Carbon Emission Inversion Model from Provincial to Municipal Scale Based on Nighttime Light Remote Sensing and Improved STIRPAT

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reference manuscript, entitle “Downscaling carbon emission inversion model based on nighttime light remote sensing and improved STIRPAT” could be of some interest for Sustainability, but lacks quality enough for its publication in the magazine.

The work is based on a hypothetical improved model of carbon emissions inventory. But the new methodology is not clearly presented and the differences between the results of previous STIRPAT model and the new are not shown, so the improvements are unknown. On the other hand, there are mistakes in the variable’s definitions, e. g. DN is not normalized nor is the rang of values stated, CDE is bad defined in eq. (8) (it uses ‘Mean’ as variable). The influence of the LnCDE term in eq. (9) is not shown throughout the paper, and the error cited in the methodology (eq. 9) is not assessed and compared to the old model. 

Many other errors or faults there are in the work. The LLC and ADF tests are not explained, at least, some refence is necessary. The Table 1 has unknow variables (TAN, JianZhu, Mean, SUM), and the values of the tests are not justified. Similar case is the Table 2.

Graphics in Figure 2 haven’t units, and the panel (b) of this figure it is showing a bad result, it highlights a slope close to zero. Neither there aren’t units In Table 2.  Figures 3, 4 and 5 do not contribute to clarify the improvement of the model.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Downscaling carbon emission inversion model based on nighttime light remote sensing and improved STIRPAT” (sustainability-1701145). We are truly grateful for your critical comments and constructive suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made appropriate modifications and/or improvements to the previous manuscript. We have also subjected the paper to extensive English language editing.

 Please see the attachment.

We hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable for Sustainability. Thank you for your attention and consideration.

 

Yours sincerely,

Corresponding author: Jiejun Huang

---------------------------------------------------- -----

 

School of Resource and Environmental Engineering

Wuhan University of Technology

122 Luoshi Road

Wuhan 430070, China

Email: hjj@ whut.edu.cn

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer's      comments:

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1701145-peer-review-v1：“Downscaling carbon emission inversion model based on nighttime light remote sensing and improved STIRPAT”

Review            Summary:
I have read the above paper carefully and found that the presented worked did not have any fascinating scientific achievements and novelty, which could be help for future scientific research. Therefore, I suggest that major modifications have to be done before considering it for publication. According to my review, some MAJOR modifications are needed by the author(s).

Please find below my specific comments:

 

Review comments:

1. Would authors pleased to describe that what is the core purpose of this research?
2. Kindly specify where authors did downscaling, and what process they employed for the downscaling? From this present work, I have not seen any downscaling (i.e., spatial, temporal and spectral downscaling) rather it’s just evaluation of carbon emission at regional scale.
3. English proficiency is needed?
4. Line 20, what does authors mean by states in Hubei Province?
5. Kindly specify the acronym used for the first time.
6. Subtitle 2.2. Study sources should be written concisely along-with adding URL addresses for the used dataset.
7. What is STIRPAT model, kindly specify it. And what is the difference between STIRPAT and ISTIRPAT models?
8. I have not seen any Results section. Kindly add Results section.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Downscaling carbon emission inversion model based on nighttime light remote sensing and improved STIRPAT” (sustainability-1701145). We are truly grateful for your critical comments and constructive suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made appropriate modifications and/or improvements to the previous manuscript. We have also subjected the paper to extensive English language editing.

 Please see the attachment.

We hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable for Sustainability. Thank you for your attention and consideration.

 

Yours sincerely,

Corresponding author: Jiejun Huang

---------------------------------------------------- -----

 

School of Resource and Environmental Engineering

Wuhan University of Technology

122 Luoshi Road

Wuhan 430070, China

Email: hjj@ whut.edu.cn

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

this is a very interesting article and gives a lot of good feedback about a very important issue like the fast control of the CO2 emissions. But seems that the authors ignore all the potential issues of using nighttime data for this goal.

For example, the VIIRS-DNB acquires the data very late at night so, a lot of the human activity is missing.

Some articles talked about how during the COVID-19 lockdowns the VIIRS decrease of activity was not as pronounced as should be. Also, how does the LED transition produces a misleading decrease of intensity on the VIIRS signal?

Also, cultural and energy efficiency on light emission differences might need to be considered. 

Bustamante-Calabria, M., Sánchez de Miguel, A., Martín-Ruiz, S., Ortiz, J. L., Vílchez, J. M., Pelegrina, A., ... & Gaston, K. J. (2021). Effects of the COVID-19 lockdown on urban light emissions: ground and satellite comparison. Remote Sensing, 13(2), 258.

Jechow, A., & Hölker, F. (2020). Evidence that reduced air and road traffic decreased artificial night-time skyglow during COVID-19 lockdown in Berlin, Germany. Remote Sensing, 12(20), 3412.

Sánchez de Miguel, A., Kyba, C. C., Aubé, M., Zamorano, J., Cardiel, N., Tapia, C., ... & Gaston, K. J. (2019). Colour remote sensing of the impact of artificial light at night (I): The potential of the International Space Station and other DSLR-based platforms. Remote sensing of environment, 224, 92-103.

Román, M. O., Wang, Z., Sun, Q., Kalb, V., Miller, S. D., Molthan, A., ... & Masuoka, E. J. (2018). NASA's Black Marble nighttime lights product suite. Remote Sensing of Environment, 210, 113-143.

Hung, L. W., Anderson, S. J., Pipkin, A., & Fristrup, K. (2021). Changes in night sky brightness after a countywide LED retrofit. Journal of Environmental Management, 292, 112776.

Probably, the article should consider also a solution in the future to the use of multispectral satellite sensors like the JL1 and ISS.

Also, I consider that the article would improve considerably if it included some infographics explaining graphically the logic behind the model.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Downscaling carbon emission inversion model based on nighttime light remote sensing and improved STIRPAT” (sustainability-1701145). We are truly grateful for your critical comments and constructive suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made appropriate modifications and/or improvements to the previous manuscript. We have also subjected the paper to extensive English language editing.

 Please see the attachment.

We hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable for Sustainability. Thank you for your attention and consideration.

 

Yours sincerely,

Corresponding author: Jiejun Huang

---------------------------------------------------- -----

 

School of Resource and Environmental Engineering

Wuhan University of Technology

122 Luoshi Road

Wuhan 430070, China

Email: hjj@ whut.edu.cn

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

New version of the paper of reference has been improved enough in many parts of the manuscript, especially due the inclusion of the new section “4.1.2 Comparative analysis of the original STIRPAT model and ISTIRPAT model”. Progress in overall quality and clarity in writing is noted. But it still needs a minor revision, because some points must be considered.

1. After line 262. Graphics in Figure 2, are repeated in Figure 4b (L-291) and Fig. 5b (L-293). The authors could be considering if it is necessary to duplicate that.
2. Line 291. Axis labels of the graphics: “(Mt)” must be changed by “(mt)”, which means “millions of tons”.  
3. Line 319. Table 3 caption needs to include units (¿mt?)
4. Line 404, “transportation”, it is duplicated.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Downscaling carbon emission inversion model based on nighttime light remote sensing and improved STIRPAT” (sustainability-1701145). We are truly grateful for your critical comments and constructive suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made appropriate modifications and/or improvements to the previous manuscript. We have also subjected the paper to extensive English language editing.

 

Please see the attachment.

 

We hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable for Sustainability. Thank you for your attention and consideration.

 

Yours sincerely,

Corresponding author: Jiejun Huang

---------------------------------------------------- -----

 

School of Resource and Environmental Engineering

Wuhan University of Technology

122 Luoshi Road

Wuhan 430070, China

Email: hjj@ whut.edu.cn

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer's             comments:

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1701145-peer-review-v2：“Downscaling carbon emission inversion model based on nighttime light remote sensing and improved STIRPAT”

Review   Summary:
I have read the above paper carefully for the second time and found that the presented worked did not have any fascinating scientific achievements and novelty, which could be helpful for future scientific research. Therefore, I suggest that extensive MAJOR modifications have to be done by the author(s) in the whole manuscript before considering it for publication.

Please find below my specific comments:

 

Review comments:

1. Previously the authors were asked to describe the core purpose of this research in the following question, “Would authors pleased to describe that what is the core purpose of this research?”, and authors replied in their comments for referring to (See lines 14-28, lines 93-103 in the revised manuscript). I have again gone through those lines, and still I consider that it is not the core purpose which the authors tried to explain. Authors need to scientifically sort out core problem/issue for what they have done. For example, in lines 13-16, “The construction of a carbon emission inversion model has significant theoretical importance and practical significance for carbon emission accounting and control. Established carbon emission models usually adopt socio-economic parameters or energy statistics to calculate carbon emissions”. Whereas in lines 16-18, “However, estimating carbon emissions for administrative regions for which statistical data are lacking is difficult. Methods to accurately estimate carbon emissions in regions of different scales are needed”. From the first statements it is obvious that carbon emission inversion modeling is based on socio-economic parameters or energy statistics, but form the second statement authors directly jump to the lacking of regional statistical data without specifying what kind of regional statistical data. Here the question arises that if such data is available on the provincial level, then can’t it be used for reginal level, or there is some special data needed to be used for estimating the carbon emission at regional scale, which the provincial scale data can’t fulfill the carbons estimation. Also, why accurate estimates of carbon emission in regions of different scales are needed? What do authors mean by “regions of different scales”?

Further, in lines 93-103, authors are unable to clearly explained what they are doing in this paper. Even referring to their revised version manuscript, there are certain issues. For example:

“In this paper, an improved STIRPAT carbon emission inversion model (ISTIRPAT) is proposed based on the city development element (CDE) constructed using NPP/VIIRS (National Polar-Orbiting Partnership/Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite) nighttime lighting data.”

“This paper provides a downscaling method that addresses the lack of energy statistics at different scales in various countries or regions and is expected to contribute to the accounting of carbon emissions at a small scale.”

Now these two statements create confusion that what is the core purpose of this paper. Authors need to clearly mention what they are doing in this paper. They should focus on one core issue to highlight in their work. 

2. In reply to the previously asked question, “Kindly specify where authors did downscaling, and what process they employed for the downscaling? From this present work, I have not seen any downscaling (i.e., spatial, temporal and spectral downscaling) rather it’s just evaluation of carbon emission at regional scale.”, authors mentioned that they have to done “downscaling in space.” The downscaling in space/geographical area means spatial downscaling, but actually in true sprit it is not the spatial downscaling. There is a lot of literature available that how the downscaling (spatial, statistical, dynamic downscaling) is done. This present work is just evaluation of carbon emission from province to regional level. Even in the flow diagram, authors end scale is “Inventory of carbon emission by city”, but in the lines 25-27,“Through the improved STIRPAT model (ISTIRPAT) and panel data regression, provincial carbon emission inventory data are downscaled to the municipal level, and municipal scale carbon emission inventories are obtained.”, authors mentioned about the municipal level. While on another place authors mentioned in lines 24-25, “This paper takes Hubei Province, China as an example to verify the accuracy of the model. Carbon emissions for 17 cities and prefectures from 2012 to 2018 calculated from the……….” It’s quite contradicting, and should be address this issue carefully in the whole document. Here also one question arises, why authors only selected Hubei Province? Why not other provinces in China? Does it mean that other provinces have no such issue to be highlighted?
3. What does this keyword “Environmental Kuznets Curve” means, and I have not seen the usage of this term either in title, nor in abstract?
4. In lines 119-121, “It has become an important strategic area for economic development in the development pattern of ‘one axis, two wings, three levels and multiple points’ of the Yangtze River Economic Belt.”, what does ‘one  axis, two wings, three levels and multiple points’ means. If it’s any specific term then kindly provides with proper citation.
5. Lines 125-128, kindly provide with proper citation.
6. In response to previously ask question “English proficiency is needed?”, the certificate in not enough. There are still some words/spelling and syntax errors, which needs fixation, especially figure captions.
7. Table and Figure captions of Table 3, and Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9 are not similar. In some places, authors used “cities and counties”, while on other “cities and prefectures”. Authors need to follow the unified pattern. Also figures caption need extra care to be rewritten.
8. In response to previously ask question “Kindly specify the acronym used for the first time.”, authors reply they have explained the acronym used for the first. But it still needs paying heed, e.g., in lines 18-19 “This paper proposes an improved downscaling carbon emission inversion model (ISTIRPAT) based on nighttime light remote sensing data and the STIRPAT”……
9. Data for the year 2018 is not reflecting in the Figure 3.
10. Figures 2, 4 and 5 have different resolutions, even the x- and y-axis titles are of different font sizes. Authors need to take care of these issues.
11. Text, legends and scale bar can’t be read in Figures 9 and 10
12. This study is conducted over the Hubei Province, then why authors added Figures 2 and 4, which reflects the carbon estimation over the entire China and its comparison with 17 cities in Hubei province? What is the purpose to compare these two different sizes of geographical spaces? It is understood that the carbon emission would be heterogeneous on large scale, e.g., country level than at specific province level. In this regard, the regression model response at country level would be lower than at province level due to diverse emission rates at the country level. This is inappropriate comparison rather the whole comparison should be made on the same geographical space.
13. Figure 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 just showed the city level carbon emission in Hubei Province, I have not seen any disaggregation to municipality level.
14. What does “Standard Deviation Ellipse” mean in Figure 10, and by this figure what do authors trying to extract? Does Standard Deviation Ellipse is a new method for the measurements over geographical space. Why not figure 9 and 10 are simply presented in Bar chart, which would be easier for comparison.

 

Spatial downscaling is normally done for the purpose to extract higher spatial information of any environmental variable from a coarse resolution data, in order to properly explain the heterogeneity at the sub-grid level of coarse resolution grid. From this work I have not seen any such thing. Would authors explained that how much higher information of city level carbon emission, they attained at sub-grid level, compared to the original coarse resolution data. If that work is done in this research, then one can say that its downscaling, other than that, it’s not a downscaling research, rather its just evaluation of city level carbon emission.

Author Response

 

Dear Editors and Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Downscaling carbon emission inversion model based on nighttime light remote sensing and improved STIRPAT” (sustainability-1701145). We are truly grateful for your critical comments and constructive suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made appropriate modifications and/or improvements to the previous manuscript. We have also subjected the paper to extensive English language editing.

 Please see the attachment.

We hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable for Sustainability. Thank you for your attention and consideration.

 

Yours sincerely,

Corresponding author: Jiejun Huang

---------------------------------------------------- -----

 

School of Resource and Environmental Engineering

Wuhan University of Technology

122 Luoshi Road

Wuhan 430070, China

Email: hjj@ whut.edu.cn

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 Dear authors thanks for adresig the changes suggested.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Downscaling carbon emission inversion model based on nighttime light remote sensing and improved STIRPAT” (sustainability-1701145). We are truly grateful for your critical comments and constructive suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made appropriate modifications and/or improvements to the previous manuscript. We have also subjected the paper to extensive English language editing.

 Please see the attachment.

We hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable for Sustainability. Thank you for your attention and consideration.

 

Yours sincerely,

Corresponding author: Jiejun Huang

---------------------------------------------------- -----

 

School of Resource and Environmental Engineering

Wuhan University of Technology

122 Luoshi Road

Wuhan 430070, China

Email: hjj@ whut.edu.cn

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I personally think that the modifications made by authors for the previously raised review questions still needs to be extensively reconsidered for making this paper scientifically clearer and more concise for general readers of this field.

For example, the used Keyword(s) are neither reflected in the title nor in the abstract; Figures legends are still not clearly visible; Still it does not make sense to compare city level carbon emission with 17 cities in a single province; Figure 2 is reflecting “inventory of carbon emission by city” whereas in other figures and text, it shows 17 cites and prefectures; In the data sources, authors did not mention that which temporal data were used in the model training and validation, not just to mention 2012-2018 in lines 135-136. This makes confusion in Figures 4, 5, 6; Figures and tables captions are not properly written, even did not follow this journal format; and Figures 11and 12 are not reflecting detailed sub-pixel heterogeneity in carbon emission at fine resolution within each within each city boundary.   

I have previously mentioned that this is not a spatial downscaling research, rather just an evaluation of Carbon emission from provincial to city level, and then finally concluded at the province level with reference to 17 cities and prefectures (e.g., in Figure 12) by comparing the ISTIRPAT and STIRPAT models. If it is spatial downscaling at city level in true spirit, then the diversity in carbon emission must be spatially highlighted within each of 17 cities. While taking the boundary of each single city as a one unit is not enough for analyzing the carbon emission at city scale. City scale downscaling means that it should spatially reflect the detailed carbon emission within a city boundary, but here we haven’t seen any diversity in the carbon emission within a city rather each single city is showing same emission level. For this purpose, coarse resolution carbon emission image is downscaled to fine resolution (i.e., minimum of 1 km x I km grid) for showing detailed spatial information—and this is the true downscaling process. Therefore, authors must use gridded data to reflect the detailed spatial diversity of carbon emission at city level.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Downscaling carbon emission inversion model based on nighttime light remote sensing and improved STIRPAT” (sustainability-1701145). We are truly grateful for your critical comments and constructive suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made appropriate modifications and/or improvements to the previous manuscript. We have also subjected the paper to extensive English language editing.

 

We hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable for Sustainability. Thank you for your attention and consideration.

 Please see the attachment.

Yours sincerely,

Corresponding author: Jiejun Huang

---------------------------------------------------- -----

 

School of Resource and Environmental Engineering

Wuhan University of Technology

122 Luoshi Road

Wuhan 430070, China

Email: hjj@ whut.edu.cn

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf