed for better understanding. In addition, please explain all abbreviations mentioned in the manuscript once first mentioned.

4.            Bulleting in sections and subsections are to follow up in a well-designed matter to make it easier for the reader to follow the manuscript context. Please review all bulleting in the manuscript. Otherwise, the manuscript suffers too much from this issue, and the following paragraphs are really challenging.

5.            The symbols in Table 4 are strange and remain unknown; at least, they need to be introduced after the table.

6.            In part “3.1.1 Spatial-Temporal Pattern Analysis,” it's better to present the interpretations better, and the explanations from Figures 1 to 5 can be started from the first part of lines that can be followed better.

7.            Please insert line numbers so I can refer to the revisions with the lines, and the correspondence will be easier.

8.            The quality of the figures could be better, and I cannot read the information. Please revise them.

9.            “Figure 3” is not mentioned at all in the manuscript and does not have a relevant explanation for the reader. Please revise this issue and try to mention “Figure 3” in a place where the explanation concerns that.

10.         What are those spheres in Figure 4, which are alongside 200,2010 and 2020?

11.         Section 4 is well provided, but my recommendation is to change its name to “discussion.” If you think this name is scary, then there is a need for another “discussion” section.

12.         The “conclusion” part is not like the standard “conclusion”; after enumerating 4 main outcomes of the research and 4 main recommendations, there is a need to mention the study's limitations and maintain future drives for future research in the same field and subject.

 

13.         My idea is: “The idea and title of the research are good, but it's very wordy and suffers from structure. As far as practicable, try to design sections and the entire manuscript like a standard research article and remove miscellaneous, irrelevant, and repetitive explanations.

14. The similarity check is showing 29%, which is high; try to resolve it.