A Bottom-Up Carbon Emission Assessment Model for Carbon Emission Control at the Level of Rural Detailed Planning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe comprehensive evaluation of carbon emissions from land usage in rural China, and the integration of green, low-carbon objectives into China's rural planning and management system, carries significant scientific value. This subject matter is not only pivotal for China but the entire global community. To enhance the academic quality of this manuscript, revisions are suggested in the following aspects:
1、The manuscript fails to adequately review and summarize literature pertaining to the topic at hand. Additionally, the manuscript does not clearly articulate its unique contribution in relation to existing research. Furthermore, the significance of this study should be expounded from a global perspective.
2、Substantial portions of the manuscript are dedicated to the second and third sections, which predominantly belong to the research methodology category. The structure of this section requires optimization. The authors elaborate extensively on the methodology and process of the study, yielding limited results. Moreover, some of these findings have been thoroughly explored in previous studies, with the only distinguishing factor being the region under examination. The remaining content of the research results merely provides a descriptive analysis. It is suggest that the author to explain the innovation and scalability of this evaluation method
3、The weighting of indicators significantly influences the study's outcome, however the authors' allocation of weight scores for the indicators in section 3.2 lacks a compelling justification.
4、Figure 2. Map of Kinglong Township is Jinlong Township？
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of English writing present in this manuscript necessitates appropriate improvements.
Author Response
I am very grateful to the reviewers for their comments, and have revised each of them in the newly submitted manuscript, and explain the changes that have been made below.
- The manuscript fails to adequately review and summarize literature pertaining to the topic at hand. Additionally, the manuscript does not clearly articulate its unique contribution in relation to existing research. Furthermore, the significance of this study should be expounded from a global perspective.
Response: Lines 70-83 of the article add the existing research on the main methods of measuring carbon emissions in rural areas, and show their limitation that "the carbon emission measurements based on final energy consumption are for the whole of China, a specific province or region, and other large scales" (line 82); lines 94-100 add the carbon emission research based on the bottom-up survey method, and show that the instantaneous carbon emission model based on the bottom-up survey method can obtain accurate emission inventories and emission intensities (line 98). Lines 94-100 add the carbon emission studies based on the bottom-up survey method and show that the instantaneous carbon emission model based on the bottom-up survey method can provide accurate emission inventories and emission intensities (line 98).
- Substantial portions of the manuscript are dedicated to the second and third sections, which predominantly belong to the research methodology category. The structure of this section requires optimization. The authors elaborate extensively on the methodology and process of the study, yielding limited results. Moreover, some of these findings have been thoroughly explored in previous studies, with the only distinguishing factor being the region under examination. The remaining content of the research results merely provides a descriptive analysis. It is suggest that the author to explain the innovation and scalability of this evaluation method
Response: Lines 152-158 of the manuscript explain the problems that the model attempted to be constructed in this study is intended to solve, firstly to compensate for the shortcomings of the current methodology for measuring rural carbon emissions, and secondly to serve the low-carbon assessment and control of the detailed spatial planning of rural territories. The innovation of this model is explained in detail in section 2.1 (lines 180-192).
3. The weighting of indicators significantly influences the study's outcome, however the authors' allocation of weight scores for the indicators in section 3.2 lacks a compelling justification.
Response: Specific rationale and explanation for the allocation of weighted scores for indicators has been added in section 2.3.2 (468-483).
4. Figure 2. Map of Kinglong Township is Jinlong Township？
Response: Yes, the name of the map has been changed to Jinlong Township.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents a bottom-up carbon emission assessment model for carbon emission control at the level of rural planning. It is based on land use models. The study is based on the data collected in the Hunan province in China. The model is based on 13 indicators clustered in 5 groups. The authors argue that the model can be used for rural planning of the land use. The study was conducted based on 20 case study villages.
The study seems to be well planned and conducted. It is methodologically correct. However, the presentation of the method and study area is confusing for the readers not familiar with the study area. The notion of towns in a paper devoted to rural areas has to be explained to the readers not familiar with China. Most tables are not fully explained in the text and the reader can get lost in following the line of reasoning. Example of other source of confusion: line 345: Carbon intensity of agriculture land use and line 354: Table 8. Carbon intensity of different types of land use in peri-urban rural areas of Hunan Province.
Why is “detailed” used in the title?
I would suggest dividing Table 8 in 2-3 tables or reshaping it to be easier to read and combining Tables 10 and 11 into one table.
The author mention the study shortcoming of small sample. The method seems to be replicable at least in Chinese context given the possible data limitations in other countries.
The conclusions are consistent with the results presented.
Author Response
I am very grateful to the reviewers for their comments, and have revised each of them in the newly submitted manuscript, and explain the changes that have been made below.
- The study seems to be well planned and conducted. It is methodologically correct. However, the presentation of the method and study area is confusing for the readers not familiar with the study area. The notion of towns in a paper devoted to rural areas has to be explained to the readers not familiar with China. Most tables are not fully explained in the text and the reader can get lost in following the line of reasoning. Example of other source of confusion: line 345: Carbon intensity of agriculture land use and line 354: Table 8. Carbon intensity of different types of land use in peri-urban rural areas of Hunan Province.
Response: In section 3 of the article, the source of the land use classification in Table 8 and the source of the data for the indicator have been reinterpreted in response to comments.
Firstly, the framework for the carbon intensity of sites in section 2.3.1 has been adjusted to better reflect the land use classification in Table 8.
Secondly, lines 355-361 provide additional explanations on the sources of the respondents for the indicator data in this study, the first paragraph of 3.1 (363-372) explains the sources of the land use classification in Table 8, lines 405-423 provide additional explanations on the sources of the carbon intensity of the different land use types, lines 435-439 explain the sources of the carbon intensity of the industrial land use, and lines 443-446 also provide additional explanations on the carbon intensity of the agricultural land use. intensity is supplemented.
- Why is “detailed” used in the title?
Response: This is because, under China's planning system, detailed national land use planning involves planning controls including the adjustment and planning of land use scale, land use pattern, land use structure and land use layout, as shown in Figure 1, and the evaluation system in Table 3 can be used to determine whether the land use pattern of the countryside and land use layout are the causes of high carbon emissions.
- I would suggest that Table 8 be divided into 2-3 tables or redesigned to make it easier to read, and that Tables 10 and 11 be combined into one table.
Response: Since the carbon intensity of land use framework in section 2.3.1 has been adapted to better match the land use classification in Table 8 and the interpretation of the indicators in Table 8 has been added, the authors do not consider it necessary to split Table 8, which has the same land use classification as the statutory Rural Territorial Spatial Plan.
Tables 10 and 11 have been merged into a new table 10 (597 rows).
- The author mention the study shortcoming of small sample. The method seems to be replicable at least in Chinese context given the possible data limitations in other countries.
Response: In the new conclusions, the authors also emphasise that rural carbon intensity measurements based on bottom-up energy intensity surveys are more accurate and feasible in rural areas, but require more work and time. Secondly, the carbon intensity of rural areas close to cities must be different from that of rural areas farther away from cities, and the modelling of carbon emissions measurement can be universally applied, but the carbon intensity of different sites in different types of rural areas must be different.
5. The conclusions are consistent with the results presented.
Response: The conclusions of the study have been revised and relevant conclusions specific to the Rural Carbon Assessment Model have been added to lines 726-734.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed most of the issues I previously raised. However, several points still require further refinement:
1. In lines 66 to 78, the authors review the relevant existing literature. It is recommended that the authors organize and integrate the data sources from the relevant studies rather than listing the names of different statistical yearbooks individually.
2. There is a duplication of content in lines 168 to 180 that needs to be rectified.
3. In section 2.3.2, the rationale provided by the authors for assigning weights of 10 or 20 points to different land use types remains unconvincing. Additionally, there are no relevant references to support the authors' approach.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageno comments
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
