Spatial Differences, Dynamic Evolution, and Driving Factors of Carbon Emission Efficiency in National High-Tech Zones

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study explores the spatial-temporal dynamics of carbon emission efficiency in National High-Tech Zones in China and their driving factors. This is an interesting topic. Overall, the manuscript is well-structured, the methods are well-designed, the results are adequately presented and discussed, and the writings are mostly free from errors. Here are my detailed comments for further improvements:

 

(1) I suggest the authors to include a map showing the geographical location of their sample high-tech zones to give international readers a clearer picture of the research background.

 

(2) When measuring the carbon emissions, the authors considered only the carbon emissions generated from energy consumption within the High-Tech Zones, while neglecting carbon emissions and carbon sequestration resulted from land use and land cover change, which contributed to around 30% of total human-induced CO2 emissions. For this reason, I suggest the authors to further clarify this point in the limitation section (line 614). Following studies are for your reference:

Ou, Y., Bao, Z., Ng, S. T., Song, W., & Chen, K. (2024). Land-use carbon emissions and built environment characteristics: A city-level quantitative analysis in emerging economies. Land Use Policy, 137, 107019.

Gong, P., Liu, H., Zhang, M., Li, C., Wang, J., Huang, H., Clinton, N., Ji, L., Li, W., Bai, Y. and Chen, B., 2019. Stable classification with limited sample: Transferring a 30-m resolution sample set collected in 2015 to mapping 10-m resolution global land cover in 2017. Science Bulletin, 64(6), pp.370-373.

Huang, C. and Xu, N., 2022. Quantifying urban expansion from 1985 to 2018 in large cities worldwide. Geocarto International, 37(27), pp.18356-18371.

 

(3) In the research methods section (line 110), Carbon emission coefficients (CEF) and carbon oxidation coefficient (COF) for different fuels used to estimate the carbon emissions should be provided for the review purpose.

 

(4) In equation (2) (line 138), the notation “k” has not been properly defined. Please provide detailed explanation for this notation.

 

(5) The authors have investigated the impacts of internal and external factors on carbon emission efficiency in the latter part of this study. However, a variable list summarizing, categorizing, and explaining the tested variables, as well as their descriptive statistics (e.g., number of observation, mean, standard deviation) are missing. The authors are advised to expand Table 1 (line 227) to further include other tested variables, and present their categories, unit of analysis (city level or High-Tech Zone level), and descriptive statistics.

 

(6) Transportation sector is another key contributor to carbon emissions. Public transit accessibility to High-Tech Zones (external driving factor) and the emergence of shared-mobility (e.g., bike-sharing) within the High-Tech Zones (internal driving factor) may be another solution to reduce carbon emissions and even bring other environmental co-benefits (e.g., air quality improvement) in the High-Tech Zones. The authors are advised to discuss these points in the discussion section (line 598). Following studies are for your reference:

Ou, Y., Song, W., & Nam, K. M. (2024). Metro-line expansions and local air quality in Shenzhen: Focusing on network effects. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 126, 103991.

Ou, Y., Bao, Z., Ng, S. T., & Song, W. (2023). Estimating the effect of air quality on bike-sharing usage in Shanghai, China: An instrumental variable approach. Travel Behaviour and Society, 33, 100626.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) The introduction provides insufficient information on climate change, environmental diplomacy fostered by climate change, and China’s situation. Therefore, it should need to be extended by including more theoretical arguments. The following studies can give ideas for authors: Exploring the Cost of Decarbonizing the United States: A Proposal for a Green Sacrifice Ratio, Impact of Renewable Energy Investments in Curbing Sectoral CO2 Emissions: Evidence from China by Nonlinear Quantile Approaches.

2) Primary motivation is not clearly explained in the current version of the study.

3) Former literature should be provided by establishing a new section.

4) Abbreviations should be written in explicit form at the first occurrence and then consistently used. For instance, SBM.

5) The methodological background of the study is well explained.

6) Disclosure of the results was satisfying.

7) The resolution of the figures was insufficient. In particular, Figures 1 and 2(a,b, and c) need to be revised to provide high-resolution levels and enhance ease of reading.

8) Although the authors have done a good job of uncovering the results, they have not supported them by providing extensive theoretical discussion in the discussion section on the possible factors that determine the empirical results.

9) The limitation for the study should be provided in the introduction section

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a very important topic. It stands out positively for its methodological aspect.  Despite my positive assessment of the article, the following comments are worth considering:

- in the Discussion section to refer to similar studies by other authors. This will help to broaden the literature review, as it seems that it could have been broader (41 publications, with a strong dominance of Chinese authors)

- In the Conclusions section, it is worth mentioning the weaknesses of the conducted research (there are always such 😊 ). Furthermore, it is worth pointing out the direction of future research.

Minor:

- In formula 2, correct the triple dot for variables i, j, r. In some places, the comma after the triple dot is missing.

- It is worth adapting the article to the editorial requirements. E.g. space under table 1. It is also advisable to give a space before individual sections, as everything 'blends' with the main text.

- Indications such as "q Statistic" or "P-value" should preferably be written in lower case.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the effort made by the authors in improving the quality of this manuscript. However, I still have some questions regarding the revisions.

(1) Regarding my previous comment 1, the map shows Hong Kong, Macao, and Taipei. I wonder whether these cities are included in your analysis? If not, listing these cities in the map could cause some confusions. Please modify the map to remove irrelevant cities, and include a full list of your tested sample in the appendix.

(2) Regarding my previous comments 2 and 6, despite the authors have made some revisions (line 715) to acknowledge the limitation of their study that they did not take carbon emissions generated from land cover and use and carbon savings from green transportation into account, their arguments should be supported by the findings from existing studies showing that land use and cover changes could actually contribute to a considerable amount of carbon emissions. Therefore, citations should be made here. 

(3) Regarding my previous comment 3, the authors need to tell the readers where are these coefficients extracted from. Here, citations are crucial for the validation of the results and should be included.

(4) Regarding my previous comment 5, the authors need to also include the description and statistics of other tested variables, such as government intervention, degree of openness, etc. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have mostly adressed former queries. Therefore, editorial can consider the related study for potential publication. 

Author Response

Comments 1:The authors have mostly adressed former queries. Therefore, editorial can consider the related study for potential publication. 

Response:Thank you once again for your insights and suggestions!

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all my concerns in the revised manuscript, and now it can be accepted for publication.