Next Article in Journal
Impact of Environmental Regulation on Corporate Green Technological Innovation: The Moderating Role of Corporate Governance and Environmental Information Disclosure
Previous Article in Journal
Organisations and Citizens Building Back Better? Climate Resilience, Social Justice & COVID-19 Recovery in Preston, UK
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Impact of Multi-Dimensional Urbanization on CO2 Emissions: Empirical Evidence from Jiangsu, China, at the County Level

Sustainability 2024, 16(7), 3005; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16073005
by Jun Zhai 1,2 and Fanbin Kong 1,2,3,4,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2024, 16(7), 3005; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16073005
Submission received: 8 March 2024 / Revised: 26 March 2024 / Accepted: 1 April 2024 / Published: 4 April 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

It was a pleasure to review your manuscript, which I evaluate positively. Nonetheless, I had some minor observations, which I intend only for the benefit of your work. 

I suggest being more cautious when using words like "summary" and "conclusions" in lines 277-288. If your readers use AI search engines, they might be mistaken for thinking these are the results of your research and not assumptions made after the literature review, as they are in reality.

Did you consider the interrelationships between the three urbanization aspects (population, economy, and land urbanization)? In lines 629-631, you state, "The first finding of this research is that economic and population urbanizations have positive effects on CO2 emissions in Jiangsu province, while land urbanization has no discernible impact." This could actually happen if you consider land urbanization separately from population growth, while in reality, they are strongly correlated.

The policy implication (i) (lines 658-667) runs a bit far away from the knowledge you have examined in the manuscript. For example, what do you mean by "allocating more resources and opportunities to rural areas through the urban-rural integration development." Wouldn't it cause the urban sprawl effect? Wouldn't it expel small agriculture entrepreneurship in the urban fringe? Those are only two examples of risks that you should take into consideration and that are nowadays blamed for multiple sustainability issues in the West. One article is not sufficient to discuss it all. Therefore, I recommend staying as close as you can to your domain and your research results.

The policy implication (ii) is the same: you are departing from your research by proposing increasing energy taxes or prices. Did you consider other aspects of such decisions? E.g., reducing production and unemployment?

I suggest reconsidering this section (conclusions) so that it remains in perfect conformity with your research results. Instead, some ideas for interventions could be added to the discussion chapter.

From the editorial lookout: some references are provided in a different standard than MDPI - make sure the listing is correct.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, Please see the point-by-point response in the attachment. Thank you and have a good day!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

sustainability-2930849-review

The Impact of Multi-dimensional Urbanization on CO2 Emissions: An Empirical Evidence from Jiangsu, China at the County Level

This study investigates the direct and indirect effects of population, economic, land urbanizations, economic development, industrial structure, and coal consumption on CO2 emissions in Jiangsu province and examines the regional heterogeneity across three regions. This is an interesting and valuable topic. Only some revisions needed, as follow:

1. The format of the article needs to be carefully checked, as there are numerous formatting and grammar errors, such as superscripts, capitalization, and singular and plural forms. Such as Table 1, CO2 in Figure 4, Figure 1's line 484...

2. Figure 3 is extremely non-standard and lacks numerous image elements. Figure 4 Supplementary sub image names.

3. About 2. Literature review, it should be simplified and further summarized and condensed.

4. About 5. Conclusions and policy implication, it is suggested to elaborate on the two parts separately. In addition, policy recommendations should be refined to the county level.

5. In addition, the quality of language and graphics needs to be significantly improved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please see the point-by-point response in the attachment. Thank you and have a good day.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Moderate editing of English language required

Back to TopTop