Can Carbon Neutrality Promote Green and Sustainable Urban Development from an Environmental Sociology Perspective? Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study introduced carbon neutrality and sustainable development of Chinese cities. The research has some contributions to the field, but the study must address the following concerns.

1. The structure of the paper needs to be revised. For example, in the end of the introduction section, the authors addressed some research gaps from other studies. It’s redundant, as the research review and gaps have been discussed in the following section.
2. Do you really need subsubsection titles? For instance, in section 3.1, you don’t need to separate too many subsubsections. Also, section 3.2 is model design, which does not justify how you design the model. You might need to add a workflow diagram for the model design section to address your general methodology.
3. A high-quality research paper needs to review more state-of-the-art articles, and I feel like 38 citations in total is not enough. In the literature review section, you need to review more studies and make a summary table or chart to address the existing studies’ major contributions and gaps, etc.
4. The study did not address methodology at all, which is not acceptable. Why did you select this method? What are the advantages of this selected method? Why is this method suitable for your proposed study and the datasets? Methodology is different from method, and it has to be justified.
5. Some grammar issues need to be addressed. For example, there are many spots between periods and the following sentence that are missing spaces. The same issue happened in the citation brackets.
6. There is no single figure in the entire article, which is fine, but in the analysis and discussion section, you should plot more figures to illustrate your outcomes.
7. Typically, the discussion and conclusion sections should be separated.
8. Please double-check the English writing to improve readability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English needs to be improved, especially in writing and grammar.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper aims to explore the impact of carbon neutrality governance on the green and sustainable development of Chinese cities, the mediating role of science and technology investment in this process, and its regional heterogeneity. By constructing a multidimensional analytical framework and utilizing panel data from 300 prefecture-level cities in China from 2015 to 2022, the study empirically analyzes the mechanisms of carbon neutrality governance’s impact on urban sustainable development and its regional disparities.

‌1. Introduction Section‌: The problem description and presentation of the study’s novelty in the introduction are insufficient, making it difficult to engage readers and highlight the research’s significance.

2‌. Literature Review‌: The literature review section is inadequate. The review should not conflate literature summaries with hypotheses but instead provide critical evaluations of existing studies.

3‌. Mediating Effect Analysis‌: The discussion on the specific mechanisms and pathways of the mediating effect (e.g., science and technology investment) lacks depth. Theoretical and empirical analyses, particularly regarding economic context and impact, are underdeveloped.

‌4. Heterogeneity Analysis‌: While regional differences are analyzed, the study insufficiently explores variations across different types of cities (e.g., industrial vs. service-oriented cities), limiting the depth and breadth of heterogeneity analysis.

‌5. Interpretation of Results‌: The presentation of findings is poorly integrated with broader economic contexts, weakening the connection between empirical results and real-world implications.

‌6. Policy Recommendations‌: The proposed policy suggestions are overly generalized and lack differentiated strategies tailored to the specific conditions of different regions and cities.

‌7. Formatting Issues‌: Formulas should be created using a dedicated equation editor rather than plain text.

‌8. Language and Grammar‌: Non-standard language and formatting issues are pervasive, including: Use of Chinese parentheses (e.g., “（）”) instead of English parentheses. Missing spaces after punctuation (e.g., “word.Word” instead of “word. Word”). Absence of periods at the end of sentences in the abstract and other sections.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

The novelty of this article lies mainly in the fact that the authors have collected and analysed data from 300 Chinese cities covering the years 2015–2022. This allows them to effectively illustrate how the carbon neutrality policy functions differently across various regions of the country- particularly in the east, centre, and west- while taking into account phenomena such as the carbon lock-in or the catch-up effect. An interesting and less commonly adopted approach is also the demonstration of the critical role played by investments in human capital, especially in research and development sectors. Another positive aspect is that the authors have combined several dimensions of urban development within a single model, which enables a better understanding of both the benefits and the tensions between climate policy objectives.

However, the fact that the data in the article ends in 2022 significantly limits the relevance of the findings, especially given the dynamic context of China’s climate policy. Since then, China has clearly accelerated its energy transition, intensifying investments in renewable energy sources and green hydrogen, developments which are not captured in the analysis. At the same time, in response to the post-pandemic economic slowdown, the authorities have launched stimulus packages that have impacted both the development of green technologies and unfortunately, the continuation of investments in high-emission infrastructure, particularly in regions that are less advanced in their transformation. The international context has also evolved, and more recent data includes more detailed indicators of technology absorption, which could enrich the analysis of the relationships examined in the article. As a result, although the study provides a good reflection of the situation up until the end of 2022, it no longer fully captures the current state of affairs. Its findings should therefore be read as a snapshot of the past rather than an up-to-date picture of climate policy and urban development in China.

Due to the data coverage ending in 2022 the value of the article is limited. To strengthen the manuscript, the authors should clearly define the temporal scope of the study as an analysis of the 2015–2022 period explicitly acknowledging the limitation concerning the currency of the findings. It is also recommended to supplement the methodological section with detailed information on the interpolation method applied and to specify which variables were subject to interpolation. Furthermore in the discussion or limitations section, the authors should address the need for future updates of the study as new data becomes available and emphasise the significance of the findings as an analysis of long-term processes. This would help maintain the relevance of the work despite the absence of the most recent data.

Specific comments

Introduction

The article opens with an overly general introduction that lacks a precise identification of the research gap and a clear connection of the problem to the existing methodological literature. It also fails to highlight critical data limitations, especially those related to interpolation.

Literature review and hypotheses

The literature review is superficial and the proposed hypotheses lack a solid foundation in a critical assessment of existing studies. The structure of the section is disorganised, with elements of the literature review blending with the preview of the authors’ own model, which reduces clarity.

Methodology

The most serious shortcoming lies in the lack of transparency regarding data interpolation for the year 2022: the authors do not provide details on the interpolation method nor identify the variables to which it was applied which undermines the credibility of the results for this period. The construction of the indices is not sufficiently explained; it remains unclear how variables with different scales and directions of influence were aggregated.

Empirical analysis

The analysis of the results does not account for the uncertainty associated with interpolated data for 2022. The authors also fail to examine the structural foundations of the regional classification they adopted.

Discussion and conclusions

The discussion is limited to a repetition of the results, without an in-depth interpretation of their significance, especially in the context of data limitations and the evolving political and economic landscape in China post-2022. The conclusions remain too general, do not provide concrete recommendations, and fail to outline operational implications for public policy or future research. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The text does not contain any major grammatical errors that would hinder comprehension, but it is burdened with numerous linguistic and stylistic inaccuracies.

-3.1. Variable Definition -this should be in the plural form

-Most table titles are missing a first letter; in Table 6, Results is unnecessarily capitalised.

-There is a recurring error with the plural form of “data”.

Example: “…the data has been sourced from…”

Correct: “…the data have been sourced from…”

In academic English, “data” is treated as a plural noun.

-In several instances, the text inconsistently switches between past and present tenses when describing research procedures. The text should be consistent: either use present tense for the methodology section (which is the standard in academic writing) or past tense when reporting completed actions.

-There are issues with prepositions in the context of statistical analysis.

Example: “…correlation of CNG on USD…”

Correct: “…correlation between CNG and USD…”

The phrase “correlation of X on Y” is incorrect. The correct form is “correlation between X and Y”.

-The expression “data can be found in Table X” -while not technically incorrect is better avoided in academic writing, especially directly after the methodology description. It is safer to use: “Descriptive statistics are presented in Table X.”

 

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors address the comments fairly well. It can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The policy suggestions part should not be simply deleted.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for taking my comments into account. In the current form the text is perfectly suitable for publication