Insight into Carbon Emissions in Economically Developed Regions Based on Land Use Transitions: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised version of your manuscript. Certain of my concerns with the earlier version of the manuscript have been addressed, but several important concerns remain that require your careful attention and must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. There are still serious concerns above all with the references.

Please ensure that all details of the manuscript are accurate, and that wording is revised to be clear, precise and reflecting your intentions. You will find my detailed comments below. (Please note that I have given some suggestions for references in APA format, but when integrating them into the manuscript you should use the journal style, according to author guidelines).

General comments regarding references and referencing:

1.       I am unable to find a very large number of the references that you provide, and in several cases, I am not even able to find the journal that is indicated.

This may be due to different reasons, for instance: a) the reference format you have used suggests that the publication is a journal, when it is in fact a report or website b) The publication titles or journal names are incorrectly spelled or rendered c) The publication titles or journal names are in fact in Chinese, and you have here given your own translation. If this is the case for a publication, you should first provide the original name, and then your translation in brackets.

This issue must be addressed!

Please also provide doi links for all the publications that you reference (or in the case of websites, the link to these websites).

Please avoid referencing publications that can only be accessed through the internal websites of academic institutions or authorities.

2.       For Land reference formats in the reference list, please carefully consult the instructions for authors on the journal website:

Land | Instructions for Authors (mdpi.com)

At present, the majority of references provided do not follow the journal style.

3.       Names of authors: The usual order of personal name and family name in Chinese is different from the usual order in English. When publishing in an English language international scientific journal such as Land, please pay careful attention to the convention where family names are provided in full, while personal names are provided as initials.

At present, the way that Chinese author names are given in the manuscript appears totally haphazard. I even see a case where you have listed two authors as a single author (for reference 65, you give the authors Jiang, T. and Zhao, J. as “Jiang Tong, Z.J.”). This must be corrected, so that readers can correctly identify and find the publications that you reference.

4.       Almost all of the references you provide are Chinese. It is understandable that you will use many Chinese references since you are presenting a study on a region in China, but the journal Land has an international readership, so it is important to present your case in a way that is understandable to researchers outside of China.

For publication in an academic journal, you are expected to present at least the framing, methods, and methodological discussion in a way that makes it very clear how your work relates to the field internationally. With respect to the methods and methodological discussion, I suggest that you carefully read and use the following articles, to clarify the history of STIRPAT, the rationales set forward for its usefulness, its scope and limitations, as well as some methodological considerations relating to the approach generally, and to different variants or applications:

Schneider, N. (2022). Unveiling the anthropogenic dynamics of environmental change with the stochastic IRPAT model: A review of baselines and extensions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 96, 106854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106854.

Vélez-Henao, J. A., Vivanco, D. F., & Hernández-Riveros, J. A. (2019). Technological change and the rebound effect in the STIRPAT model: A critical view. Energy Policy, 129, 1372-1381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.044.

5.       Several of your references are not only by Chinese research teams reporting on Chinese cases, but written in Chinese. This means that readers who do not know Chinese have no way of assessing the content, quality or relevance of these references or the studies that they report on.

5a) For some these publications, there may exist a publication in English that can function as an equivalent. In such cases, please replace the reference in Chinese by an equivalent publication in English.

5b) In other instances, it might not be possible to find an equivalent publication in English. In such cases you need to 1. Briefly describe in your own text what the article is about, and 2. Explicitly provide in your own text all the details that have relevance to your own study (while of course still referencing the original study). Please also note that in your reference list, the original title should be provided in Chinese, followed by the English translation in brackets.

5c) generally, when referencing official policy documents, laws etc, it is important to consistently mention date of issuance and the issuing authority (and if applicable the number or other identifying information). This is particularly important since you are providing an English translation, and because there may be other documents with a similar name. Whenever possible, please also provide links to websites where these legal documents can be found. For key documents it would be helpful to additionally provide references to publications in English that in greater detail describe the content, context for their issuance and implications of these documents, since you cannot expect international readers to be familiar with these policies.

The publication by Zhou et al. 2019 is one of those that appears to be in Chinese only, and my comments above on Chinese-language publications therefore apply for this publication if it is essential to your study:

 Zhou, J., Wang, Y., Liu, X., Shi, X., & Cai, C. (2019). Spatial temporal differences of carbon emissions and carbon compensation in China based on land use change. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 39(12), 1955-1961. https://doi.org/10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2019.12.014

6.       Several of your references are quite old, in a field of study that is rapidly evolving, and where not only methodologies, but conditions on the ground in terms of land use and land cover change are rapidly evolving, as well as their implications for CO₂ emissions (and other impacts). In sections of your paper where the history of particular methodologies, policies, or details of the historical situation of a region are important, older references might still need to be supplemented with newer references referring to the same topic or conditions, while in other cases you should replace the older references with suitable recent references. In some cases, the use of older references leads to clearly misleading statements (I have indicated a few of these in the comments further down). Please remember that in cases where you wish to use older references, it should always be clear from your wording in the text that you are not referring to current conditions.

 Throughout the manuscript, figures and tables need to indicate sources for the data and maps. In Table 2, the source is also needed, to clarify assumptions in your methodology.

Introduction, line 39: [1]  -Hansen et al. 2013 is a very old reference for a rapidly developing field, please add additional and more recent international references for this point (such as Jézéquel et al. 2024 and Jones et al., 2024), as well as a reference to the latest IPCC report on impacts of climate change.

Jézéquel, A., Bastos, A., Faranda, D., Kimutai, J., Le Grix, N., Wilson, A. M., Rufat, S., Shepherd, T. G., Stuart-Smith, R., Van Loon, A. F., Bevacqua, E., D'Andrea, F., Lehner, F., Lloyd, E.A., Moemken, J., Ramos, A.M., Sippel, S., Zscheischler, J. (2024). Broadening the scope of anthropogenic influence in extreme event attribution. Environmental Research: Climate. DOI 10.1088/2752-5295/ad7527

Jones, M. W., Kelley, D. I., Burton, C. A., Di Giuseppe, F., Barbosa, M. L. F., Brambleby, E., ... & Xanthopoulos, G. (2024). State of wildfires 2023–24. Earth System Science Data Discussions, 2024, 1-124. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3601-2024

Lines 51-53: You have rephrased the wording “land use change has become the second-largest greenhouse gas emission source, following fossil fuel combustion[2]” to “represents the second largest source of emissions, following carbon emissions from fossil fuels[7].” My previous concerns with the statement remain. As it stands, this sentence is meaningless, imprecise and likely factually incorrect. Who said this, about what, and when? You need to provide the geographical scope (in China, in the region of your own study, globally?), the research team, organization or authority that originally made the calculations, the years of data on which the estimates were based.

The reference [2] published 2014 that you provided in your earlier version is in Chinese, so readers will not be able to find the context, scope and methodology by going back to that reference, and I have seen the exact same sentence used in a Chinese publication from 2011, thus probably based on some even earlier study that I have been unable to trace.

Replacing [2] with [7] (Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2023) does not solve the problem, since your reference is in Chinese, and possibly simply repeats results from a much earlier study, rather that describing the situation in China in 2023.

For this important statement, please remove [7] as a reference, and instead use a suitable recent English language reference, that offers sufficient detail and clarifications concerning methodology used for the estimate.

Your own wording in the manuscript text should specify both the geographical scope (globally?, in China?, in the Yangtze River Delta region?) and year(s),

Introduction Lines 36 - 43: The wording has been improved in your revised version, but before going into the question of policy, land use and CO₂ emissions in China, you still need to better situate your topic and strand of research with respect to the wider issue, and make a brief argument for its importance. This involves:

a) explaining that land use and cover have effects on climate change not only through GHG emissions, but also through albedo and impacts on various feedback loops in earth systems.

b) CO₂ is not the only type of greenhouse gas affected by land use and land cover, agriculture contributes with several other major GHGs, while impacts of degradation of wetlands on methane emissions are receiving increasing attention. Harmsen et al. 2023 is a useful recent reference on this.

Harmsen, M., Tabak, C., Höglund-Isaksson, L., Humpenöder, F., Purohit, P., & van Vuuren, D. (2023). Uncertainty in non-CO2 greenhouse gas mitigation contributes to ambiguity in global climate policy feasibility. Nature Communications, 14(1), 2949. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01168-8

c) there are worrying signs that critical thresholds may already have been passed. I recommend Armstrong McKay et al. 2022 for this point.

Armstrong McKay, D. I., Staal, A., Abrams, J. F., Winkelmann, R., Sakschewski, B., Loriani, S., ... & Lenton, T. M. (2022). Exceeding 1.5 C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points. Science, 377(6611), eabn7950. DOI:10.1126/science.abn7950

Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points | Science

Lines 72-73:  The terminology is particular for China, and you need to signal to the reader that while the first sentence (on the importance of the wider field of studies on carbon dioxide emissions, lines 71-72) is general, the second sentence (referring to the use of certain models) is specific to China. After “.... both domestically and internationally.”, therefore please add: “In China, models employed in this field of research are commonly referred to as carbon emission prediction models (CEPMs), and an overview of the field in the Chinese context is provided by Jin et al.” (using Jin et al. 2024 as a reference). You can then continue: “Such models include ...”

Jin, Y., Sharifi, A., Li, Z., Chen, S., Zeng, S., & Zhao, S. (2024). Carbon emission prediction models: A review. Science of the Total Environment, 172319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172319.

I also believe that you will find Jin et al. useful to identify relevant more updated studies, as well as some publications in English that might replace Chinese language references in your paper (see general comments on references above).

Lines 146 ff: 2.3. Methods – Before you describe the details of your methodology, you need to provide the reader with an overview of the different steps of your methodology (both used to produce results presented in section 3, and the results that you have given the heading 4 in the current draft text. Please add a short paragraph explaining the steps and provide a figure.

Lines 198-204 – Please move this to your Discussion section.

Line 219: I note that you have revised the inappropriate mention of a “standard form” of a “traditional” STIRPAT model, but you still need a reference for the equation that you describe here.

Lines 259-263: Since the wording here is extremely vague, please add the sentence: “Parameters for the scenarios were set according to the assumptions and metrics described below.”

Lines 447 ff: This is still part of your Results, and should follow the numbering of subsections under 3. Results

Lines 553 ff: 6. Discussions – This should be 4. Discussion (following your Results, and preceding your Conclusions).

Some modelling is done on carbon dioxide emissions and sequestration that focuses biogeophysical systems, other work focuses on policy, social and economic aspects, while yet other work concerns integration of different types of models. Some models are essentially linear extrapolations, while others attempt to simulate dynamic interactions under various conditions and scenarios.  Please provide a few examples of different approaches, and clarify where the type of modelling that your own study uses is situated with respect to the wider field. A critical discussion is lacking, not only of the advantages, but also the limitations of the approach used in your study.

As observed under my General comments, you will find relevant arguments and issues clarifying both advantages and limitations with STIRPAT modelling in the references that I provided.

Lines 625 ff: References – All the references currently included in your reference list need corrections for accuracy and referencing style. Several should be replaced with more suitable alternatives. I believe that you will find the following references useful (but additional references on the various topics covered in your study will be needed):

Yang, S., Yang, D., Shi, W., Deng, C., Chen, C., & Feng, S. (2023). Global evaluation of carbon neutrality and peak carbon dioxide emissions: Current challenges and future outlook. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(34), 81725-81744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19764-0.

Zhang, J., Zhang, C., Dong, H., Zhang, L., & He, S. (2023). Spatial–temporal change analysis and multi-scenario simulation prediction of land-use carbon emissions in the Wuhan urban agglomeration, China. Sustainability, 15(14), 11021. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411021.

Yang, Y., Shi, Y., Sun, W., Chang, J., Zhu, J., Chen, L., ... & Fang, J. (2022). Terrestrial carbon sinks in China and around the world and their contribution to carbon neutrality. Science China Life Sciences, 65(5), 861-895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11427-021-2045-5.

You will find some comments on structure and methodology in the attached file.

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The term build-up is still found in numerous places in the manuscript – please replace throughout with “built-up”.

You will also find several comments on English wording in the attached file.

Author Response

First of all, thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. In the process of writing this paper, I have never received such professional and careful guidance. Your earnestness and responsibility have given me great encouragement, help and inspiration. These opinions are of great value to the revision and improvement of our paper, and also have important guiding significance for our research.

Every effort has been made to improve the rigor of the structure, improve the quality of the English language, and address the reference issues to make the paper even better. We made the changes according to your suggestion and pointed out the specific position of the changes in the original draft. The main corrections to this article and responses to your comments are as follows:

 

Point 1: Comments on the references and data sources

1） I am unable to find a very large number of the references that you provide, and in several cases, I am not even able to find the journal that is indicated.

This may be due to different reasons, for instance: a) the reference format you have used suggests that the publication is a journal, when it is in fact a report or website b) The publication titles or journal names are incorrectly spelled or rendered c) The publication titles or journal names are in fact in Chinese, and you have here given your own translation. If this is the case for a publication, you should first provide the original name, and then your translation in brackets.

This issue must be addressed!

Please also provide doi links for all the publications that you reference (or in the case of websites, the link to these websites).

Please avoid referencing publications that can only be accessed through the internal websites of academic institutions or authorities.

2）For Land reference formats in the reference list, please carefully consult the instructions for authors on the journal website:

Land | Instructions for Authors (mdpi.com)

At present, the majority of references provided do not follow the journal style.

3）Names of authors: The usual order of personal name and family name in Chinese is different from the usual order in English. When publishing in an English language international scientific journal such as Land, please pay careful attention to the convention where family names are provided in full, while personal names are provided as initials.

At present, the way that Chinese author names are given in the manuscript appears totally haphazard. I even see a case where you have listed two authors as a single author (for reference 65, you give the authors Jiang, T. and Zhao, J. as “Jiang Tong, Z.J.”). This must be corrected, so that readers can correctly identify and find the publications that you reference.

4） Almost all of the references you provide are Chinese. It is understandable that you will use many Chinese references since you are presenting a study on a region in China, but the journal Land has an international readership, so it is important to present your case in a way that is understandable to researchers outside of China.

5）Several of your references are quite old, in a field of study that is rapidly evolving, and where not only methodologies, but conditions on the ground in terms of land use and land cover change are rapidly evolving, as well as their implications for CO2 emissions (and other impacts). In sections of your paper where the history of particular methodologies, policies, or details of the historical situation of a region are important, older references might still need to be supplemented with newer references referring to the same topic or conditions, while in other cases you should replace the older references with suitable recent references. In some cases, the use of older references leads to clearly misleading statements (I have indicated a few of these in the comments further down). Please remember that in cases where you wish to use older references, it should always be clear from your wording in the text that you are not referring to current conditions.

 Throughout the manuscript, figures and tables need to indicate sources for the data and maps. In Table 2, the source is also needed, to clarify assumptions in your methodology.

6）Line 219: I note that you have revised the inappropriate mention of a “standard form” of a “traditional” STIRPAT model, but you still need a reference for the equation that you describe here.

7）Lines 625 ff: References – All the references currently included in your reference list need corrections for accuracy and referencing style. Several should be replaced with more suitable alternatives. I believe that you will find the following references useful (but additional references on the various topics covered in your study will be needed):

Response 1:

Thank you for your comments, I have carefully read your suggestions with the references provided. We clearly indicate the sources of data and maps and include specific references where necessary to support the information provided, while extensively updating the references

• We modified the format of the references according to the requirements, modified the format of the names of people, and added the doi of the paper to make it meet the requirements of land journals

2、We replaced a lot of the Chinese literature with more suitable English literature, which can be understood by researchers outside China. Such as[13],[24],[32] and so on. Please see the lines 60-63 and 78-81.

3、We replaced some of the old literature with suitable recent references,such as[2],[4]and so on.

Point 2: Comments on the Introduction

1）Several of your references are not only by Chinese research teams reporting on Chinese cases, but written in Chinese. This means that readers who do not know Chinese have no way of assessing the content, quality or relevance of these references or the studies that they report on.

5a) For some these publications, there may exist a publication in English that can function as an equivalent. In such cases, please replace the reference in Chinese by an equivalent publication in English.

5b) In other instances, it might not be possible to find an equivalent publication in English. In such cases you need to 1. Briefly describe in your own text what the article is about, and 2. Explicitly provide in your own text all the details that have relevance to your own study (while of course still referencing the original study). Please also note that in your reference list, the original title should be provided in Chinese, followed by the English translation in brackets.

5c) generally, when referencing official policy documents, laws etc, it is important to consistently mention date of issuance and the issuing authority (and if applicable the number or other identifying information). This is particularly important since you are providing an English translation, and because there may be other documents with a similar name. Whenever possible, please also provide links to websites where these legal documents can be found. For key documents it would be helpful to additionally provide references to publications in English that in greater detail describe the content, context for their issuance and implications of these documents, since you cannot expect international readers to be familiar with these policies.

The publication by Zhou et al. 2019 is one of those that appears to be in Chinese only, and my comments above on Chinese-language publications therefore apply for this publication if it is essential to your study:

 Zhou, J., Wang, Y., Liu, X., Shi, X., & Cai, C. (2019). Spatial temporal differences of carbon emissions and carbon compensation in China based on land use change. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 39(12), 1955-1961. https://doi.org/10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2019.12.014

 

2）Introduction, line 39: [1]  -Hansen et al. 2013 is a very old reference for a rapidly developing field, please add additional and more recent international references for this point (such as Jézéquel et al. 2024 and Jones et al., 2024), as well as a reference to the latest IPCC report on impacts of climate change.

3）Lines 51-53: You have rephrased the wording “land use change has become the second-largest greenhouse gas emission source, following fossil fuel combustion[2]” to “represents the second largest source of emissions, following carbon emissions from fossil fuels[7].” My previous concerns with the statement remain. As it stands, this sentence is meaningless, imprecise and likely factually incorrect. Who said this, about what, and when? You need to provide the geographical scope (in China, in the region of your own study, globally?), the research team, organization or authority that originally made the calculations, the years of data on which the estimates were based.

The reference [2] published 2014 that you provided in your earlier version is in Chinese, so readers will not be able to find the context, scope and methodology by going back to that reference, and I have seen the exact same sentence used in a Chinese publication from 2011, thus probably based on some even earlier study that I have been unable to trace.

Replacing [2] with [7] (Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2023) does not solve the problem, since your reference is in Chinese, and possibly simply repeats results from a much earlier study, rather that describing the situation in China in 2023.

For this important statement, please remove [7] as a reference, and instead use a suitable recent English language reference, that offers sufficient detail and clarifications concerning methodology used for the estimate.

Your own wording in the manuscript text should specify both the geographical scope (globally?, in China?, in the Yangtze River Delta region?) and year(s),

4）Introduction Lines 36 - 43: The wording has been improved in your revised version, but before going into the question of policy, land use and CO2 emissions in China, you still need to better situate your topic and strand of research with respect to the wider issue, and make a brief argument for its importance. This involves:

1. a) explaining that land use and cover have effects on climate change not only through GHG emissions, but also through albedo and impacts on various feedback loops in earth systems.
2. b) CO2 is not the only type of greenhouse gas affected by land use and land cover, agriculture contributes with several other major GHGs, while impacts of degradation of wetlands on methane emissions are receiving increasing attention. Harmsen et al. 2023 is a useful recent reference on this.

Harmsen, M., Tabak, C., Höglund-Isaksson, L., Humpenöder, F., Purohit, P., & van Vuuren, D. (2023). Uncertainty in non-CO2 greenhouse gas mitigation contributes to ambiguity in global climate policy feasibility. Nature Communications, 14(1), 2949. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01168-8

1. c) there are worrying signs that critical thresholds may already have been passed. I recommend Armstrong McKay et al. 2022 for this point.

Response 2:

Thank you for the comments, which has given us great enlightenment. We have made modifications based on your suggestions, mainly focusing on three aspects.

• We replaced the original Chinese literature, selected more appropriate references, and updated the references used in the introduction to more recent international references,
• For "represents the second largest source of emissions, following carbon emissions from fossil fuels[7]." I chose to delete this sentence and chose a more convincing sentence.Please see the lines50-
• According to your comments, we explain the role of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases such as methane on global warming and emphasize the role of carbon dioxide on global warming.Please see the lines44-

 

Point 4: Comments on the Structure

Lines 146 ff: 2.3. Methods – Before you describe the details of your methodology, you need to provide the reader with an overview of the different steps of your methodology (both used to produce results presented in section 3, and the results that you have given the heading 4 in the current draft text. Please add a short paragraph explaining the steps and provide a figure.

Lines 198-204 – Please move this to your Discussion section.

Lines 447 ff: This is still part of your Results, and should follow the numbering of subsections under 3. Results

Lines 553 ff: 6. Discussions – This should be 4. Discussion (following your Results, and preceding your Conclusions).

Some modelling is done on carbon dioxide emissions and sequestration that focuses biogeophysical systems, other work focuses on policy, social and economic aspects, while yet other work concerns integration of different types of models. Some models are essentially linear extrapolations, while others attempt to simulate dynamic interactions under various conditions and scenarios.  Please provide a few examples of different approaches, and clarify where the type of modelling that your own study uses is situated with respect to the wider field. A critical discussion is lacking, not only of the advantages, but also the limitations of the approach used in your study.

As observed under my General comments, you will find relevant arguments and issues clarifying both advantages and limitations with STIRPAT modelling in the references that I provided.

Response 4：

Thank you for the comments! 

• At the beginning of the method, we briefly introduce the method used in this paper and add a new technical route. Please see the lines155-163 and Figure 2.
• Based on your suggestions, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different carbon emission prediction models in the discussion section, and explain why the stirpat model is more suiWe adjusted the order of discussion and conclusions according to the structural requirements of the journal.

 

 

Point 5:  Comments on the details

Lines 72-73:  The terminology is particular for China, and you need to signal to the reader that while the first sentence (on the importance of the wider field of studies on carbon dioxide emissions, lines 71-72) is general, the second sentence (referring to the use of certain models) is specific to China. After “.... both domestically and internationally.”, therefore please add: “In China, models employed in this field of research are commonly referred to as carbon emission prediction models (CEPMs), and an overview of the field in the Chinese context is provided by Jin et al.” (using Jin et al. 2024 as a reference). You can then continue: “Such models include ...”

Jin, Y., Sharifi, A., Li, Z., Chen, S., Zeng, S., & Zhao, S. (2024). Carbon emission prediction models: A review. Science of the Total Environment, 172319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172319.

I also believe that you will find Jin et al. useful to identify relevant more updated studies, as well as some publications in English that might replace Chinese language references in your paper (see general comments on references above).

Lines 259-263: Since the wording here is extremely vague, please add the sentence: “Parameters for the scenarios were set according to the assumptions and metrics described below.”

 

Response 5：

Thank you very much for reading and commenting on my thesis so patiently and seriously. My gratitude is beyond words. We have corrected the grammar, spelling errors and other details in the paper, and changed the expression of some sentences as required

 

Thank you again for reviewing our manuscript! Although we do not speak the same language, I still hope you can feel my heartfelt thanks!We are very grateful to you for giving us this opportunity and thank you for your time and effort.

Wish you a happy life and looking forward to hearing from you soon!

Best regards,

Yours sincerely,

Yu Li

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments on the submitted manuscript entitled with "Insight into Carbon Emissions in Economically Developed Regions Based on Land Use Transitions: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta, China"

This paper investigates the effect of land use transitions on carbon emissions of the Yangtze River Delta. Unfortunately, I didnot found any interesting results. The methods, as well the results and data are some common. I  am so sorry that I cannot suggest the Editor to accept this paper. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is just ok that need a small revision. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to read this paper. We have made a lot of modifications to the paper in order to make it more novel, more complete and more reasonable in structure. I also hope that you can find time to read my reply in your busy schedule. I will introduce the details that have been modified this time. I hope the modified paper can change your mind!

Firstly, We have added the novelty of the paper.

• We summarized the shortcomings of existing studies, that is, existing studies on carbon emission prediction mainly focus on the prediction of carbon emissions generated by energy, and lack to consider the CO₂emissions generated in the process of land use change. At the same time, under the premise of established policy objectives, this paper predicts the trend of carbon emissions under different socio-economic development strategies, verifies the effectiveness of existing policies on carbon emission reduction, and provides methodological guidance for the government to verify the effectiveness of existing emission reduction policies.Please see the lines 91-99 and 107-111
• We innovatively use the stirpat model to predict land use carbon emissions and discuss the advantages and limitations of this model compared to other prediction models.Please see the lines522-

 

Secondly, we have revised the introduction to make it more logical and readable

• We replaced a lot of the Chinese literature with more suitable English literature, which can be understood by researchers outside China. Such as[13],[24],[32] and so on.Please see the lines60-63 and 78-81.
• For "represents the second largest source of emissions, following carbon emissions from fossil fuels[7]." I chose to delete this sentence and chose a more convincing sentence.Please see the lines50-
• we explain the role of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases such as methane on global warming and emphasize the role of carbon dioxide on global warming, making it better situate my topic and strand of research with respect to the wider issue. Please see the lines44-

 

Thirdly, we re-read a large number of foreign literature and challenged the references originally cited in the paper.

• We replaced some of the old literature with suitable recent references,such as[2],[4]and so on.
• We modified the format of the references according to the requirements, modified the format of the names of people, and added the doi of the paper to make it meet the requirements of land journals.

 

Finally, We have corrected the grammar, spelling errors and other details in the paper, and changed the expression of some sentences as required，make the whole article read more smooth and professional.

 

 

The above is the main revision of this article. I hope the revised article can meet your requirements. Thank you for still taking time to read this letter.

Wish you a happy life and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards,

Yours sincerely,

Yu Li

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations to the authors

The study of carbon emissions through land use is presented as a factor of special interest due to its important impact on environmental sustainability.

It is a well-presented, structured and clear work.

The statistical analyses are well presented and give a good understanding of the data presented.

In the introduction, they clearly present the status of the studies carried out and contextualize the reader about the problem, in the same way they clarify the gap found in previous research and present very clearly what the objective of the study is. They also justify the importance of the study of land use in the Yangtze River Delta, which may allow this study to be carried out in other regions that have a significant impact on carbon emissions.

The location of the study area is very well demarcated and justified.

The source of the data is presented clearly and completely. The table gives clarity and order to the information. In terms of the method, the clarifications of the concepts to be used, such as the calculation of carbon emissions from land use, the STIRPAT model and the simulation of scenarios, are well presented.

Table 4 clearly presents the results of the model variables in the different scenarios.

Table 5 and Figure 2 present, in a graphical manner and with a precise data structure, one of the main results found.

Table 6 and Figure 3 complement each other to present the data clearly.

The results are well presented.

The conclusions clearly account for what was presented in the study. They are in line with the objectives.

The debate is presented as a way of reviewing the possible scenarios and the political commitments to achieve the objectives, as well as recommendations for reducing environmental impacts.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to read this paper and for your recognition. Your affirmation and encouragement have given me great confidence and let me find my love for scientific research again! I will always remember your recognition! But I know that my paper still has a lot of room to modify, the following is the main content of my revision, but also hope that you can take time to read.

Firstly, We have added the novelty of the paper.

• We summarized the shortcomings of existing studies, that is, existing studies on carbon emission prediction mainly focus on the prediction of carbon emissions generated by energy, and lack to consider the CO₂emissions generated in the process of land use change. At the same time, under the premise of established policy objectives, this paper predicts the trend of carbon emissions under different socio-economic development strategies, verifies the effectiveness of existing policies on carbon emission reduction, and provides methodological guidance for the government to verify the effectiveness of existing emission reduction policies.Please see the lines 91-99 and 107-111
• We innovatively use the stirpat model to predict land use carbon emissions and discuss the advantages and limitations of this model compared to other prediction models.Please see the lines522-

 

Secondly, we have revised the introduction to make it more logical and readable

• We replaced a lot of the Chinese literature with more suitable English literature, which can be understood by researchers outside China. Such as[13],[24],[32] and so on.Please see the lines60-63 and 78-81.
• For "represents the second largest source of emissions, following carbon emissions from fossil fuels[7]." I chose to delete this sentence and chose a more convincing sentence.Please see the lines50-
• we explain the role of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases such as methane on global warming and emphasize the role of carbon dioxide on global warming, making it better situate my topic and strand of research with respect to the wider issue. Please see the lines44-

 

Thirdly, we re-read a large number of foreign literature and challenged the references originally cited in the paper.

• We replaced some of the old literature with suitable recent references,such as[2],[4]and so on.
• We modified the format of the references according to the requirements, modified the format of the names of people, and added the doi of the paper to make it meet the requirements of land journals.

 

Finally, We have corrected the grammar, spelling errors and other details in the paper, and changed the expression of some sentences as required，make the whole article read more smooth and professional.

 

 

Finally, thank you again for your affirmation, gratitude is beyond words!

Wish you a happy life and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards,

Yours sincerely,

Yu Li

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

policies mentioned on p. 2 are not realistic, but they are mentioned by Huang. The power of your paper is not the effective strategies, but the analysis of the current situation and the trends!

your policy on page 17 of optimizing the industrial structure is also not very realistic. It often means moving the problem to another part of the country or world.

I would put the emphasis on page 3 (just before section 2) on the usefulness of knowing the current situation and the trends

The claims concerning the useful policies and strategies to cure the problem are exagerated!

Author Response

Point 1: policies mentioned on p. 2 are not realistic, but they are mentioned by Huang. The power of your paper is not the effective strategies, but the analysis of the current situation and the trends!

your policy on page 17 of optimizing the industrial structure is also not very realistic. It often means moving the problem to another part of the country or world.

I would put the emphasis on page 3 (just before section 2) on the usefulness of knowing the current situation and the trends

The claims concerning the useful policies and strategies to cure the problem are exagerated

Response 1:

Thank you for the comments.

In response to your comments on the research objectives in the introduction, we have revised the corresponding sentence, emphasizing the analysis of the current situation and trend of carbon emissions from land use in the Yangtze River Delta, and the role of the study in verifying the effectiveness of the current policy to make it seem more realistic, reasonable and feasible, Please see the lines 107-111.

As for the policy of optimizing industrial structure mentioned on page 17, this is the only way to achieve green economy, and it is also China's requirement for the Yangtze River Delta region. In addition, this paper concludes that industrial structure is the key factor affecting the carbon emission of land use in the Yangtze River Delta, and industrial structure is closely related to land use structure. In my opinion, optimization of industrial structure is a feasible path for the Yangtze River Delta to achieve carbon peak as soon as possible, and this paper aims to provide ideas and directions for carbon emission reduction in the Yangtze River Delta. Whether it is feasible and the specific feasible path need to be further studied.

The above is my reply. Thank you again for your willingness to take time out of your busy schedule to read my paper and give professional comments. My gratitude is beyond words.

Wish you good health, happy life and looking forward to your reply!

Best regards,

Yours sincerely,

Yu Li

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study presented in the paper is concentrated on the topic of the land use structure and carbon emissions in 4 Chinese provinces of the Yangtze River Delta in China and it covers the period 2000-2020. The authors applied in their study STIRPAT model, ridge regression, and scenario analysis. They analysed the carbon emissions and prepared future scenarios.

The methods for the study were well chosen and use. The methods, data and results are correctly presented. The results are based on the study findings and they are correctly presented and commented.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to read this paper and for your recognition. Your affirmation and encouragement have given me great confidence and let me find my love for scientific research again! I will always remember your recognition! But I know that my paper still has a lot of room to modify, the following is the main content of my revision, but also hope that you can take time to read.

Firstly, We have added the novelty of the paper.

• We summarized the shortcomings of existing studies, that is, existing studies on carbon emission prediction mainly focus on the prediction of carbon emissions generated by energy, and lack to consider the CO₂emissions generated in the process of land use change. At the same time, under the premise of established policy objectives, this paper predicts the trend of carbon emissions under different socio-economic development strategies, verifies the effectiveness of existing policies on carbon emission reduction, and provides methodological guidance for the government to verify the effectiveness of existing emission reduction policies.Please see the lines 91-99 and 107-111
• We innovatively use the stirpat model to predict land use carbon emissions and discuss the advantages and limitations of this model compared to other prediction models.Please see the lines522-

 

Secondly, we have revised the introduction to make it more logical and readable

• We replaced a lot of the Chinese literature with more suitable English literature, which can be understood by researchers outside China. Such as[13],[24],[32] and so on.Please see the lines60-63 and 78-81.
• For "represents the second largest source of emissions, following carbon emissions from fossil fuels[7]." I chose to delete this sentence and chose a more convincing sentence.Please see the lines50-
• we explain the role of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases such as methane on global warming and emphasize the role of carbon dioxide on global warming, making it better situate my topic and strand of research with respect to the wider issue. Please see the lines44-

 

Thirdly, we re-read a large number of foreign literature and challenged the references originally cited in the paper.

• We replaced some of the old literature with suitable recent references,such as[2],[4]and so on.
• We modified the format of the references according to the requirements, modified the format of the names of people, and added the doi of the paper to make it meet the requirements of land journals.

 

Finally, We have corrected the grammar, spelling errors and other details in the paper, and changed the expression of some sentences as required，make the whole article read more smooth and professional.

 

 

Finally, thank you again for your affirmation, gratitude is beyond words!

Wish you a happy life and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards,

Yours sincerely,

Yu Li

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised version of this manuscript, which has the merit of providing realistic reference metrics to guide regional and local authorities in implementing CO2 emissions reduction strategies and policy goals in a key region of China.

You will find some very minor comments in the attached file, mainly concerning the description of your low- and high-carbon scenarios.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

My comments regarding English mainly concern your use of verb tenses in a few places. For details, please see the attached file.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #1,

Re: Manuscript ID: land-3234236

Title: Insight into Carbon Emissions in Economically Developed Regions Based on Land Use Transitions: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta, China

 

First of all, thank you very much for revising my manuscript so carefully. We have made changes based on your comments and have indicated the exact location of the changes in green font in the original manuscript. The main corrections to this article and responses to your comments are as follows:

 

Point 1: As far as I can see, while the other studies listed lines 59 ff concern LU change (and thus exemplify the topic of  "CEs generated by LU"), Yang et al. investigates land cover, so does not fit in this paragraph. I therefore suggest moving up to line 50 (before you start on the topic of land use change).

Response 1:

Thank you for your comments, I have decided to remove this sentence.However, I am wondering if replacing it with “moving up to line 50” might make the text flow more smoothly.

 

Point 2: As a limitation, you should here repeat the important issues raised at the beginning of the paper. Please add: ... structure changes. It should also be noted that peaking CO₂ emissions in China by 2030 may still be insufficient to remain within safe planetary boundaries.

Response 2:

Thank you for your comments, I believe that adding this sentence here may disrupt the flow of the context, therefore I have placed it in the third point of the conclusion, lines 618-619.

 

Thank you again for reviewing our manuscript! Your patient guidance has greatly helped and touched me. Thank you for your time and effort.

I wish you a happy life, happiness and well-being!

Best regards,

Yours sincerely,

Yu Li

E-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study aims to analyse the relevant factors affecting carbon emissions from land use, predict carbon emissions under different development modes, and provide theoretical and practical suggestions for carbon emission reduction during land use transformation.

1.The novelty of the paper should be described in the introduction.

2.The STIRPAT model and other statistical methods used in the paper need more detailed justification to support their applicability in the current research context.

3.The methodology for calculating carbon emissions needs a fuller discussion of its assumptions and possible sources of bias.

4.For projections of peak carbon emissions, more sensitivity analyses are needed to assess the robustness of the projections under different assumptions.

5.Land-use change and carbon emissions are a complex system, and studies may need to consider more fully the interactions between different factors.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #1,

Re: Manuscript ID: land-3168324

Title: Insight into Carbon Emissions in Economically Developed Regions Based on Land Use Transitions: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta, China

Thank you for your precious comments and advice. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have tried our best to strengthen the scientific soundness of the research and overcome index selection and data analysis weaknesses in order to make the paper even better. We have made correction as your suggestions and pointed out the specific position of the revised content in the manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to your comments are as following:

Point 1: The novelty of the paper should be described in the introduction.

Response 1:

Thank you for the comments. We have added the novelty of the paper.

Firstly, we have concluded the inadequacy of existing research, which is lack of taking into account the CO2 emissions generated in the process of land use change and prediction of the trends of carbon emissions under different socio-economic development strategies under the premise of established policy goals. Please see the lines 90-100.

Secondly, we have described how we overcome the problems by this paper. This study takes the Yangtze River Delta as the research area, combines regional land use data and energy consumption data, calculates regional land use carbon emissions from a land use perspective, explores the influencing factors of land use carbon emissions, and estimates the trend of carbon emissions under different socio-economic development scenarios. Please see the lines 101-111.

 

Point 2: The STIRPAT model and other statistical methods used in the paper need more detailed justification to support their applicability in the current research context.

Response 2:

We are grateful for the suggestion. It is very helpful for revising and improving our paper.

We have supplemented the applicability of the STIRPAT model in part 2 Materials and Methods. Please see the lines187-210. First, we describe the characteristics of the STIRPAT model. Then, we elaborate on why this model is suitable for the research topic of this paper. Finally, we discuss the reasons why other models are not applicable.

 

Point 3: The methodology for calculating carbon emissions needs a fuller discussion of its assumptions and possible sources of bias.

Response 3:

Thank you for the comments.

In the discussion section, we have provided a detailed explanation of the potential sources of deviation that may arise in the process of carbon emissions. Please see the lines 609-614.

 

Point 4: For projections of peak carbon emissions, more sensitivity analyses are needed to assess the robustness of the projections under different assumptions.

Response 4:

Thank you for the comments.

By studying existing literature and combining research methods with the characteristics of the study area, we have constructed a scientific predictive system. We will strengthen our research on this aspect in future studies in accordance with the opinions of the reviewers.

 

Point 5: Land-use change and carbon emissions are a complex system, and studies may need to consider more fully the interactions between different factors.

Response 5:

We are grateful for the suggestion.

Based on the treatment of the interaction between different factors in previous literature, the calculation method adopted in this paper can theoretically eliminate calculation deviations caused by the interaction between different factors as much as possible. In addition, the main purpose of this paper is to predict the peak and trajectory of carbon emissions, and not to elaborate too much on the interaction between land use change and carbon emissions.

 

We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We tried our best to strengthen the scientific soundness of the research in order to make the paper even better. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and our point-by-point responses are presented above.

We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.

Look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards,

Yours sincerely,

Yu Li

E-mail: [email protected]

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper mostly reads well and mostly has a clear structure. The topic is interesting and relevant to the journal Land. However, the manuscript will still need substantial work before it can be considered for publication. There are numerous concerns above all with the references, as well as with the referencing format (both in-text and in the reference list) which should conform with the journal style.

I also have some questions regarding the methodology (including some issues of structure), while the framing needs some work to better situate the topic focused in the paper within the wider field, and the discussion needs some methodological discussion and clarification of limitations.

Please ensure that all details of the manuscript are accurate, and that wording is revised to be clear, precise and reflecting your intentions. You will find my detailed comments below. (Please note that I have given some suggestions for references in APA format, but when integrating them into the manuscript you should use the journal style, according to author guidelines).

A few general comments:

Models do not predict, they provide projections (based on various assumptions, particular datasets, and under various scenarios). Please replace “predict” and “prediction” (and similar wording) with the verb “project” and the noun “projection” (or similar wording, depending on the exact sentence).

Also, throughout the manuscript, figures and tables need to indicate sources for the data and maps

Abstract, lines 18-21: A 1% increase  in population size, GDP per capita, energy intensity, energy consumption structure, industrial structure, and urbanization caused a 1.932%, 0.241%, -0.141%, 0.043%, 1.045%, and 0.975% increase in  land use carbon emissions, respectively.” –  To enhance clarity and readability, please reword to:

“For each percent increase in the parameters considered in this study, the corresponding increases land use CO₂ emissions were estimated to be: 1.932% (population), 0.241% (GDP per capita), -0.141% (energy intensity), 0.043% (consumption structure), 1.045% (industrial structure), and 0.975% (urbanization).”

Introduction, line 34: [1] – please consider adding additional and more recent international references for this point.

Lines 34-36: “land use change has become the second-largest greenhouse gas emission source, following fossil fuel combustion[2]” – as it stands, this sentence is meaningless and the use of the present perfect makes it both imprecise and likely factually incorrect. Who said this, about what, and when? You need to provide the geographical scope (in China, in the region of your own study, globally?), the research team, organization or authority that originally made the calculations, the years of data on which the estimates were based (the use of the present perfect indicates that the statement describes a change in relative importance of land use change for greenhouse gas emissions over a specific period – alternatively use the simple past and indicate the year for which this statement applied, or use the past perfect “had become” and indicate the period over which the change in relative importance took place, as well as the relative importance of land use change compared to fossil fuel combustion in the preceding period). The reference [2] published 2014 that you provide is in Chinese, so readers will not be able to find the context, scope and methodology by going back to [2], but I have seen the exact same sentence used in a Chinese publication from 2011, thus probably based on some even earlier study that I have been unable to trace. For this important statement, please remove [2] as a reference. Besides providing details on geographical scope and year(s), I recommend that you either make a broader statement on global trends based on the most recent work available (with suitable references), or find suitable studies on land use change and GHG emissions for the region and time period covered in your own study (and reference these in an adequate manner).

Line 36: before going into the question of policy, land use and CO₂ emissions in China, you need to very briefly situate this topic and strand of research with respect to the wider issue, and make a brief argument for its importance. This involves: a) explaining that land use and cover have effects on climate change not only through GHG emissions, but also through albedo and impacts on various feedback loops in earth systems b) CO₂ is not the only type of greenhouse gas affected by land use and land cover, agriculture contributes with several other major GHGs, while impacts of degradation of wetlands on methane emissions are receiving increasing attention c) all countries have committed to reduce their climate impacts to stay within the 1.5 C limits of the Paris agreement, but are struggling to keep these commitments d) there are worrying signs that critical thresholds may already have been passed, and we are witnessing concerning developments such as rapid decrease in ice cover, permafrost thawing, increases in severe wildfires, as well as degradation of the Amazon to the extent that it no longer functions as a carbon sink e) developments in China are important not only nationally, but also globally, considering the size of the country and the population, with a correspondingly significant climate footprint. Please provide suitable references for all of these points (including to the latest IPCC physical reports and summaries for policymakers).

Line 36: “To reflect a responsible approach to global sustainability” – to avoid the need to go into a discussion on whether China’s commitments with respect to CO₂ emissions are sufficient to prevent crossing critical climate thresholds, if the country is on track to keep these commitments, or if the envisaged pathways are realistic, I suggest deleting these words. Instead, start a new paragraph with the wording: “The Chinese government has committed to peak CO₂ emissions by 2030” (with a reference to the relevant policy document).

Line 51: “As demonstrated [8] ....” – here (and throughout the paper), please remember to explicitly name the authors in the text, when they are part of your sentence. This should thus be: As demonstrated by XX et al. [8], ....

Lines 56-57: “carbon emission prediction research has” – as mentioned above, please avoid the terms predict and predictions in your own text, which detracts from the credibility. Here you could instead write “research to estimate CO₂ emissions has emerged ...”

My understanding is that in China, the term “prediction” is generally used for projections, so after “.... both domestically and internationally.” (line 57), I would add: “In China, such projections are commonly referred to as carbon emission prediction models (CEPMs), and an overview of the field in the Chinese context is provided by Jin et al.” (using the Jin et al. 2024 as a reference):

Jin, Y., Sharifi, A., Li, Z., Chen, S., Zeng, S., & Zhao, S. (2024). Carbon emission prediction models: A review. Science of the Total Environment, 172319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172319.

I also believe that you will find Jin et al. useful to identify relevant more updated studies, as well as some publications in English that might replace Chinese language references in your paper (see general comments on references above).

Lines 57-60: when discussing which models are commonly used, you need to provide very short information on the type of models that you are discussing. Some modelling is done that focuses biogeophysical systems, other work focuses on policy, social and economic aspects, while yet other work concerns integration of different types of models. Some models are essentially linear extrapolations, while others attempt to simulate dynamic interactions under various conditions and scenarios.  Please also provide a few examples of different approaches, and clarify where the type of modelling that your own study uses is situated with respect to the wider field.

You also need to very briefly describe basic characteristics of STIRPAT models, and argue for their usefulness (here I believe you will find the references I provided under my General comments useful).

Lines 60 ff: “Using STIRPAT model ...” – when here describing earlier research in the Chinese context, please start a new sub-section with an appropriate heading, and an introductory sentence, to make it clear that you are no longer introducing the topic of different models and approaches to modelling, but describing applications of these models in the Chinese context.

Line 88: “most economically active and energy-intensive regions in China” – this statement needs references.

Lines 94-95: As far as I can make out, your study does not actually go into the topic of a “low-carbon and circular development economic system”. I suggest that you reword so that it becomes clear how a better understanding of land use impacts on CO₂ emissions contributes to this wider goal.

Lines 97 ff: 2.1. Study Area – the statements in this subsection need sources and references.

Lines 130 ff: 2.3. Methods – the descriptions of your methodology that is currently found in subsections 4.1 and 4.2.1 belongs to your methods, not to the results.

Lines 159-164: [34] – this reference is in Chinese, and not suitable as a key reference for your methodology. The current wording describing this equation is not adequate. If I understand correctly, energy use in China is generally measured in standard coal equivalents. This needs to be stated explicitly to make the approach understandable for international readers. I suggest the wording: “In China, energy consumption is generally measured in standard coal equivalents. The energy consumption of the above-mentioned energy sources is therefore first converted into standard coal consumption [provide a suitable reference in English]. CO₂ emissions resulting from energy consumption is then calculated using the following equation:”

Line 173: you have not conducted a review of the existing literature. Please replace this wording with “Based on findings from several previous studies in China, the driving factors of CO₂ emissions can be summarized ...”

Line 182: Although they derive from a similar fundamental approach and reasoning, many variations on the STIRPAT model exist (see references that I provided earlier). You can therefore not speak of a “standard form” of a “traditional STIRPAT model” in absolute terms. Please replace this wording by “STIRPAT models are typically based on the following equation” (and provide a suitable reference to the statement).

Line 360: please provide some concrete statistics here (with source and years) to give the reader an idea of what the population size and growth is in the region.

Line 493 ff: “Overall, both ....” These reflections on your results belong in a separate Discussion section.

Lines 505-506: 5. Carbon Conclusion and Discussion /  5.1. Conclusion – the heading hear should simply be: 5. Conclusions

Lines 528 ff: 5.2. Discussion – This should be moved up to a Discussion section, following your Results section. As observed under my General comments, you will find relevant arguments and issues clarifying both advantages and limitations with STIRPAT modelling in the references that I provided.

Lines 581 ff: References – All the references currently included in your reference list need corrections for accuracy and referencing style. Several should be replaced with more suitable alternatives. I believe that you will find the following references useful (but additional references on the various topics covered in your study will be needed):

Yang, S., Yang, D., Shi, W., Deng, C., Chen, C., & Feng, S. (2023). Global evaluation of carbon neutrality and peak carbon dioxide emissions: Current challenges and future outlook. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(34), 81725-81744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19764-0.

 

Zhang, J., Zhang, C., Dong, H., Zhang, L., & He, S. (2023). Spatial–Temporal Change Analysis and Multi-Scenario Simulation Prediction of Land-Use Carbon Emissions in the Wuhan Urban Agglomeration, China. Sustainability, 15(14), 11021. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411021.

Yang, Y., Shi, Y., Sun, W., Chang, J., Zhu, J., Chen, L., ... & Fang, J. (2022). Terrestrial carbon sinks in China and around the world and their contribution to carbon neutrality. Science China Life Sciences, 65(5), 861-895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11427-021-2045-5.

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although parts of the manuscript read well, you need to devote careful attention to syntax and word choice in many places.

Please also review your use of upper and lower case both for consistency, and to conform with English usage (for instance, upper case is used when referring to something as the name of a specific model or institution, while lower case is used when speaking generically).

In particular also, please replace “build up area” with “built-up area” throughout, including in the figures and tables.

Please reword the phrase “the carbon peak” throughout, and replace with “peak CO₂ emissions”.

Please replace “build up area” with “built-up area” throughout, including in the figures and tables.

Please reword “the carbon peak” throughout, and replace with “peak CO₂ emissions”.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #2,

Re: Manuscript ID: land-3168324

Title: Insight into Carbon Emissions in Economically Developed Re-gions Based on Land Use Transitions: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta, China

Thank you for your precious comments and advice. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.

We have made every effort to enhance the rigor of the structure, improve the quality of English language, and address the issues with the references in order to make the paper even better. We have made correction as your suggestions and pointed out the specific position of the revised content in the manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to your comments are as following:

 

Point 1: Comments on the Quality of English Language

Models do not predict, they provide projections (based on various assumptions, particular datasets, and under various scenarios). Please replace “predict” and “prediction” (and similar wording) with the verb “project” and the noun “projection” (or similar wording, depending on the exact sentence).

 

Abstract, lines 18-21: A 1% increase  in population size, GDP per capita, energy intensity, energy consumption structure, industrial structure, and urbanization caused a 1.932%, 0.241%, -0.141%, 0.043%, 1.045%, and 0.975% increase in  land use carbon emissions, respectively.” –  To enhance clarity and readability, please reword to:“For each percent increase in the parameters considered in this study, the corresponding increases land use CO2 emissions were estimated to be: 1.932% (population), 0.241% (GDP per capita), -0.141% (energy intensity), 0.043% (consumption structure), 1.045% (industrial structure), and 0.975% (urbanization).”

 

Line 36: “To reflect a responsible approach to global sustainability” – to avoid the need to go into a discussion on whether China’s commitments with respect to CO2 emissions are sufficient to prevent crossing critical climate thresholds, if the country is on track to keep these commitments, or if the envisaged pathways are realistic, I suggest deleting these words. Instead, start a new paragraph with the wording: “The Chinese government has committed to peak CO2 emissions by 2030” (with a reference to the relevant policy document).

 

Lines 56-57: “carbon emission prediction research has” – as mentioned above, please avoid the terms predict and predictions in your own text, which detracts from the credibility. Here you could instead write “research to estimate CO2 emissions has emerged ...”

My understanding is that in China, the term “prediction” is generally used for projections, so after “.... both domestically and internationally.” (line 57), I would add: “In China, such projections are commonly referred to as carbon emission prediction models (CEPMs), and an overview of the field in the Chinese context is provided by Jin et al.” (using the Jin et al. 2024 as a reference):

 

Lines 159-164: [34] – this reference is in Chinese, and not suitable as a key reference for your methodology. The current wording describing this equation is not adequate. If I understand correctly, energy use in China is generally measured in standard coal equivalents. This needs to be stated explicitly to make the approach understandable for international readers. I suggest the wording: “In China, energy consumption is generally measured in standard coal equivalents. The energy consumption of the above-mentioned energy sources is therefore first converted into standard coal consumption [provide a suitable reference in English]. CO2 emissions resulting from energy consumption is then calculated using the following equation:”

 

Line 173: you have not conducted a review of the existing literature. Please replace this wording with “Based on findings from several previous studies in China, the driving factors of CO2 emissions can be summarized ...”

 

Line 182: Although they derive from a similar fundamental approach and reasoning, many variations on the STIRPAT model exist (see references that I provided earlier). You can therefore not speak of a “standard form” of a “traditional STIRPAT model” in absolute terms. Please replace this wording by “STIRPAT models are typically based on the following equation” (and provide a suitable reference to the statement).

 

Please also review your use of upper and lower case both for consistency, and to conform with English usage (for instance, upper case is used when referring to something as the name of a specific model or institution, while lower case is used when speaking generically).

In particular also, please replace “build up area” with “built-up area” throughout, including in the figures and tables.

Please reword the phrase “the carbon peak” throughout, and replace with “peak CO2 emissions”.

Please replace “build up area” with “built-up area” throughout, including in the figures and tables.

Please reword “the carbon peak” throughout, and replace with “peak CO2 emissions”

 

Response 1:

Thank you for the comments, which have greatly helped me to meet academic standards in my use of English wording! I have diligently made the necessary modifications to all problematic sentences in accordance with your valuable feedback.

 

Point 2: Comments on the references and data sources

Throughout the manuscript, figures and tables need to indicate sources for the data and maps.

Line 88: “most economically active and energy-intensive regions in China” – this statement needs references.

Lines 97 : 2.1. Study Area – the statements in this subsection need sources and references.

 

Response 2:

Thank you for the comments. We have clearly indicated the sources of data and maps, and have included specific references where necessary to support the information presented.

 

Point 3: Comments on the Introduction

Introduction, line 34: [1]  please consider adding additional and more recent international references for this point.

Lines 34-36: “land use change has become the second-largest greenhouse gas emission source, following fossil fuel combustion[2]”  as it stands, this sentence is meaningless and the use of the present perfect makes it both imprecise and likely factually incorrect. Who said this, about what, and when? You need to provide the geographical scope (in China, in the region of your own study, globally?), the research team, organization or authority that originally made the calculations, the years of data on which the estimates were based (the use of the present perfect indicates that the statement describes a change in relative importance of land use change for greenhouse gas emissions over a specific period – alternatively use the simple past and indicate the year for which this statement applied, or use the past perfect “had become” and indicate the period over which the change in relative importance took place, as well as the relative importance of land use change compared to fossil fuel combustion in the preceding period). The reference [2] published 2014 that you provide is in Chinese, so readers will not be able to find the context, scope and methodology by going back to [2], but I have seen the exact same sentence used in a Chinese publication from 2011, thus probably based on some even earlier study that I have been unable to trace. For this important statement, please remove [2] as a reference. Besides providing details on geographical scope and year(s), I recommend that you either make a broader statement on global trends based on the most recent work available (with suitable references), or find suitable studies on land use change and GHG emissions for the region and time period covered in your own study (and reference these in an adequate manner).

Line 36: before going into the question of policy, land use and CO2 emissions in China, you need to very briefly situate this topic and strand of research with respect to the wider issue, and make a brief argument for its importance. This involves: a) explaining that land use and cover have effects on climate change not only through GHG emissions, but also through albedo and impacts on various feedback loops in earth systems b) CO2 is not the only type of greenhouse gas affected by land use and land cover, agriculture contributes with several other major GHGs, while impacts of degradation of wetlands on methane emissions are receiving increasing attention c) all countries have committed to reduce their climate impacts to stay within the 1.5 C limits of the Paris agreement, but are struggling to keep these commitments d) there are worrying signs that critical thresholds may already have been passed, and we are witnessing concerning developments such as rapid decrease in ice cover, permafrost thawing, increases in severe wildfires, as well as degradation of the Amazon to the extent that it no longer functions as a carbon sink e) developments in China are important not only nationally, but also globally, considering the size of the country and the population, with a correspondingly significant climate footprint. Please provide suitable references for all of these points (including to the latest IPCC physical reports and summaries for policymakers).

Line 36: “To reflect a responsible approach to global sustainability” – to avoid the need to go into a discussion on whether China’s commitments with respect to CO2 emissions are sufficient to prevent crossing critical climate thresholds, if the country is on track to keep these commitments, or if the envisaged pathways are realistic, I suggest deleting these words. Instead, start a new paragraph with the wording: “The Chinese government has committed to peak CO2 emissions by 2030” (with a reference to the relevant policy document).

Line 51: “As demonstrated [8] ....” – here (and throughout the paper), please remember to explicitly name the authors in the text, when they are part of your sentence. This should thus be: As demonstrated by XX et al. [8], ....

Lines 57-60: when discussing which models are commonly used, you need to provide very short information on the type of models that you are discussing. Some modelling is done that focuses biogeophysical systems, other work focuses on policy, social and economic aspects, while yet other work concerns integration of different types of models. Some models are essentially linear extrapolations, while others attempt to simulate dynamic interactions under various conditions and scenarios.  Please also provide a few examples of different approaches, and clarify where the type of modelling that your own study uses is situated with respect to the wider field.You also need to very briefly describe basic characteristics of STIRPAT models, and argue for their usefulness (here I believe you will find the references I provided under my General comments useful).

Lines 60 : “Using STIRPAT model ...” – when here describing earlier research in the Chinese context, please start a new sub-section with an appropriate heading, and an introductory sentence, to make it clear that you are no longer introducing the topic of different models and approaches to modelling, but describing applications of these models in the Chinese context.

Lines 94-95: As far as I can make out, your study does not actually go into the topic of a “low-carbon and circular development economic system”. I suggest that you reword so that it becomes clear how a better understanding of land use impacts on CO₂ emissions contributes to this wider goal.

 

Response 3:

Thank you for the comments, which has given us great enlightenment. We have made modifications based on your suggestions, mainly focusing on three aspects.

Firstly, we have revised the logic in the introduction. By connecting global climate, the importance of China's carbon reduction, and the issues of land use and carbon dioxide more closely, we added appropriate reference materials.

Secondly, we have modified the research objective to: This study provides scientific evidence for formulating effective carbon emission control strategies and achieving sustainable development goals, as well as an important reference for achieving the peak CO₂ emissions target as soon as possible.

Thirdly, we have supplemented the applicability of the STIRPAT model in part 2 Materials and Methods. Please see the lines 187-210. First, we describe the characteristics of the STIRPAT model. Then, we elaborate on why this model is suitable for the research topic of this paper. Finally, we discuss the reasons why other models are not applicable.

 

 

Point 4: Comments on the Structure

Lines 130 : 2.3. Methods – the descriptions of your methodology that is currently found in subsections 4.1 and 4.2.1 belongs to your methods, not to the results.

Line 493 ff: “Overall, both ....” These reflections on your results belong in a separate Discussion section.

Lines 505-506: 5. Carbon Conclusion and Discussion /  5.1. Conclusion – the heading hear should simply be: 5. Conclusions

Lines 528 ff: 5.2. Discussion – This should be moved up to a Discussion section, following your Results section. As observed under my General comments, you will find relevant arguments and issues clarifying both advantages and limitations with STIRPAT modelling in the references that I provided.

Response 4：

Thank you for the comments! 

Regarding 4.2.1 and Line 493 ff: "Overall, both..." and 5. Conclusion and Discussion, we have adjusted the structure according to the requirements.

However, we did not make any adjustments to section 4.1 because its content is an expression of data processing and calculation results, rather than an introduction to methods.

 

Point 5:

Lines 581 ff: References – All the references currently included in your reference list need corrections for accuracy and referencing style. Several should be replaced with more suitable alternatives. I believe that you will find the following references useful (but additional references on the various topics covered in your study will be needed):

Response 5：

Thank you very much for providing useful reference materials, which have greatly helped our research. We carefully read all the references you provided, as well as the other references cited in them, and have replaced the previous Chinese references with more suitable ones.

 

We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript! We tried our best to strengthen the scientific soundness of the research in order to make the paper even better. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and our point-by-point responses are presented above.

We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.

Wish you a happy Mid-Autumn Festival and looking forward to hearing from you soon!

Best regards,

Yours sincerely,

Yu Li

E-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper can be accepted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #3,

Re: Manuscript ID: land-3168324

We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript! We tried our best to strengthen the scientific soundness of the research in order to make the paper even better.

Wish you a happy Mid-Autumn Festival and looking forward to hearing from you soon!

Best regards,

Yours sincerely,

Yu Li

E-mail: [email protected]