How Do Environmental Regulation and Decentralization Interactively Affect the Green Productivity of the Construction Industry? Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See attached file.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript,We have carefully considered the suggestion of Reviewer and make some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript.However, due to my poor academic level, I failed to achieve perfection. I hope the revision result can meet your expectations.

The red portion of the manuscript represents the content of this revision.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are many obvious mistakes in the manuscript:

The author name in the Review Report Form is inconsistent with that in the manuscript. It may be caused by a mistake in filling in the information when submitting.

Wrong Conflicts of Interest.

Author Contributions is missing another author's contribution.

The format of references is inconsistent.

A lot of editing is needed for the format and language of the manuscript. For example, there are many missing spaces and repeated spaces (including abstract, keywords and text); Missing subscripts (line 30, etc.); Table and picture formats; Case confusion (line 478, etc.); Extensive editing of English language required.

The applicability verification of the model used should be explained in detail, and the rationality and applicability of the model selection are not explained in detail.

Lack of standard description of environmental supervision types.

It is necessary to analyze the performance and reasons of heterogeneity in different regions and time periods.

The source, selection criteria, accuracy and reliability of the data are not specified in detail. For the part where the data source has been given (such as Table 1), there is a lack of references to the data source, and the data source is chaotic.

Lines 385-398 only describe a little information, which needs to be simplified and more useful descriptions added. This problem has appeared many times in the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript,We have carefully considered the suggestion of Reviewer and make some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript.However, due to my poor academic level, I failed to achieve perfection. I hope the revision result can meet your expectations.

The red portion of the manuscript represents the content of this revision. Revision notes, point-to-point, are given as follows:

1.The author name in the Review Report Form is inconsistent with that in the manuscript. It may be caused by a mistake in filling in the information when submitting.

We feel sorry for our carelessness. I have repeatedly corrected this error by contacting the editor via email.I sincerely thank you for your reminder.

2.Wrong Conflicts of Interest.

  In our resubmitted manuscript, the mistake is revised.

3.Author Contributions is missing another author's contribution.

  In our resubmitted manuscript, the mistake is revised.Thank you.

4.The format of references is inconsistent.

  We reviewed the manuscript and standardized the references to a consistent format.

5.A lot of editing is needed for the format and language of the manuscript. For example, there are many missing spaces and repeated spaces (including abstract, keywords and text); Missing subscripts (line 30, etc.); Table and picture formats; Case confusion (line 478, etc.); Extensive editing of English language required.

    Thank you for providing your valuable feedback.We have carefully checked the manuscript and corrected the errors accordingly and hope it meets with your satisfaction sincerely.

6.The applicability verification of the model used should be explained in detail, and the rationality and applicability of the model selection are not explained in detail.

    The regression model built in this paper is based on previous relevant studies, and the lower part of each regression data table lists relevant test parameters, such as R-square value and Hansen test, etc. According to your valuable suggestions, I have described the relevant test results and added the references for establishing the model.

7.Lack of standard description of environmental supervision types.

     In this paper, environmental decentralization is used as an indicator to measure the intensity of environmental supervision. Based on your valuable comments, a description of the data used has been added to Section 3.2.3 of the paper. The question you raised provides a valuable idea for my future research, and the impact of different types of environmental supervision on the green transformation of the construction industry will be explored.

8.It is necessary to analyze the performance and reasons of heterogeneity in different regions and time periods.

The reasons for the difference in the green transformation efficiency of the construction industry between the East, central and western regions have been analyzed in section  4.1of the paper. Your suggestions are very valuable, and they have pointed out the direction for my further research to study the impact of different types of environmental regulations on the green transformation of the construction industry in different regions and time periods. However, the subdivision study will take a lot of time, which is in conflict with the time given by the editor. I will make a detailed study in the next article. Thank you again for your valuable advice.

9.The source, selection criteria, accuracy and reliability of the data are not specified in detail. For the part where the data source has been given (such as Table 1), there is a lack of references to the data source, and the data source is chaotic.

    Based on your comments, a descriptive analysis and source references of the data used are added to the manuscript.

10.Lines 385-398 only describe a little information, which needs to be simplified and more useful descriptions added. This problem has appeared many times in the manuscript.

   According to your comment, this part of the article has been deleted, the subsequent two paragraphs have been merged into one paragraph and other content has been added, and other relevant chapters have been revised to varying degrees.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article deals with extensive statistical research done in China. The article is in the focus area of Sustainability magazine. I present my comments below:

1. I'm not sure a graphic abstract in this form is necessary - it doesn't introduce too much into the article. If the authors decide to leave it then please improve its readability (increase the text font, improve the interlineation).

2. key words should be chosen in such a way that they do not repeat the words used in the title of the paper.

3. data presented in tables (very extensive) are difficult to read, so I would suggest using graphs to present them.

4. Figures 1, 2 are illegible - please improve their readability.

5. conclusions please present from hyphens, instead of as continuous text.

In conclusion, my recommendation is major revision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

ok

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript,We have carefully considered the suggestion of Reviewer and make some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript.However, due to my poor academic level, I failed to achieve perfection. I hope the revision result can meet your expectations.

The red portion of the manuscript represents the content of this revision. Revision notes, point-to-point, are given as follows:

 

1.I'm not sure a graphic abstract in this form is necessary - it doesn't introduce too much into the article. If the authors decide to leave it then please improve its readability (increase the text font, improve the interlineation).

In response to your insightful feedback, the graphic abstract is omitted.

2.key words should be chosen in such a way that they do not repeat the words used in the title of the paper.

   In our resubmitted manuscript, the mistake is revised.

3.data presented in tables (very extensive) are difficult to read, so I would suggest using graphs to present them.

   Thank you for your valuable advice. In this paper, we aim to demonstrate the specific values and developmental changes of various provinces and regions in tabular form. While it may be challenging to encompass all the required information through graphical representation, I will adopt your suggested approach to present the data in future research.

4.Figures 1, 2 are illegible - please improve their readability.

   In the resubmission, this issue is addressed.

5. conclusions please present from hyphens, instead of as continuous text.

   In the resubmission, this issue is addressed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors have analyzed the relationship between ER, ED and GTFPCI with the data of 30 provinces of 12 years. To accomplish the job, several models have been proposed, including the linear model, non-linear model, models with lag, and models considering the spillover effect. The effect of ER and ED was analyzed with the model identified. The method and the results are interesting. However, there are still some problems:

1.     The construction of the model. Consider the modelling as a mapping GTFPCI=f(ER,ED), there can be many possibilities for identifying this function. It can be constructed with some advanced method such as SVM or AI to get a model to better fit the data, yet it is not the selection of the authors. This suggests that a more complicated model may not be the better one. Then, if there is a standard to evaluate which model is better than another one? Which model is the best one among the several proposed?

2.     The lag term. According to the authors, the lag term is considered because newly issued laws will only be adequately implemented the next year. Then, more than one lag terms should be considered for the modelling, such as ER(t-2), because laws will be effectively implemented the year after next year. Does this lead to a better model?

3.     The determination of its coefficient. One core issue of the paper is to get the coefficients of the model and the interpretation of their meaning. These coefficients can be calculated with many methods and some of them are sensitive to the initial value. Then, the result can be different. If one set of coefficients is significantly different from another set, the interpretation can even conflict with each other.

4.     In subsection 3.4 equations were given with CER, MER, and VER. But they are explained in detail in subsection 3.5. It is advised to firstly give the explanation then the equations, or let the equations and the explanations in the same subsection. Moreover, in line 259 CER is called as “mandatory environmental regulation” but in line 53 it is “command controlled environmental regulation”.

5.     The results in table 4 should be the coefficient of models, such as equation (3). The authors should indicate this to readers clearly. Moreover, CER, MER and VER have the same coefficient in equations such as eq. (3). But in table 4 they are different.

6.     What do the horizontal and longitudinal ordinates represent should be given for figure 1 and figure 2. According to the interpretation to the figure, the horizontal ordinate should be GTFPCI. They ranging from about 0.5 to 1 in table 3, from -2 to 2 in the figures. Moreover, in line 385 the authors said the chart are result for the year 2008 and 2019 respectively. But in the figures, they are 2006 and 2017.

7.     In the line 338, the authors said “With the continuous increase of CER value, GTFPCI first decreases and then increases”. The authors should emphasize the initial value of CER here.

8.     There are many typographical errors. These are some examples. The fonts in eq (4) are larger than others. The “don not” in eq (8). In line 282 the “regional I” should be replaced with “regional i (lowercase)”. In line 337 the “first term” should be replaced with “first order term”.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript,We have carefully considered the suggestion of Reviewer and make some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript.However, due to my poor academic level, I failed to achieve perfection. I hope the revision result can meet your expectations.

The red portion of the manuscript represents the content of this revision. Revision notes, point-to-point, are given as follows:

1.The construction of the model. Consider the modelling as a mapping GTFPCI=f(ER,ED), there can be many possibilities for identifying this function. It can be constructed with some advanced method such as SVM or AI to get a model to better fit the data, yet it is not the selection of the authors. This suggests that a more complicated model may not be the better one. Then, if there is a standard to evaluate which model is better than another one? Which model is the best one among the several proposed?

    Thank you for your insightful review comments.  The models chosen in this study are all based on those selected by previous researchers and tailored to fit my research objectives.The value of R² for each model regression is added in Table 5. The higher the value of R², the higher the fit degree of the model, which can be used to judge which model is more suitable.  I find your suggestion of utilizing SVM or AI to develop the model particularly valuable, as it provides a clear direction for my future research.

2. The lag term. According to the authors, the lag term is considered because newly issued laws will only be adequately implemented the next year. Then, more than one lag terms should be considered for the modelling, such as ER(t-2), because laws will be effectively implemented the year after next year. Does this lead to a better model?

     The idea you put forward is very meaningful.The regression model built in this paper is based on previous relevant studies, I intend to thoroughly investigate this issue in my future research.

3. The determination of its coefficient. One core issue of the paper is to get the coefficients of the model and the interpretation of their meaning. These coefficients can be calculated with many methods and some of them are sensitive to the initial value. Then, the result can be different. If one set of coefficients is significantly different from another set, the interpretation can even conflict with each other.

    The various coefficients in this paper are primarily utilized to elucidate the relative significance of the data, rather than its absolute meaning. For instance, a positive regression value for the quadratic coefficient in Table N indicates a U-shaped relationship between the quadratic coefficient variable and the explained variable, with less emphasis on the specific numerical value of the data.

4. In subsection 3.4 equations were given with CER, MER, and VER. But they are explained in detail in subsection 3.5. It is advised to firstly give the explanation then the equations, or let the equations and the explanations in the same subsection. Moreover, in line 259 CER is called as “mandatory environmental regulation” but in line 53 it is “command controlled environmental regulation”.

    According to your comment, I have modified the order of some sections of the article and changed the definition of CER to "command controlled environmental regulation".

5. The results in table 4 should be the coefficient of models, such as equation (3). The authors should indicate this to readers clearly. Moreover, CER, MER and VER have the same coefficient in equations such as eq. (3). But in table 4 they are different.

Based on your valuable feedback, I have meticulously reviewed the manuscript and identified inaccuracies in the listed formulas, which fail to accurately represent the regression analysis conducted.  The issues you raised are of utmost importance, and the corresponding errors have been rectified"

6. What do the horizontal and longitudinal ordinates represent should be given for figure 1 and figure 2. According to the interpretation to the figure, the horizontal ordinate should be GTFPCI. They ranging from about 0.5 to 1 in table 3, from -2 to 2 in the figures. Moreover, in line 385 the authors said the chart are result for the year 2008 and 2019 respectively. But in the figures, they are 2006 and 2017.

    We were really sorry for our careless mistakes. Thank you for your reminder.The uploaded graph exhibits formatting issues, specifically the absence of longitudinal ordinate names. These concerns have been addressed in the revised manuscript, with the horizontal and longitudinal ordinates denoted as dependent variable and its spatially lagged vector, respectively. Furthermore, the inconsistency in years has been rectified.

7. In the line 338, the authors said “With the continuous increase of CER value, GTFPCI first decreases and then increases”. The authors should emphasize the initial value of CER here.

     In the revised manuscript, the relevant description is added.

8. There are many typographical errors. These are some examples. The fonts in eq (4) are larger than others. The “don not” in eq (8). In line 282 the “regional I” should be replaced with “regional i (lowercase)”. In line 337 the “first term” should be replaced with “first order term”.

    These errors are corrected in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting article.  I do have some suggestions to make.

1.  In several parts of the manuscript, you give figures in yuan.  Please convert them in text or as a footnote in US Dollars to provide better context with respect to investment and spending.

2. Provide descriptive statistics for all data used.  The authors provide a description of the variables, but no idea what the value of each is.

3.  In equation (3), is beta 0 the same as referred to in equations (1)?  If not, consider using another Greek symbol.  

4. How did the authors verify the lags in equation (6)?  What tests were run?  

5.  In equation (7), one of the variables is ED, environmental damage.  How it is estimated is mentioned in section 3.5.2.  This should be done before equation (7) is presented for better context.

6.  In fact, I feel section 3.5 should be placed earlier in the manuscript, within section 3, for better context and understanding of the variables being introduced in equations (1) to (15).

7. Typo in equation (8) for when W is 0.  It should be "... j do not ..." and not "... j don not ..."

8.  In lines 365, the authors mention R&D (spending?).  How is it measured?  A table with descriptive statistics would help.

9.  In line 415, the authors refer to "... under any model...".  Please specify what equation is being referred to.

10.  In lines 442 to 444, the authors discuss "... collection of sewage charges ..."  I am confused, where did this come from?  Without descriptive statistics of all variables used, there is no way to see how this conclusion was reached.  

11. In lines 532 to 534, the authors conclude that policy should be local and not national.  This is not supported by the analysis.  The authors seemed to have conducted a regional analysis instead.  The authors do discuss differences at this level, but not at a more micro level.  Unless the authors conduced the same analysis at a more local level, the should restated this conclusion as either future work or by providing it in an Appendix.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript,We have carefully considered the suggestion of Reviewer and make some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript.However, due to my poor academic level, I failed to achieve perfection. I hope the revision result can meet your expectations.

The red portion of the manuscript represents the content of this revision. Revision notes, point-to-point, are given as follows:

 

1. In several parts of the manuscript, you give figures in yuan.  Please convert them in text or as a footnote in US Dollars to provide better context with respect to investment and spending.

    Based on your valuable feedback, the matter has been rectified in the manuscript.

2.Provide descriptive statistics for all data used.  The authors provide a description of the variables, but no idea what the value of each is.

Based on your valuable comment, a descriptive analysis and source references of the data used are added to the manuscript.

3. In equation (3), is beta 0 the same as referred to in equations (1)?  If not, consider using another Greek symbol. 

     This issue was revised in the resubmission of the manuscript.

4.How did the authors verify the lags in equation (6)?  What tests were run?  

   The results presented in Table 5 demonstrate that, upon accounting for the lag factor, there are two notable improvements. Firstly, the R2 value increases, indicating an enhanced model fit.Secondly, the regression coefficient's significance also improves.Both of these observations support the rationale for considering the lag term.

5.In equation (7), one of the variables is ED, environmental damage.  How it is estimated is mentioned in section 3.5.2.  This should be done before equation (7) is presented for better context.

According to your valuable comment, I have modified the order of some sections of the article .

6. In fact, I feel section 3.5 should be placed earlier in the manuscript, within section 3, for better context and understanding of the variables being introduced in equations (1) to (15).

According to your valuable comment, I have modified the order of some sections of the article.

7.Typo in equation (8) for when W is 0.  It should be "... j do not ..." and not "... j don not ..."

   We feel sorry for our carelessness,the mistake has been rectified in the manuscript.

8.In lines 365, the authors mention R&D (spending?).  How is it measured?  A table with descriptive statistics would help.

Based on your valuable comment, a descriptive analysis and source references of the data used are added to the manuscript.

9.In line 415, the authors refer to "... under any model...".  Please specify what equation is being referred to.

   The meaning of this sentence is“For a spatial weight matrix consisting of these six values, all regression results consistently indicate that.....”.Revised in the manuscript, this section has been modified to eliminate potential ambiguity.

10.In lines 442 to 444, the authors discuss "... collection of sewage charges ..."  I am confused, where did this come from?  Without descriptive statistics of all variables used, there is no way to see how this conclusion was reached.  

    When introducing MER in Section 3.2 of the paper, it is stated that the collection of pollutant discharge fee is the main evaluation data of MER, but the descriptions of the two parts are slightly different. According to your valuable opinions, both of them are changed to “pollutant discharge fee”.

11. In lines 532 to 534, the authors conclude that policy should be local and not national.  This is not supported by the analysis.  The authors seemed to have conducted a regional analysis instead.  The authors do discuss differences at this level, but not at a more micro level.  Unless the authors conduced the same analysis at a more local level, the should restated this conclusion as either future work or by providing it in an Appendix

Thank you for your valuable suggestions, and I will undertake a more comprehensive investigation in this area in future research. This paper employs a spatial econometric model to demonstrate the close relationship between the green efficiency of the construction industry and the development of neighboring regions. The regression model indicates that this efficiency is influenced by factors such as development level, scientific and technological level, etc., suggesting the need for tailored policy formulation based on local conditions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The previous comments got a good response, thanks to the author.

Author Response

Dear reviewer：

Thank you very much for your professional comments and work on my manuscript. Your comments help to improve academic rigor of our article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After needed revisions, the manuscript may be published in revised form.

Author Response

Dear reviewer：

Thank you very much for your professional comments and work on my manuscript. Your comments help to improve academic rigor of our article.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My only comment is that the authors did not provide an exchange rate for CNY to US $.  I assume this is for an international audience and it would help to know what the value is in US $.  Furthermore, could the authors confirm if these are nominal or real CNY values?  

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

    Thank you for your valuable advice.
    In this paper, in order to solve the problem of inaccurate evaluation efficiency caused by inflation and other factors, all the relevant indicators related to the economy are converted into the real data based on 2008 through the GDP deflator method. I have added this explanation and the exchange rate of CNY to USD in 2008 to the newly submitted manuscript.

    The red portion of the manuscript represents the content of this revision.

  Thanks again for your advice.