The Impact of Highway Transportation Infrastructure on Carbon Emissions in the Yangtze River Delta Region
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is entitled “The Impact of Highway Transportation Infrastructure on Carbon Emissions in the Yangtze River Delta Region.” In this case, the idea and results of the paper are interesting but the following comments can be utilized to improve this paper in future.
Abstract
1- The type of panel data used is not specified, and the statistical methods are not mentioned.
2- The final sentence about the study’s contribution is somewhat vague.
Introduction
1- The introduction contains long and complex sentences that can be broken down for better readability and clarity.
2- Some errors for the references must be corrected.
3- The introduction includes detailed statistics without connecting them clearly to the study's focus. It must be related to the research objectives.
Results
1- Some errors for the references must be corrected.
2- The literature review lacks a clear structure and coherence between sections. Organize the literature review into clearly defined subsections with appropriate headings. Use transitional sentences to connect different studies and concepts.
3- More prior research related to the objectives must be reviewed.
4- A table related to all related research including their findings and limitations must be proided.
5- The explanation of models such as IDA, SDA, and STIRPAT is too brief and lacks context. Offer a brief explanation of each model and why it is relevant to the study of carbon emissions. Highlight the strengths and limitations of each model in the context of your research.
Results and discussion
1- The results section is dense with statistical terminology and results, which may be challenging for readers to follow. Provide a brief explanation or interpretation after presenting each set of results to help readers understand the significance and implications of the findings.
2- Some errors for the references must be corrected.
3- The presentation of tables is not sufficiently explained within the text, making it hard to connect the tables with the narrative.
4- The verification of hypotheses is mentioned but not thoroughly discussed.
Conclusion
1- Some parts of the conclusion are repetitive and could be more concise. Summarize the key points more succinctly and avoid redundancy.
2- The structure of the conclusions and policy suggestions is somewhat disjointed. Ensure a logical flow from conclusions to policy suggestions. Each policy suggestion should directly link to the findings presented in the conclusions.
3- Some policy suggestions are general and lack specificity. Provide more concrete and actionable policy recommendations that stakeholders can implement.
Final decision: This manuscript has interesting objectives, organization, and results. It is suitable to publish after major correction.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt is suitable.
Author Response
Comments 1: [Abstract
1-The type of panel data used is not specified, and the statistical methods are not mentioned.
2-The final sentence about the study’s contribution is somewhat vague.]
Response 1:[Agree.We have accordingly changed to emphasize this point. Now, the abstract has clarified the type of panel data used and the statistical methods employed, and the last sentence of the research contributions has been revised. The modifications are in lines 10-13 and 19-21 on the first page.]
Comments 2: [Introduction
1- The introduction contains long and complex sentences that can be broken down for better readability and clarity.
2- Some errors for the references must be corrected.
3- The introduction includes detailed statistics without connecting them clearly to the study's focus. It must be related to the research objectives.]
Response 2:[Agree.We have accordingly changed to emphasize this point. The incorrect references have been corrected, and the statistical data in the introduction have been linked to the research objectives. The modifications are in lines 36-39 on the first page.]
Comments 3: [Results
1- Some errors for the references must be corrected.
2- The literature review lacks a clear structure and coherence between sections. Organize the literature review into clearly defined subsections with appropriate headings. Use transitional sentences to connect different studies and concepts.
3- More prior research related to the objectives must be reviewed.
4- A table related to all related research including their findings and limitations must be proided.
5- The explanation of models such as IDA, SDA, and STIRPAT is too brief and lacks context. Offer a brief explanation of each model and why it is relevant to the study of carbon emissions. Highlight the strengths and limitations of each model in the context of your research.]
Response 3:[Agree.We have accordingly changed to emphasize this point. The incorrect references have been corrected. The literature review has been organized into clearly defined subsections and connected with transitional sentences. Additional literature discussing the impact of other transportation modes on carbon emissions has been included, spanning lines 120-133 on the third page. A table summarizing all relevant studies, their findings, and limitations has been provided at line 134 on the third page. A more detailed explanation of the IDA, SDA, and STIRPAT models has been added, covering lines 83-105 on the second page.]
Comments 4: [Results and discussion
1- The results section is dense with statistical terminology and results, which may be challenging for readers to follow. Provide a brief explanation or interpretation after presenting each set of results to help readers understand the significance and implications of the findings.
2- Some errors for the references must be corrected.
3- The presentation of tables is not sufficiently explained within the text, making it hard to connect the tables with the narrative.
4- The verification of hypotheses is mentioned but not thoroughly discussed.]
Response 4:[Agree.We have accordingly changed to emphasize this point. The incorrect references have been corrected. Basic explanations of some statistical terms have been provided, spanning lines 313-314 on the eighth page. A discussion on hypothesis testing has been included, covering lines 367-378 on the ninth page.]
Comments 5: [Conclusion
1- Some parts of the conclusion are repetitive and could be more concise. Summarize the key points more succinctly and avoid redundancy.
2- The structure of the conclusions and policy suggestions is somewhat disjointed. Ensure a logical flow from conclusions to policy suggestions. Each policy suggestion should directly link to the findings presented in the conclusions.
3- Some policy suggestions are general and lack specificity. Provide more concrete and actionable policy recommendations that stakeholders can implement.]
Response 5:[Agree.We have accordingly changed to emphasize this point. The conclusion section has been streamlined, focusing on lines 498-508 on the fourteenth page. The policy suggestions section has been revised to include more specific recommendations, covering lines 514-546 on the fifteenth page.]
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper provides a valuable analysis of the relationship between highway transportation infrastructure and carbon emissions in the Yangtze River Delta region of China. The authors employ several econometric models to examine both direct and indirect effects, as well as threshold effects and heterogeneity across different city types. The overall methodology and findings make a useful contribution to the literature on this topic.
It would be nice if the followings will be considered in the revision:
However, there are several areas where the paper could be improved:
1. The policy suggestions could be expanded and made more specific. For instance, what concrete policy mechanisms could help leverage the benefits of highway infrastructure while mitigating emissions? Are there successful policy examples from other regions that could be applied?
2. While the authors conduct some robustness tests, additional checks could further strengthen the results. For example, using alternative measures of highway infrastructure or emissions, or employing different econometric techniques.
3. The most recent publications are not included. The authors should update their search to include the latest articles from the recent years to ensure the review is current. Some suggestions are:
An economical single-vendor single-buyer framework for carbon emission policies. Journal of Business Economics, pp.1-19.
Promoting green supply chain under carbon tax, carbon cap and carbon trading policies. Business Strategy and the Environment.
4. A more thorough discussion of the study's limitations would be valuable. For instance, are there data constraints or methodological challenges that future research could address?
5. The conclusion could more explicitly outline promising avenues for future research building on this work.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Comments 1: [The policy suggestions could be expanded and made more specific. For instance, what concrete policy mechanisms could help leverage the benefits of highway infrastructure while mitigating emissions? Are there successful policy examples from other regions that could be applied?]
Response 1:[Agree.We have accordingly changed to emphasize this point. The policy suggestions section has been revised to include more specific recommendations, The modifications are in lines 514-546 on the fifteenth page.]
Comments 2: [While the authors conduct some robustness tests, additional checks could further strengthen the results. For example, using alternative measures of highway infrastructure or emissions, or employing different econometric techniques.]
Response 2:[Agree.We have accordingly changed to emphasize this point. Previously, robustness tests only replaced the measurement indicators for carbon emissions. Now, additional robustness tests have been conducted by replacing the measurement indicators for highway infrastructure to strengthen the robustness of the results. The modifications are in lines 466- 489 on the thirteen page.]
Comments 3: [The most recent publications are not included. The authors should update their search to include the latest articles from the recent years to ensure the review is current. Some suggestions are:
An economical single-vendor single-buyer framework for carbon emission policies. Journal of Business Economics, pp.1-19.
Promoting green supply chain under carbon tax, carbon cap and carbon trading policies. Business Strategy and the Environment.]
Response 3:[Agree.We have accordingly changed to emphasize this point. I have incorporated this article ("Promoting green supply chain under carbon tax, carbon cap and carbon trading policies") into the paper to ensure its timeliness. The modifications are in lines 46- 48 on the second page.]
Comments 4: [A more thorough discussion of the study's limitations would be valuable. For instance, are there data constraints or methodological challenges that future research could address?]
Response 4:[Agree.We have accordingly changed to emphasize this point. We have added a discussion on the limitations of this paper. The modifications are in lines 553- 558 on the fifteenth page.]
Comments 5: [The conclusion could more explicitly outline promising avenues for future research building on this work?]
Response 5:[Agree.We have accordingly changed to emphasize this point. We have added an explanation regarding future research directions. The modifications are in lines 558- 561 on the fifteenth page.]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsYour study addresses a critical issue and provides valuable insights into the relationship between highway transportation infrastructure and carbon emissions. However, there are a few areas that need to be addressed to improve the clarity and completeness of your manuscript.
1. There are errors in the formatting of your references. Please ensure that all references are correctly formatted according to the journal’s guidelines. Some citations are wrong "Error! Reference source not found."
2. To strengthen the context and comprehensiveness of your study, please include a literature review section that covers the impact of transportation infrastructure on carbon emissions in other modes of transportation such as high-speed rail, unmanned aerial vehicles (drones), and maritime shipping. This will help to position your study within the broader context of transportation-related carbon emissions research. For examples: Functional Safety and Performance Analysis of Autonomous Route Management for Autonomous Train Control System, Train-Centric Communication Based Autonomous Train Control System, AI-Driven Carbon Emissions Tracking and Mitigation Model, Design and Analysis of Novel Hybrid Multi-Objective Optimization Approach for Data-Driven Sustainable Delivery Systems, Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms For Predicting CO2Emissions in the maritime domain, and so on.
3. While your study focuses on highway transportation, it would be beneficial to compare and contrast your findings with those related to other transportation modes mentioned above.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAverage
Author Response
Comments 1: [There are errors in the formatting of your references. Please ensure that all references are correctly formatted according to the journal’s guidelines. Some citations are wrong "Error! Reference source not found."]
Response 1:[Agree.We have accordingly changed to emphasize this point. The incorrect references have been corrected.]
Comments 2: [To strengthen the context and comprehensiveness of your study, please include a literature review section that covers the impact of transportation infrastructure on carbon emissions in other modes of transportation such as high-speed rail, unmanned aerial vehicles (drones), and maritime shipping. This will help to position your study within the broader context of transportation-related carbon emissions research.]
Response 2:[Agree.We have accordingly changed to emphasize this point. Additional literature discussing the impact of other transportation modes on carbon emissions has been included, spanning lines 120-133 on the third page.]
Comments 3: [While your study focuses on highway transportation, it would be beneficial to compare and contrast your findings with those related to other transportation modes mentioned above.]
Response 3:[Agree.We have accordingly changed to emphasize this point. We summarized and compared the research results on the impact of different transportation modes on carbon emissions using a table at line 134 on the third page.]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI did not find response from the authors about my former comments. As a result, I list them again.
Your study addresses a critical issue and provides valuable insights into the relationship between highway transportation infrastructure and carbon emissions. However, there are a few areas that need to be addressed to improve the clarity and completeness of your manuscript.
1. There are errors in the formatting of your references. Please ensure that all references are correctly formatted according to the journal’s guidelines. Some citations are wrong "Error! Reference source not found."
2. To strengthen the context and comprehensiveness of your study, please include a literature review section that covers the impact of transportation infrastructure on carbon emissions in other modes of transportation such as high-speed rail, unmanned aerial vehicles (drones), and maritime shipping. This will help to position your study within the broader context of transportation-related carbon emissions research. For examples: Functional Safety and Performance Analysis of Autonomous Route Management for Autonomous Train Control System, Train-Centric Communication Based Autonomous Train Control System, AI-Driven Carbon Emissions Tracking and Mitigation Model, Design and Analysis of Novel Hybrid Multi-Objective Optimization Approach for Data-Driven Sustainable Delivery Systems, Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms For Predicting CO2Emissions in the maritime domain, and so on.
3. While your study focuses on highway transportation, it would be beneficial to compare and contrast your findings with those related to other transportation modes mentioned above.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageno
Author Response
Comments 1: [There are errors in the formatting of your references. Please ensure that all references are correctly formatted according to the journal’s guidelines. Some citations are wrong "Error! Reference source not found."]
Response 1:[Agree.We have accordingly changed to emphasize this point. The incorrect references have been corrected.]
Comments 2: [To strengthen the context and comprehensiveness of your study, please include a literature review section that covers the impact of transportation infrastructure on carbon emissions in other modes of transportation such as high-speed rail, unmanned aerial vehicles (drones), and maritime shipping. This will help to position your study within the broader context of transportation-related carbon emissions research.]
Response 2:[
I agree that including the impact of other modes of transportation on carbon emissions can enhance the comprehensiveness of the study. This paper is in the field of environmental economics, and I personally lack a deep understanding of the aforementioned papers related to engineering applications. From my search, I found that there are relatively few papers directly related to carbon emissions in these fields（Functional Safety and Performance Analysis of Autonomous Route Management for Autonomous Train Control System, Train-Centric Communication Based Autonomous Train Control System, AI-Driven Carbon Emissions Tracking and Mitigation Model, Design and Analysis of Novel Hybrid Multi-Objective Optimization Approach for Data-Driven Sustainable Delivery Systems, Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms For Predicting CO2Emissions in the maritime domain）. Therefore, in the first revision, I only added relevant studies from the field of environmental economics.
In this revision, in order to align more closely with the theme of the paper, I attempted to incorporate some of the papers related to carbon emissions from the mentioned engineering applications (lines 104 to 115 on page 3). I hope these additions are helpful to the paper.
]
Comments 3: [While your study focuses on highway transportation, it would be beneficial to compare and contrast your findings with those related to other transportation modes mentioned above.]
Response 3:[Agree.We have accordingly changed to emphasize this point. We summarized and compared the research results on the impact of different transportation modes on carbon emissions using a table at line 146 on the third page.]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
