Towards Carbon Neutrality: A Comprehensive Analysis on Total Factor Carbon Productivity of the Yellow River Basin, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Generally a good paper, however there are some concerns with the use of English,and grammer
Author Response
Point: Generally a good paper, however there are some concerns with the use of English, and grammer.
Response: We apologize for the poor language of our manuscript. We worked on the manuscript for a long time and the repeated addition and removal of sentences and sections obviously led to poor readability. We have now worked on language, grammar and readability, and have also involved native English speakers for language corrections. We really hope that the flow and language level have been substantially improved.
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of the paper is relevant and very interesting. Nowadays increasing Total Factor Carbon Productivity is crucial to mitigate global climate change and achieve carbon neutrality target. The researched territory - Yellow River Basin of China - is a critical energy area, but its TFCP is relatively low and environmental problems are particularly prominent. Authors used and synthesized both national and international literature sources and cited them correctly. Most part of them are from the last 10 years.
Authors investigated TFCP using MCPI, Global Moran’s I and kernel density estimation based on panel data of the 9 provinces along this vast basin in 2007-2017 in their paper. I appreciate their results which they summarised at the end of the paper. I have 4 suggestions, notes:
1. In line 196-198 you used both e.g and etc. I suggest using only one of them; e.g or etc.
2. In line 228 you wrote the following: “…its population was 43.5 million, accounting for 35.3% of China’s total population.” I think this numbers are not correct, because based on it the total Chinese population should be 123.22 million, but it is 1.23 billion. So I think it would be 435 million which is the 35.3% of the population.
3. In line 236 you wrote the following: “… natural gas account for about 38% of…” In my mind it is not about, it is 38% or it is about 40%.
4. In line 244 and 412 please add few sentences below the new chapter titles (4. Research methodology and data; 4.1. Measuring total factor productivity; 5. Empirical results and analysis)
Author Response
Point 1: In line 196-198 you used both e.g and etc. I suggest using only one of them; e.g or etc.
Response 1: The statements have been corrected. We will only use e.g., in line 196-198 in the manuscript.
Point 2: In line 228 you wrote the following: “…its population was 43.5 million, accounting for 35.3% of China’s total population.” I think this numbers are not correct, because based on it the total Chinese population should be 123.22 million, but it is 1.23 billion. So I think it would be 435 million which is the 35.3% of the population.
Response 2: We are sorry that this data of population was not clear in line 228 in the original manuscript. I should have explained that the population of the study area is 435 million. I have revised the contents of this part and edit the text further based on helpful comments from the reviewers.
Point 3: In line 236 you wrote the following: “… natural gas account for about 38% of…” In my mind it is not about, it is 38% or it is about 40%.
Response 3: We are sorry that there is still some imprecise language in line 236 of the original manuscript. In fact, the reserves of natural gas account for 38% of China’s total reserves. We have revised the contents of this part based on helpful comments from the reviewers.
Point 4: In line 244 and 412 please add few sentences below the new chapter titles (4. Research methodology and data; 4.1. Measuring total factor productivity; 5. Empirical results and analysis)
Response 4: We have revised the contents and added few sentences below the new chapter titles in the line 244 and 412.
Reviewer 3 Report
After careful review of the article: Towards carbon neutrality: A comprehensive analysis on total factor carbon productivity of the Yellow River Basin, China, I have following comments/suggestions for the authors.
1. Some abbreviations are not defined (Such as MCPI), please recheck the entire article and define the abbreviation on its first appearance and also add to the list of abbreviations.
2. The article cites a large number of references but most references are quite old and there is no reference from 2023, authors should incorporate a few most recent references from 2023 and replace the older ones.
3. The study identifies Yellow River Basin as the study subject, in such studies a comparison of similar studies at some other place is needed.
4. The abstract should be revised to include some results and key findings to back the claims.
5. Did authors consider any other study scope, say any other river basin, the reasoning of identifying the study subject is not convincing.
6.The conclusions may be made crisp and the details written in the conclusions may be shifted to discussion.
Author Response
Point 1:Some abbreviations are not defined (Such as MCPI), please recheck the entire article and define the abbreviation on its first appearance and also add to the list of abbreviations.
Response 1: We are sorry for the lack of definition for the abbreviation such as MCPI. We have rechecked the whole manuscript and define the abbreviation the first time it occurs and add to the list of abbreviations.
Point 2: The article cites a large number of references but most references are quite old and there is no reference from 2023, authors should incorporate a few most recent references from 2023 and replace the older ones.
Response 2: We have incorporated 3 most recent references from 2023 and replaced 11 older references based on helpful comments from the reviewers.
Updated References:
In line 703: Jakob, M. The political economy of carbon border adjustment in the EU. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 2023, 39, 134–146.
In line 712: Debanshi, S.; Pal, S. Assessing the role of deltaic flood plain wetlands on regulating methane and carbon balance. Science of The Total Environment 2022, 808, 152133–.
In line 726: Kuosmanen, N.; Maczulskij, T. The Role of Firm Dynamics in the Green Transition: Carbon Productivity Decomposition in Finnish Manufacturing 2023.
In line 735: Yang, Y.; Wei, X.; Wei, J.; Gao, X. Industrial Structure Upgrading, Green Total Factor Productivity and Carbon Emissions. Sustainability 2022, 14. 736
In line 737: Zhai, X.Q.; Xue, R.; He, B.; Yang, D.; Pei, X.Y.; Li, X.; Shan, Y. Dynamic changes and convergence of China’s regional green productivity: A dynamic spatial econometric analysis. Advances in Climate Change Research 2022, 13, 266–278.
In line 741: D’Amato, A.; Mazzanti, M.; Nicolli, F. Green technologies and environmental policies for sustainable development: Testing direct and indirect impacts. Journal of Cleaner Production 2021, 309, 127060.
In line 780: Lahouel, B.B.; Taleb, L.; Zaied, Y.B.; Managi, S. Does ICT change the relationship between total factor productivity and CO2 emissions? Evidence based on a nonlinear model. Energy Economics 2021, 101, 105406.
In line 790: Amin, M.; Zhou, S.; Safi, A. The nexus between consumption-based carbon emissions, trade, eco-innovation, and energy productivity: empirical evidence from N-11 economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2022, 29, 39239–39248
In line 794: Wang, X.; Lu, Y.; Chen, C.; Yi, X.; Cui, H. Total-factor energy efficiency of ten major global energy-consuming countries. Journal of Environmental Sciences 2023.
In line 805: Tan, X.; Choi, Y.; Wang, B.; Huang, X. Does China’s carbon regulatory policy improve total factor carbon efficiency? A fixed-effect panel stochastic frontier analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2020, 160, 120222.
In line 818: Zhang, N.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, N. Is China’s energy policy effective for power plants? Evidence from the 12th Five-Year Plan energy saving targets. Energy Economics 2022, 112, 106143.
Point 3: The study identifies Yellow River Basin as the study subject, in such studies a comparison of similar studies at some other place is needed.
Response 3: We respectfully agree with the comments of the reviewer. In fact, selecting the Yellow River Basin as the study area, this paper mainly focuses on provincial TFCP to capture its internal commonness and regional heterogeneity, and further investigate the inter-regional imparities of such effects across the overall basin. Furthermore, considering the journal layout and space limitations, we will conduct a comparative analysis of the TFCP in the Yellow River Basin and the Yangtze River Basin in another article.
Point 4: The abstract should be revised to include some results and key findings to back the claims.
Response 4: We have revised the abstract to include some results and key findings to back the claims.
Point 5: Did authors consider any other study scope, say any other river basin, the reasoning of identifying the study subject is not convincing.
Response 5: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We indeed should have explained the reasoning of identifying the study subject. In fact, the research stems from China’s major national strategic needs of “Dual Carbon” and “The Ecological Protection and High-quality Development of the Yellow River Basin”. It is rooted in the practical problems of low total factor carbon productivity in the Yellow River Basin, and has clear problem orientation and goal orientation. We have found that improving TFCP of the Yellow River Basin is extremely important and necessary. However, no previous literature paid attention to internal commonness and regional heterogeneities of TFCP in the Yellow River Basin. The significance of this research lies in: 1) this paper provides basic theories and research methods for systematic research and quantitative analysis of carbon productivity in the Yellow River Basin, provides important data support for university research, corporate decision-making and local government policy formulation. 2) this paper provides empirical reference for the “The Ecological Protection and High-quality Development of the Yellow River Basin”, and the implementation of “Dual Carbon” action line, green “Silk Road Economic Belt” construction.
Point 6:.The conclusions may be made crisp and the details written in the conclusions may be shifted to discussion.
Responses 6: We apologize for the confusion of conclusion generated by the previous version of the manuscript. We have shifted some details to discussion and have revised the contents of this part based on helpful comments from the reviewers. We sincerely hope that our logic is now easier to follow with this new version.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed my comments.
