A Vector Map of Carbon Emission Based on Point-Line-Area Carbon Emission Classified Allocation Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well structured, written and presented. The research content is worth for publication. I recommend the current version to be published after corrections in accordance with the manuscript instruction.
Author Response
Response: Sincerely thank you for your recognition.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript "A vector map of carbon emission based on Point-Line-Area carbon emission classified allocation method" proposes a method to develop a vector map of carbon emissions and it applies to the case study of Changxing, China. Overall, the manuscript is of potential good quality and interest to the journal readership, but some shortcomings should be addressed as follows.
1. The "study area" section (currently #3.1) is misplaced, as it should not be part of the Results section. The authors can choose whether it could be a stand-alone section (which should precede the methodological one, hence it should become #2) or whether it could be integrated into the Methods section; in the latter case, the title of the section should be "Materials and methods" and the subsection concerning the study area should be the first one (hence #2.1).
2. I wonder why, within agricultural areas, livestock farming was not accounted for, since it is one of the main CO2 sources in agriculture and farming, especially when cows or pigs are involved.
3. Also, I wonder why, when calculating traffic emission, the type of vehicles (e.g. cars versus lorries versus buses or trains) as well as the fuel (e.g. petrol versus gas versus electricity) was not accounted for.
4. Moreover, whenever energy consumption is involved, I wonder why the energy source is not taken into account. From the CO2 emission perspective, aren't fossil fuels (with their huge energy footprint) different, say, from hydroelectric / wind / solar power?
5. Several systematic errors are made within in-text references: there should be no given name of the author and no first letter of given names either, but only the surname/family name. Moreover, when a reference has more than two authors, the latin abbreviation "et al." (meaning "and other authors") should follow the surname of the first author. So, for instance, within the main text, "Chuai, X. [8]" in line 32 should be "Chuai et al. [8]", Zhang, G" in line 42 should be "Zhang et al [9]"; "Wang Yu [26]" in line 62 should be just "Wang [26]". Since the article is ridden with such errors, the authors must doublecheck all of the in-text references and correct them as explained.
6. The paper should be thoroughly doublechecked for sloppy grammar mistakes (e.g. "that accounting" line 18, or "It can help ..." in lines 18-19, where there is no clear antecedent for it, or the fragment "For example ... towns" in lines 402-404 where there is no subject - please note that these are only some examples).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript sustainability-1010123 titled: “A vector map of carbon emission based on Point-Line-Area carbon emission classified allocation method” is an interesting study that attempts to investigate the development of a vector carbon emission map, by implementing a Point-Line-Area method. The manuscript is well written. The appropriate details are provided regarding the outcomes of the past research in this field. Thus, the authors make clear their significant contribution to the ongoing research. The Figures and Tables are well-presented and well designed. The research results correspond to the main conclusions. In my opinion the current study is scientifically sound and presents significant potential to get high interest by the readers. However, there are a few changes and clarifications that must be made prior to the publication in the Journal: Sustainability. Therefore Revision is suggested.
1). The research scope is clear. However, it would be useful to include a sentence at the end of the "Introduction Section" that will summarize within a few words the aim of your study.
2). Line 10-11: Please rephrase the sentence and make it more clear
3). Abstract: Indicate the city name and where it is located.
4). Line 87: Please provide the citation in the appropriate form.
5). Line 90: Please provide the citation in the appropriate form.
6). Line 109: Delete “etc” and replace it with “such as” accordingly.
7). Line 151-152: Could you please name some of these emissions?
8). Line 162-164: Could you provide a citation of the directory?
9). Section 3.1: At this point it is the first time that you provide a detailed description regarding the case study area. The study area should also be referred in the "Introduction section" and the "Abstract" as a case study. By this way the reader will have a clear view of your research from the beginning of the manuscript.
10). It would be useful to provide a list of the composition of greenhouse gas emissions that are included in the studied region (e.g. CO2, CH4), as well as their percentage. However, this is optional.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I am mostly satisfied with how the authors handled the previous round of comments.
Only one minor thing that can be fixed at the proof stage: the manuscript needs some minor language proofedit (for instance: "Taking Changxing for example..." => "Taking Changxing as a case study..." or "identifying the hey carbon emission administrative districts" - what is "hey"?)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
