Construction Land Transfer Scale and Carbon Emission Intensity: Empirical Evidence Based on County-Level Land Transactions in Jiangsu Province, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI believe the manuscript has been significantly improved since the authors have taken my comments seriously.
Author Response
Comment1: I believe the manuscript has been significantly improved since the authors have taken my comments seriously.
Response1: Thank you very much for your careful review and evaluation. We are very pleased to learn that you have no comments on our paper, and your professional comments and suggestions will play a positive role in guiding us to further improve the content and quality of the paper.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Although the article uses a relatively large number (80) and new publications, almost all of them are from China. I am of the opinion that contemporary scientific articles, should not be limited to the national literature only.
- Especially in the Discussions section, reference to research from other parts of the world is required,
- it is worth explaining why it was decided to include a 10% significance level. I propose to explain what consequences such a high level of significance - often unacceptable - has when interpreting results,
- Some reservations are raised by the authors' use of the term 'impact'. For example, "This section delves into the mechanism through which construction land transfer scale impacts carbon emission intensity from four strands to verify the validity of the aforementioned findings: construction land transfer scale from different sources, diverse supply methods, different types and different county economic strength" (lines 601-604). Regression analysis is often questionable as a tool for analysing impact, only dependency. Rather, the use of Granger causality tests is proposed to assess the impact of X on Y (of course, I realise that the time series used here, which is too short, precludes the use of this tool). I suggest only writing carefully about 'influence'.
Minor:
- the title of figure 3 lacks information on which geographical area the data relates to,
- there should be a full stop after the figure number,
Author Response
Specific Comments:
Comment1: Although the article uses a relatively large number (80) and new publications, almost all of them are from China. I am of the opinion that contemporary scientific articles, should not be limited to the national literature only. Especially in the Discussions section, reference to research from other parts of the world is required.
Response1: Thank you very much for your careful review and evaluation. We add or remove references as appropriate, replace references with journals around the world as much as possible, and include comparative analysis of other regions except China in the discussion, see lines 809 and 812.
Comment2: It is worth explaining why it was decided to include a 10% significance level. I propose to explain what consequences such a high level of significance -often unacceptable - has when interpreting results.
Response2: Thank you very much for your careful review and evaluation. 1%, 5% and 10% significance are three common levels of significance in statistics. In order to make the results more convincing, we reprocessed the mediating variable and calculated it, and the results are detailed in Table 6.
Comment3: Some reservations are raised by the authors' use of the term 'impact'. For example, "This section delves into the mechanism through which construction land transfer scale impacts carbon emission intensity from four strands to verify the validity of the aforementioned findings: construction land transfer scale from different sources, diverse supply methods, different types and different county economic strength" (lines 601-604). Regression analysis is often questionable as a tool for analyzing impact, only dependency. Rather, the use of Granger causality tests is proposed to assess the impact of X on Y (of course, I realize that the time series used here, which is too short, precludes the use of this tool). I suggest only writing carefully about 'influence'.
Response3: Thank you very much for your careful review and evaluation. Sincerely accept your suggestion. We've replaced “mechanism” with “differential influence” in line 600.
Minor:
Comment4: The title of figure 3 lacks information on which geographical area the data relates to.
Response4: Thank you very much for your careful review and evaluation. Relevant information has been added.
Comment5: There should be a full stop after the figure number.
Response5: Thank you very much for your careful review and evaluation. Modified as requested.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview: land
Manuscript ID: land-3053322
Title: Construction Land Transfer Scale and Carbon Emission Intensity: Empirical Evidence Based on County-level Land Transactions in Jiangsu Province, China
Summary
This paper analyzed the spatial and temporal characteristics of counties' carbon emission intensity in Jiangsu Province and the impact of construction land scale on carbon emission intensity using panel data from 2007 to 2021. Investigating the relationship between the scale of construction land transfer and carbon emission intensity has important research value. The manuscript has some scientific significance, but some details need to be noted. I think this manuscript needs minor revision before considering whether it could be published.
Specific comments are provided below.
Specific Comments:
1. Page 6, lines 256-267: Please check with equation (1). There is no explanation for α and lnCLTSit.
2. Page 10, lines 435-436: The spatial and temporal evolution pattern of carbon emissions in Jiangsu Province does not appear in the paper.
3. Page 11, lines 462-465 and lines 466-468: Does the level of economic development have a positive or negative impact on regional carbon emission intensity?
Comments on the Quality of English Language Minor editing required for English.
Author Response
Specific Comments:
Comment1：Page 6, lines 256-267: Please check with equation (1). There is no explanation for α and lnCLTSit.
Response1：Thank you very much for your careful review and evaluation. α is a constant term，which is added in line 262. lnCLTSit represents the total area of construction land supply in county i in year t, see lines 257~258 for details.
Comment2：Page 10, lines 435-436: The spatial and temporal evolution pattern of carbon emissions in Jiangsu Province does not appear in the paper.
Response2：Thank you very much for your careful review and evaluation. This sentence is indeed very inappropriate here, so we have removed "The spatial and temporal evolution pattern of carbon emissions in Jiangsu Province".
Comment3：Page 11, lines 462-465 and lines 466-468: Does the level of economic development have a positive or negative impact on regional carbon emission intensity?
Response3：Thank you very much for your careful review and evaluation. The economic development level has a significant negative effect on carbon emission intensity in lines 460 to 464.
Comment4：Minor editing required for English.
Response4：Thank you very much for your careful review and evaluation. Professional services have been used to embellish this article.
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 AuthorsChina is basically a government-led planned economy, although some market economy has been introduced. Therefore, land use is heavily government-involved. This study takes little account of this point, is completely unrealistic, and is deemed not to be publishable.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAnalyzing the relationship between land use, especially construction land, and carbon emissions is crucial for urban low-carbon development. This study, using Jiangsu Province as an example, analyzes the carbon emissions and carbon reduction effects of construction land at the county level. It is a solid work. However, there is still some room for improvement in the content and details of the article.
1. The logic needs further refinement in introduction section. For instance, in the first paragraph, it fails to explain the significance of studying the relationship between building land scale and carbon emissions (line 49). What is the principle behind how building land scale affects carbon emissions? Why is it necessary to optimize land use structure (line 46)? Certainly, the author may address these later in the text, but the logic is currently incomplete.
2. The literature review lacks focus. Shouldn't the impact of land use changes (quantity/scale, intensity, or pattern, etc.) on carbon emissions be more closely aligned with the theme of this study, compared to the three types mentioned now?
3. The current state of research needs further discussion. The author mentions that existing studies have rarely considered spatial heterogeneity, but many studies have analyzed spatial heterogeneity (DOI10.1007/s11356-023-27110-1; DOI10.3390/land11091440; 10.1007/s11442-022-2046-x; DOI10.3390/land11050719 …).
Compared to the current heterogeneity analysis in this study, the temporal and spatial heterogeneity may be more meaningful. The spatial heterogeneity in this paper divides the research area into three regions, failing to reflect the advantages of county-level scale research.
4. What is the definition of Construction Land Scale? Is it about area? Layout? The text uses CL and CE, CLS and CE. are CLS and CE the same? CLS is maybe one dimension of CL. The text used interchangeably, which makes the logic seem chaotic.
There are too many abbreviations in the text, making it difficult to read. And there are also identical abbreviations.
Construction land scale: CLS; core explanatory variable: CLS
5. The text mentions that the county-level scale is a key innovative point of this study, but there is no related analysis of the advantages of the county-level scale in discussions and policy implications, and what new elements it could bring to policies.
6. Some expressions in this text are unclear. For example, carbon emissions (CEs) from CLS, lines 39-40, how can there be carbon emissions on a scale? How can construction land have energy consumption? Shouldn't it be that the increase or expansion of construction land scale leads to carbon emissions? There are many such expressions in the text. It is recommended to check the entire document.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
