How Does Digital Inclusive Finance Policy Affect the Carbon Emission Intensity of Industrial Land in the Yangtze River Economic Belt of China? Evidence from Intermediary and Threshold Effects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Author

The overall presentation and writing are not up to the mark. In lots of places, the content and gaps are mismatched.

Somewhere, the methodology and analysis are weak. For example, most similar literature uses a fixed effects model. What is the basis for using the Tobit model in this article? Further, the endogeneity test is executed by taking the explained variables with a one-period lag in this paper, which is too weak.

On the other hand, the authors put forward too many policy suggestions, which does not connect with the conclusion.

Overall, it has poor writing and no novelty.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

 

Thank you very much for your great comments and suggestions on our paper. We have modified the manuscript accordingly.

 

The overall presentation and writing are not up to the mark. In lots of places, the content and gaps are mismatched.

Somewhere, the methodology and analysis are weak. For example, most similar literature uses a fixed effects model. What is the basis for using the Tobit model in this article? Further, the endogeneity test is executed by taking the explained variables with a one-period lag in this paper, which is too weak.

Respond: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the Hausman test, and the result supports the Fixed effect model. However, the Tobit model is not suitable for using fixed effect, therefore, we applied the basis Tobit model to test the impact of Digital Inclusive Finance on the Carbon Emission Intensity of Industrial Land.

In addition, We have added the two-stage least square method in this paper for avoid the endogeneity in lines 342 to 344.

 

On the other hand, the authors put forward too many policy suggestions, which does not connect with the conclusion.

Respond: Thank you for your help! We have revised the policy recommendations, which are related to the research conclusions and the regression results.

 

Overall, it has poor writing and no novelty.

Respond: Thank you for your feedback. We improved the paper to make it more meaningful. In addiction, we have provided some new insights for policymakers and contributes to achieving carbon reduction goals and the sustainable use of industrial land.

 

Regards

Liangen Zeng

Linlin Dai

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The contribution of Digital Inclusive Finance to lowering industrial land carbon emission intensity presents a valuable contribution to understanding the key indicators and drivers of carbon emissions in China. Furthermore, using other variables provides a wider context for understanding how digital inclusive finance can help in optimising other methods of lowering carbon emissions. Combined with policy recommendations could leverage existing market trends and provide an extra boost to reaching carbon neutrality in China by 2060.

Overall, the results present an interesting solution which can be helpful in industrial work and policy development and implementation. However, there is room for improvement in the overall article structure, especially in the introduction and conclusion sections. The introduction needs more elaboration of citations regarding past work and additional citations are needed to back some of the text. The conclusion section would benefit from expanding the first paragraph. This would help in providing more context to the following paragraphs in the section.

General comments:

1. In the abstract part, the results need to be more clearly presented, providing at least the upper and lower bounds. For example, “substantial differences” in lines 21 - 22 should be put into some numerical context.

2. It would be good to elaborate further on the references where there are three or more references in a single sentence, i.e. to reference them separately (lines 35, 41, 123, 133, 241 and especially lines 70 and 179).

3. The introduction part needs rephrasing in several parts. See specific comments.

4. The conclusion section should have an expanded first paragraph. This would help in providing more context to the following paragraphs in the section.

5. The text and English language must be checked, edited, and corrected before publication. 

Specific comments:

1. Line 35 – “It is a threat to human survival.” I would recommend leaving this sentence out.

2. Line 38 – I assume that the year should be 2030

3. Lines 40-41 – I propose to discard the sentence “As the primary channel…”

4. Lines 45 – 49 - there should be a reference for this sentence. I also propose to remove “… is the literal foundation”, i.e., to rephrase the sentence

5. Line 57 – was the growth also from 2004 to 2023?

6. Lines 59 – 61 – rephrase the sentence. Also, “A high ILCEI means that industrial production consumes a lot of energy and emits a lot of industrial carbon emissions…” per what?

7. Line 64 – there should be a reference

8. Lines 70 – 72 – this sentence should be rephrased for more context

9. Lines 237 – 238 – rephrase the sentence for clarity

10. Lines 253 – 255 – it would be good to rephrase the sentences and correct the mistakes

11. Line 282 – 285 -perhaps to “soften” the claim by writing that the results indicate the heading to eco-friendly production and consumption

 

12. It would be good to add a map figure with changes 2010 – 2021

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is room for some minor corrections throughout the text. I recommend that a professional proofread the text.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

 

Thank you very much for your great comments and suggestions on our paper. We have modified the manuscript accordingly.

 

General comments:

1. In the abstract part, the results need to be more clearly presented, providing at least the upper and lower bounds. For example, “substantial differences” in lines 21 - 22 should be put into some numerical context.

Respond：We have added some numerical context in lines 22 - 24

 

2. It would be good to elaborate further on the references where there are three or more references in a single sentence, i.e. to reference them separately (lines 35, 41, 123, 133, 241 and especially lines 70 and 179).

Respond：We have elaborated some contents on the references where there are three or more references in a single sentence in lines 36-37, 74-76, 100-101, 228-230.

 

3. The introduction part needs rephrasing in several parts. See specific comments.

Respond：We have revised many sentences in introduction.

 

4. The conclusion section should have an expanded first paragraph. This would help in providing more context to the following paragraphs in the section.

Respond：We have added a paragraph in conclusion in lines 399 to 403.

 

5. The text and English language must be checked, edited, and corrected before publication.

Respond：We have found a professional organization (edit911) to revise the language of the paper.

 

Specific comments:

1. Line 35 – “It is a threat to human survival.”I would recommend leaving this sentence out.

Respond：We have deleted this sentence“It is a threat to human survival.”

 

2. Line 38 – I assume that the year should be 2030

Respond：We have changed “2060” to  “2030” in line 40.

 

3. Lines 40-41 – I propose to discard the sentence “As the primary channel…”

Respond：we have deleted the sentence “As the primary channel of terrestrial ecosystems cycle [12-14].”

 

4. Lines 45 – 49 - there should be a reference for this sentence. I also propose to remove “… is the literal foundation”, i.e., to rephrase the sentence

Respond：We have added the reference in line 65, and have deleted the sentence “is the literal foundation for the construction of factories, warehouses and other supporting facilities”

 

5. Line 57-was the growth also from 2004 to 2023?

Respond：The the sentence”was the growth also from 2004 to 2023” in 53 is appropriate. In addition, We have modified the sentence in lines 52 to 58, and added “ from 2012 to 2021”

 

6. Lines 59-61 – rephrase the sentence. Also, “A high ILCEI means that industrial production consumes a lot of energy and emits a lot of industrial carbon emissions…” per what?

Respond：We have added the sentence “ in per unit of industrial land” in line 61.

 

 

7. Line 64-there should be a reference

Respond：We have added a reference in line 65.

 

8. Lines 70-72 – this sentence should be rephrased for more context

Respond：The sentence has been revised, and has been rephrased for more context in lines 96 to 113.

 

9. Lines 237-238 – rephrase the sentence for clarity

Respond：We have revised the sentence in lines 228 to 230.

 

10. Lines 253 -255 – it would be good to rephrase the sentences and correct the mistakes

Respond：We have revised the sentence in lines 240 to 242.

 

11. Line 282-285 -perhaps to “soften” the claim by writing that the results indicate the heading to eco-friendly production and consumption

Respond：We have deleted the sentence “To illustrate, advanced manufacturing industries such as biopharmaceuticals, new energy, new materials, electronic information, and intelligent manufacturing, are gradually heading to eco-friendly production and consumption”.

 

12. It would be good to add a map figure with changes 2010-2021

Respond：The figure with changes 2012-2021 was in lines 296 to 297.

 

Regards

Liangen Zeng

Linlin Dai

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

The topic is original and relevant in the field of the Journal.

The paper provides new insights regarding the impact of industrial land on carbon emissions.

 

 

Specific Comments

 

The current literature is not evaluated. A Literature review section is required.

There are several major errors in citing the relevant literature.

The description of variables must be improved (Table 1).

The methods are described, a robustness test is included.

Conclusions are based on the results. Policy implications are included.

 

 

Recommendations

 

1. Abstract: Please revise the first sentence.

 Digital Inclusive Finance (DIF) is a strategic tool that fosters the green transformation of the industrial economy optimizing.

It is useful to use the word „optimising”?

 

2. Line 41: references 12, 13, 14 are cited after a wording where the term „land” is not yet used.

The reference 14 is really relevant for the assertion that „land resources are primary channel of terrestrial ecosystems cycle”?

Please revise the whole sentence of lines 41-42 and the cited references.

 

3.Lines 65-68: Reference 20 does not include a definition of Digital Inclusive Finance concept; therefore, the citation is not correct.

Moreover, the concept is not correctly defined.

 Please define correctly the concept by giving definitions from the relevant literature by correctly citing.

It is also needed to justify why this variable is taken into consideration in the study (why digital inclusive finance and not digital finance).

 

4. Which is the theoretical basis of Hypothesis 2 The impact of DIF on ILCEI in the YREB has nonlinear characteristics.

Consistency of this hypothesis with findings of current studies must be highlighted.

 5. Line 202: the acronym NBSC must be explained.

 6. Line 208: the acronym CEI must be explained.

 7. Table 1: The name of column 1 should be Variable type, the second column should be Name of variable.

A fourth column must be inserted, indicating the source of each variable.

 8. Lines 383-384: Why is needed to cite the reference 72? How it is relevant the study of the reference 72?

 9. The results must be compared with similar studies from the current literature, in order to highlight their consistency/inconsistency.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

 

Thank you very much for your great comments and suggestions on our paper. We have modified the manuscript accordingly.

 

Specific Comments

The current literature is not evaluated. A Literature review section is required.

Respond：The current literature are evaluated in the Chapter 2”Literature Review and Research Hypotheses” in lines 94.

 

There are several major errors in citing the relevant literature.

Respond：We have carefully examined the references and modify them. In addition, we have found a professional organization (edit911) to revise the language of the paper.

 

The description of variables must be improved (Table 1).

Respond：We have modified the table 1 based on the modification suggestions of Recommendations 7.

 

The methods are described, a robustness test is included.

Respond：We have modified the content of describing the methods in lines in lines 228 to 230, 240 to 242, especially the method of robustness test in lines 344 to 346.

 

Conclusions are based on the results. Policy implications are included.

Respond：We have revised the policy recommendations, which are related to the research conclusions and the regression results.

 

Recommendations

 

1. Abstract: Please revise the first sentence.

 

Digital Inclusive Finance (DIF) is a strategic tool that fosters the green transformation of the industrial economy

 

It is useful to use the word „optimising”?

Respond：We have deleted the word”optimising” in line 17.

 

2. Line 41: references 12, 13, 14 are cited after a wording where the term „land” is not yet used.

 

The reference 14 is really relevant for the assertion that „land resources are primary channel of terrestrial ecosystems cycle”?

 

Please revise the whole sentence of lines 41-42 and the cited references.

Respond：The other Reviewer advised us to deleted the sentence ”As the primary channel of terrestrial ecosystems cycle [12-14]”. Therefore we deleted this sentence

 

3.Lines 65-68: Reference 20 does not include a definition of Digital Inclusive Finance concept; therefore, the citation is not correct.

Moreover, the concept is not correctly defined.

Please define correctly the concept by giving definitions from the relevant literature by correctly citing.

It is also needed to justify why this variable is taken into consideration in the study (why digital inclusive finance and not digital finance).

Respond：We have replaced the Reference 20”Chang, C.; Dong, M.; Sui, B.; Chu, Y. Driving forces of global carbon emissions: From time- and spatial-dynamic perspectives. Economic Modelling, 2019, 77, 70-80.”, to Reference 21 “ Zou P.; Yao L.; Wang B.; et al. How does digital inclusive finance promote the journey of common prosperity in China?. Cities 2024, 150,105083”, which include a definition of Digital Inclusive Finance concept.

We have added the reason why select the digital inclusive finance and not digital finance in lines 66 to 72, and redefined the concept of Digital Inclusive Finance in lines 68 to 72.

 

4. Which is the theoretical basis of Hypothesis 2 The impact of DIF on ILCEI in the YREB has nonlinear characteristics.

Consistency of this hypothesis with findings of current studies must be highlighted.

Respond：We have emphasized the findings of the nonlinear impact of DIF on ILCEI is coincided with the Hypothesis 2 in line 415.

There are some literature that exploring the impact of digital inclusive finance(DIF) on Industrial carbon emissions, while existing literature does not exploring the impact of DIF on the carbon emission intensity of Industrial land (ILCEI). This paper is firstly to explore the impact of DIF on ILCEI. Therefore, we fail to make the comparison with the other researches.

 

5. Line 202: the acronym NBSC must be explained.

Respond：The all name of NBSC is National Bureau of Statistics of China, we have explained it in lines 193 to 194.

 

6. Line 208: the acronym CEI must be explained.

Respond：The all name of CEI is China Economic Information Data (CEIdata), we have explained it in lines 200 to 201.

 

7. Table 1: The name of column 1 should be Variable type, the second column should be Name of variable.A fourth column must be inserted, indicating the source of each variable.

Respond：We have modified the table 1 based on the above modification suggestions.

 

8. Lines 383-384: Why is needed to cite the reference 72? How it is relevant the study of the reference 72?

Respond：In the reference 72, Li et al. (2023) exclude the super cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen from data for the Robustness test. Therefore, referring to Li et al. (2023 ), in this paper, the data of Shanghai and Chongqing is also is excluded for conducting the Robustness test.

 

9. The results must be compared with similar studies from the current literature, in order to highlight their consistency/inconsistency.

Respond：In Conclusions, we have made the comparison with similar study of Xie et al. (2024) in line 408.

 

Regards

Liangen Zeng

Linlin Dai

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accepted for publication

Author Response

Dear Editor,

 

Thank you very much for your great comments and suggestions on our paper. We have modified the manuscript accordingly.

 

Specific Comments

The current literature is not evaluated. A Literature review section is required.

Respond：The current literature are evaluated in the Chapter 2”Literature Review and Research Hypotheses” in lines 94.

 

There are several major errors in citing the relevant literature.

Respond：We have carefully examined the references and modify them. In addition, we have found a professional organization (edit911) to revise the language of the paper.

 

The description of variables must be improved (Table 1).

Respond：We have modified the table 1 based on the modification suggestions of Recommendations 7.

 

The methods are described, a robustness test is included.

Respond：We have modified the content of describing the methods in lines in lines 228 to 230, 240 to 242, especially the method of robustness test in lines 344 to 346.

 

Conclusions are based on the results. Policy implications are included.

Respond：We have revised the policy recommendations, which are related to the research conclusions and the regression results.

 

Recommendations

 

1. Abstract: Please revise the first sentence.

 

Digital Inclusive Finance (DIF) is a strategic tool that fosters the green transformation of the industrial economy

 

It is useful to use the word „optimising”?

Respond：We have deleted the word”optimising” in line 17.

 

2. Line 41: references 12, 13, 14 are cited after a wording where the term „land” is not yet used.

 

The reference 14 is really relevant for the assertion that „land resources are primary channel of terrestrial ecosystems cycle”?

 

Please revise the whole sentence of lines 41-42 and the cited references.

Respond：The other Reviewer advised us to deleted the sentence ”As the primary channel of terrestrial ecosystems cycle [12-14]”. Therefore we deleted this sentence

 

3.Lines 65-68: Reference 20 does not include a definition of Digital Inclusive Finance concept; therefore, the citation is not correct.

Moreover, the concept is not correctly defined.

Please define correctly the concept by giving definitions from the relevant literature by correctly citing.

It is also needed to justify why this variable is taken into consideration in the study (why digital inclusive finance and not digital finance).

Respond：We have replaced the Reference 20”Chang, C.; Dong, M.; Sui, B.; Chu, Y. Driving forces of global carbon emissions: From time- and spatial-dynamic perspectives. Economic Modelling, 2019, 77, 70-80.”, to Reference 21 “ Zou P.; Yao L.; Wang B.; et al. How does digital inclusive finance promote the journey of common prosperity in China?. Cities 2024, 150,105083”, which include a definition of Digital Inclusive Finance concept.

We have added the reason why select the digital inclusive finance and not digital finance in lines 66 to 72, and redefined the concept of Digital Inclusive Finance in lines 68 to 72.

 

4. Which is the theoretical basis of Hypothesis 2 The impact of DIF on ILCEI in the YREB has nonlinear characteristics.

Consistency of this hypothesis with findings of current studies must be highlighted.

Respond：We have emphasized the findings of the nonlinear impact of DIF on ILCEI is coincided with the Hypothesis 2 in line 415.

There are some literature that exploring the impact of digital inclusive finance(DIF) on Industrial carbon emissions, while existing literature does not exploring the impact of DIF on the carbon emission intensity of Industrial land (ILCEI). This paper is firstly to explore the impact of DIF on ILCEI. Therefore, we fail to make the comparison with the other researches.

 

5. Line 202: the acronym NBSC must be explained.

Respond：The all name of NBSC is National Bureau of Statistics of China, we have explained it in lines 193 to 194.

 

6. Line 208: the acronym CEI must be explained.

Respond：The all name of CEI is China Economic Information Data (CEIdata), we have explained it in lines 200 to 201.

 

7. Table 1: The name of column 1 should be Variable type, the second column should be Name of variable.A fourth column must be inserted, indicating the source of each variable.

Respond：We have modified the table 1 based on the above modification suggestions.

 

8. Lines 383-384: Why is needed to cite the reference 72? How it is relevant the study of the reference 72?

Respond：In the reference 72, Li et al. (2023) exclude the super cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen from data for the Robustness test. Therefore, referring to Li et al. (2023 ), in this paper, the data of Shanghai and Chongqing is also is excluded for conducting the Robustness test.

 

9. The results must be compared with similar studies from the current literature, in order to highlight their consistency/inconsistency.

Respond：In Conclusions, we have made the comparison with similar study of Xie et al. (2024) in line 408.

 

Regards

Liangen Zeng

Linlin Dai