Nonlinear Effects of Eco-Industrial Parks on Sulfur Dioxide and Carbon Dioxide Emissions—Estimation Based on Nonlinear DID

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have carefully considered and read the manuscript entitled “Nonlinear Effects of Eco-Industrial Parks on Sulfur Dioxide and Carbon Dioxide Emissions —— Estimation Based on Nonlinear DID” and have the following observations:

As a regional policy, eco-industrial parks(EIPs) play an important role in coordinating economic development and environmental protection. This paper uses the nonlinear DID method to study the effects of EIPs on SO2 and CO2 emissions, aiming to portray the nonlinear and heterogeneous characteristics of EIP’s effects. Meanwhile, this paper will portray the effects of EIP policies more accurately and completely. The main results are as follows: 1. EIPs can significantly reduce urban CO2 and SO2 emissions, but there is significant heterogeneity between the effects. 2. The effect of the EIPs establishment on SO2 and CO2 emissions is nonlinear. In addition, it shows significant nonlinear characteristics such as the chinge of foreign investment level and city population density.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

This paper needs a little more clarity about your manuscript's theme. There are some still spelling errors, and minor clarifications and improvements are needed for reconsidering it as a publication in Sustainability Journal.

In addition to the above, I have a few major points for the authors to consider before the publication of this work:

• In the abstract please recheck the grammatical and typo errors carefully, such as a typo error and grammar mistakes from a native speaker.
• Please accurately highlight your contribution and novelty in more detail in the introduction.
• Please update your literature with a few latest studies in 2021-22 if applicable:

 

• Recheck the references and their style according to the journal requirements, and in-text and end-text should be the same and vice versa.
• In the result section methods have been used, could your check by using some robust tests for more verifications of your outcomes?
• In the discussion section, the key findings should be compared and contrasted with existing studies.
• The conclusion, key recommendations, limitations, and future implications should more realistic and be based on your results and discussion. So, do consider it accordingly and improve this section.
• The acronyms should be defined at first appearance in the manuscript and then must be consistently used throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The problem identified in the topic is undoubtedly very current.

The research methodology is not entirely clear. It should therefore be clarified whether:

1. Did the authors estimate two separate models (for sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide emission as explained variables)?

2. Why are the results of significance tests for the control variables in the model not shown?

3. Is the FDI variable also treated as a control variable in the model on page 6?

4. Do the variables POD and CIZ not express the same phenomenon?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.     Please add period covered and recommendations in Abstract.

2.     The organization of the research paper is missing at the end of the Introduction.

3.     The literature review needs to be supported by some latest researches. Consider the following papers.

 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08619-1

 

https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2167

 

4.     Reason for using nonlinear DID method for analysis.

5.     The result is not supported by previous work.

6.     Limitations and scope of future research needs to be incorportated

7.     Check out for grammatical errors and missing references.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is very clear and interesting. The authors have done properly all the necessary corrections. The manuscript has considerably improved and so far, it is endorsed for final publication in Sustainability.

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has made the suggested corrections and the explanations are satisfactory.

Reviewer 3 Report

Accepted