The Low-Carbon City Pilot Policy and Urban Land Use Efficiency: A Policy Assessment from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, I would like to begin by congratulating you on your work, which I believe to be of scientific soundness and of great interest. As you mentioned, it is a paper that will fill a gap on the scientific literature review upon the topic and it will be of interest of readers. 

My comments and remarks are of two types: recommendations for minor revisions and recommendations for major revisions, which I believe that are not so much related with extra hard work, but more with scientific details that need to be addressed in order to increase the methodological soundness and the overall quality of the paper.

Minor recommendations

Introduction section it is well written, as the all the other sections, but in my opinion it lacks a key subject, that I do consider of utmost importance for the justification of the study conducted. I am talking about the relation between cities and urban sprawl or expansion and the CO2 gas emissions. Without evidence on such relation, one can say why a low-carbon city policy if cities are not among the major contributors to CO2 gas emissions. 

Moreover, in line 150 (3. Policy background), it is written that "energy consumption of urban accounted for 60% of the total consumption in China", but once again nothing as said regarding the CO2 gas emissions, and it would be interesting to know how much CO2 gas emission urban areas are responsible regarding total China CO2 emissions.

Figures (maps) are of low graphic quality. Please make sure the final version for publishing has high DPI, so we can actually read what some of the words written in the maps.

lines 242 and 243 (section 5.1): an important and strong (opinion) statement regarding the method/model is made, but without any reference to support it. I suggest to have a couple of authors with solid scientific work upon the topic, to support the statement.

Lines 258 to 266: Variables are mentioned, but not well described. Since we are in the presence of analytical/technical paper data are critical. Therefore I suggest that you could provide a summary table listing variables and their metrics (how they are measurable).

Line 269 (Section 5.2.1). I believe it is the first time DEA is mention, therefore and although most people knows what it means, is not all the people/readers. Therefore I suggest that you could write what DEA means (write the full name).

line 281: Please name clearly the model used, instead of referring to it as "...the model..."

Line 341: You have written that "...urban land use efficiency (...) ranges from  0.19 to 0.31", but it lacks explanation upon 0.19 to 0.31 what?

Line 298 and 299: Another strong/affirmative statement that has no reference supporting it. Please provide some references.

Figure 4. Beside the low graphic quality, already above mention, I suggest to replace the name "Legend", since everybody knows that it is a legend, to what is actually represented there trough that values, which I believe it is ULUE index?!

Major recommendations:

Line 50/51: you mention "How to optimize the allocation of land resources and improve the efficiency of urban land use is a major problem that needs to be solved ...". That been said, I was expecting that trough the paper I would be able to read other some examples of good solutions, or in the results and or in the conclusions, as you also mention this paper draws policy recommendations. However, I didn't found any.

Line 102: it is written that Part VI presents quantitative and qualitative analysis. However, I didn't found any mention of qualitative analysis.

Lines 383 to 386: More need to be said (explained) about the spatial distribution. It is not enough write about observed facts, there's need for some interpretation of the facts. For instance, you should add some explanation regarding the possible reasons that are in line with the urban features of each city (since we have mention "...land use efficiency is influenced by many factors..."), that can answer to that results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 Hope everything goes well with you!

Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to have our manuscript subject to peer review and to revise our manuscript according to the comments of you. We have modified our paper accordingly, as is shown in the paper with red text.

We answer your concerns as follows:

Q1: Introduction section it is well written, as the all the other sections, but in my opinion, it lacks a key subject, that I do consider of utmost importance for the justification of the study conducted. I am talking about the relation between cities and urban sprawl or expansion and the CO2 gas emissions. Without evidence on such relation, one can say why a low-carbon city policy if cities are not among the major contributors to CO2 gas emissions. 

Reply：As you suggested, we have expanded and adapted the introductory section, see Line 53-79.

Q2: Moreover, in line 150 (3. Policy background), it is written that "energy consumption of urban accounted for 60% of the total consumption in China", but once again nothing as said regarding the CO2 gas emissions, and it would be interesting to know how much CO2 gas emission urban areas are responsible regarding total China CO2 emissions.

Reply：Revised, see Line 160-161.

Q3: Figures (maps) are of low graphic quality. Please make sure the final version for publishing has high DPI, so we can actually read what some of the words written in the maps.

Reply：As your suggestion, we have doubled the DPI, see Line 193.

Q4: lines 242 and 243 (section 5.1): an important and strong (opinion) statement regarding the method/model is made, but without any reference to support it. I suggest to have a couple of authors with solid scientific work upon the topic, to support the statement

Reply：Checked. see Line 261-262.

Q5: Lines 258 to 266: Variables are mentioned, but not well described. Since we are in the presence of analytical/technical paper data are critical. Therefore, I suggest that you could provide a summary table listing variables and their metrics (how they are measurable).

Reply：Revised, see Line 276-300.

Q6: Line 269 (Section 5.2.1). I believe it is the first time DEA is mentioned, therefore and although most people knows what it means, is not all the people/readers. Therefore, I suggest that you could write what DEA means (write the full name).

Reply：Revised, see Line 305.

Q7: line 281: Please name clearly the model used, instead of referring to it as "...the model..."

Reply：Revised, see Line 318.

Q8: Line 341: You have written that "...urban land use efficiency (...) ranges from 0.19 to 0.31", but it lacks explanation upon 0.19 to 0.31 what?

Reply：We have explained this later in the sentence, see Line 380-382. Also, to give the reader a clearer idea of what the land use efficiency values represent, we have added an appropriate explanation in the model section, see Line 331-333.

Q9: Line 298 and 299: Another strong/affirmative statement that has no reference supporting it. Please provide some references.

Reply：Revised, see Line 339.

Q10: Figure 4. Beside the low graphic quality, already above mention, I suggest to replace the name "Legend", since everybody knows that it is a legend, to what is actually represented there trough that values, which I believe it is ULUE index?!

Reply：Revised, see Line 410-412.

Q11: Line 50/51: you mention "How to optimize the allocation of land resources and improve the efficiency of urban land use is a major problem that needs to be solved ...". That been said, I was expecting that trough the paper I would be able to read other some examples of good solutions, or in the results and or in the conclusions, as you also mention this paper draws policy recommendations. However, I didn't find any.

Reply：As the purpose of our paper is primarily to assess the effects of low carbon city pilot policies on urban land use efficiency and to indirectly improve ULUE by the way of a series of suggestions and recommendations for policy optimization.

Therefore, land use allocation is not the focus of our study and we have changed this formulation, see Line 50-52. To make our recommendations more rational and relevant, we have expanded the theoretical analysis section to put more emphasis on some of the ways in which policies affect urban land use efficiency and strengthen the link between policies and urban land use efficiency, see Line 228-251.

Q12: Line 102: it is written that Part VI presents quantitative and qualitative analysis. However, I didn't find any mention of qualitative analysis.

Reply：Due to the wrong expression, we have modified it at line 113-114.

Q13: Lines 383 to 386: More need to be said (explained) about the spatial distribution. It is not enough written about observed facts, there's need for some interpretation of the facts. For instance, you should add some explanation regarding the possible reasons that are in line with the urban features of each city (since we have mention "...land use efficiency is influenced by many factors..."), that can answer to those results.

Reply：As you suggested, we have expanded and adapted the description of the spatial distribution of urban land-use efficiency, see Line 419-439.

Thank you again for your help. We are very anxious for the manuscript to be published in this high-quality journal.

If you have any questions or requirements, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The article titled “The Low-carbon City Pilot Policy and Urban Land Use Effi-

ciency: a Policy Assessment from China”, deals with the increase in carbon, due to urban growth and a decrease in green areas that act as CO2 sinks. The authors study the low carbon efficiency in a pilot urban area, and make a diagnosis on the increase in carbon, a phenomenon due to the increase in consumption and a change in the efficiency of the soil.

We consider that it is a good work that can be published, however, and with the aim of improving the study, we recommend the following:

 

1. In our opinion, the authors should put more emphasis on carbon sinks for urban areas.
2. The legends of figures 1 and 4 are difficult to read.
3. In order to enrich the references, we recommend including the following references:

Agencia Europea del Medio Ambiente. (2015). El suelo y el cambio climático. Recuperado de http://www. eea.europa.eu/es/senales/senales-2015/articu- los/el-suelo-y-el-cambio-climatico.

Cano, E., Cano-Ortiz, A., Musarella, CM., Piñar Fuentes, JC., Ighbareyeh, JMH., Leiva Gea, F., Del Río S. 2019. Mitigating climate change through bioclimatic applications and cultivation techniques in agriculture (Andalusia, Spain) in  Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. M. K. Jhariya et al. (eds.), Sustainable Agriculture, Forest and Environmental Management, pp. 31-69, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6830-1_2.

Macías, F. 2004. Sumideros de carbono para el forzamiento climático Antropoceno. Una visión de alternativas de actuación desde la ciencia del suelo. Edafología 11, 7-25.

Spampinato, G., Massimo, D.E., Musarella, C.M., De Paola, P., Malerba, A., Musolino, M. 2019. Carbon Sequestration by Cork Oak Forests and Raw Material to Built up Post Carbon City. In: Calabrò F., Della Spina L., Bevilacqua C. (eds) New Metropolitan Perspectives. ISHT 2018. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 101. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92102-0_72

Spampinato, G., Malerba, A., Calabrò, F., Bernardo, C., Musarella, C.M. 2021 Cork Oak Forest Spatial Valuation Toward Post Carbon City by CO₂ Sequestration. In: Bevilacqua C., Calabrò F., Della Spina L. (eds) New Metropolitan Perspectives. NMP 2020. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 178. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48279-4_123

Author Response

Dear Reviewer，

We appreciate your detailed comments, which have greatly helped us polish our paper. We feel sorry for the defects in the previous draft submitted. We have modified our paper accordingly, as is shown in the paper with red text.

We answer your concerns as follows:

 Q1：In our opinion, the authors should put more emphasis on carbon sinks for urban areas.

Reply：Following your suggestion, we have expanded and adapted the introduction to emphasize the relationship between carbon emissions and urban sprawl. See Line 50-79.

Q2：The legends of figures 1 and 4 are difficult to read

Reply：following you suggested, we have doubled the DPI, see Line 193 and Line 410.

Q3：In order to enrich the references, we recommend including the following references:

Reply：Checked

In addition, we have made the following changes, for example.

1. in Line 160-161 we have added the share of urban carbon emissions.
2. in Line 262 and Line 339 we have added support from the literature.
3. we have expanded the theoretical analysis section to place more emphasis on some of the ways in which policy affects urban land use efficiency and to strengthen the link between policy and urban land use efficiency, see Line 228-251.
4. the description of the control variables has been expanded, see Line 276-300.
5. to make the readers more aware of what the land use efficiency values represent, we have added appropriate explanations in the model section, see Line 331-333.
6. we have expanded the description of the spatial distribution of urban land-use efficiency, see Line 419-439.

 

Again, we appreciate your time reviewing our paper and your comments which have been valuable to us. We would love to hear from you should there be any further questions or advice.

 Kind regards,

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I thank you for the revisions  done. I think they improved the overall quality and scientific soundness of your article. Congratulations for your work done. I'll recommend the article for publishing as it is.