Driving Paths and Evolution Trends of Urban Low-Carbon Transformation: Configuration Analysis Based on Three Batches of Low-Carbon Pilot Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper utilizes the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) framework to analyze urban low-carbon transitions, a framework that is relatively novel in this field. Employing fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA), it explores the evolving complexity of factors like regional industrial structures and low-carbon consumption. The study offers insights into transformation mechanisms and provides targeted policy recommendations for local governments. Overall, the paper makes significant contributions to both academic research and policy studies, yet there are areas where further elaboration and refinement could enhance its impact and clarity.

 

1.      Although fsQCA is a powerful tool for analyzing complex systems, its application in the paper could benefit from further clarification. A more detailed description of the fsQCA process, the calibration of variables, and the criteria for determining consistency and coverage thresholds, would help readers better understand how the findings were derived. This would also allow other researchers to replicate the study or apply the methodology in similar contexts.

 

2.      The results section presents a valuable comparison of the low-carbon transition pathways across different periods, but the discussion could be further enriched by exploring the implications of these findings in greater detail. For instance, the paper could delve deeper into how specific regional characteristics influenced the emergence of different pathways or how external factors such as national policies or global economic trends might have influenced the observed patterns.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' valuable suggestions. We have fully revised the manuscript according to your comments. Please refer to the attachment for detailed responses and specific changes made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Provide a more comprehensive background and include additional relevant references in the introduction.
• Justify the selection of specific time periods and the three batches of low-carbon pilot cities.
• Elaborate on the fsQCA method, including its calibration process and variable selection.
• Ensure results are clearly presented and include visual aids for better understanding.
• Strengthen the discussion by linking findings to broader implications and clearly articulate the study's contributions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Address grammatical errors and ensure consistent formatting throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' valuable suggestions. We have fully revised the manuscript according to your comments. Please refer to the attachment for detailed responses and specific changes made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the abstract part, the authors should introduce the study background briefly. In addition, the results related to the path and impact mechanism of low carbon transformation also should be introduced in this part.

2. In the introduction part, the study significance should be introduced in this part.

3. The literature review part should be re-organized. The logic is confused now.

4. I think the low-carbon pilots cities at different times can be shown in the China map.

5. The subtitle in the part 4 should use the study contents to describe rather than the methods. Some expressions need to be adjusted. The path and driving mechanisms of different sample cities should be analyzed in this part.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language should be polished.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' valuable suggestions. We have fully revised the manuscript according to your comments. Please refer to the attachment for detailed responses and specific changes made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions have substantially improved the manuscript, addressing all the critical points raised in the previous revision. I believe the manuscript is now suitable for publication, and I recommend that it be accepted in its current form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is generally clear and understandable, but there are some common issues that could be improved to meet the standards expected in high-quality academic publications. Below are some general observations about the language used:

1. Sentence Structure: Some sentences are long and complex, which can make them difficult to follow. It would be advisable to break these sentences into shorter, more manageable parts to improve clarity.

2. Use of Technical Terminology: The use of technical terms is generally appropriate, but in some sections, the explanation of these terms could be more concise to avoid redundancy and make the text easier to read.

3. Verb Tense Consistency: There are inconsistencies in the use of verb tenses, particularly between the present and past tenses. Maintaining consistency in verb tense is important to ensure clarity in the sequence of events and analysis.

4. Word Choice: Some words or phrases could be replaced with more precise or formal equivalents that are more suitable for academic writing. For example, informal expressions could be substituted with more appropriate scientific terminology.

5. Minor Grammatical Errors: There are minor grammatical errors, such as incorrect use of articles, prepositions, or word order. Addressing these issues would help improve the text's fluency.

Recommendations:

• Professional Editing: A review by a native English speaker or an editor specializing in academic texts would help polish the manuscript, eliminating minor grammatical errors and enhancing the fluency and precision of the language.
• Clarity and Conciseness: Simplifying complex sentences and reviewing the overall structure of the text would improve clarity and conciseness.

Overall, the English is understandable and conveys the main ideas, but careful editing could elevate the linguistic quality of the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. We have improved the quality of the English language. Please see the attachment for details.

The revisions have been highlighted in red within the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Figure 2 requires a redrawing utilizing ArcMap or an alternative mapping software. Additionally, it is imperative to ensure the accurate and complete representation of China's territorial boundaries in the illustration.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We have redrawn the map using the ArcMap software, and made the necessary annotations (see Figure 2).  Thank you for your guidance. 

Please see the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx