Does Low-Carbon City Construction Promote Integrated Economic, Energy, and Environmental Development? An Empirical Study Based on the Low-Carbon City Pilot Policy in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After careful investigation and several caveats(listed below) I recommend this  manuscript be published.  Please review last word of Line 186.  It is adjective. Please change the typo “Promate” in Figure 2.

Figure 2 is one of the presentations of 3 I have seen

My first comment is a reader would expect cities to be named. On second consideration this would cause unnecessary  controversy between cities, and so best to list types of cities by tier level, and whether resource-based.

My second comment is in the strange usage of the term “hypothesis”.  The authors may be undergraduate students and not realise the way genuine researchers treat this term carefully.  A researcher approaches a topic with curiosity and humility and maybe dares a “hunch” (even a guess) at a hypothesis.  He then spends a long time testing it. A true researcher acknowledges tests may prove the hypothesis wrong.  I found this manuscript odd to have 3 hypotheses, and even stranger to find they were not alternatives, but complementary.  I see the 3 hypotheses as opinions, too ”wordy”, and not brave hunches to be tested. In practice, given the situation, too hard to change.

Thirdly I was expecting a DID figure showing a line steeper than parallel to show the change of the LCCP cities over the control group. 
I hope authors consider my comments but in light of their quite good work, go ahead and publish.

I decided not to comment on "entropy weighting"  because you have cited reference,  so go ahead.  But I defy anyone to be serious in explaining its meaning or origin

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

s  above

Author Response

Dear Reviewers:

 

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Does low-carbon city construction promote integrated economic-energy-environmental development? An empirical study based on the low-carbon city pilot policy in China” (Manuscript Number: sustainability-2698810). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications in the original manuscript. All changes made to the text are marked in blue. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to your and the reviewers’ comments and questions.

 

Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice. Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate.

 

Sincerely yours,

Rui Zhang, Yingshan Sun, Xiaolu Du, Kang Zhao, Xiaotong Qie, and Xiaoyi Zhang

 

Responses to the reviewer’s comments:

经过仔细的调查和一些警告（如下所列），我建议将这份手稿发表。请查看第 186 行的最后一个字。它是形容词。请更改图 2 中的错别字“Promate”。

响应：

感谢您的仔细审查。我们已根据您的建议对其进行了修改。相关部分在正文中标有蓝色。

 

图 2 是我见过的 3 个演示文稿之一

 

我的第一条评论是，读者希望城市被命名。其次，这会引起城市之间不必要的争议，因此最好按层级列出城市类型，以及是否基于资源。

响应：

感谢您的仔细审查和建议。我们根据您的建议以及它们是否基于资源按等级列出了城市类型。有关详细信息，请参阅附录 A 部分。

 

我的第二条评论是“假设”一词的奇怪用法。作者可能是本科生，没有意识到真正的研究人员如何谨慎对待这个术语。研究人员以好奇心和谦逊的态度对待一个话题，也许敢于对一个假设进行“预感”（甚至是猜测）。然后，他花了很长时间对其进行测试。真正的研究人员承认测试可能会证明假设是错误的。我发现这份手稿很奇怪，有 3 个假设，更奇怪的是发现它们不是替代的，而是互补的。我认为这 3 个假设是意见，太“罗嗦”了，而不是勇敢的预感。在实践中，鉴于这种情况，很难改变。

响应：

感谢您的仔细审查和建议。我们已根据您的建议进行了适当的更改。相关部分在正文中标有蓝色。

 

第三，我期待一个DID图，显示一条比平行线更陡峭的线，以显示LCCP城市相对于对照组的变化。

响应：

感谢您的仔细审查和建议。事实上，政策实施后平行趋势图越陡峭，LCCP城市相对于对照组城市的变化越显著。本文在借鉴相关文献实践并仔细研究DID方法论后发现，大多数文献主要从两个方面看并行趋势检验是否满足要求。首先，在政策实施前，实验组和对照组无显著差异;其次，政策实施后，实验组相对于对照组发生了明显变化，如果满足这两点，则说明该研究通过了平行趋势检验，政策发挥了作用。对于本研究，首先看政策实施前后的系数是否显著，主要是指置信区间是否包含0，如果包含0则不显著。本文在政策实施前，置信区间为0，估计系数在0附近波动，说明低碳城市试点政策实施前的对照组与对照组无显著差异。且政策实施后，各时期系数均不包含0，均为正值，说明LCCP的实施显著提升了全市3E综合水平。这表明该研究通过了平行趋势检验，LCCP的实施可以显著提高城市3E综合水平。具体参考资料如下：

（1） 俞玲;低碳城市试点与碳排放效率：来自中国的准实验证据.能源经济 2021， 96， 105125.

（2） 李，C.;冯，Y.;彭，D.可持续发展的绿色之路：低碳城市试点对能源转型的影响。能源经济 2022， 115， 106343.

（3） 张瑞;齐，X.;胡英;陈， X.去产能政策是否促进了煤炭行业高效绿色发展？——基于中国的证据。资源政策 2022， 77， 102717.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors address the topic of low-carbon urban transformation and analyse the impact of low-carbon city pilot policy (LCCP) in China on the development of the economy-energy-environment (3E) approach. To analyse the mechanisms of influence the authors apply the progressive difference-in-differences model and the triple difference model. The conclusions of the research shown that implementing the LCCP policy significantly improves the 3E integrated development level in the sample cities, and a variety of robustness tests were used to validate this conclusion.

The authors believe the research results could be useful for other developing countries but they do not explain it sufficiently. Moreover, the literature review is focused exclusively on China. The references to authors from other countries are missing. This makes the significance of the paper rather low (limited only to local scale and context).

The calculations are correctly explained and the quality of the presentation is high. I would recommend to strengthen the conclusions to show international aspects of the research as well as replicability potential. The conclusions could also provide more robust information on the main findings of the research. At present the conclusions and the abstract are very generic.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers:

 

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Does low-carbon city construction promote integrated economic-energy-environmental development? An empirical study based on the low-carbon city pilot policy in China” (Manuscript Number: sustainability-2698810). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications in the original manuscript. All changes made to the text are marked in blue. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to your and the reviewers’ comments and questions.

 

Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice. Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate.

 

Sincerely yours,

Rui Zhang, Yingshan Sun, Xiaolu Du, Kang Zhao, Xiaotong Qie, and Xiaoyi Zhang

 

Responses to the reviewer’s comments:

1.The authors believe the research results could be useful for other developing countries but they do not explain it sufficiently. Moreover, the literature review is focused exclusively on China. The references to authors from other countries are missing. This makes the significance of the paper rather low (limited only to local scale and context).

Response:

Thank you for your careful review. We have made changes based on your suggestions. Relevant parts have been marked in blue in the text.

 

2.The calculations are correctly explained and the quality of the presentation is high. I would recommend to strengthen the conclusions to show international aspects of the research as well as replicability potential. The conclusions could also provide more robust information on the main findings of the research. At present the conclusions and the abstract are very generic.

Response:

Thank you for your careful review and suggestions. We have modified it according to your suggestion. The relevant parts have been marked in blue in the text.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigated the impact of LCCP on the integrated development level of 3E using the progressive difference-in-differences model and analyzed the mechanisms of influence. The relevant conclusions are conducive to the sustainable development in low-carbon city pilot policy. There are issues as follows.

1. The comprehensive value of 3E can represent the integrated development? I doubted it. The coupling coordination model can mirror the integrated development.

2. In Introduction, I did not agree that there are photos. Especially, interactions among the economic, energy, and environmental systems can be placed into Literature Review.

3. With regard to control variables, authors should clarify the relationship between each control variable and integrated economic-energy-environmental development.

4. More importantly, authors should add the Discussion.

 

5. Moreover, the language needs to be polished by negative English speakers. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

the language needs to be polished by negative English speakers. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers:

 

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Does low-carbon city construction promote integrated economic-energy-environmental development? An empirical study based on the low-carbon city pilot policy in China” (Manuscript Number: sustainability-2698810). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications in the original manuscript. All changes made to the text are marked in blue. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to your and the reviewers’ comments and questions.

 

Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice. Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate.

 

Sincerely yours,

Rui Zhang, Yingshan Sun, Xiaolu Du, Kang Zhao, Xiaotong Qie, and Xiaoyi Zhang

 

Responses to the reviewer’s comments:

1. The comprehensive value of 3E can represent the integrated development? I doubted it. The coupling coordination model can mirror the integrated development.

Response:

Thank you for your careful review and suggestions. The comprehensive value of 3E in this paper can represent the integrated development. Since this paper mainly reflects the comprehensive development of 3E, the corresponding measurement is carried out by referring to the relevant research method of performance evaluation. The references are as follows:

(1) Zhang Yuesheng, Zhang Shaopeng, Wang Xiaohong. The impact of low-carbon city construction on high-quality urban development under the "two-carbon" goal: a quasi-natural experiment based on low-carbon city pilot policy. Journal of xi'an jiaotong university (social science edition), 2022(5): 39-48 (in Chinese).

(2) Zheng Lilin, Yao Yongluo. Research on the impact of carbon market on high-quality regional economic development: Based on the perspective of market mechanism. Soft science: 1-13 [2023-11-09] (in Chinese).

(3) Xu Shuhong. Research on coordinated development of ecological civilization and green economy: An empirical analysis based on entropy weight. Technical Economics and Management Research,2021(08):99-103 (in Chinese).

 

2. In Introduction, I did not agree that there are photos. Especially, interactions among the economic, energy, and environmental systems can be placed into Literature Review.

Response:

Thank you for your careful review and suggestions. Since the interaction between economic, energy and environmental systems is discussed in the second paragraph of the introduction, Figure 2 is the result of refining the text, and the text and picture express basically the same meaning. If it seems inappropriate to place Figure 2 in the literature review, after comprehensive consideration, Figure 2 is deleted in this paper.

 

3. With regard to control variables, authors should clarify the relationship between each control variable and integrated economic-energy-environmental development.

Response:

Thank you for your careful review and suggestions. We have modified it according to your suggestion. The relevant parts have been marked in blue in the text.

 

4. More importantly, authors should add the Discussion.

Response:

Thank you for your careful review and suggestions. We have added Discussion in section 7, and the relevant contents have been marked in blue in the text.

 

5. Moreover, the language needs to be polished by negative English speakers.

Response:

Thank you for your careful review and suggestions. Based on your suggestions, this article has been syntax-checked and professionally polished.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article describes significant issues related to energy transition using statistical analysis to describe phenomena. The presented hipotheses are substantiated. The literature review is appropriate. The model used is correct and allows for reliable analysis. A minor disadvantage is that technological development is substantial, and the last 6 years could have influenced the conclusions made based on data from at least 6 years ago.

However, please consider the following corrections:

1. The environment cannot be treated solely in the context of threats. It also creates many opportunities for sustainable development. Figure 2 is mislabeled or only pertains to a portion of the interconnections.

2. In the context of urban areas, the human factor is one of the most significant. In the article, it has been limited only to promoting green consumption, while often in research it is believed that the change in public consciousness contributes to effective and sustainable transformation. Please clearly define to what extent these behaviours have been taken into account (or not) in the model.

3. Figure 4. The regression coefficient shows three periods of increase, namely year -1, 3, 6. In the others, the slope coefficient is practically the same. Please describe this in more detail, as I have doubts about the correctness of the conclusions if these are the results.

4. Wouldn't a better coefficient than total social electricity consumption be consumption per capita?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article contains many minor linguistic errors and requires careful editorial revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers:

 

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Does low-carbon city construction promote integrated economic-energy-environmental development? An empirical study based on the low-carbon city pilot policy in China” (Manuscript Number: sustainability-2698810). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications in the original manuscript. All changes made to the text are marked in blue. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to your and the reviewers’ comments and questions.

 

Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice. Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate.

 

Sincerely yours,

Rui Zhang, Yingshan Sun, Xiaolu Du, Kang Zhao, Xiaotong Qie, and Xiaoyi Zhang

Responses to the reviewer’s comments:

1. The environment cannot be treated solely in the context of threats. It also creates many opportunities for sustainable development. Figure 2 is mislabeled or only pertains to a portion of the interconnections.

Response:

Thank you for your careful review and suggestions. We have made the appropriate changes based on your suggestions.

 

2. In the context of urban areas, the human factor is one of the most significant. In the article, it has been limited only to promoting green consumption, while often in research it is believed that the change in public consciousness contributes to effective and sustainable transformation. Please clearly define to what extent these behaviours have been taken into account (or not) in the model.

Response:

Thank you for your careful review and suggestions. Human factors do play a key role in promoting green consumption in cities, especially as public awareness is raised to contribute to sustainable development. However, human factors were not emphasized in this study, and these behaviors were not defined in the model considering that data collection was not easy. In future studies, a more comprehensive consideration will be carried out to try to explore the impact of human factors on green transformation.

 

3. Figure 4. The regression coefficient shows three periods of increase, namely year -1, 3, 6. In the others, the slope coefficient is practically the same. Please describe this in more detail, as I have doubts about the correctness of the conclusions if these are the results.

Response:

Thank you for your careful review and suggestions. Your idea is very rigorous. In this paper, after referring to relevant literature practices and carefully learning DID method, it is found that there are several different display methods for parallel trend detection. However, when doing parallel trend test in most literatures, it is mainly to see whether two aspects meet the requirements. First, there is no significant difference between the experimental group and the control group before the implementation of the policy; Secondly, after the implementation of the policy, the experimental group changed significantly compared with the control group. Meeting these two points indicates that the research passed the parallel trend test and the policy played a role.

In this paper, before the implementation of the low-carbon city pilot policy, the confidence interval contains 0, and the estimated coefficient fluctuates around 0, indicating that there is no significant difference between the control group and the control group before the implementation of the low-carbon city pilot policy. However, after the implementation of the policy, the coefficient of each period does not contain 0 and is positive, which indicates that the implementation of LCCP has significantly improved the comprehensive level of urban 3E. As for the problem you mentioned, it is true that the growth rate in the first year, the third year and the sixth year is larger, but the parallel trend is not simply to look at the growth rate, but mainly to observe whether the effect of the experimental group is significant compared with the control group after the implementation of the policy. As can be seen from the figure, the coefficients of the second, fourth and fifth years do not contain 0 in the confidence interval and are positive, which is sufficient to prove that the implementation of the policy can significantly promote the comprehensive development of urban 3E. This study meets the parallel trend test and the policy is effective.

Specific references are as follows:

(1) Yu, Y.; Zhang, N. Low-carbon city pilot and carbon emission efficiency: Quasi-experimental evidence from China. Energ Econ 2021, 96, 105125.

(2) Lee, C.; Feng, Y.; Peng, D. A green path towards sustainable development: The impact of low-carbon city pilot on energy transition. Energ Econ 2022, 115, 106343.

(3) Zhang, R.; Qie, X.; Hu, Y.; Chen, X. Does de-capacity policy promote the efficient and green development of the coal industry? –Based on the evidence of China. Resour Policy 2022, 77, 102717.

 

4. Wouldn't a better coefficient than total social electricity consumption be consumption per capita?

Response:

Thank you for your careful review and suggestions. Per capita electricity consumption is indeed a better indicator of energy consumption. This study refers to relevant literature practices, and considering that economic system and environmental system are quantified from the perspective of total volume, in order to have the same statistical caliber of the three systems, the energy system is measured by the whole society's electricity consumption. Specific references are as follows:

(1) Li Li, Hong Xuefei, Wang Jun et al. Study on the coupling and coordinated development of economic-Energy-environmental system based on PLS and ESDA. Soft Science,2018,32(11):44-48 (in Chinese).

(2) Cao R R, Jiang Z. An empirical study on coordinated development of energy-economy-environment (3E) system in Shanghai. Statistics and Decision,2015(12):134-136(in Chinese).

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank authors for their revision. I agree with publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.