Does Sustainable Development in Resource-Based Cities Effectively Reduce Carbon Emissions? An Empirical Study Based on Annual Panel Data from 59 Prefecture-Level Cities in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Article title: Does sustainable development in resource-based cities effectively reduce carbon emissions? An empirical study based on annual panel data of 59 prefecture-level cities in China.  The article raises very important and current issues of sustainable development, in particular problems related to the reduction of carbon dioxide.

The review of the literature is conducted in a manner adequate to the researched problem, but it should be noted that it is focused on the latest literature.

The adopted research goal and hypotheses were verified correctly using appropriate statistical methods.

The article achieved the assumed research goal by verifying the assumed hypotheses. In addition, the most important implications for state policy were indicated.

The reviewed article may be an inspiration for many researchers dealing with the issues of environmental sustainability.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer #1

Major Comments 1:

Article title: Does sustainable development in resource-based cities effectively reduce carbon emissions? An empirical study based on annual panel data of 59 prefecture-level cities in China.

The article raises very important and current issues of sustainable development, in particular problems related to the reduction of carbon dioxide.

The review of the literature is conducted in a manner adequate to the researched problem, but it should be noted that it is focused on the latest literature.

The adopted research goal and hypotheses were verified correctly using appropriate statistical methods.

The article achieved the assumed research goal by verifying the assumed hypotheses. In addition, the most important implications for state policy were indicated.

The reviewed article may be an inspiration for many researchers dealing with the issues of environmental sustainability.

Response:

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. Your detailed review and targeted feedback are of great guidance to our research work and future paper writing. We deeply understand the importance of the breadth and depth of literature review for a paper, and therefore, we will pay more attention to collecting and organizing literature to ensure a more comprehensive and in-depth review.

Moreover, we greatly appreciate your recognition and support for our research objectives, hypotheses, statistical methods, and final results of our study. Your affirmation and encouragement have strengthened our confidence to continue our research in the field of environmental sustainability.

Thank you again for your guidance and help. We will carefully consider your comments and suggestions, strive to improve our paper, and look forward to more opportunities for your guidance and support in the future.

Reviewer 2 Report

-All the statistics and comments from the paper needs to be referenced, instead of just writing "According to Beijing News" its unaccaptable for an academic journal. 

-Do not use I, we in the academic writings.

-Do not use underestimated meanings like "Little research has been done.." sentences,

-No alternate hypothesis declared and hypothesis are not clear

-Text differences with Hypothesis 2 and 3 , italic and normal text

-Not clear about the relation of 3.2.1. Effects of Resource dependency on Hypothesis 2, needs to be cleared

- For Hypothesis a numerical approch should be defined for testing, instead of word of mouth

-Decleration of Equation 1 and Equation 2 is not clear, you should explain more basicly

-Definition of Explanatory variables requires references if taken from some resource, are missing, so why log scale is used is not clear, which so makes it difficult to track

-The purpose of the paper is too confused with lots of mathmatical approches that are implemented, the paper needs to be simplified.

Your sentences are too long and too complex, such as just the beginning, the readability is too low due to length. I did not see major grammer mistakes but its difficult to track the subject.

 

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer #2

 

Major Comments 1:

All the statistics and comments from the paper needs to be referenced, instead of just writing

Response:

       Thank you for letting us know about this issue. We appreciate your feedback and have taken action to ensure that our paper properly references all statistics and comments. We have rewritten the introduction to provide more relevant content to our research topic, and have included appropriate references for every citation to other sources. We have also referenced the database in the data description section to ensure that our paper is more compliant with academic standards. (line 42）

 

 

Major Comments 2:

According to Beijing News" its unaccaptable for an academic journal. 

Response:

       Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have rewritten the entire Introduction section and have successfully corrected the improper citation format.(line 42)

 

 

Major Comments 3:

Do not use I, we in the academic writings.

Response:

       Thank you for your feedback on my writing. We have gone through our work and made the necessary revisions to ensure that personal pronouns are not used. (e.g. line 175, line 222, line246)

 

 

Major Comments 4:

Do not use underestimated meanings like "Little research has been done.." sentences.

Response:

       Thank you very much for your kind comment. We have read the entire document again and have made improvements to all the inappropriate areas you mentioned. (e.g.line 186)

 

 

Major Comments 5:

No alternate hypothesis declared and hypothesis are not clear

Response:

       Thank you for pointing out the mistake. Firstly, regarding your comment on "No alternate hypothesis declared," we referred to an article titled "Research on the Carbon Emission Reduction Effect of Green Taxation under China’s Fiscal Decentralization" published under the same journal as ours and found that it also did not state an alternate hypothesis. While alternate hypotheses are necessary for statistical testing, we appreciate your thoughtful and detailed suggestion. However, in our opinion, declaring an alternate hypothesis at this stage may not have additional positive impacts on our research. Secondly, in response to your comment on the clarity of our hypothesis, we have revised the language and phrasing of the hypothesis section to make it more clear and specific.(line 270)

 

Major Comments 6:

Text differences with Hypothesis 2 and 3 , italic and normal text

Response:

       Thank you for pointing out the mistake. I have standardized the format and apologize for not being able to catch the issue earlier.(line 311 and line 345)

 

Major Comments 7:

Not clear about the relation of 3.2.1. Effects of Resource dependency on Hypothesis 2, needs to be cleared

Response:

       Thank you for bringing the mistake to my attention. I have corrected the formatting and apologize for not catching the issue earlier. In the theoretical hypothesis section, we analyzed the mediating role of resource dependence through literature review and theoretical research. First, we mainly analyzed the impact of resource dependence on carbon emissions from two aspects: intensifying resource consumption through production technology and the trap of "industrial structure rigidity". Then, we analyzed the inhibitory effect of the plan on resource dependence. In theory, the plan mainly affects resource dependence by incentivizing companies to innovate production technology and reduce the proportion of high-carbon resource-intensive industries. We enriched the theoretical content and logical framework of the hypothesis section and optimized the theoretical support for hypothesis 2.

 

Major Comments 8:

For Hypothesis a numerical approch should be defined for testing, instead of word of mouth

Response:

       Thank you for your feedback. We have used a variety of statistical models in the empirical analysis section of the article to validate each of the four hypotheses. In the hypothesis section, we have also supplemented supporting literature on empirical research, which provides some support for our hypotheses beyond theoretical analysis. These influential empirical studies lend some weight to the viewpoints presented in the hypothesis section.

 

Major Comments 9:

Decleration of Equation 1 and Equation 2 is not clear, you should explain more basicly

Response:

       I apologize for not noticing this issue earlier. We have made some revisions to the language in order to provide a clearer and more precise definition of equations (1) and (2). We have also provided further explanation of the variables and their relationships between the two equations. (line 430）

 

Major Comments 10:

Definition of Explanatory variables requires references if taken from some resource, are missing, so why log scale is used is not clear, which so makes it difficult to track

Response:

       Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We have added the appropriate references in the relevant sections and provided an explanation for why we used logarithmic transformation for certain variables, such as EMI. This was done in order to reduce the absolute differences between data points and to mitigate the impact of extreme values. We have included a detailed explanation of this in the paper. (line 385, line 410)

 

Major Comments 12:

The purpose of the paper is too confused with lots of mathmatical approches that are implemented, the paper needs to be simplified.

Response:

       We have rewritten the Introduction and the relevant sections of our hypothesis to make the logical chain of the entire article clearer. After obtaining each empirical result, we explain the relationship between the result and our research hypothesis to address the questions you raised. Overall, we use the analysis framework of "Has the Planning Act reduced urban carbon emissions? - What mechanisms has the Planning Act used to reduce carbon emissions? - Is there heterogeneity in this carbon reduction effect?" Although the methods we used were complex, we have provided comprehensive evidence to support the accuracy of our results. (line 42, line 270)

 

Major Comments 13:

Your sentences are too long and too complex, such as just the beginning, the readability is too low due to length. I did not see major grammer mistakes but its difficult to track the subject.

Response:

Thank you for bringing to our attention the shortcomings of our article. We have thoroughly reviewed the entire paper in order to enhance its readability. We have made modifications to the entire article based on your suggestions, and hope that you will enjoy the revised version that we have carefully crafted. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Introduction should contain some references to sources. In the end of the Introduction it woulbe be good to outline the paper structure.

In the Research Hypothesis section all subsections should also contain references to sources.

It would be better to have paragraphs of at least 3 sentences (see for ex. lines 502-503 and throught the text).

The overall number of references may be increased, first of all, by including relevant articles from high-impact journals. 

Please pay attention to English grammar (preposition, more specifically),  in the Abstract and Introduction. Some other tersm may be checked as well - explanatory and response variables, not explained varables, and so on.

Some terms probably are directly translated from Chinese, i.e. "declining cities" (line 471), as they seem to have positive connotation in the paper, but have a negative connotation in English language. 

 

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer #3

Major Comments 1:

Introduction should contain some references to sources. In the end of the Introduction it would be good to outline the paper structure.

Response:

       Thank you very much for reviewing and providing feedback on our article. We have made revisions to the article based on your comments. We have rewritten the introduction section, added relevant references to support the research background, and summarized the paper structure at the end of the introduction to better guide readers in reading and understanding the article(line 55~line80). Once again, we appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions will further improve the quality of our article.

 

 

Major Comments 2:

In the Research Hypothesis section all subsections should also contain references to sources.

Response:

We have supplemented the relevant supporting literature in the hypothesis section and cited relevant viewpoints from influential sources, addressing the previous issue of inadequate theoretical references. These impactful literature sources also serve to provide support for our hypotheses.

 

Major Comments 3:

It would be better to have paragraphs of at least 3 sentences (see for ex. lines 502-503 and throught the text).

Response:

We have enhanced the partially insufficient paragraphs to meet the paragraph requirements of the paper and made the content more substantial through appropriate rephrasing.

 

Major Comments 4:

The overall number of references may be increased, first of all, by including relevant articles from high-impact journals.

Response:

       Thank you very much for your feedback and suggestions. We appreciate your comments on the number of references in our article. Based on your advice, we have revised the introduction section and included relevant literature from high-impact journals to support our research. We believe that this will enhance the quality and credibility of our work. We have included the following literature in our research: "Natural resources, education, and economic development," "The curse of natural resources," "Formation mechanism, characteristics, and solutions to path dependence in resource-based economic zones," "Particulate pollution and the productivity of pear packers," and "Does human capital matter for energy consumption in China?" We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback and insights.

Reviewer 4 Report

A topical area of study 

The study design is not convincing due to

1.lack of consistency between hypotheses and the findings. Need to explain how the findings relate to the hypotheses.

2. use of terms such as resource based industries, resource depleted industries', resource exhausted industries, non-resourced based industries and traditional industries. The differences between the different needs to be clearly delineated and justifications provided why the study focuses on resource based industries. 

3. lack theoretical backing

 

 

Requires proof reading 

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer #4

Major Comments 1:

1.lack of consistency between hypotheses and the findings. Need to explain how the findings relate to the hypotheses.

Response:

       Firstly, we would like to thank you for your valuable feedback. As part of our revisions, we have made sure to provide clear explanations after each empirical analysis result, which helps to establish a direct correspondence between our research hypotheses and findings.

       Our hypothesis is as follows：

       Hypothesis 1. The implementation of The Plan will lead to a significant reduction in carbon emissions of resource-based cities. Hypothesis 2. The implementation of The Plan can decrease carbon emissions by reducing the resource dependency of cities. Hypothesis 3. The implementation of The Plan can decrease carbon emissions by improving people's quality of life. Hypothesis 4. The implementation of The Plan can decrease carbon emissions by curbing the level of development of traditional industries.

       The conclusion that we have reached after a series of data analyses is：

       Firstly, the implementation of the Plan has the potential to significantly reduce car-bon emissions, as well as promoting sustainable development in resource-based cities.Secondly, the impacts of sustainable development in resource-based cities vary considerably across provinces and among different categories of resource-based cities. Specifically, the effects of the policy are more pronounced in Henan Province compared to the other three provinces. Furthermore, the function of declining and regenerative cities is more prominent in promoting sustainable development in resource-based cities than that of mature cities.Thirdly, the mechanism analysis shows that the Plan reduced carbon emissions by decreasing cities' reliance on resources, improving residents' quality of life, and limiting the pace of industrial expansion.

       Our conclusion is consistent with our hypothesis, and all the data analyses we have conducted have empirically validated the hypothesis that we developed based on existing literature and theory. The corresponding content has been highlighted in the text for your reference. We sincerely hope that you will find our article to your liking.

 

 

Major Comments 2:

2. use of terms such as resource based industries, resource depleted industries', resource exhausted industries, non-resourced based industries and traditional industries. The differences between the different needs to be clearly delineated and justifications provided why the study focuses on resource based industries.

Response:

       Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We have rewritten the introduction section to define the four types of resource-based cities (line 63) mentioned in the paper and added more background information to explain why we are studying these cities. We also have extensively researched the concepts involved in our article and provided detailed explanations for them (line 113).

       In addition, we have carefully taken into account the comments from other reviewers and have improved the overall readability of our article while making the logic more coherent and the language more appropriate. We hope that you will find the revised version of our paper to your liking.

 

 

Major Comments 3:

3. lack theoretical backing

Response:

       Thank you for bringing these issues to our attention. We have taken your feedback seriously and have made revisions to the Introduction and the section where we proposed the hypothesis. In the revised sections, we have incorporated more literature to provide stronger theoretical support for the entire article. We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback, and we hope that you will find our thoroughly revised paper to your satisfaction.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

This paper is very strong and on an important topic. However, there are locations where improvements can be made. Here are some:

1. Put title of paper in caps.

2. line 10 in the Abstract: the word: "hereinafter" is one word, not three.

3. line 10 in the Abstract: put abbreviated title of: "The Plan," in quotes.

4. line 13 in the Abstract: put full names of methods and placebo test after the abbreviations: PSM-DID for the non-specialist reader.

5. lines 17, 18, 21; need to define "resource-based cities" to make these claims rationally useful to the reader.

6. line 30, I would add "following" preceding the words "transformation tasks" since the list of these tasks follows.

7. line 32: I would drop punctuation after "shape" and insert "and" in between the words: "shape" and "substantial progress."

8. line 34: need source citation for factual claim about September 2020 policy goals set.

9. line 39: need to italicize the names of newspapers, "Beijing News," and give source citation for this reference to the newspaper.

10. line 47, "resource-based cities" needs definition for the use of this phrase in the text.

11. lines 53-54: add "first" before "economic structure," and the word "second" before the words "emission reduction."

12. lines 54-55: "There are often many problems in the implementation of relevant policies." Need examples to clarify and support your point here about many problems existing in the implementation of relevant policies--what "relevant" policies? what "problems?"

13. line 55: avoid contractions in formal academic papers, so change "it's" to "it is."

14. line 59: what is "quasi-natural" experiment, mean? need to clarify.

15. line 61: need to explain what "theory of quasi-natural experiments" you are referring to here.

16. line 65: no comma after "cities" and before "and."

17. lines 65-66: what are the different "types of resource-based cities?" Need to explain and clarify.

18. line 66: "through the mediating effect" of what? Need to explain what mediating you are referring to here to help the reader understand your claim.

19. lines 66-67: "how the Plan made an impact on the reduction of carbon emissions" etc. What kind of impact? This sentence seems to need some characterization of the KIND of impact on carbon emission in resource-based cities: "significant?" "dramatic?" "moderate?" "modest?" etc.

20. lines 69-70: "academic research . . ." etc. need examples of such research described in these lines and why is this literature "intense?"

21. line 71: "resource-depleted cities;" how different than "resource-based cities?" Need to explain your typology of cities in the paper.

22. line 90: "coal resource cities;" again not explained nor clear what makes a city a "coal resource city." Need to explain.

23. line 106: "marginal contributions" should be changed to "gains" or "insights" or "contributions" without the word: "marginal."

24. line 108: what is a 'non-resource-based city?" should be explained.

25. line 126: "green development" should be explained since so variable.

26. line 135: number of section is mistaken: "Research Hypotheses" should be number 3 not number 2.

27. line 144: "urban green development" needs clarification and definition.

28. lines 143-144: "passively or actively improve the level of urban green development." This distinction between "passively or actively improve" needs further discussion and explanation to achieve clarity of reference here.

29. line 162: ""excessive dependent on resources" needs to be clarified further to be rationally useful.

30. line 167: "Hypothesis 2" should be in bold like Hypothesis 1 earlier in order to be consistent. Also, HOW does the Plan "reduce the city's dependence on resources?" Need to discuss and possibly state in the Hypothesis.

31. line 171: "the quality of life" reports; why self-reports by public included within these proposed measures for "quality of life?"

32. line 175: "improvement in quality of life;" need reference to the vast literature on quality life cited here with some references.

33. lines 190-193: this sentence consists of several technical claims about "the price of polluting factors" and "eliminate backward production capacity" etc. that need clarification and supporting evidence to be rationally persuasive.

34. line 190: "advanced industrial structure" needs to explained to be rationally useful.

35. line 194: "different industrial structures" needs to be clarified to be rationally useful.

36. line 204: need to explain why power and oil cause carbon emissions in China; because these sources consist of fossil fuels that contain carbon that when used emit carbon emissions (and other greenhouse gases).

37. line 216: "explained variables" should be clarified to the "variables to be explained" or "explananda" or "dependent variables."

38. line 219: need to explain "DID" for the non-specialist reader.

39. line 236: Table 1 should not run to the next page and be divided. Make sure whole Table is one page.

40. line 267: again, Table 2 should not run on to the next page. Make sure Tables are on one page for the reader to grasp all of the information more easily.

41. line 272: conclusions should not be buried within a paragraph but earn a special section heading: "Conclusions" to separate them out with more clarity for the reader.

42. line 282: "China's dual carbon goals" need to be specified to be rationally clear and useful.

43. line 316: "did term" should it be in caps as it was earlier in the paper: DID?

44. lines 429-433: these assertions need to be explained and supported with evidence to be rationally persuasive. There should not be unexplained and unsupported claims in such papers.

45. lines 442-443: "environmental industries?" What are those? need examples and clarification to be rationally useful.

46. line 472: "resource-exhausted cities" needs clarification and examples.

47. line 484: "mature resource-based cities" needs explanation and clarification.

48. line 494: "economic instability" needs clarification to be rationally useful.

49. line 508: "mature cities" needs examples of both "declining and regenerative cities" as well as "mature cities."

50. line 537: "contaminated land, sinkholes, and the environment." Not discussed previously and need to be clarified.

51. lines 552-554: how these goals are to be achieved needs discussing.

52. line 559-561: need to explain such phrases as "sense of access" and "spiritual level of residents."

53: lines 562-574: contains several claims that need further clarification and supporting evidence. Make sure conclusions are discussed and supported in paper previously. Avoid such new points and claims like "spiritual level of residents"  not discussed in the paper in the Conclusion section. Need to relate recommendations to the discussion in the paper.

Once these changes are made, I think the paper will be much improved.

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer #5

 

       Thank you very much for your careful review and editing of our article. Your valuable suggestions and guidance have provided us with extremely helpful assistance, making our article more accurate, clear, and complete. Your attention to every detail and in-depth analysis of our arguments have greatly benefited us.

       We have classified your comments into two categories: those regarding the content of our article and those regarding its formatting, in order to better address each of them.

 

Major Comments A (those regarding the content of our article):

5. lines 17, 18, 21; need to define "resource-based cities" to make these claims rationally useful to the reader.
6. line 47, "resource-based cities" needs definition for the use of this phrase in the text.
7. line 59: what is "quasi-natural" experiment, mean? need to clarify.
8. line 61: need to explain what "theory of quasi-natural experiments" you are referring to here.
9. line 71: "resource-depleted cities;" how different than "resource-based cities?" Need to explain your typology of cities in the paper.
10. line 90: "coal resource cities;" again not explained nor clear what makes a city a "coal resource city." Need to explain.
11. line 108: what is a 'non-resource-based city?" should be explained.
12. line 126: "green development" should be explained since so variable.
13. lines 143-144: "passively or actively improve the level of urban green development." This distinction between "passively or actively improve" needs further discussion and explanation to achieve clarity of reference here.
14. line 162: ""excessive dependent on resources" needs to be clarified further to be rationally useful.
15. lines 190-193: this sentence consists of several technical claims about "the price of polluting factors" and "eliminate backward production capacity" etc. that need clarification and supporting evidence to be rationally persuasive.
16. line 190: "advanced industrial structure" needs to explained to be rationally useful.
17. line 282: "China's dual carbon goals" need to be specified to be rationally clear and useful.
18. lines 442-443: "environmental industries?" What are those? need examples and clarification to be rationally useful.
19. line 472: "resource-exhausted cities" needs clarification and examples.
20. line 494: "economic instability" needs clarification to be rationally useful.
21. line 559-561: need to explain such phrases as "sense of access" and "spiritual level of residents."

53: lines 562-574: contains several claims that need further clarification and supporting evidence. Make sure conclusions are discussed and supported in paper previously. Avoid such new points and claims like "spiritual level of residents" not discussed in the paper in the Conclusion section. Need to relate recommendations to the discussion in the paper.

Response:

       Based on your suggestion, we have reviewed a large number of documents and provided precise definitions for all the terms you mentioned in the Introduction section, in order to enhance the article's standardization and readability.

 

Major Comments B (those regarding the formatting of our article):

1. Put title of paper in caps.
2. line 10 in the Abstract: the word: "hereinafter" is one word, not three.
3. line 10 in the Abstract: put abbreviated title of: "The Plan," in quotes.
4. line 13 in the Abstract: put full names of methods and placebo test after the abbreviations: PSM-DID for the non-specialist reader.
5. line 30, I would add "following" preceding the words "transformation tasks" since the list of these tasks follows.
6. line 32: I would drop punctuation after "shape" and insert "and" in between the words: "shape" and "substantial progress."
7. line 34: need source citation for factual claim about September 2020 policy goals set.
8. line 39: need to italicize the names of newspapers, "Beijing News," and give source citation for this reference to the newspaper.
9. lines 53-54: add "first" before "economic structure," and the word "second" before the words "emission reduction."
10. lines 54-55: "There are often many problems in the implementation of relevant policies." Need examples to clarify and support your point here about many problems existing in the implementation of relevant policies--what "relevant" policies? what "problems?"
11. line 55: avoid contractions in formal academic papers, so change "it's" to "it is."
12. line 65: no comma after "cities" and before "and."
13. lines 65-66: what are the different "types of resource-based cities?" Need to explain and clarify.
14. line 66: "through the mediating effect" of what? Need to explain what mediating you are referring to here to help the reader understand your claim.
15. lines 66-67: "how the Plan made an impact on the reduction of carbon emissions" etc. What kind of impact? This sentence seems to need some characterization of the KIND of impact on carbon emission in resource-based cities: "significant?" "dramatic?" "moderate?" "modest?" etc.
16. lines 69-70: "academic research . . ." etc. need examples of such research described in these lines and why is this literature "intense?"
17. line 106: "marginal contributions" should be changed to "gains" or "insights" or "contributions" without the word: "marginal."
18. line 135: number of section is mistaken: "Research Hypotheses" should be number 3 not number
19. line 144: "urban green development" needs clarification and definition.
20. line 167: "Hypothesis 2" should be in bold like Hypothesis 1 earlier in order to be consistent. Also, HOW does the Plan "reduce the city's dependence on resources?" Need to discuss and possibly state in the Hypothesis.
21. line 171: "the quality of life" reports; why self-reports by public included within these proposed measures for "quality of life?"
22. line 175: "improvement in quality of life;" need reference to the vast literature on quality life cited here with some references.
23. line 194: "different industrial structures" needs to be clarified to be rationally useful.
24. line 204: need to explain why power and oil cause carbon emissions in China; because these sources consist of fossil fuels that contain carbon that when used emit carbon emissions (and other greenhouse gases).
25. line 216: "explained variables" should be clarified to the "variables to be explained" or "explananda" or "dependent variables."
26. line 219: need to explain "DID" for the non-specialist reader.
27. line 236: Table 1 should not run to the next page and be divided. Make sure whole Table is one page.
28. line 267: again, Table 2 should not run on to the next page. Make sure Tables are on one page for the reader to grasp all of the information more easily.
29. line 272: conclusions should not be buried within a paragraph but earn a special section heading: "Conclusions" to separate them out with more clarity for the reader.
30. line 316: "did term" should it be in caps as it was earlier in the paper: DID?
31. lines 429-433: these assertions need to be explained and supported with evidence to be rationally persuasive. There should not be unexplained and unsupported claims in such papers.
32. line 484: "mature resource-based cities" needs explanation and clarification.
33. line 508: "mature cities" needs examples of both "declining and regenerative cities" as well as "mature cities."
34. line 537: "contaminated land, sinkholes, and the environment." Not discussed previously and need to be clarified.
35. lines 552-554: how these goals are to be achieved needs discussing.

Response:

       Following your comments and taking into account comments from other reviewers, we have made revisions to all the issues you raised.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the detailed updates. While that form of the paper is acceptable, please do not reply to reviewers by saying "we saw a paper that did similar research and it was accepted." Every paper is unique and analyzed from a different perspective."

Kind regards