Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Environmental Regulation, Factor Marketisation Allocation and Carbon Emissions Performance: Empirical Evidence from Resource-Based Cities in China

Sustainability 2024, 16(17), 7265; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177265 (registering DOI)

by Jiaming Wang^*

, Chengyao Lin, Xiangyun Wang and Shuwen Wang

Reviewer 1:

Taras Hutsol

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Sustainability 2024, 16(17), 7265; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177265 (registering DOI)

Submission received: 2 August 2024 / Revised: 20 August 2024 / Accepted: 22 August 2024 / Published: 23 August 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented manuscript on the topic "Environmental regulation, factor marketisation allocation and carbon emissions performance: Empirical evidence from resource-based cities in China" has scientific elements using specific research methods. The manuscript may be valuable to specific stakeholders.

Comments

1. If the authors have submitted an amended or corrected version of the manuscript, they should be displayed

2. I recommend making changes in the title of the manuscript and in the text "carbon emissions performance" it can be interpreted as "be more productive", which contradicts the definition itself, perhaps replace it with "indicator"

3. I recommend rewriting the "Abstract" Section, making it without abbreviations, this will affect the further promotion of the article, in case of a positive decision

4. Formulate the scientific novelty clearly

5. Why did the authors put a lot of emphasis on Asian scientists? the manuscript has been submitted to an international journal, other scientists are also engaged in similar topics

5. I recommend making the "Discussion" section a separate section, this will emphasize the importance of research and the scientific authority of the team of authors

6. Make technical corrections to section titles, References, etc., as required by the publisher

Author Response

Point-to-Point Response to Editor and Reviewers

(Includes Specific Comments from the Reviewers)

We are extremely grateful for the opportunity to revise this paper.

Thank you for the detailed and constructive comments concerning the paper. Especially we want to express our deep appreciation on your constructive comments and advice.

According to the opinions of the reviewers, we have further enriched the relevant content to make this study more innovative and normative.

In revising the paper, we made many corrections of format problems, specific comments suggested by the reviewer.

To facilitate transparency and mutual understanding, we have italicized all your comments and followed your numbering system.

Response to Reviewer 1

1-1

If the authors have submitted an amended or corrected version of the manuscript, they should be displayed.

We are very grateful for your comments. According to your comments, we submitted an amended version of the manuscript.

1-2

I recommend making changes in the title of the manuscript and in the text "carbon emissions performance" it can be interpreted as "be more productive", which contradicts the definition itself, perhaps replace it with "indicator".

We are very grateful for your comments. According to your comments, we searched the literature again for relevant papers in "carbon emissions performance" and "be more productive", and further looked for relevant papers in Sustainability[1]. We found the following three points:

First, there is no contradiction between "be more productive" and the "carbon emissions performance", which also refers to the unit carbon productivity, consistent with the "be more productive".

Second, in the manuscript we have revised the description of the connotation of carbon emissions performance.

Third, we found that some of the TOP journals[2] contain the related research, so we have not revised the title here.

We would appreciate your understanding. If further revisions are needed, we hope you will continue to raise this issue and the author team will further study and revise it, thank you.

1-3

I recommend rewriting the "Abstract" Section, making it without abbreviations, this will affect the further promotion of the article, in case of a positive decision.

Thank you very much for your comments. As you commented, we revised the abstract section and make it without abbreviations.

Abstract: Resource-based cities had an irreplaceable role in the process of economic miracle in China. Advancing such cities’ carbon emissions reduction is a crucial aspect of the country’s steady realisation of the dual carbon peak and neutrality strategy. Reasonable implementation of environmental regulation and the efficiency of factor marketisation allocation is the key link for resource-based cities to improve carbon emissions performance, break the resource curse and reduce carbon emissions. Based on this, this study centers on the driving relationship between environmental regulation, the efficiency of factor marketisation allocation and carbon emissions performance as the core research problem. This study takes the panel data of 116 resource-based cities in China from 2006 to 2020 as the research sample, the non-radial meta-frontier total factor carbon emissions performance index is selected as the measurement index of carbon emission performance of resource-based cities based on the applicability analysis of the model. This study explores the characteristics of regional heterogeneity and type heterogeneity of carbon emissions performance driven by environmental regulation under the moderating effect of the efficiency of factor marketisation allocation, and further explore the threshold effect, aims to clarify the driving relationship between the three. The findings reveal that the driving effect of environmental regulation intensity on carbon emissions performance exhibits a fluctuating upwards trend, the effect transformed by compliance cost and innovation compensation. The efficiency of factor marketisation allocation has a double threshold superposition effect on carbon emissions performance fluctuation that is driven by environmental regulation, indicating that market and government effectiveness can operate together to improve the carbon emissions performance. Based on these results, this study proposes countermeasures and suggestions for improving the carbon emissions performance using environmental regulation and the efficiency of factor marketisation allocation.

1-4

Formulate the scientific novelty clearly.

Thank you for your comments. According to your comments, we proposed the marginal contribution of the article in the manuscript.

Based on this, this study centers on the driving relationship between ER, EFMA and NMTCPI as the core research problem. This paper takes resource-based cities as a unique perspective to carry out research, which is extremely important to carry out research on their carbon emission performance, as they are responsible for the heavy responsibility of energy security supply and the pressure of carbon emission reduction. This study takes the panel data of 116 resource-based cities from 2006 to 2020 as the research sample, constructs a regression model to measure the impact of ERI and its cross-term with EFMA on the NMTCPI based on previous research. The study employs a threshold regression model to measure the threshold effect of the EFMA on the impact of ERI on the NMTCPI, aims to clarify the driving relationship between the three. As the international climate situation becomes more and more severe, the specific purpose of this study is to propose and verify the mechanism of ERI, EFMA and NMTCPI, explore the superposition effect of EFMA on the impact of ERI on NMTCPI. It further provides policy suggestions for the realization of “active government” and “effective market” in the process of green, low-carbon and high-quality development of resource-based cities. The study makes three marginal contributions. First, taking typical resource-based cities as research samples, the study constructs the NMTCPI from the perspective of new resource-based cities, measuring multiple heterogeneous regional and type characteristics. Second, considering the dual impact of administrative and market behaviour on the NMTCPI, this study innovatively takes the EFMA as a mediating variable through which ER affects the NMTCPI, analyses the specific mechanism of ER on GTFP and discusses the heterogeneity of different factors’ impact on the NMTCPI in terms of factor misallocation, which supplements the relevant research in the field. Third, this study combines ERI, EFMA and the NMTCPI into a single framework and examines the driving relationships between the three. Whether a synergistic effect exists between ER tools or a threshold effect of the impact of ERI on the NMTCPI level is evident to a reference for resource-based cities to inform the development of strategic ER, factor market allocation and green low-carbon high-quality development policies.

1-5

Why did the authors put a lot of emphasis on Asian scientists? the manuscript has been submitted to an international journal, other scientists are also engaged in similar topics.

Thank you for your comments. According to your comments, we have been acutely aware of this serious problem. Therefore, we have revised the literature section of the manuscript and added relevant literature from international scientists.

1-6

I recommend making the "Discussion" section a separate section, this will emphasize the importance of research and the scientific authority of the team of authors.

Thank you for your comments. According to your comments, we adjusted “Verification of stationarity” to 4.3. and separated the discussion section. In this way, the discussion section contains the heterogeneity results discussion, threshold discussion, and robustness tests.

1-7

Make technical corrections to section titles, References, etc., as required by the publisher.

Thank you for your comments. According to your comments, we make technical corrections to the whole manuscript as required by the publisher.

[1]

Wang, Hua, and Zenglian Zhang. 2024. Construction and Application of Regional Carbon Performance Evaluation Index System: The Case of Chinese Provinces. Sustainability 16 (11): 4460. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114460.
Guo, Li, and Min Tang. 2024. How Does Digital Transformation Improve Corporate Carbon Emission Reduction Performance? An Empirical Study on Data from Listed Companies in China. Sustainability 16 (8): 3499. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083499.
Yue, Qin, and Shiyu Lv. 2024. Impact of Digital Transformation on Carbon Performance of Industrial Firms Considering Performance–Expectation Gap as a Moderator. Sustainability 16 (14): 6097. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146097.
Li, Chuanfei, and Luguang Qi. 2024. Can Government Environmental Attention Improve Corporate Carbon Emission Reduction Performance?—Evidence from China A-Share Listed Companies with High-Energy-Consumption. Sustainability 16 (11): 4660. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114660.
He, Qi, and Hongli Jiang. 2024. Does the Energy-Consumption Permit Trading Scheme Improve Carbon Emission Performance? Evidence from a Quasi-Natural Experiment in China. Sustainability 16 (1): 466. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010466.

[2]

Ma, Ruiyang, Zuopeng (Justin) Zhang, and Boqiang Lin. 2023. Evaluating the Synergistic Effect of Digitalization and Industrialization on Total Factor Carbon Emission Performance. Journal of Environmental Management 348 (December):119281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119281.
Wu, F., P. Zhou, and D. Q. Zhou. 2020. Modeling Carbon Emission Performance under a New Joint Production Technology with Energy Input. Energy Economics 92 (October):104963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104963.
Xu, Le, Meiting Fan, Lili Yang, and Shuai Shao. 2021. Heterogeneous Green Innovations and Carbon Emission Performance: Evidence at China’s City Level. Energy Economics 99 (July):105269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105269.
Zhang, Wei, Xuemeng Liu, Shikuan Zhao, and Tian Tang. 2024. Does Green Finance Agglomeration Improve Carbon Emission Performance in China? A Perspective of Spatial Spillover. Applied Energy 358 (March):122561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.122561.
Zhang, Xuewei, Jiabei Zhou, Rong Wu, and Shaojian Wang. 2024. Spatial Network Analysis and Driving Forces of Urban Carbon Emission Performance: Insights from Guangdong Province. Science of The Total Environment, August, 175538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175538.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the study, the authors analyze the current topic concerning the regulation of carbon footprint emissions in China. However, after reviewing the content of the study, I propose supplementing and modifying the study following the comments below

1. The abstract should be supplemented with the research objective and research problem.

2. The introduction of the article should also be supplemented with the research objective, research questions, characteristics of the research subject, and research perspective, i.e. what the achieved results contribute to science, and why they are important.

3. The literature review should be supplemented with research hypotheses (after each subchapter). Additionally, a short description of the theoretical studies mentioned so far in the field of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis, Porter's hypothesis, and Jevons' paradox should be made.

4. In the research chapter, among others, for the p-value - a statistical hypothesis should be put forward because based on probability we verify the statistical hypothesis, not the research one). It rarely happens that in all calculations we get the value p=0.0000 - I suggest checking the correctness of the calculations.

5. In Chapter 5. Result and discussion, the correctness of the calculations should be checked. In addition, the content should be supplemented with information on whether the proposed models have been verified in practice. I propose checking the correctness of the construction of the proposed models. Additionally, the second part of the chapter, i.e. the discussion, requires supplementation, which should include information on what new information was established as a result of the conducted research. Are the developed models better than those proposed so far, and if so, why? What similarities and differences occur in comparison to identical research conducted so far? What further research plans do the Authors have in connection with the subject of greenhouse gas emissions? The research hypotheses should also be verified, which should be put forward in the theoretical part.

6. The conclusion should additionally indicate recommendations (including for whom and why is it important?).

7. The language of the article requires correction, mainly the definite article "the" is missing, and the plural form, e.g. jest upwards should be upward, restricts - restrict, etc. Uses does instead of do, etc. There are also unnecessary expressions such as that.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of the article requires correction, mainly the definite article "the" is missing, and the plural form, e.g. jest upwards should be upward, restricts - restrict, etc. Uses does instead of do, etc. There are also unnecessary expressions such as that.

Author Response

Point-to-Point Response to Editor and Reviewers

(Includes Specific Comments from the Reviewers)

We are extremely grateful for the opportunity to revise this paper.

Thank you for the detailed and constructive comments concerning the paper. Especially we want to express our deep appreciation on your constructive comments and advice.

According to the opinions of the reviewers, we have further enriched the relevant content to make this study more innovative and normative.

In revising the paper, we made many corrections of format problems, specific comments suggested by the reviewer.

To facilitate transparency and mutual understanding, we have italicized all your comments and followed your numbering system.

Response to Reviewer 2

2-1

The abstract should be supplemented with the research objective and research problem.

Thank you for your comments. According to your comments, we revised the abstract section.

2-2

The introduction of the article should also be supplemented with the research objective, research questions, characteristics of the research subject, and research perspective, i.e. what the achieved results contribute to science, and why they are important.

Thank you for your comments. According to your comments, we revised the introduction section added the following highlighted section.

2-3

The literature review should be supplemented with research hypotheses (after each subchapter). Additionally, a short description of the theoretical studies mentioned so far in the field of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis, Porter's hypothesis, and Jevons' paradox should be made.

Thank you for your comments. According to your comments, we revised the literature review section. We added the research hypotheses (after each subchapter) and a short description of the theoretical studies mentioned so far in the field of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis, Porter's hypothesis, and Jevons' paradox.

A short description is as follows.

This is more consistent with the research related to the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. The environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis, Porter's hypothesis and Jevons' paradox provide us with better reference and guidance in this field of study. Several existing scholars have studied the heterogeneous performance of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis, Porter's hypothesis and Jevons' paradox in different contexts from different levels. For example, the inverted N-, U- and inverted U-shape of the environmental Kuznets curve [11-13], the truthfulness of the Porter hypothesis [4,14], and the truthfulness of the Jevons paradox [15-16]. These studies discuss the performance of correlation and heterogeneity between policy factors and environmental factors under different scenarios, which can provide reference for the study in this paper.

2-4

In the research chapter, among others, for the p-value - a statistical hypothesis should be put forward because based on probability we verify the statistical hypothesis, not the research one). It rarely happens that in all calculations we get the value p=0.0000 - I suggest checking the correctness of the calculations.

Thank you for your comments. According to your comments, we have been acutely aware of this serious problem. Consequently, we rechecked the process and results of the study and found that the problematic part was in the organization of the output result data. We made revisions and corrections.

2-5

In Chapter 5. Result and discussion, the correctness of the calculations should be checked. In addition, the content should be supplemented with information on whether the proposed models have been verified in practice. I propose checking the correctness of the construction of the proposed models. Additionally, the second part of the chapter, i.e. the discussion, requires supplementation, which should include information on what new information was established as a result of the conducted research. Are the developed models better than those proposed so far, and if so, why? What similarities and differences occur in comparison to identical research conducted so far? What further research plans do the Authors have in connection with the subject of greenhouse gas emissions? The research hypotheses should also be verified, which should be put forward in the theoretical part.

Thank you for your comments. According to your comments, we revised discussion section. We checked and revised the model construction and calculations. Further, we added new results obtained from this study and the relevant rationale or policy validation for the results. Finally, the strengths of the model and the next steps in the research program have been added to this section. Of course, we validated the research hypotheses according to your comments.

A added section is as follows.

Through the comparative analysis of regional heterogeneity and type heterogeneity of ER and EFMA affecting the NMTCPI of resource-based cities, we can see that compared with the existing studies, this study innovatively introduces EFMA into the process of ER affecting NMTCPI, and explores its superimposed role in the process of ER affecting NMTCPI, which has great comparative advantages. Further, this research can be extended to the study of spatial correlation network structure, which can supplement the related re-search in this field and provide reference for the policy making of government and market.

2-6

The conclusion should additionally indicate recommendations (including for whom and why is it important?).

Thank you for your comments. According to your comments, we revised countermeasures and suggestions section.

6.2. Countermeasures and suggestions

Based on the above research conclusions, we proposed policy recommendations to promote carbon emission performance improvement in resource-based cities at both government and market levels.

At the government level, the key to overcoming the resource curse is whether regulation can achieve the mutual benefit of economic growth and carbon emissions reduction. In the process of development, resource-based cities should prioritise strengthening environmental pollution control, fully leverage government pollution control initiatives, encourage FDI in high-quality clean production and avoid developing a pollution paradise. In addition, it is essential to break regional resource–based monopolies, promote the cross-regional flow of emerging resources and high-tech industries and advance the ER innovation compensation effect. Policymakers must deepen energy and carbon trading market reform, improve and refine carbon market pilots and practices, accelerate the establishment of a unified national carbon market, implement reasonable allocation of carbon emissions quotas and combine the negative externalities generated by carbon-based industries’ development with appropriate energy prices and carbon taxes. Enterprises must be compelled to invest in green R&D and product applications and enhance energy conservation and emissions reduction by promoting rational carbon market operation and incentive policies to support low-carbon technological transformation and fully leverage the trickle-down effect of low-carbon technology development.

At the market level, by improving resource redistribution efficiency, ER promotes the independent and orderly flow of factors and mitigates mismatch effects. Therefore, while focusing on the effect of policy implementation, ER developers should carefully consider the impact of ER on the factor flow between enterprises and the rational allocation of factor resources between enterprises, unblock barriers to factor circulation, facilitate free labour force flow, meaningfully address capital structure mismatch, improve carbon emissions performance by advancing factor market allocation efficiency and promote factor marketisation progress. Further, ERI is uneven in different regions and different types of resource-based cities. For resource-based cities that have not yet crossed the first threshold, it is crucial to fully implement ER policies, improve relevant laws and regulations and continuously innovate ER approaches to stimulate enterprises to generate innovation compensation effects and improved carbon emissions performance. For resource-based cities that have crossed the first threshold but not yet crossed the second threshold, strategically targeted ER policies should be formulated to reduce the negative impact of excessive ERI.

2-7

Thank you for your comments. According to your comments, we revised the language of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The relevance and significance of the article's topic is well proven by the authors."It is crucial to introduce environmental regulation based on the comprehensive evaluation of carbon emissions performance and explore the relationship between environmental regulation, factor marketisation allocation and carbon emissions performance."

Against the background of the review of other studies, the complexity and originality of the present study are shown. Moreover, the authors clearly and precisely present the contributions of the study (lines 238-249 in the article).

The used methods and their combination in the study of 116 resource-based cities are well presented in the article. A complete methodological framework has been built by combining various methodological tools. Statistical sources and data for the period 2006-2020 are correctly displayed and used.

In the analysis, groupings of cities are used depending on their geographical location, their degree of development, etc. This has allowed the results to be shown in aggregate by groups of cities. The developed countermeasures and proposals were also positively evaluated.

In the final editing of the article, I suggest that the authors formulate the specific purpose of the publication in the introduction. In the current version, the authors have put the emphasis on the models used and more precisely "The study employs a threshold regression model to measure the threshold effect of the EFMA on the impact of ERI on the NMTCPI." Methods are a means, therefore it is necessary to emphasize the subject and the object of research.

Author Response

Point-to-Point Response to Editor and Reviewers

(Includes Specific Comments from the Reviewers)

We are extremely grateful for the opportunity to revise this paper.

Thank you for the detailed and constructive comments concerning the paper. Especially we want to express our deep appreciation on your constructive comments and advice.

According to the opinions of the reviewers, we have further enriched the relevant content to make this study more innovative and normative.

In revising the paper, we made many corrections of format problems, specific comments suggested by the reviewer.

To facilitate transparency and mutual understanding, we have italicized all your comments and followed your numbering system.

Response to Reviewer 3

3-1

The relevance and significance of the article's topic is well proven by the authors. "It is crucial to introduce environmental regulation based on the comprehensive evaluation of carbon emissions performance and explore the relationship between environmental regulation, factor marketisation allocation and carbon emissions performance."

Thank you for your comments. We hope to be published in Sustainability with your guidance.

3-2

Thank you for your comments. We hope to be published in Sustainability with your guidance.

3-3

Thank you for your comments. We hope to be published in Sustainability with your guidance.

3-4

Thank you for your comments. We hope to be published in Sustainability with your guidance.

3-5

Thank you for your comments. We formulated the specific purpose of the publication in the introduction.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend for printing, after technical corrections, the sample is given below

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions#preparation

1. An official website of the European Union. A European Green Deal. Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (accessed on 12 June 2024)

2. Tryhuba, I.; Tryhuba, A.; Hutsol, T.; Cieszewska, A.; Andrushkiv, O.; Glowacki, S.; Brys, A.; Slobodian, S.; Tulej, W.; Sojak, M. Prediction of Biogas Production Volumes from Household Organic Waste Based on Machine Learning. Energies 2024, 17(7), 1786. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17071786

Author Response

Point-to-Point Response to Editor and Reviewer 1

(Includes Specific Comments from the Reviewer 1)

We are extremely grateful for the opportunity to revise this paper.

Thank you for the detailed and constructive comments concerning the paper. Especially we want to express our deep appreciation on your constructive comments and advice.

According to the opinions of the reviewer 1, we have further enriched the relevant content to make this study more innovative and normative.

In revising the paper, we made many corrections of format problems, specific comments suggested by the reviewer 1.

To facilitate transparency and mutual understanding, we have italicized all your comments and followed your numbering system.

1-1

I recommend for printing, after technical corrections, the sample is given below

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions#preparation

Thank you for your comments. According to your recommendations, we make technical corrections to the whole manuscript.

1-2

An official website of the European Union. A European Green Deal. Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (accessed on 12 June 2024)

Thank you for your comments. According to your recommendations, we scrutinized the relevant information in the official website of the European Union. In conjunction with this manuscript, we found the following two points.

First, there are no specific references in this paper to the relevant parts of the official website of the European Union, so they are not used as references.

Second, the official website of the European Union provides us with a research direction and guidance, such as the related research on carbon neutrality. Thank you.

1-3

Tryhuba, I.; Tryhuba, A.; Hutsol, T.; Cieszewska, A.; Andrushkiv, O.; Glowacki, S.; Brys, A.; Slobodian, S.; Tulej, W.; Sojak, M. Prediction of Biogas Production Volumes from Household Organic Waste Based on Machine Learning. Energies 2024, 17(7), 1786. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17071786

We are very grateful for your comments. According to your recommendations, we added this reference.

Finally, we added a foundation program to the acknowledgements, National Statistical Science Research Program (2024LY058).

Article Menu

Environmental Regulation, Factor Marketisation Allocation and Carbon Emissions Performance: Empirical Evidence from Resource-Based Cities in China

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI