Correlation Methodologies between Land Use and Greenhouse Gas emissions: The Case of Pavia Province (Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript " Spatial correlation analysis between land use and pollutant 2 emissions: analysis of Pavia Province (Italy) using correlation 3 methods" was done to evaluate the relationship between pollution in terms of CO2 equivalent emissions, and key socio-demographic and territorial indicators in the Province of Pavia. The results are basic, obvious and simply a nice descriptive statistical approach. The results add little value to the current literature.

  Please see below for comments

Abstract

Line 8-9: this made me think the authors were going to perform an interaction (effect modification) analysis when they mentioned the term “interaction” However this analysis was not done in the study.

Introduction;

Why should we be concerned about land use and pollutant emission.? This did not come out clear in the introduction.

Methods

-I was expecting the authors to perform an interaction analysis between demographic and territorial indicators and pollutant emissions since they mentioned this in the abstract

 -          In addition to the statistical description, the authors should consider performing some form of modelling. For example, spatial error model or spatial lag regression

Discussion

-How do the results compare to previous studies? Please consider discussing how your findings align or differ from previous research in the field. Highlight similarities and differences, and explain any discrepancies.

-What are some the limitations of the study? The use of aggregated dated?

- The authors should consider discussing the broader implications of their findings. Explain how your study contributes to the field of land use and pollutant emissions and its potential impact on theory, practice, or policy. land use and pollutant emissions

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Authors shoudld proof read the paper again for minor grammatical errors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you so much for taking the time to review our article. We truly appreciate your dedication in providing detailed and valuable feedback.We have carefully read through your observations and want to assure you that we will take them into serious consideration during the revision process. We would like to address some of the points raised in your review.
For the word "interaction" is right and we replaced it with "correlation".
Introduction
We measure the relationship between land use expressed through socio-demographic and territorial indicators and emissions expressed through CO2eq. We have included it in the introduction and conclusion. Pages 1,2, 18.
Methods
In this work we have found a fast way to correlate spatial data and climaltering substances. We apply a scientific method by interpreting spatial data in a simpler way so that the experimental data (INEMAR data) is validated by finding the determinants and the correlation between them. Page 9, 12-16.
Thank you for the advice of the spatial error model and spatial lag model method: we will take it into account as the research progresses.
Discussion
We have argued the different ways in which we can use the found formulas and graphs, (Page 20) inserting also a scheme with analogies and differences of the methods used. Page 19
We have also improved the introduction, the description of the methods and argued the maps in more depth clarifying the results obtained and corrected the inaccuracies.
We would like to thank you again for your time in reviewing our article and for the valuable comments you have provided. We are grateful for the opportunity to improve our work through your contribution. We remain available for any further questions or clarifications and are open to further review if deemed appropriate.

Best regards

Roberto De Lotto, Riccardo Bellati, Marilisa Moretti

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please consider the changes given to the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overal Quality of English seems good

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you so much for taking the time to review our article. We truly appreciate your dedication in providing detailed and valuable feedback.We have carefully read through your observations and want to assure you that we will take them into serious consideration during the revision process. We would like to address some of the points raised in your review.

We followed his advice to rewrite the title and use the words Greenhoose gases instead of pollution and pollutant.

Introduction

We improved the introduction clarifying the relationship between land use expressed through socio-demographic and territorial indicators and emissions expressed through CO2eq. Regarding the definition of CO2eq. is present on the source INEMAR.

Figures

We have improved the maps and clarifying the legends.

We have also improved the introduction, the description of the methods and argued the maps in more depth clarifying the results obtained and corrected the inaccuracies. We have argued the different ways in which we can use the research in the conclusion inserting also a scheme with analogies and differences of the methods used.

We would like to thank you again for your time in reviewing our article and for the valuable comments you have provided. We are grateful for the opportunity to improve our work through your contribution. We remain available for any further questions or clarifications and are open to further review if deemed appropriate.

Best regards

Roberto De Lotto, Riccardo Bellati, Marilisa Moretti

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would be grateful if you could use a thousands separator in the figures, e.g. in Table 1, as this would make it easier to read and interpret the different figures.

Also in Table 1, I am unfamiliar with the unit "mq", but I assume this is a translation error from the Italian language? In Table 1 for Lirio, in the 'GFA' column, the number is missing.

The explanation of the Pearson correlation coefficient in lines 216-219 is different/confusing from the explanation in lines 156-158. 

There is a huge amount of data and statistical analysis in this article, but the discussion is really small and without reference to that data. For me, an in-depth analysis of the statistical results obtained is missing. There is also no in-depth interpretation of the maps, which take up several pages.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you so much for taking the time to review our article. We truly appreciate your dedication in providing detailed and valuable feedback.We have carefully read through your observations and want to assure you that we will take them into serious consideration during the revision process. We would like to address some of the points raised in your review.

We used the thousand and decimal separator in the right way and corrected the inaccuracies.

We correct the Pearson’s method description

We argued the maps in more depth clarifying the results obtained.

Conclusion and Discussion

We have argued the different ways in which we can use the found formulas and graphs, (Page 20) inserting also a scheme with analogies and differences of the methods used. Page 19

We have also improved the introduction and the description of the methods.

We would like to thank you again for your time in reviewing our article and for the valuable comments you have provided. We are grateful for the opportunity to improve our work through your contribution. We remain available for any further questions or clarifications and are open to further review if deemed appropriate.

Best regards

Roberto De Lotto, Riccardo Bellati, Marilisa Moretti

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the article, the authors described the statistical analysis of the relationship between pollutant emissions (CO2) and demographic indicators (population, demographic distribution, and population 12 density) and territorial indicators (land use, particularly settlements and road soil occupancy). These analysis present the correlation of pollutant emissions with the mentioned indicators. The calculation methods presented are correct and the statistical analysis was performed properly.

I evaluate the article positively.

I have a few minor comments:

There is no description of the abbreviations that first appear: DUSAF on line 62 and GDP on line 110

The presented charts are transparent and present the analysis performed. However, the obtained results were not compared with those of other authors.

The conclusions are consistent with the presented results.

The cited articles are also correct, only DOI numbers are missing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

Thank you so much for taking the time to review our article. We truly appreciate your dedication in providing detailed and valuable feedback.We have carefully read through your observations and want to assure you that we will take them into serious consideration during the revision process. We would like to address some of the points raised in your review.

We included the description of DUSAF line 71

We argued the maps in more depth clarifying the results obtained.

We have argued the different ways in which we can use the found formulas and graphs, (Page 20) inserting also a scheme with analogies and differences of the methods used. Page 19

We have also improved the introduction and the description of the methods.

We would like to thank you again for your time in reviewing our article and for the valuable comments you have provided. We are grateful for the opportunity to improve our work through your contribution. We remain available for any further questions or clarifications and are open to further review if deemed appropriate.

Best regards

Roberto De Lotto, Riccardo Bellati, Marilisa Moretti

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The results and analysis approach are still basic, obvious and simply a nice descriptive statistical description. The results add little value to the current literature.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please proofread for minor errors

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you so much for taking the time to review our article and, accordingly, we added some new parts in: Abstract, Introduction and Conclusions to better highlight the objective of our work.

The quantitative evaluation of GHG's emissions is an instrument to define a calculation methodology, it is not the objective of the paper.

You are right when you expresse doubts about the specific case study results in terms of emissions' data: we were not clear about the main aim of the paper, which is about finding direct relations among parameters and not calculate emissions in the presented case study.

Our research can be useful to obtain the order of magnitude of GHG's emissions in situations where the human activities' data are not sufficient or partial. From land use and some basic parameters, such as for example GDP, we are now able to furnish an estimation of the GHG's emissions that, in the presented example, are very precise.

We are sure we clarified the aim of the paper and still all reviewers' doubts.

According to your suggestion,we also proof read throught an internal office of the University.

We would like to thank you again for your time in reviewing our article and for the valuable comments you have provided. We are grateful for the opportunity to improve our work through your contribution. We remain available for any further questions or clarifications and are open to further review if deemed appropriate.

Best regards

Roberto De Lotto, Riccardo Bellati, Marilisa Moretti

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are remaining words pollutant CO2eq; please remove the term pollutant when referring to CO2.

2.2. Environmental Indicator: You need to elaborate more on GWP over 20 years vs 100 years. I think its important to justify your selection based on the literature.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you so much for taking the time to review our article. We truly appreciate your dedication in providing detailed and valuable feedback.We have carefully read through your observations and want to assure you that we will take them into serious consideration during the revision process. We would like to address some of the points raised in your review.

We corrected the remaining terms. In par. 2.1. lines 105-107 is given INEMAR’s definition of emissions.

We are considering as a period of 100 years in order to use the data provided by INEMAR, however we agree that it is interesting to see what happens over a shorter period of time and it will be in our interest to deepen it as this paper aims to find a expeditious method for calculating emissions from the indicators mentioned above inside in chapter 2.

We would like to thank you again for your time in reviewing our article and for the valuable comments you have provided. We are grateful for the opportunity to improve our work through your contribution. We remain available for any further questions or clarifications and are open to further review if deemed appropriate.

Best regards

Roberto De Lotto, Riccardo Bellati, Marilisa Moretti

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have clearly made an effort to address the comments made. In particular, the interpretation of the various figures has been greatly improved, making reading easier. 

Another small note: on lines 449 to 452, several times only 'west' is used. This seems incorrect to me and should be west, or east. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you so much for taking the time to review our article. We truly appreciate your dedication in providing detailed and valuable feedback. We are grateful that you appreciated our work and our improvements.

We correct your note at lines 481-484.

We would like to thank you again for your time in reviewing our article and for the valuable comments you have provided. We are grateful for the opportunity to improve our work through your contribution. We remain available for any further questions or clarifications and are open to further review if deemed appropriate.

Best regards

Roberto De Lotto, Riccardo Bellati, Marilisa Moretti

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf