Analysis on Influencing Factors Decomposition and Decoupling Effect of Power Carbon Emissions in Yangtze River Economic Belt
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Dear Author
The paper is well structured and written.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you very much for the teacher 's guidance and encouragement to us, which is the driving force for our continuous learning and progress. The attachment is my revised manuscript.
Yours sincerely
Jieting Yin and Chaowei Huang
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
I noticed improvements in this paper; however, I noticed a few issues:
1) "Economic scale and carbon intensity are the largest positive and negative driving factors of carbon emissions from middle and lower reaches", please clarify (positive driving factor of carbon emissions?) -> same "Electricity output and output carbon intensity are the largest positive and negative driving factors of carbon emissions in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River Economic Belt"
2) The paper needs some simplicity, or editing, see, e.g. this sentence:
"The carbon intensity decoupling effect is the largest positive driving effect of carbon emission decoupling in the lower and middle reaches, and the output carbon intensity decoupling effect is the largest positive driving effect of electricity carbon emission decoupling in the upper reaches。" carbon x4, effect 4x, decoupling 4x makes this sentence senseless;
3) "As a result, the carbon intensity of energy consumption has not been significantly optimized by using fossil energy coal as the main power generation mode" (p. 17) -> p. 16 "In addition, the energy utilization efficiency of thermal power has been continuously improved",
-> it is contradictory.
Moreover on p. 22 you write "The clean and low carbon transformation of power in the Yangtze River Economic Belt has played an important role in China's power peaking", and then offer your recommendations on "Continuously strengthen the clean and efficient use of coal, continue to eliminate backward thermal power capacity, and increase the use of high efficiency ultra supercritical generating units."
-> when comparing what should have been done with what was really done, kindly be more precise.
4) When the authors write about policy failure, see ("During the study period, the power carbon emissions in the Yangtze River Economic Belt did not achieve decoupling"), a reference to certain framework would be helpful, see e.g. 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112745
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for reviewer comments on the paper. Your comments are very valuable for the revision of the paper. We made the following changes.
Response to comment 1: Thank you for reviewing the teacher pointed out that the expression is not clear, the relevant content in the text 5.1.conclusions third paragraph to rewrite the description marked blue.
Response to comment 2: Thanks for the teacher 's valuable comments, 5.1.Summary This sentence has been deleted. In addition, we have re-examined and revised sentences and words in the text, as well as corrected unclear expressions.
Response to comment 3: Thank you very much for commenting on the teacher's paper pointing out that the expression is not accurate enough, the text in 4.1.2. Relative factor analysis second and third paragraphs to correct the standard blue.
Response to comment 3: In the third paragraph of the 5.2.Recommendations section of this sentence to modify the blue.
Response to comment 4: Thanks for the reference of learning materials provided by the teacher. The author analyzes the causes of policy failure and the introduction framework from multiple perspectives. We read and studied many times, and we will continue to study scholar papers.
Special thanks to the review of the teacher for valuable comments and put forward targeted and constructive comments. we express our sincere thanks and blessings to the review teacher.
Yours sincerely
Jieting Yin and Chaowei Huang
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
The authors revised the majority of the paper according to the remarks made during the first round of reviews. I would suggest the following revisions to be made:
1) The introduction segment is still missing a brief content paragraph that highlights the key contents of the paper.
2) Discussion.
a. As outlined during the first line of reviews, this segment should be enhanced with additional outcomes and comparisons with other studies in the field. Are your results aligned with those of other studies in the field? Also, the benefits of the proposed model are not clear enough and should be described more concisely.
b. The final chapter should be expanded, and practical implications of your research should be elaborated in more detail. It would be meaningful if you would discuss the results by suggesting how they are relevant to further sector development and how your research could be used in practice.
c. Conclusions and recommendations should be made less generic and should focus directly on the outcomes of the analysis.
3) I would suggest removing the appendix tables from the manuscript and perhaps adding them as supplementary material.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for reviewer comments on the paper. Your comments are very valuable for the revision of the paper. We made the following changes.
Response to comment 1: Thanks to the teacher 's review and suggestions, the third paragraph of Introduction is extended and supplemented to highlight the key content of the paper.
Response to comment 2.a: Thanks for the teacher 's suggestion, the first paragraph of 5.1.conclusions is added to briefly explain whether it is consistent with the research in this field, and the relevant content is added in the fourth paragraph of 1.introduction to explain the benefits of the model.（Mark blue）
Response to comment 2.b: Thanks to the teacher 's suggestions, the second, third and fourth paragraphs of the 5.2. Recommendations expand and supplement the suggestions and results.（mark blue）
Response to comment 2.c: The conclusions and recommendations section was partially revised and supplemented ( marked blue ).
Response to comment 3: Thanks for the teacher 's suggestion, the appendix table in the paper has been deleted and add them as supplementary material.
Special thanks to the review of the teacher for valuable comments and put forward targeted and constructive comments. we express our sincere thanks and blessings to the review teacher.
Yours sincerely
Jieting Yin and Chaowei Huang
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
1. Author need to spend some time on introduction and need to be reworked. It is not clear what is the main problem and the reason for writing this article. The main reason for writing or makes a solution in the article. Novelty section is missing.
2. It is not clear what the research gap that the paper is addressing. What is the objective of this paper? Please clarify somewhere clearly all your contributions.
3. Methods need to be written more clearly.
4. The conclusion should clearly highlight the policy implications, limitations of the study and future recommendations
Reviewer 2 Report
1. How could the proposed research fill the gap? This issue should be briefly discussed in the paper.
2. The contribution is not clear. Please state it in a separate subsection.
3. There are many research in a similar direction. Could you relate your findings to previous research? Please analyze the comparison results!
4. Where are your managerial insights? Why should the decision maker choose your model?
Reviewer 3 Report
This text has several major drawbacks.
What are the objectives of this project? What scientific issues were considered by its authors? What is the work's additional value? Unfortunately, I cannot find answers to these questions in this paper.
The text is a collection of facts that the authors attempted to summarise but did not include in any specific research context. The authors should carefully examine the context in which they want to include this study and considerably deepen the research, including the framework on which they reflect (why is the Yangtze River Economic Belt being discussed, China's efforts under the Paris Agreement, SDG, COVID-19 emissions in China, new coal power plants opened in China, etc., energy transition in the region and globally, etc.)
Recommendations are broad statements that may be made with little investigation ("Therefore, the development of power industry should adhere to the sustainable road and coordinate the relationship with regional economic development and resources and environment"). Some of the recommendations require editing ("Eliminating backward high carbon emission units and improving the level of clean utilization of coal").
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper explores the influence of GDP and power consumption on carbon emissions by applying a GDIM and DPSIR framework. It is well-written and presents a relevant topic. Below is a list of remarks:
11) Spelling mistakes. There are a few spelling mistakes so the paper should be proofread. Abbreviation DPSIR is used without expressing the its full meaning.
22) Introduction.
a. Originality. The authors should outline the originality of their research. Why does your research result in an expansion of knowledge on the subject relevant enough to be published by Sustainability?
b. Brief content. The introduction segment should be enhanced by adding a final paragraph that shortly highlights the key segments of the paper.
33) Conclusion.
a. Discussion. This segment should be enhanced with additional outcomes and comparisons with other studies in the field. Are your results aligned with those of other studies in the field? Also, the benefits of the proposed model are not clear enough and should be described more concisely.
b. The final chapter should be expanded, and practical implications of your research should be elaborated in more detail. It would be meaningful if you would discuss the results by suggesting how they are relevant to further sector development and how your research could be used in practice.
c. Conclusions and recommendations should be made less generic and should focus directly on the outcomes of the analysis.
