Facilitating or Hindering? The Impact of Low-Carbon Pilot Policies on Socio-Ecological Resilience in Resource-Based Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article uses panel data covering 114 resource-based cities from 2003 to 2022 to explore the impact of low-carbon pilot policies on the social and ecological resilience of resource-based cities, which has important academic value and policy significance. However, I still have some comments for revision. For instances, the authors constructed a panel dataset covering 114 resource-based cities from 2003 to 2022, comprising 2,280 observations. According to the manuscript, cities participating in the LCCP are referred to as the treatment group, while other cities serve as the control group. How many cities were selected as the treatment group, while how many cities served as the control group? What is the criteria for different groups? Are they comparable in terms of different variables including economic strength and education level. Furthermore, how to deduce that the findings is mainly caused by the low-carbon pilot policies, but not any others. In addition, the conclusions need to be short and to the point.

 

Other minor concerns

 

---P2, Lines 57-59 What does the profound system changes mean？

 

---P2, Lines 83-85 What does the “quasi-natural experiment” mean? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this experiment?

 

---P4, Line 177 There is an additional period after the word “technologies”.

 

---P11, Lines 448-452 The authors found that the bandwidth of ecological resilience decreases over time，but why does the bandwidth increases from 2015 to 2022 in Fig. 2? What is the probable causes?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides an engaging read. Nevertheless, certain aspects remain unclear upon initial review. I have compiled a list of suggestions to enhance the quality of the manuscript.

1.      Usually, it is better to avoid the abbreviations in the abstract DID, SDID etc.

2.      In the abstract some terminologies with abbreviations and some with no abbreviations, please avoid abbreviations in abstract for better readability

3.      The citations in the manuscript are not in the standard format of the journal

4.      The section dedicated to reviewing existing literature is concise and includes citations. There is potential to expand on each referenced paper, providing more detailed information to enhance the reader's understanding.

5.      A summary table can be created to provide a clear overview of the literature, highlighting each paper's specific contributions.

6.      Furthermore, it is important to clarify and highlight the significance of your manuscript. The current version does not effectively communicate this upon initial reading.

7.      I am unable to determine the data's provenance. To establish credibility, kindly specify the source of your information.

8.      I was unable to replicate and confirm the methodological steps. Could you provide more detailed information?

9.      To enhance readability, it's crucial to introduce abbreviations alongside their full terms when they first appear in the manuscript, rather than scattering them throughout the text. For instance, on line 428, "Socio-Ecological Resilience (SESR)" is mentioned, despite the acronym SERS being used multiple times prior to this point. Maintaining consistency in this regard is essential for a smoother reading experience.

10. Based on my observation, the researchers appear to be utilizing the default configurations for the algorithms. However, to enhance comprehension, it would be beneficial to provide a step-by-step explanation of how these algorithms function.

11. What is the full name of the model represented by SDID on line 551? Please provide the complete model name.

12. The findings could be improved upon. Given that you have three hypotheses, consider creating a comprehensive table at the conclusion to summarize and connect them all.

13. The references are not in the publisher format. Please check   

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is relevant and aims to explore the impact of LCCPs through a comprehensive methodology. The research is timely, interesting, and worth exploring. The manuscript can be published in its current state with minor edits I have, and I would recommend authors revise the manuscript before. Below are comments section by section:

Abstract:

 

-       The abstract is good and authors’ contributions to the field are clear.

 

Introduction:

-       Lines 35, 45, and further: every number should be referenced with some data source.

-       Lines 48 and 51: please cite those policies as well (web links or formal citation)

-        

Literature review:

-       Review is relevant and helpful.

-       Lines 157-158: why do you think that it overlooks the multidimensional effects? Is it based on the literature or on your empirical data collection?

Research design:

-       Line 327: why this particular technique was used? Have you tested others? Theoretically, I would agree that DML will work well, but is it really better when you compare it with other methods?

Empirical analysis and discussion:

-       Line 422: not clear why kernel density, could you please elaborate more? Also, haven’t you tried spatial kernel density (not just over time, but over space, with a map as a result, too)?

-       Lines 536-550: a little bit more explanation about what it means is needed. 

Conclusions:

-       Very well written; very clear.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The section “6.2. Policy recommendation”is too long in the last section conclusions. I suggest  it should be moved to discussion. The conclusions are still too long and need to be summarized for more concisely. No other suggestions.

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

We would like to thank you very much for your suggested changes to the article. We have made changes to the conclusions and policy recommendations section, and we have made every effort to streamline our conclusions while ensuring that the significance of the study and the conclusions are conveyed in a complete manner, as well as re-describing our policy recommendations to make sure that the policy recommendations are more relevant and concise, as shown in the highlighted section on page 23, lines 797-846.

Thank you again for your comments, which have been very helpful. We hope that our revisions have improved the quality of the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all the comments

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your recognition, it gives us great encouragement and we thank you for all the hard work you put into our articles!