The Carbon Emission Intensity of Industrial Land in China: Spatiotemporal Characteristics and Driving Factors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I would like to thank the author for undoubtedly hard work on this manuscript.  The connection between industrial land and carbon emission/sustainable development seems tenuous.   Controlling for the effect of industrial land carbon emission intensity, especially in improves or forecasts is very difficult. Overall,  the subject matter of the article is important and current.   The paper as a case study can further our understandings of  land use.   However, this manuscript still has several relatively distinct disadvantages which call for a major revision.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

 

Thank you for your comments on this manuscript. We have modified the manuscript accordingly.

 

Reviewer 1:

        ---However, this manuscript still has several relatively distinct disadvantages which call for a major revision.

Response: We further optimize the structure of the paper, explain in detail the reasons for the selection of methods, and expand the implications of the research conclusions.

 

Liangen Zeng

Chengming Li

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper "The Carbon Emission Intensity of Industrial Land – ILCEI, in China: Spatiotemporal Characteristics and Driving Factors" deals with the CO2 emissions of the industrial lands in China analyzed with a spatial Durbin model. The authors analyze the influence of driving factors on ILCEI.

The manuscript is in the scope of Land Journal. However, to consider this manuscript for publication, there are some issues that need to be addressed by the authors.

The manuscript must be structured according to the research manuscript sections of the land directions such as: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions (optional).

My major concern is related to the discussion section where each study variable must be discussed and analyzed with more research results because there is a lazy analysis of the variables declared in the methods.

Detailed comments.

Abstract: it must contain at least the study problem, objectives, methods, results and main conclusion.

Introduction: Include more case studies, declare the research question and the main objective.

 Methods: This section is good.

Discussion: it must be focused on the main findings, including more discussion of each variable and at the end of this section, comprising all results according to the objectives declared. State a paragraph with the main findings and limitations of this study.

 

Conclusions: Summarize them focusing on your study hypothesis or research question.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments on this manuscript. We have modified the manuscript accordingly.

---The manuscript must be structured according to the research manuscript sections of the land directions such as: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions (optional).

Response: We are grateful for this recommendation, and the manuscript has been structured: Introduction, Methodology, Characteristics analysis, Regression analysis, Results, Conclusions and discussion.

 

---My major concern is related to the discussion section where each study variable must be discussed and analyzed with more research results because there is a lazy analysis of the variables declared in the methods.

Response: More discussing about that have been given in lines 402-426.

 

---Abstract: it must contain at least the study problem, objectives, methods, results and main conclusion..

Response: Abstract has been modified, and contain at least the study problem, objectives, methods, results and main conclusion.

 

---Introduction: Include more case studies, declare the research question and the main objective.

Response: Introduction has been modified, and contains more case studies, declare the research question and the main objective.

 

---Discussion: it must be focused on the main findings, including more discussion of each variable and at the end of this section, comprising all results according to the objectives declared. State a paragraph with the main findings and limitations of this study.

Response: Conclusions and discussions has been modified, and contains contain more discussion, and state a paragraph with the main findings and limitations of this study.

 

---Conclusions: Summarize them focusing on your study hypothesis or research question..

Response: Conclusions and discussions has been modified, and focus on the study  research question.

 

 

The revisited manuscript has been resubmitted to the journal, Thank you very much.

 

Liangen Zeng

Chengming Li

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is a good piece of work and I suggest the authors make minor corrections or clarifications to improve the paper.

Suggest if the authors may address or make clarifications the following to strengthen the paper:

1. The theory that supports the study (theoretical study).

2. How are the methods used in the study and why this method?

3. Implication of study – theoretical, managerial, or practices

4. Contribution of the study – to the government and relevant stakeholders

5. Limitation of the study and future research recommendation 

“The issue of CO2 emission in the development of industrial land is a field of study that cannot be neglected” – Substantiate with support

Sentence in para 46-47 needs to be supported with literature otherwise it is an assumption

 

Sentence in para 50-52 – Justify why this concept was used in the study with support

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your comments on the manuscript. We have modified the manuscript accordingly.

---The theory that supports the study (theoretical study).

Response: Theoretical mechanism has been added in line 91-137.

 

---How are the methods used in the study and why this method?

Response: We applied the SDM to empirically analyze the driving factors of ILCEI, and we have explained in detail about the advantages and differences of SDM over SLM and SEM in lines 188-195.

 

--- Implication of study – theoretical, managerial, or practices

Response: Theoretical mechanism has been added in line 91-137.

 

---Contribution of the study – to the government and relevant stakeholders

Response: Contribution of the study has been added in line 56-63.

 

---Limitation of the study and future research recommendation.

Response: Limitation of the study and future research recommendation have been added in line 557-467.

 

---The issue of CO2 emission in the development of industrial land is a field of study that cannot be neglected” – Substantiate with support Sentence in para 46-47 needs to be supported with literature otherwise it is an assumption

Response: We can't find any literature that support the sentence “The issue of CO2 emission in the development of industrial land is a field of study that cannot be neglected”, which has been removed.

 

---Sentence in para 50-52 – Justify why this concept was used in the study with support

Response: We have explained in detail about concept of industrial land carbon emission intensity (ILCEI) in line 51-56.

 

The revisited manuscript has been resubmitted to the journal. Thank you very much.

 

Liangen Zeng

Chengming Li

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

• No other comments

Author Response

Thank you for your comments on the manuscript. We have modified the manuscript further.

Thank you very much！

Reviewer 2 Report

The author must split out the discussion and conclusions 

Author Response

Review Report (Round 2):

---The author must split out the discussion and conclusions.

Response: We are grateful for this recommendation, and the discussion and conclusions has been split out. “5. Conclusions and discussion” has been changed into “5. Conclusions ”, and “4.4.3 Analysis results ” has been changed into “4.4.3 Discussions of results.

Thank you very much.