Analysis of the Spatial Effect of Carbon Emissions on Chinese Economic Resilience in the Context of Sustainability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper ''Analysis on the Spatial Effect of Carbon Emissions on Chinese Economic Resilience in the Context of Sustainability'' is well conceived and methodologically correct. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the paper consists of five more chapters. In the introduction the authors explained the research problem and the literature was analyzed in the chapter 2. In chapter 3, the research hypotheses were described, and in chapter 4, the research design was explained.
The research empirical analysis are described in chapter 5. Chapter 6 further analyzes the policy effectiveness and pilot carbon trading mechanism on economic resilience using the double difference method. In conclusion, the authors briefly described the results of the research and presented their suggestions for future research.
The main question that the authors investigated in the paper focused on the analysis of the spatial effect of carbon emission intensity on economic resilience by analyzing the provincial panel data of China from 2010 to 2021 with the spatial Durbin model.
The results show that there is a considerable regional spillover effect between carbon emission intensity and economic resilience, as well as significant spatial variability between economic resilience and carbon emission intensity. Carbon emission intensity suppresses the economic resilience of the local and associated regions, and the degree of industrialization and pollution plays a mediating effect between carbon emission intensity and economic resilience. In further analysis, the DID model was implemented to explore the impact of carbon trading policies on economic resilience, and the results show that carbon emission permit trading pilot policies can promote the technology investment intensity and technological manpower investment in a region, resulting in the improvement of economic resilience.
There are two figures and eight tables in the paper, which serve to better illustrate the research. The research design is appropriate. The cited references are relevant to the research.
The paper can be published in present form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study explores the spatial effect of carbon emission intensity on economic resilience by analyzing the provincial panel data of China from 2010 to 2021 with the spatial Durbin model. The paper presents robust results and well explained. However, the paper can be improved after addressing the following issue.
1. The authors should state the motives of their study and tell readers why their study is important and useful to academics and practitioners. They should also state clearly their contributions to the literature in the introduction section. The current contribution is not outstanding enough.
2. Inadequate discussion in the Introduction for literature review and Section 2: There is insufficient discussion on the deeper reasons for the divergence of views between carbon emissions and economic resilience, which leads to the logic of the perspective of this paper being not clear enough.
3. The implementation of a policy will inevitably have an impact on neighboring regions, and the authors are advised to focus on the spatial impact of this policy by SDM-DID. It is suggested that the authors add to the literature on the latest research literature on spatial effect. The literature review and the method should be improved and needs to add more the differences. The authors should add more recently published related papers as complementary references, such as:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106791
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104579
4. Results sections need more elaborations. Perhaps the authors could add some literature (maybe the above-mentioned literature) to explain and discuss their results.
5. Future research should be indicated after discussions of the limitations of the study.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Thorough proofreading is recommended, especially the language.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Your paper is very interesting and I have but a few suggestions for improvement:
1. In the introduction, please add a few sentences on the Dubai conference on pollution, so that your paper becomes more up to date.
2. Mention the source in every table. If it is your own compilation, please mention it.
3. I suggest you remove Taiwan from your article, as it may create controversy with the international reader community.
4. You mentioned 5 hypotheses in your study, but did not discuss them after the data analysis. Please do so.
5. Add a section on managerial applications of your study, and a section on limitations of the study and further recommendations for the study.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageDear Authors,
Some grammatical errors and wrongly constructed sentences are there in your text. Please ask an English speaker or teacher of English language to do a final editing of the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe abstract should contain more "what has been done", "analysed", and "researched", rather than listed facts and what China should do.
The purpose of the research should be clearly defined in the introduction.
Hypothesis 1 is formed as a fact and has a descriptive character. It is not clear what exactly is put forward as a hypothesis in the study. Hypotheses 1-3 are painted, and 4 and 5 are without explanations.
The relationship between the models is not clear in the study. First, econometric models are presented: spatial autoregressive models (SAR), spatial error models (SEM), and spatial Durbin models (SDM). Then the authors write: "...this paper analyses the spatial effect of carbon emission intensity on economic resilience, and constructs a general form of spatial econometric model as shown in equation (1) when selecting models..." Is this a generalised author's approach or is this model any model? Because further down the text it is written: "...This paper establishes a spatial econometric model..."
On page 4, you write: "In further analysis, this paper establishes a double difference model to explore the impact of carbon emission policies on economic resilience..." However, the text does not mention the "double difference model" any more.
In Table 6. Mediation Effect Test Results, it is not clear which models are used.
So it is not clear exactly where the authors used the DID model for the calculation
It is not clear how the models and the proposed methods are related: the economic resilience measurement method proposed by Martin, methods of IPCC, Moran index test, etc.
It is also not clear how: Mechanism variables, Control variables and hypotheses are related to each other.
Therefore, the authors should clearly prescribe the research methodology.
Conclusion. Does not contain the main results of the study. It is not known whether the goal of the study was achieved, since it was not formulated. The same goes for hypotheses. Which of the hypotheses is productive in nature.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor errors in the present indefinite.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
You paper looks much better now. There are still some minor corrections to be made:
1. In the new text, all citations are missing (it shows: error!). Please correct that.
2. For tables, please write: own compilation and not the authors did it.
3. I suggested you remove Taiwan from the study and not Tibet. Tibet is under the control of China and can be taken in the study. Taiwan cannot be considered.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor English revisions required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
