Detecting Differences in the Impact of Construction Land Types on Carbon Emissions: A Case Study of Southwest China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I found some merits in this methodology and results. In my opinion, this paper has a good potential to be published in the journal. The analysis performed is good and I find the application in this field original. The topic exposed is in compliance with the arguments required in this journal and the format is respected too. However, I have some concerns about several parts of the manuscript. The methodology applied is supported by a good explanation, but you must improve the aspect of air quality, especially in urban areas. In the introduction, it is necessary to have information about pollutants that get worse air quality. I suggest some papers that must be added in the introduction in order to improve its content and make this work more complete.
- Air quality data for Catania: Analysis and investigation case study 2012-2013
- Comparative analyses of urban air quality monitoring systems: Passive sampling and Continuous monitoring stations
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper used spatial regression analysis methods to investigate the CO2 emissions in the Southwest region of China. The paper is structured well and the statistical methodology is clear and well presented. However, there are some significant issues that need to be clarified before publication:
- the control variables include GDP and total population. There is a possibility that GDP is correlated to population.
- the results show that population is negatively related to CO2 emission. This contradicts the discussion that "household energy consumption is much greater than those of urban construction".
- the model used urban, rural, and other construction lands as the independent variables, whereas other construction lands include large industrial, oil fields, roads and so on. In the discussion, the paper concluded that industrial sites carry large carbon emissions. The road and other land use in this category were ignored.
- The paper cited that "This is consistent with the findings of Minx et al., who concluded that carbon emissions are less intensive in urban areas than in rural areas [37]". On the contrary, the paper states"the carbon footprint is consistently higher relative to extended territorial CO2 emissions in urban as opposed to rural settlement types"
It is suggested that the discussion focuses on the methodology adopted in this paper, and discusses the possible reasons behind the results instead of just collaborating with literature without illustrating the context of those studies. The language needs to be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors of the manuscript aimed to explore the relationship between construction sites and carbon emissions for different types of construction sites. the importance of such analysis does not need to be justified. The chosen methods would be suitable for answering the research questions, however, their application and interpretation of the results are not appropriate in my opinion. As a first step, it would have been useful to get an idea of the direction and strength of the correlation or association between different land use categories and carbon emission in the study area. With that in mind, you could then move on. Instead of this, the authors snatched the construction sites out of the context of complex land use and performed the statistical analysis in a substantially directed manner. For this reason, I cannot judge the correctness of the results and conclusions.
In addition, there are mainly editing errors in the manuscript, such as:
- figure 3 it is unnecessary, show the number of units for each class in the legend of figure 4 (ArcGIS can do this),
- Section 3.2 is not included in the authors' research results, this section could be linked to the presentation of the research area,
- in section 3.3, the sections in the methodological chapter are mixed with the results,
- here, for example, the authors describe the statistical software used, but, for example, the GIS software is not mentioned in the manuscript.
For the above reasons, I do not propose to accept the manuscript in its present form, just after a major revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I am satisfied with authors' response and the improved paper quality. I recommend publish after minor language and reference check.
Reviewer 3 Report
I accept the response of the authors. I consider the manuscript to be publishable with the corrections made.
