Decoupling of Economic Growth and Industrial Water Use in Hubei Province: From an Ecological–Economic Interaction Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The problems of improving the quality of water use is very important, as the lack of clean water is still a major resource constraint for a few countries. 

No doubt, the topic of the manuscript is important in this context. However, the paper needs a very thorough revision to fit the requirements of the Sustainability journal.

1. The paper deals with a more narrow topic than reflected in its title. At least you should consider including the country or even the province title.

2. The paper deals with data on only one Chinese province (Hubei) and only three industrial bodies. So, the modelling results are always biased because of a very specific scope. The authors must add a very strong and supportive text that could bluntly show the restrictions of the results.

3. The literature used in the text is very Chinese-specific. However, there are a lot of international evidence of decoupling using STIRPAT, Kaya and other techniques. Please extend your literature review up to 60-70 items. You could start with the following sources:

Zabelina, I.A. Decoupling in environmental and economic development of regions-participants of cross-border cooperation. Econ. Soc. Chang. Facts Trends 2019, 12, 1

Chen, Q.; Taylor, D. Economic development and pollution emissions in Singapore: Evidence in support of the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis and its implications for regional sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 243, 118637

Ansari, M.A.; Haider, S.; Khan, N. Environmental Kuznets curve revisited: An analysis using ecological and material footprint. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 115, 106416

Pyzheva, Y.I.; Zander, E.V.; Pyzhev, A.I. Impacts of Energy Efficiency and Economic Growth on Air Pollutant Emissions: Evidence from Angara–Yenisey Siberia. Energies 2021, 14, 6138

4. Discussion is very short and superficial. It needs to be sufficiently extended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract

Abbreviations need to be fully explained.

Introduction

It is recommended that the authors carefully review the research literature and identify the research gaps and contributions of this research.

It is better to consider a separate section for research literature.

 Authors should improve references according to recent literature, and according to the style of the journal.

Methodology

The reasons for using the models used in this research should be presented in detail.

Conclusion

 

The policy implications need to be more concrete.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made a substantial revision of the manuscript.

However, please make clarification of the content between parentheses on line 440.

good luck.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Article has been sufficiently improved

Author Response

Thank you very much.