Asymmetric Effects of Economic Development, Agroforestry Development, Energy Consumption, and Population Size on CO₂ Emissions in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments:

The manuscript fits within the journal’s goals and audience. It addresses the impact of agroforestry development, energy consumption, population size, and economic development on CO2 emissions and their relationship. This article uses annual World Bank statistics from 1990 to 2020 to study the asymmetric relationships between agroforestry development, energy consumption, population size, and economic development on CO2 emissions in China using the partial least squares path model (PLS-PM) and the autoregressive VAR vector time series model, and to make future projections for agroforestry, energy consumption and CO2 emissions in China. The author(s) try to fill a gap as a focus on China. The manuscript falls within the scope of the journal. There are some detailed comments for the moderate changes prior to publication:

1. As it is a common thought that during COVID-19 there was less Energy Consumption as compared to other times. it automatically reduces the emissions. So could you please elaborate on this and how your research is useful to the literature.
2. Why need all the Input data sets variables in Table 3? How they are related to each other and how they are important for emission reduction. 

Introduction:

The literature review is quite superficial and should address a broader scope: it seems that some seminal or highly cited references are missing and should be incorporated, for instance:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.122336

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.100991

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01628-1

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112232

The authors should clearly highlight the research gap, how this article is different from previously published articles? Please eloborate 

Methodology:

1. Why only select partial least squares path model (PLS-PM) and the autoregressive VAR vector time series model, a not other models in this research?

Results:

1. How this research could help stakeholders to adopt sustainable development in China to reduce carbon emissions? 
2. What are the policy implications for the sustainable energy industry in China?

Other minor comments:

1. In the title, it should be CO2... Please correct this.
2. The figure should be provided in high resolution. 
3. What is → in Table 7?

Best, 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your advice. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the title instead of "0" (zero), it should be O

There is no time range defined in the article

In the abstract, the aim of the article should be more clearly specified

If authors set some hypotheses they also should be pointed out in the abstract

In the introduction methods, data collection and content of the paper should be more detailed and discussed

Line 107 - there should a reference to data concerning the number of people by 2050

The literature review should be broader and refer to already existing examples of examinated relations between variables discussed by other scientists

The first theoretical background of the model should be explained and the used variables

Paragraph "As shown in Table 3, this article .." should start after Table 2 not before

The authors used plenty of indicators in all aspects but the question appears: why in particular that indicators? Why do we include them in the model? Unfortunately, the authors do not provide an answer/justification for that

Lines 172-191 - the authors present results - negative, positive, significant, etc. but what does it mean, it should be more detailed and discussed how one aspect refers to other

Line 235 - the sentence is not clear

There is plenty of methods used in the research which show the scientific abilities of authors - but the used method should be more broadly presented - authors can justify more broadly why they picked those methods as the most  suitable for the following research

Part of the research is highly nonproportional to theoretical

The limitations part could be broader

Used literature can be also improved

There is no single hypothesis set in the text

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to review this research paper. I think authors should apply the comments indicated below to increase the quality of research justification, contributions, and findings. The manuscript knows lacks in scientific style and structure.

Abstract is to long I suggest being more clearly and shortly to archive a better understanding of the topic.

3. PLS-PM Model I suggest mentioning what men’s PLS-PM

Figure 1. Structure of the PLS-PM Model must be described to understand what’s its represent.

Table 3. Assignment of Indicator Weights in PLS-PM Model Result as annex and in the text just make a short summery of the results.

Table 4. Influence Relationships between Variables in PLS-PM Model Results

A short description is needed.

Fig 2-6 must be explained for the readers

Table 7. Results of Granger’s Causality Test. Also, as annex

What is the originality of this research?  Paper research gap and originality should be better presented at the end of introduction section.

Please consider this structure for manuscript final part.

-Discussion

-Conclusion

-Managerial Implication

-Practical/Social Implications

Questions to be answered: What practical/professional and academic consequences will this study have for the future of scientific literature (theoretical contributions)?

Why is this study necessary? should make clear arguments to explain what the originality and value of the proposed model is. This should be stated in the final paragraphs of introduction and conclusion sections.

I suggest adding some references also from the Sustainability Journal, thus better fitting with Sustainability.

Good luck!

 

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Agree with the revised version, No more comments. 

Best,

Reviewer 2 Report

In such form, I can recommend the text to be published

Reviewer 3 Report

Good luck!