The Bilateral Effects of Population Aging on Regional Carbon Emissions in China: Promotion or Inhibition Effect?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

Please find the file comments attached.

Best Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you very much for the very insightful comments and suggestions. Base on your comment and request, we have made extensive modification on the original manuscript. In this new revision, we have tried our best to address all the concerns. Please check and see the point-to-point response to your comments in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is very important and brings in very pertinent issues regarding ageing and carbon emissions as affecting climate change. However, the structure of the manuscript is not concise especially when stating the methodology, results and discussion. These three sections are all combined into one section. It could have been better, if the methodology section concentrated on "experimental design, setting, data collection and data analysis". In the data analysis section, the statistical models and the hypothesis being investigated should have been clearly stated.

In the results section, the results obtained could have been stated from each model and clearly show which results support or do not support the hypotheses that were set.

The discussion section could have discussed the results, what they mean and how do they fare with other published work in the same study field.

The current manuscript combines all these three sections into one and it is not clear, if the results support or do not support the set hypotheses. The discussion of the results is also not clear, as the authors discuss the methodology, especially data analysis and then state the results at the same time.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English in this manuscript is low. I have put some sticky notes on areas where the English language should be improved. There is a need for extensive review and proof reading of the manuscript to improve the English language, especially choice of appropriate words and also the vocabulary.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the very insightful comments and suggestions. Base on your comment and request, we have made extensive modification on the original manuscript. In this new revision, we have tried our best to address all the concerns. Please check and see the point-to-point response to your comments in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript sustainability-2661444 is devoted to the actual scientific problem, namely study of the relationship between population aging and carbon emissions. The reviewed article is interesting for scholars and theme of the article meets the scope of the journal. Work is performed at sufficient scientific level and has good quality. The manuscript may be considered for publication after major revision in Sustainability. Prior publication of this manuscript following points needs to be addressed:

• It would be good to broaden the Discussion in the context of comparing the obtained results with the data of similar studies, especially, if possible, with other countries. The above discussion is of a local nature, and it does not correspond to the level of an international journal.
• The topic discussed by the authors is quite debatable and can have many directions for development. Therefore, the approach proposed by the authors may have some limitations. To avoid this problem, I propose to add separate section "Limitations and prospects for further study".
• References list should be carefully checked and journal style policy should be strictly followed (journal abbreviations, doi, etc).

 

My decision is major revision

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you very much for the very insightful comments and suggestions. Base on your comment and request, we have made extensive modification on the original manuscript. In this new revision, we have tried our best to address all the concerns. Please check and see the point-to-point response to your comments in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This study has some limitations.

 

1. Period of the analysis

The authors analyzed data from 2011 to 2020. However, two years among them are extremely exceptional period. In other words, the world including China suffered from COVID-19 from 2019 to 2020. Therefore, carbon dioxide emissions plummeted at that time. And we are returning to normal life and the emission has rebounded. Particularly, Figure 2 shows the dramatic increase of the promotion effect and the inhibition effect, but these effects could have been affected by COVID, not aging. In conclusion, the authors need to delete these two years' data and analyze them again.

 

2. Variables

This study adopted panel data analysis, including one dependent variable and several independent variables. So, the authors need to keep consistency in the model. For instance, while the dependent variable is the total amount of carbon dioxide emission, one of the independent variables is GDP per capita. It could be recommended that independent variables should be GDP, not GDP per capita. In addition, other independent variables need to be reconsidered from the viewpoint of consistency.

 

3. Title

The title of this article is “The bilateral effects of population aging on carbon in China.” Then readers could guess that the bilateral effects mean the interaction between population aging and carbon emission. In fact, carbon emissions can affect population aging because elder people are very sensitive to heat waves and climate disasters. However, the authors focused on two effects of population aging: promotion and inhibition, or positive or negative effects. Therefore, they need to change the title to “Two positive or negative effects of population aging on carbon in China.”

 

4. Etc.

Table 1 needs to include units of individual variables.

Table 2 needs to show R2 values for each model.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This article has some typos and grammar errors.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the very insightful comments and suggestions. Base on your comment and request, we have made extensive modification on the original manuscript. In this new revision, we have tried our best to address all the concerns. Please check and see the point-to-point response to your comments in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper attempts to explore the relationship between the aging population and future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in China using quantitative methods. While the authors have conducted significant statistical work, there are some serious flaws in the methodology that need to be addressed.

The authors need to clarify the relationship between Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2. Is Hypothesis 2 intended to be the null hypothesis of Hypothesis 1? For Hypothesis 1, the paper argues that the spending behavior of the aging population will inhibit GHG emissions. However, there is no data provided to validate this claim in the subsequent analysis. Additionally, Hypothesis 1 conflicts with Hypothesis 2, which argues that increased economic activities, including those in the tertiary sector such as elder servicing, will promote GHG emissions.

 The quantitative analysis should focus on testing the formulated hypotheses and building upon a solid theoretical foundation. Currently, there is a lack of foundation for key arguments, such as the impact of the aging population on industrial transformation and innovation.

Furthermore, the study would benefit from being situated within a broader context. It is important to incorporate international studies and established theories in the literature review section to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall language is fine. Minor grammar and sentence structure checks are recommended.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the very insightful comments and suggestions. Base on your comment and request, we have made extensive modification on the original manuscript. In this new revision, we have tried our best to address all the concerns. Please check and see the point-to-point response to your comments in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Journal: Sustainability

Review of: The bilateral effects of population aging on regional carbon emissions in China: promotion or inhibition effect?.

Manuscript number: sustainability- 2661444

Overall recommendation: Mainor Revision

Minor comments

1-      The corresponding author must take * behind the number.

2-      All the text in the manuscript must be Justified from the right and left.

3-      For all references, citations, instead of [17-18], must be [17, 18]. Also, instead of [21-22], must be [21, 22] and so on.

4-      In line 208, the symbol (?(·)and ?(·) represent) not written and defined correctly.

5-      The abstract and conclusion still need more editions for the main results and still need to be more attractive.   

 

 I hope these comments will be helpful to you.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you very much for the very insightful comments and suggestions. Please check the response in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a study that evaluated a pilot implementation of an intervention targeted at 5-6 years old, the "Learn to Fly" program. The program aimed at fostering positive child development, intergenerational dialogue, and social engagement, involving children, their teachers and their families. The study used a quasi Experimental design and the results were obtained from pre- and post-exposure groups. The study is good but it needs final English editing because there are minor editorial issues and also mis-spelt words.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is a need to undertake final proofing of the manuscript to correct typos and mis-spelt words.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the very insightful comments and suggestions. Please check the response in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors took into account the comments. The manuscript may be accepted.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the very insightful comments and suggestions. Please check the response in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript was not properly modified.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the very insightful comments and suggestions. Please check the response in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the revisions and responses. Following the authors' feedback, the second section of the paper should be named Research Hypothesis. The content above the hypothesis should be organized as research assumptions and needs literature to support those assumptions. For instance, "Firstly, as the working population is aging, their difficulties in accepting new knowledge and learning new skills become higher than before.", does this come from literature or the authors' personal opinion? Please add the argument summary at the start of each subsection, before the "Firstly". 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

please double check the language before publication

Author Response

Thank you very much for the very insightful comments and suggestions. Please check the response in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf