Exploration on Inter-Relation of Environmental Regulation, Economic Structure, and Economic Growth: Provincial Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study, the dynamic relationships between Environmental Regulation, Economic Structure and Economic Growth for 30 Chinese provinces during the 2008-2019 period are analyzed using PVAR and Granger Test. According to the econometric results obtained from the study, it is revealed that environmental regulations have a "U" shaped effect on economic growth. In contrast, economic growth encourages the economy to develop with a weakening force. In addition, the results support the hypothesis that economic structure is a tool of economic growth and environmental regulations.

I found the work to be successful in general. However, I have some criticisms and suggestions regarding the article. I have stated these below:

First of all, I think the subject of the study is interesting and up-to-date. However, the contribution of the study to the literature should be clearly stated in the introduction. It would be appropriate to emphasize its difference from studies in other literature. There are also some typos that need to be corrected. English must be checked. In the methodology section, variable descriptions are not given as titles. There are subheadings consisting of one paragraph. It is necessary to give the variable descriptions directly. You don't need that many titles.

It is not mentioned why econometric methods used in the study were preferred. Some clarifications need to be made in this regard. Both the resolution and size of the graphics used in the study need to be adjusted. In this state, some graphics are difficult to read. Econometric estimation results need to be explained in more detail. It would be appropriate to interpret the explanations within the framework of economic theoretical expectations.

Showing the Granger Causality results with graphs can make it more understandable. In this way, the reader can see the direction of causality more clearly. No interpretation has been made on aspects of causality. An explanation is required for this part.

Interpretation of impulse response functions is incorrect. This section needs to be fixed. When the shocks or confidence intervals touch the 0 point, the effect of the shock becomes insignificant. In addition, if the shocks start from 0, they are statistically insignificant. For this reason, impulse response functions need to be reinterpreted or re-estimated by controlling the lag lengths.

I think it would be more appropriate to use cointegration methods that allow estimating both short and long term coefficients in econometric analysis. In this way, short-term and long-term coefficients can be compared and changes in the direction of the effect, if any, can be revealed.

In the conclusion part, it would be appropriate to interpret the findings of the study by comparing it with the literature. In addition, in the conclusion part, information about the limitations of the study should be given. Policy implications are not given in the study. What suggestions do you make as a result of this study?

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. Enclosed is the detailed response to each of your comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review Comments

I have read the paper title “Exploration on Inter-relation of Environmental Regulation, Economic Structure, and Economic Growth: Provincial Evidence from China: The title of the study is quite novel and cover the interesting area, but it’s not relevant to our area of interest, however, the structure and idea of the paper look appealing, but I have noticed some major discrepancies which can be found in the below comments; therefore, following are some suggestion for incorporation to submit any other journal.

1.    The abstract should be checked for English and flow of professional abstract case. As abstract is the whole summary of the paper.

2.    Whole abstract to be checked for grammatical mistakes, to become very comprehensive.

3.    The theoretical necessity should be the basis to contend the research aim, leading to research objectives. The lack of theoretical necessity results in the absence of research questions as the guiding passage of the research. Each research question must correspond to one research objective. After this section, the questions will act as the departing point from the background narration to the core flow of the research.

4.    Please restructured the entire Introduction section to deliver a better deduction process from general theoretical phenomena → specific theoretical phenomenon → theoretical gaps → aim → objectives → research questions. A flow as such would make it easier for readers to understand why this study is theoretically necessary to conduct, and what questions this study intends to answer to fill in the theoretical gap. The introduction is to short, the provision of some studies is advised, which will equip the introduction landscape and to make clear the need of this research.

5.    Introduction part is good but i suggested to make introduction more improved in term of references point of view.

6.    In the literature review section, I would suggest the author(s) to add a detailed table showing different studies globally and south Asian context and then specify in Chinese context that what makes this study more novel.

7.    Follow the following paper that make your literature review richer.

https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.10255

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15105-9

doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.854590

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102785

https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.10929

8.    What is the international perspective and what can we learn for people outside of China?

9.    Check the style of the references in in-text as per the journal mandatory requirements, which is not according to the standard.

10. Methodology should be innovative, novel, look for areas and should be clear and to be included which will make it more eye catching. And the current methodology is to poor which not meet the standard of the journal.

11. Further elaborate the use of the model which is used in this part, and why used this one, its importance.

12. In table 2 there is some confusion and it is that how you ignore the stationarity like -1.3579*** and 3.5727 have no (***) same in LnPGDP 4.5656?

 

13. The result and discussion section should be modifying. Discussions and interpretations should be the explained properly. Which need to be modify.

14. More justifications if provided in terms of the model, variables, and estimation techniques would add value to this manuscript.

15. Please correct the table number that is table 5 and in interpretation you write in table 6.

16. Provide managerial implication and provide future studies.

17. The conclusion section is weak. The authors should divide the Conclusion into three core parts. Consider making one paragraph for each part.

Part 1: Summary of this study.
Part 2: Present key findings that answer each research question briefly. This is proof that this study successfully accomplishes its objectives.

Part 3: Suggest managerial/policy implications based on the key findings of this study.

18. Ensure that all the references cited in the paper are included in the reference list at the end according to the journal format.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. Enclosed is the detailed response to each of your comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The work has been greatly modified. The authors made the necessary changes, taking into account all my suggestions. The subject of the study is interesting and up-to-date. Bibliography, graphics and tables have been arranged. The authors' interpretations have been made clearer. I found the study to be quite successful in general. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to publish the study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Review Comments

I have read the paper title “Exploration on Inter-relation of Environmental Regulation, Economic Structure, and Economic Growth: Provincial Evidence from China: The title of the study is quite novel and cover the interesting area, but it’s not relevant to our area of interest, however, the structure and idea of the paper look appealing, but I have noticed some major discrepancies which can be found in the below comments; therefore, following are some suggestion for incorporation to submit any other journal.

1.    The abstract should be checked for English and flow of professional abstract case. As abstract is the whole summary of the paper.

2.    Whole abstract to be checked for grammatical mistakes, to become very comprehensive.

3.    The theoretical necessity should be the basis to contend the research aim, leading to research objectives. The lack of theoretical necessity results in the absence of research questions as the guiding passage of the research. Each research question must correspond to one research objective. After this section, the questions will act as the departing point from the background narration to the core flow of the research.

4.    Please restructured the entire Introduction section to deliver a better deduction process from general theoretical phenomena → specific theoretical phenomenon → theoretical gaps → aim → objectives → research questions. A flow as such would make it easier for readers to understand why this study is theoretically necessary to conduct, and what questions this study intends to answer to fill in the theoretical gap. The introduction is to short, the provision of some studies is advised, which will equip the introduction landscape and to make clear the need of this research.

5.    Introduction part is good but i suggested to make introduction more improved in term of references point of view.

6.    In the literature review section, I would suggest the author(s) to add a detailed table showing different studies globally and south Asian context and then specify in Chinese context that what makes this study more novel.

7.    Follow the following paper that make your literature review richer.

https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.10255

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15105-9

doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.854590

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102785

https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.10929

8.    What is the international perspective and what can we learn for people outside of China?

9.    Check the style of the references in in-text as per the journal mandatory requirements, which is not according to the standard.

10. Methodology should be innovative, novel, look for areas and should be clear and to be included which will make it more eye catching. And the current methodology is to poor which not meet the standard of the journal.

11. Further elaborate the use of the model which is used in this part, and why used this one, its importance.

12. In table 2 there is some confusion and it is that how you ignore the stationarity like -1.3579*** and 3.5727 have no (***) same in LnPGDP 4.5656?

 

13. The result and discussion section should be modifying. Discussions and interpretations should be the explained properly. Which need to be modify.

14. More justifications if provided in terms of the model, variables, and estimation techniques would add value to this manuscript.

15. Please correct the table number that is table 5 and in interpretation you write in table 6.

16. Provide managerial implication and provide future studies.

17. The conclusion section is weak. The authors should divide the Conclusion into three core parts. Consider making one paragraph for each part.

Part 1: Summary of this study.
Part 2: Present key findings that answer each research question briefly. This is proof that this study successfully accomplishes its objectives.

Part 3: Suggest managerial/policy implications based on the key findings of this study.

18. Ensure that all the references cited in the paper are included in the reference list at the end according to the journal format.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The work has been greatly modified. The authors made the necessary changes, taking into account all my suggestions. The subject of the study is interesting and up-to-date. Bibliography, graphics and tables have been arranged. The authors' interpretations have been made clearer. I found the study to be quite successful in general. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to publish the study.