Decoupling Analysis of Economic Growth and Carbon Emissions in Xinjiang Based on Tapio and Logarithmic Mean Divisia Index Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well written manuscript.

  1.   How do the Tapio and LMDI models complement each other in evaluating the decoupling of economic growth and carbon emissions in Xinjiang?   2.  Can you elaborate on the data sources used for this study? How did you ensure the accuracy and reliability of the data for both economic growth and carbon emissions?   3.  Xinjiang has unique economic and environmental characteristics. How did the analysis account for regional-specific factors that might influence the relationship between economic growth and carbon emissions?   4.  Based on the limitations of the study, how will this impact the overall results obtained in this study?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

Your manuscript has interesting and useful results, However, I suggest to add several information for the improving text

Introduction

- I suggest to add information about industry of this region.

1) https://research.hktdc.com/en/data-and-profiles/mcpc/provinces/xinjiang

2) Luo, K., Wang, H., Ma, C. et al. Carbon sinks and carbon emissions balance of land use transition in Xinjiang, China: differences and compensation. Sci Rep 12, 22456 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-27095-w

3) Carbon Emissions in the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps and Driving Factors, Sec. Sustainable Energy Systems, Volume 9 - 2021 https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.627149

4) Analysis of Factors Influencing Carbon Emissions in the Energy Base, Xinjiang Autonomous Region, China, Sustainability 2020, 12, 1089; doi:10.3390/su12031089

 Results and analysis

- In my opinion it will be useful to explain the advantages your method from other methods. Moreover, it will be useful to compare your results with other reported in literature

- It will be interesting to show the trajectories of sectors’ carbon emissions depending in type industry (Agriculture, Industry, Construction, Transportation, Commerce, Services etc.) (if your model allows to do this)

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is very interesting, but the authors did not put in the effort to produce a quality piece of work. The manuscript was presented without quality, and I recommend completely restructuring the manuscript. If this is not done, it should be rejected.

1. There is yellow text highlighting for the references, which suggests that the authors did not pay due attention and care to the presentation of the manuscript.
2. Figure 1 does not have the appropriate scale, the axes are not labeled, and the numbers are not legible. I suggest completely redoing it.
3. Figure 2 is inconsistent and careless. I insist that the authors did not make an effort to adequately present their results.
4. The theoretical and mathematical foundation of the text is unclear; there is no explanation for the use of each equation.
5. The authors did not make an effort to explain why the LDMI models were used for the case study.
6. I suggest that the authors delve deeper into the discussions and focus on how the methodology and results in China can be scaled to other locations with high CO2 emissions.
7. I recommend completely restructuring the work; otherwise, despite being an interesting study, it should be rejected.
8. Create a flowchart of the methodology used, detailing it step-by-step so that the methodology can be replicated.
9. Include a list of acronyms and abbreviations at the beginning of the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper and the topic are interesting, but the authors need to completely revise the presentation and discussion of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

Unfortunately, several moments may be improved still

- Equation 3.

(a) Dimensions of all parameters should be added for example, CO² – m3 or ton)

(b) Equation is confused: C = (C/ENERGY)*(ENERGY/GDP)*GDP Please, check it and re-write in another form

- Figure 4. Y-axis is unclear “Energy consumption (Ten thousands tons) and scale is from 0 to 70000”. I suggest to write “Energy consumption, 10^8 ton” and to use scale from 0 to 7”

- Table 3. You wrote “42,049.8 million tons”. Please, leave a period or comma (may be better to write as 42,04 (10^9 ton)?) Please, revise this Table

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made the requested changes. 
Congratulations, the article can be accepted. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time and valuable feedback. I greatly appreciate your positive evaluation and am glad the revisions have addressed your concerns. I look forward to the next steps in the submission process.

Best regards,
Le Jing