The Impact of Low-Carbon City Construction on Urban Shrinkage: Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a study based on quasi-natural experiment checking the impact of the Chinese programme Low Carbon Pilot City on urban shrinkage. The study compares 282 prefecture level cities that participated in the programmes with the ones that did not took part. The data covers the period 2007-2021. The authors used several models to verify the programme’s impact.

The authors posed 4 hypotheses and the list o considered variables is presented in table 1.

In my opinion there is no need to divide conclusions and policy implications into separate subsections. I would also suggest reminding the readers about the tested hypotheses in conclusions.

The methods applied are correct and were correctly used. The results are compelling and the conclusions are based on results. All the figures and tables clearly present the study and its findings.

=================================================

• What is the main question addressed by the research?
It is clearly stated in the paper's title: "The Impact of low-Carbon City
Construction on Urban Shrinkage: Evidence from China"

• Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case.
The authors clearly stated that there has not been yet any study on this issue.
 
• What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material?
As in the question above.

• What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
There is no need for any improvements. As I clearly stated the methods used were correctly chosen and applied.

• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case.
As I clearly stated in my review: "The results are compelling and the conclusions are based on results."
It is the case because the authors know how to write scientific papers

• Are the references appropriate?
There is such a question in the review form. Yes, they are.

• Any additional comments on the tables and figures.
As already mentioned in my review: "All the figures and tables clearly present the study and its findings."

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer #1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:    

The paper presents a study based on quasi-natural experiment checking the impact of the Chinese programme Low Carbon Pilot City on urban shrinkage. The study compares 282 prefecture level cities that participated in the programmes with the ones that did not took part. The data covers the period 2007-2021. The authors used several models to verify the programme’s impact.

The authors posed 4 hypotheses and the list o considered variables is presented in table 1.

In my opinion there is no need to divide conclusions and policy implications into separate subsections. I would also suggest reminding the readers about the tested hypotheses in conclusions.

Response:

Thank you for your constructive comments. After consideration, we have revised the manuscript you mentioned. Please see pages 19-20 in the manuscript for detail.

The methods applied are correct and were correctly used. The results are compelling and the conclusions are based on results. All the figures and tables clearly present the study and its findings.

• What is the main question addressed by the research?

It is clearly stated in the paper's title: "The Impact of low-Carbon City

Construction on Urban Shrinkage: Evidence from China"

• Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does itaddress a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case.

The authors clearly stated that there has not been yet any study on this issue.

• What does it add to the subject area compared with other publishedmaterial?

As in the question above.

• What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

There is no need for any improvements. As I clearly stated the methods used were correctly chosen and applied.

• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case.

As I clearly stated in my review: "The results are compelling and the conclusions are based on results."

It is the case because the authors know how to write scientific papers

• Are the references appropriate?

There is such a question in the review form. Yes, they are.

• Any additional comments on the tables and figures.

As already mentioned in my review: "All the figures and tables clearly present the study and its findings."

Response:

Thank you for your comments and appreciation.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The statement "The phenomenon known as “urban shrinkage” surfaced in Western industrialized 21 nations like the United States and Europe after World War II" is not quite true. The phenomenon exists since the establishment of the first cities.  There are a lot of references regarding to this. Please find them and include into the article. Furthermore, check the statement " Shrinking cities are rooted in globalization and localization, based on regional correlation, “competition and cooperation,” and background development constraints", and include the reference which support it. Maybe you can check "Atlas of Shrinking Cities".

There is no references that support the connections between low-carbon-cities and urban shrinkage. Please, include them and elaborate the research gap.

4 hypotheses should be sublimated into 2 to make the article more readable.

The methodology is not clearly explained. The method is explained together with model and data source, but methodology is missing.

Selections of variables is not explained - why did you choose these ones.

The Discussion is missing and Conclusion is modest.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer #2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:    

1. The statement "The phenomenon known as “urban shrinkage” surfaced in Western industrialized 21 nations like the United States and Europe after World War II" is not quite true. The phenomenon exists since the establishment of the first cities.  There are a lot of references regarding to this. Please find them and include into the article. Furthermore, check the statement " Shrinking cities are rooted in globalization and localization, based on regional correlation, “competition and cooperation,” and background development constraints", and include the reference which support it. Maybe you can check "Atlas of Shrinking Cities".

Response:

Thank you for your constructive comments. After consideration, we followed the reviewer’s suggestions, supplemented and updated 3 relevant papers into the article. Please see page 1 and page 20 in the manuscript for detail.

2. There is no references that support the connections between low-carbon-cities and urban shrinkage. Please, include them and elaborate the research gap.

Response:

Thank you for your constructive comments. After consideration, we followed the reviewer’s suggestions, we added to the literature on low-carbon cities and urban shrinkage and elaborated the research gap. Please see page 3 and page 20 in the manuscript for detail.

3. 4 hypotheses should be sublimated into 2 to make the article more readable.

Response:

Thank you for your constructive comments. After consideration, we sublimated the four research hypotheses into two. Please see page 4 in the manuscript for detail.

4. The methodology is not clearly explained. The method is explained together with model and data source, but methodology is missing.

Response:

Thank you for your constructive comments. After consideration, we have revised the manuscript you mentioned. Please see pages 4-7 and page 21 in the manuscript for detail.

5. Selections of variables is not explained - why did you choose these ones.

Response:

Thank you for your constructive comments. After consideration, we have revised the manuscript you mentioned. Please see pages 4-7 in the manuscript for detail.

6. The Discussion is missing and Conclusion is modest.

Response:

Thank you for your constructive comments. After consideration, we have revised the manuscript you mentioned. Please see pages 19-20 in the manuscript for detail.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article discusses the impact of the Low Carbon Pilot Cities in China, taking urban shrinkage as a variable. In that sense, the topic is understudied and therefore this article itself is a significant contribution to the readers.

The quantitative methodology is interesting and robust in its approach. The quantitative methodology is interesting and robust in its approach, estimation of coefficients and statistical techniques used. 

In that logic, it seems to me already a publishable article .... congratulations to the authors.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer #3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:    

1.The article discusses the impact of the Low Carbon Pilot Cities in China, taking urban shrinkage as a variable. In that sense, the topic is understudied and therefore this article itself is a significant contribution to the readers.

Response:

Thank you for your comments and appreciation.

2.The quantitative methodology is interesting and robust in its approach. The quantitative methodology is interesting and robust in its approach, estimation of coefficients and statistical techniques used.

Response:

Thank you for your comments and appreciation.

3.In that logic, it seems to me already a publishable article .... congratulations to the authors.

Response:

Thank you for your comments and appreciation.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx