Study on the Effect and Mechanism of Circular Economy Promotion Law on the Utilization Rate of Industrial Solid Waste in Resource-Based Cities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Lines 16-17
How is the city's environmental regulation score measured?
Lines 63-64
How was it determined that China's waste management policy is effective and that its implementation can reduce generation?
Lines 138 to 143
It is necessary to deepen information on the restrictions imposed by the CEPL, since the manuscript is based on the effect it produces.
Lines 164-165
What are the reasons to say that most resource-based cities have gone from prosperity to decline?
Lines 298-299
It is indicated that the rate of integral use of RSI in different cities and years varies a lot. Based on what is this statement made?
Lines 332-335
How was it determined that there are no significant differences?
Line 362
What changes are you referring to?
Line 382
There is a word mistake on this line.
Line 480
What were the criteria for the classification of cities?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer，
Thank you very much for your comments on our manuscript, and we have revised the manuscript in accordance with your comments, we respond to your questions one by one as follows.
Point 1: Lines 16-17, How is the city's environmental regulation score measured?
Response 1: City's environmental regulation score is the moderating variable in our study, the specific measure of which we have included separately in the revised manuscript. Specifically, the entropy weighting method was used to assign the SO2 removal rate, smoke removal rate, domestic wastewater treatment rate, and domestic waste disposal rate to the city, and then a comprehensive evaluation was performed to obtain the city environmental regulation score. (See the line 288-297 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 2: Lines 63-64. How was it determined that China's waste management policy is effective and that its implementation can reduce generation?
Response 2: Thank you for raising this issue, and we have revised the corresponding section in the manuscript. The revisions are as follows. However, unlike Malaysia and Brazil, by analyzing the effect of China's waste charging policy, Wu et al. found that this policy resulted in residents taking the initiative to reduce household waste at source, which in turn curbed waste generation, in other words, China’s solid waste management policy is effective. (See the line 61-64 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 3: Lines 138 to 143. It is necessary to deepen information on the restrictions imposed by the CEPL, since the manuscript is based on the effect it produces.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing out the problem, we have deepened the content of this section in the manuscript, as follows. The framework design of the CEPL is based on the main line of "reduce, reuse and recycle and resource". In terms of reduction, CEPL specifies that reasonable programs, mining sequences, methods and beneficiation processes should be developed to extract mineral resources, while encouraging the use of non-toxic and non-hazardous solid waste to produce construction materials. In the term of reuse, recycling and resource-fulness, CEPL clarifies the comprehensive utilization of ISW, requiring enterprises to comprehensively utilize industrial wastes such as fly ash generated in the production process in accordance with national regulations to improve the level of waste reuse and resource utilization. In addition, if an enterprise does not have the conditions for comprehensive utilization of the waste generated in the production process, it shall provide it to qualified producers and operators for comprehensive utilization. (See the line 139-149 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 4: Lines 164-165. What are the reasons to say that most resource-based cities have gone from prosperity to decline?
Response 4: Thank you for pointing out the problem, which made us realize that this formulation is not precise, so we have made the following changes, referring to the literature. Simultaneously, some resource-based cities have gone from prosperity to decline [32]. (See the line 170-171 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 5: Lines 298-299. It is indicated that the rate of integral use of RSI in different cities and years varies a lot. Based on what is this statement made?
Response 5: Thank you for pointing out the problem, and we have added the reasons for such a judgment in the text, with the following specific modification. However, the median value of the variable Rate is 88%, while the maximum value is 100% and the minimum value is 0. This indicates the comprehensive utilization rate of ISW in different cities and different years varies greatly. (See the line 364-367 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 6: Lines 332-335. How was it determined that there are no significant differences?
Response 6: Thank you for pointing out the problem, the reasons why there are no significant differences between resource-based and general cities before the implementation of CEPL are as follows. In model (4), If the estimated coefficients of variables D−j are not significantly different from zero, it indicates there was a common trend between resource-based cities and general cities in the comprehensive utilization rate of ISW before the implementation of CEPL. In other words, before the implementation of CEPL, comprehensive utilization rate of ISW did not differ by city type, and combined with Figure 2, it can be seen that none of the estimated coefficients before CURRENT were significantly different from zero. According to your question, we have also made the corresponding explanation in the paper. (See the line 323-328 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 7: Line 362. What changes are you referring to?
Response 7: Thank you for pointing out the problem, the changes mean that during the period from 2003 to 2015, as China has also implemented or revised other laws and regulations on environmental protection such as the Environmental Information Disclosure Method (2007) and the Law of the People's Republic of China on Environmental Prevention and Control of Solid Waste Pollution (2013), these policies are likely to have an impact on the utilization of ISW in cities. Thank you again for raising the issue, and we have added the appropriate content in the text. (See the line 416-420 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 8: Line 382. There is a word mistake on this line.
Response 8: We are very sorry that our carelessness has led to this mistake, and thank you very much for your reminder, we have made the corresponding changes in the text, thank you very much! (See the line 438-441 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 9: Line 480. What were the criteria for the classification of cities?
Response 9: Thank you for pointing out the problem, the criteria for the classification of cities is the circular of National Sustainable Development Plan for Resource-based Cities (2013-2020) (NSDPRC), that State Council issued in 2013. Corresponding content we have revised in manuscript. (See the line 177-182 and line 529-533 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Thank you again for your careful review of our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Reviewer comments:
The presentation of this manuscript was good enough in terms of structure but some improvement of english language in needed. Moreover, the paper is subjected to major improvement.
The author establish a number of model equations (Eqs. 1, 3, 4) but did not discussed the basis to establish these equations. Is there any reference of these model equations?
Please confirm the use of the model equations. How they are differ each other and what were the conditions to apply each model equations?
How did the author evaluate the effect of different variable through applying the models were not clear?
Table 1 is the list of variable, please put it in appropriate place. Better to make a list of all variables and symbols at the beginning or end of the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer，
Thank you very much for your comments on our manuscript, and we have revised the manuscript in accordance with your comments, we respond to your questions one by one as follows.
Point 1: The author establish a number of model equations (Eqs. 1, 3, 4) but did not discussed the basis to establish these equations. Is there any reference of these model equations?
Response 1: Thank you for your question. In order to understand the relationship between the three models, we have reconstructed the article and placed the three models in the same section and adding references to each model. (See the line 304-352 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 2: Please confirm the use of the model equations. How they are differ each other and what were the conditions to apply each model equations?
Response 2: Thank you for your question. We have added the corresponding contents and literature in the text. For example, in terms of the conditions of use of the DID method, we have added the following content. The implementation of a particular public policy affects some groups in society, while other groups are not affected or are less affected. For social groups, this exogenous policy is similar to a natural experiment or quasi-natural experiment, and the social groups that are more affected by the policy can be considered as the treatment group and those that are less affected or unaffected by the policy can be considered as the control group. By comparing the gap between the treatment and control groups, the effectiveness of public policy implementation can be evaluated. the DID method is often used in recent years to evaluate the effectiveness of public policy implementation. For more discussion and application of the DID method see the work of Agrist and Pischke [54]. (See the line 304-352 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 3: How did the author evaluate the effect of different variable through applying the models were not clear?
Response 3: Thank you for pointing out this problem, which made us realize that our original formulation of how to evaluate the effect of different variables was insufficient. Therefore, we have added the appropriate content in the manuscript. Specifically, in model (3), we focus on the estimated coefficient of the variable , which indicates a positive effect of CEPL on the comprehensive utilization rate of ISW in resource-based cities if is significantly positive, and a negative effect if is significantly negative. If is not significantly different from zero, it indicates that CEPL has no effect on the comprehensive utilization rate of ISW in resource-based cities. In model (4), if the estimated coefficients of variables D−j are not significantly different from zero, it indicates there was a common trend between resource-based cities and general cities in the comprehensive utilization rate of ISW before the implementation of CEPL. In model (5), if is significantly different from zero, it indicates that there is a moderating effect of environmental regulation. (See the line 323-328, line 340-343 and line 351-352 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 4: Table 1 is the list of variable, please put it in appropriate place. Better to make a list of all variables and symbols at the beginning or end of the manuscript.
Response 4: Thank you for your comment, and in accordance with your comment, we have placed Table 1 in Appendix 1 at the end of the article. (See the line 662-663 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Thank you again for your careful review of our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Some suggestions to improve the paper:
1. Research question\questions are not clear in the Intro section. Please clarify the gap and RQs.
2. This research should be restructured, it is reasonable to follow IMRaD format for this study.
3. The Results section is missing, after Research design section we see Conclusions and Implications section.
4. Unfortunately, there is no separate section describing research methods in understandable manner.
5. In the Research design section you start from the description of DID model. Is it your model? The source is missing here.
6. Please highlight an originality of your article, your personal contribution.
7. The final findings of the study should be highlighted in the Conclusion section
Author Response
Dear Reviewer，
Thank you very much for your comments on our manuscript, and we have revised the manuscript in accordance with your comments, we respond to your questions one by one as follows.
Point 1: Research question\questions are not clear in the Intro section. Please clarify the gap and RQs
Response 1: Thank you very much for pointing out this problem, and we have further clarified our research question in the paper and made the following revision. It can be seen, current studies either focus on how different treatments of ISW can prevent and reduce the pollution of ISW or on how policies and regulations can pre-vent the generation of solid waste, and few studies pay attention to how policy regulations can affect the utilization of ISW. In fact, solid waste and ISW are different. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to take China’s CEPL, an environmental regulation was launched to promote the treatment and prevention of pollution from ISW, as the research object and apply the difference-in-differences (DID) method and two-way fixed effects model to empirically analyze whether the CEPL has promotion effect on resource-based cities’ comprehensive utilization rate of ISW. (See the line 64-73 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 2: This research should be restructured, it is reasonable to follow IMRaD format for this study
Response 2: Thank you very much for your comments, we have reconstructed the sections of the article according to your suggestions. After the introduction and policy background, we replaced the title of the third part of the article with Data and methodology and highlighted the methodology we used, followed by the title of the fourth part of the article with Result and adjusted the content. In the conclusion section of the article, we provide a discussion of the potential role of each conclusion.
Point 3: The Results section is missing, after Research design section we see Conclusions and Implications section.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your comments, similar to point 2, we have restructured the sections of the article as you suggested. The title of the fourth part of our article has been replaced with Results and the content has been adjusted, while highlighting the results we obtained. (See the line 353-576 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 4: Unfortunately, there is no separate section describing research methods in understandable manner.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your comments, similar to point 2, we have restructured the sections of the article as you suggested. The title of the third part of our article has been replaced with Data and methodology and the content has been adjusted, while highlighting the methods we used. (See the line 251-352 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 5: In the Research design section you start from the description of DID model. Is it your model? The source is missing here.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing out the problem, we have reconstructed the article and placed the three models in the same section and adding references to each model. (See the line 304-352 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 6: Please highlight an originality of your article, your personal contribution.
Response 6: Thank you very much for this suggestion, and we have accordingly added the potential contribution of each conclusion after each one. In addition, in the introduction we also provide a description of the potential contributions of this paper. (See the line 81-89 and line 579-587 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 7: The final findings of the study should be highlighted in the Conclusion section
Response 7: Thank you very much for your suggestion, and we have adjusted the conclusion section of the paper according to your suggestion, as follows.
Improving the comprehensive utilization rate of ISW not only reduces environ-mental pollution but also promotes the recycling of resources and ease the pressure on resources. This paper argues that the improvement of the comprehensive utilization rate of urban ISW can be achieved through the implementation of environmental policies and regulations. Using panel data of 278 prefecture-level cities in China from 2003 to 2015, this paper confirms the above view by building a DID model to analyze the impact that the implementation of CEPL would have on the comprehensive utilization rate of ISW in resource-based cities. In addition, this paper also conducts a deeper analysis and obtains three main conclusions as follows. (See the line 588-613 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Thank you again for your careful review of our manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
I must admit that this manuscript is interesting and utilitarian. It presents the ecological problems faced by developing cities and attempts to solve this problem. On the merits, this manuscript seems to be well written. The weakness of this article is the poorly described research statistics (in the research methodology) - this needs to be completed. Nevertheless, the article is valuable.
Detailed comments below:
Line 86: The justification for undertaking the research is sufficient. However, I must admit that I only miss a brief justification for the purpose of writing this article. What I mean here, however, is the scientific goal.
This justification is more utilitarian than scientific.
Line 248: You should refer to the literature in which this model was proposed. In each scientific research, the description of the research methodology precisely specifies the research methods.
Line 281: Add somewhere in the methodology what software was used to perform these analyzes on your model.
Line 288: Add what software was used for the statistical analysis of the research results. Each software / scientific apparatus should be described as follows: name: producer, city, country. This is very important in research.
Line 308: What type of regression was used? I think that in the methodology you should add a detailed description of what the statistical analyzes consisted of. How these analyzes were performed and what software was used.
Line 525: The chapter should not end with a table. Move the tables above the last paragraph. Add the description used in the text referring to the table.
Line 527: Conclusions are well-formed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer，
Thank you very much for your comments on our manuscript, and we have revised the manuscript in accordance with your comments, we respond to your questions one by one as follows.
Point 1: Line 86: The justification for undertaking the research is sufficient. However, I must admit that I only miss a brief justification for the purpose of writing this article. What I mean here, however, is the scientific goal. This justification is more utilitarian than scientific.
Response 1: Thank you very much for pointing out this problem, and we have further clarified our research question in the paper and made the following revision. It can be seen, current studies either focus on how different treatments of ISW can prevent and reduce the pollution of ISW or on how policies and regulations can pre-vent the generation of solid waste, and few studies pay attention to how policy regulations can affect the utilization of ISW. In fact, solid waste and ISW are different. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to take China’s CEPL, an environmental regulation was launched to promote the treatment and prevention of pollution from ISW, as the research object and apply the difference-in-differences (DID) method and two-way fixed effects model to empirically analyze whether the CEPL has promotion effect on resource-based cities’ comprehensive utilization rate of ISW. (See the line 64-73 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 2: Line 248: You should refer to the literature in which this model was proposed. In each scientific research, the description of the research methodology precisely specifies the research methods.
Response 2: Thank you very much for pointing out this problem, which made us realize that our presentation was inaccurate, and therefore we have added references to each all models. (See the line 251-352 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 3: Line 281: Add somewhere in the methodology what software was used to perform these analyzes on your model.
Response 3: Thank you very much for pointing out this problem and we have explained the software used in the manuscript. The data processing software is Stata 16.0. (See the line 263 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 4: Line 288: Add what software was used for the statistical analysis of the research results. Each software / scientific apparatus should be described as follows: name: producer, city, country. This is very important in research.
Response 4: Thank you very much for pointing out this problem. As with point 3, we have stated the software used to process the data, and again, thank you for your attention to this issue.
Point 5: Line 308: What type of regression was used? I think that in the methodology you should add a detailed description of what the statistical analyzes consisted of. How these analyzes were performed and what software was used.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing out the problem. According to your comments, we have reconstructed the manuscript to highlight the methodology. In addition, we have modified the title of the table. (See the line 251-352 and line 391 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 6: Line 525: The chapter should not end with a table. Move the tables above the last paragraph. Add the description used in the text referring to the table.
Response 6: Thank you for pointing out the problem. Based on your comments, we put this table after the previous one. (See the line 554 of the revised manuscript for details.)
Point 7: Line 527: Conclusions are well-formed.
Response 7: We are very pleased that you appreciate the structure of our paper and thank you very much for your careful review of our manuscript.
Thank you again for your careful review of our manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor,
The revised article is now ready for publication, and it has addressed all of my concerns/questions. Article could be improved, if the authors present the Practical implications not in the Conclusions section, but in a separate one - Discussion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for reviewing this manuscript again. In accordance with your suggestions, we have revised the fifth part of the manuscript as follows.
1. We have changed the title of the fifth part of the paper to Conclusion and adjusted the content accordingly.
2. We have added a sixth part of Discussion and incorporated the policy implications into it, and adjusted the content.
Thank you again for reviewing this manuscript.
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.
