Spatial-Temporal Dynamics of Carbon Budgets and Carbon Balance Zoning: A Case Study of the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River Urban Agglomerations, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, thank you for the submission. I have gone through the manuscript “Spatial-temporal dynamics of carbon budgets and carbon balance zoning: A case study of the middle reaches of the Yangtze River urban agglomerations, China.” Different from existing studies that utilized the coefficient method to estimate carbon sinks, this paper estimates carbon sinks based on the CASA model, which improve the measurement accuracy and spatial location accuracy of carbon sink. In addition, the paper analyzed the spatial-temporal changes in the carbon balance of urban agglomerations and dividing carbon balance zones, which exert the collaborative emission reduction effect of urban agglomerations and achieve the “dual carbon” targets. The author has done good work but I still have the following concerns.
1.The research logic and process of this study lack a research framework diagram to summarize the overall idea of the paper and help in understanding the other aspects of the manuscript.
2.The CBI, ECC and ESC results sections need to condense the main research results.
3.The text in the figures should be clarified and readable. There is overlap in numbers in Figure 4, and the numerical annotations of the two indicators are difficult to distinguish.
4.The research conclusion of the paper has some overlap in the explanation of the reasons for the main findings and the analysis in the research results, and the expressed views are relatively close.
5. For the carbon budget calculation, you have used the carbon emission data from 2000 to 2020. In the data section, you have mentioned that the carbon emission data is obtained from CEADs. However, the city-level data in CEADs is from 1997 to 2019. Could you please explain the calculation process for the carbon emission data in 2020 ?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript draft utilized an improved CASA model to estimate grid-scale NEP and explored the spatial-temporal evolution of carbon budgets in the MRYRUA from 2005 to 2020. From the perspectives of industrial development and ecological improvement, the paper calculated the CBI, ECC, and ESC, and conducted carbon balance zoning. The results of the carbon balance zoning provide valuable insights for decision-making on emissions reduction and increasing remittances, as well as formulating carbon-neutral development strategies for the MRYRUA. Overall, the paper is well-written, and the methods for calculating carbon sequestration are engaging. It presents interesting results deserving eventual publication. However, there are some concerns outlined below that need to be addressed:
Abstract: The abstract should be further condensed to emphasize the research focus and highlight key findings only.
Introduction: The introduction should be streamlined to focus on the current research status, existing research gaps, and clearly state the research objectives.
Results: The carbon balance zoning results should provide a clearer explanation of the observed trends in the five functional zones from 2000 to 2020.
Discussion: The discussion should be improved to provide more detailed explanations for the main research findings.
Conclusions and Policy Implications: The policy recommendations section should be closely integrated with the research results, extracting the most relevant policy recommendations based on the carbon balance zoning results.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe overall readability of the article is quite good. Some polishing could make the expressions more concise.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper titled “Spatial-temporal dynamics of carbon budgets and carbon balance zoning: A case study of the middle reaches of the Yangtze River urban agglomerations, China” presents an interesting research which fits to the scope of the journal. However, there are some points which should be revised before publication. Below I present comments which should be considered while improving the paper.
1. Line 85: acronyms RS and GIS should be written in full name once to introduce their meanings. However, as the following text does not use them, I suggest to skip acronyms at all and use the full names only.
2. Introduction presents an interesting overview of methods for evaluation of amount of carbon capture, but it is missing the aspect of incorporating these calculations into economic calculations, like for instance real estate valuation. Please see for instance: Carbon sequestration in forest valuation (2016) Real Estate Management and Valuation, 24 (1) , pp. 76-86; Estimation of Property Value Changes from Nearby Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage Projects in the United States (2023) USAEE Working Paper No. 23-586; or other papers in that topic.
3. Quality of figures should be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has been corrected according to my previous comments, therefore, in my opinion it can be published in the current form.
