How Does Technological Innovation Mediate the Relationship between Environmental Regulation and High-Quality Economic Development? Empirical Evidence from China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It was a pleasure reading the manuscript “How does Technological Innovation Mediate the Relationship between Environmental Regulation and High-Quality Economic Development? Empirical Evidence from China”. The manuscript examines an econometric model that connects technological innovation, environmental regulations and economic development. A major revision is suggested to improve the manuscripts argument and structure to match the standards of the journal.
1) Comments and suggestions for the introduction section
The structure of the introduction can be improved. The concept of ecological civilization (line 28) is presented without any evidence or clarification. What does that mean? (for example: Mette Halskov Hansen, Hongtao Li, Rune Svarverud, Ecological civilization: Interpreting the Chinese past, projecting the global future, Global Environmental Change, Volume 53, 2018, Pages 195-203). Furthermore: how is ecological civilization connected to GTFP? Why is GTFP capable of providing an index of “economic development quality”? (line 40). A couple of explanatory sentences could strengthen the argument that GTFP is connected with ecological civilization.
In addition: line 85ff, the purpose of the paper is mentioned as:
- to distinguish (?) the effect of regulatory policy on technology innovation in different industries,
- identify and verify the transmission path of environmental policy on the GTFP,
- provide reference for the government to develop sound environmental policies and innovation policies.
The connection between ecological civilization and the purpose of the manuscript is not clearly explained. The concepts should be clarified to improve the readability of the manuscript. Also: the answers to the above mentioned aims should form the subsections of the discussion and concluding remarks section. The discussion in your concluding section is currently concentrated in two subsections.
Finally, the last paragraph of the introduction should indicate the content of the sections that follow.
Other comments in the introduction section:
Line 34: The use of “while” is the beginning of the sentence can be confusing. Could the sentence be written as: “ The essential characteristic of high quality development is to meet people's needs in a variety of effective and sustainable ways (Jin, 2018), while promoting total factor productivity (TFP) is the key to achieving high-quality development (He and Shen, 2018). The same appears on line 36 and in other parts of the manuscript.
Line 70: “Thus, it is of great value to explore the micro-mechanism of environmental on green technology innovation from the perspective of heterogeneous effects on industrial innovation behaviors”. What is “the micro-mechanism of environmental …”? The sentence could be improved.
Line 73: “to better clarify the micro mechanism of environmental regulation on GTFP, this paper will analyze the moderating role of technological innovation in the relationship between the two parties”. Do you mean: better clarify the relationship between the micromechanism(s) (could it be more than one) of environmental regulation and GTFP? This sentence could be written, for example, as: This research will analyze the role of technological innovation in shaping the relationship between the micromechanism(s) of environmental regulation and GTFP.
Line 77: a mediator in ….
Line 122: .... research hypothesis 1 is put forward...
2) Comments on the literature review section
The literature review is limited. Your literature review should include a review of articles that examined the relationship that you propose, or similar relationships that connect the three proposed variables. Furthermore, the content of this section presents your research approach and the three hypotheses (plural) that you intend to test, so the title could be adjusted accordingly.
3) Other comments:
The conclusion section is limited. A first paragraph should summarize the argument, research approach and findings, and then provide the subsections discussing the topics mentioned under the initial purpose of the manuscript, stated in the introduction.
Furthermore, it is suggested that the manuscript is edited and the sentences’ structure could be modified to improve the manuscript’s readability and contribution. For example:
Line 477: “To examine the impact mechanism of regulatory policy and technological innovation on GTFP, the mediation effect model is used to examine the relations of regulations, technical innovation and GTFP. All data are collected from China’s 34 industries over the period of 2007 to 2015. Thus, the following conclusions are drawn: ...”
Could be re-formulated as, for example: This research proposed a model to examine the relations of regulations, technical innovation and GTFP. Using data from 34 industries in China over the period of 2007 to 2015 the model calculated………….. Based on the results the following conclusions are drawn: ………………..
Also, in-text citations and references should be re-written to match the journal’s standards.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you for comments concerning our manuscript entitled “How does Technological Innovation Mediate the Relationship between Environmental Regulation and High-Quality Economic Development? Empirical Evidence from China” (ID: 1100062). 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 studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Point 1:
- Comments and suggestions for the introduction section
The structure of the introduction can be improved. The concept of ecological civilization (line 28) is presented without any evidence or clarification. What does that mean? (for example: Mette Halskov Hansen, Hongtao Li, Rune Svarverud, Ecological civilization: Interpreting the Chinese past, projecting the global future, Global Environmental Change, Volume 53, 2018, Pages 195-203). Furthermore: how is ecological civilization connected to GTFP? Why is GTFP capable of providing an index of “economic development quality”? (line 40). A couple of explanatory sentences could strengthen the argument that GTFP is connected with ecological civilization.
Response 1:
We agree with that the relationship among these concept should be constructed theoretically and empirically.
Theoretically, green total factor productivity (GTFP) takes into account both the increase of expected output and the decrease of unexpected output, which is consistent with the concept of green development that needs to be realized in the process of high-quality economic development（Shangguan and Ge, 2020）.
Empirically, enhancing the construction of ecological civilization and promoting green development are central to achieving high-quality development.Ecological civilization has been written into China's constitution as the ideological framework for the country's environmental policies(Hansen, et al., 2018).
In addition: line 85ff, the purpose of the paper is mentioned as:
to distinguish (?) the effect of regulatory policy on technology innovation in different industries,identify and verify the transmission path of environmental policy on the GTFP,
provide reference for the government to develop sound environmental policies and innovation policies.
The primary goal of our work is to identify the role of technological innovation in the relationship between environmental regulation and GTFP in different industries, verify the transmission path of environmental policy on the GTFP, and provide reference for the government to develop sound environmental policies and innovation policies.
The connection between ecological civilization and the purpose of the manuscript is not clearly explained. The concepts should be clarified to improve the readability of the manuscript. Also: the answers to the above mentioned aims should form the subsections of the discussion and concluding remarks section. The discussion in your concluding section is currently concentrated in two subsections.
Enhancing the construction of ecological civilization and promoting green development are central to achieving high-quality development.This paper focuses on the relationship between environmental regulation and high-quality economic development, while ecological civilization is not the research object.
Finally, the last paragraph of the introduction should indicate the content of the sections that follow.
We agree with that the last paragraph of the introduction should indicate the content of the sections that follow. Specific corrections are marked in the new manuscripts.
Other comments in the introduction section:
Line 34: The use of “while” is the beginning of the sentence can be confusing. Could the sentence be written as: “ The essential characteristic of high quality development is to meet people's needs in a variety of effective and sustainable ways (Jin, 2018), while promoting total factor productivity (TFP) is the key to achieving high-quality development (He and Shen, 2018). The same appears on line 36 and in other parts of the manuscript.
It is really true as the Reviewer suggested these sentence should be rewritten as: “ The essential characteristic of high quality development is to meet people's needs in a variety of effective and sustainable ways (Jin, 2018), while promoting total factor productivity (TFP) is the key to achieving high-quality development (He and Shen, 2018). Other modification are marked in the new manuscripts.
Line 70: “Thus, it is of great value to explore the micro-mechanism of environmental on green technology innovation from the perspective of heterogeneous effects on industrial innovation behaviors”. What is “the micro-mechanism of environmental …”? The sentence could be improved.
We agree with that these sentence should be improved as : Thus, it is of great value to explore the relationship between environmental regulation and green technology innovation from the perspective of heterogeneous effects on industrial innovation behaviors.
Line 73: “to better clarify the micro mechanism of environmental regulation on GTFP, this paper will analyze the moderating role of technological innovation in the relationship between the two parties”. Do you mean: better clarify the relationship between the micromechanism(s) (could it be more than one) of environmental regulation and GTFP? This sentence could be written, for example, as: This research will analyze the role of technological innovation in shaping the relationship between the micromechanism(s) of environmental regulation and GTFP.
This sentence has been written as : This research will analyze the role of technological innovation in shaping the relationship between the mechanism(s) of environmental regulation and GTFP.
Line 77: a mediator in ….
a mediator in
Line 122: .... research hypothesis 1 is put forward...
research hypothesis 1 is put forward
research hypothesis 2 is put forward
2) Comments on the literature review section
The literature review is limited. Your literature review should include a review of articles that examined the relationship that you propose, or similar relationships that connect the three proposed variables. Furthermore, the content of this section presents your research approach and the three hypotheses (plural) that you intend to test, so the title could be adjusted accordingly.
Response 2:
We agree with that this title should be adjusted and more articles should added in this part. All corrections are made in the new manuscript.
.
Point 3:
3) Other comments:
The conclusion section is limited. A first paragraph should summarize the argument, research approach and findings, and then provide the subsections discussing the topics mentioned under the initial purpose of the manuscript, stated in the introduction.
Furthermore, it is suggested that the manuscript is edited and the sentences’ structure could be modified to improve the manuscript’s readability and contribution. For example:
Line 477: “To examine the impact mechanism of regulatory policy and technological innovation on GTFP, the mediation effect model is used to examine the relations of regulations, technical innovation and GTFP. All data are collected from China’s 34 industries over the period of 2007 to 2015. Thus, the following conclusions are drawn: ...”
Could be re-formulated as, for example: This research proposed a model to examine the relations of regulations, technical innovation and GTFP. Using data from 34 industries in China over the period of 2007 to 2015 the model calculated………….. Based on the results the following conclusions are drawn: ………………..
Also, in-text citations and references should be re-written to match the journal’s standards.
Response 3:
It is really true as Reviewer suggested that the conclusion section should be restructured and rewritten as follow:
To achieve the dual goals of environmental protection and high-quality development, we should not only rely on total factor productivity to achieve innovative growth, but also solve environmental problems to reduce the pressure of emission reduction. Theory and experience show that technological innovation is the key driving force for achieving long-term green economic development under the constraints of environmental policies. So, is technological innovation an effective way to solve the problems of ecological civilization construction and economic quality upgrading, and realize environmental protection and high-quality economic development? Based on the panel data of 34 industries in China from 2007 to 2015, authors firstly calculate the green total factor productivity (GTFP) as a proxy variable for the quality of economic development through the Super-Slack Based Measure model and then analyze the impact of environmental regulation and technical innovation on the GTFP by making use of the mediation effect model.In terms of the overall change range of GTFP, the average growth rate of GTFP is 4.6%. Among them, the efficiency of green technology decreased by 2.8%, and the progress of green technology increased by 10.5%. Therefore, the growth of GTFP mainly comes from the progress of green technology. Environmental policy has a direct effect on GTFP (0.0853), and at the same time, it produces a positive intermediary effect (0.0283) through technological innovation. The effect of environmental regulation on GTFP shows industrial heterogeneity.Based on the results the following conclusions are drawn:
In-text citations and references have been re-written to match the journal’s standards.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with a very interesting topic and provides a good basis for interesting future research. The paper is original, written in good English, with appropriate methodology and theoretical background as well as a good literature review. The structure of the paper is logical, the text is easy to read. The findings are presented and discussed. The aim of the paper was to clarify how technological innovation mediates the relation between environmental regulation and high-quality economic development. Based on the panel data of 34 industries in China from 2007 to 2015, authors firstly calculate the green total factor productivity (GTFP) as a proxy variable for the quality of economic development through the Super-Slack Based Measure model and then analyze the impact of environmental regulation and technical innovation on the GTFP by making use of the mediation effect model. I like the scientific content of the paper, however, what I miss in the paper - is the section about the limitations of the study - authors should well describe it. Please add the section about limitations.
Please correct also in line 52: Porter and vander Linde - please correct for: Porter and van der Linde and check again the paper for all typos. Please also prepare Reference List according to the requirements of the MDPI journal using the Vancouver System like: [1], [2], [3]. For now you have APA style.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you for comments concerning our manuscript entitled “How does Technological Innovation Mediate the Relationship between Environmental Regulation and High-Quality Economic Development? Empirical Evidence from China” (ID: 1100062). 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 studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Point 1:
The paper deals with a very interesting topic and provides a good basis for interesting future research. The paper is original, written in good English, with appropriate methodology and theoretical background as well as a good literature review. The structure of the paper is logical, the text is easy to read. The findings are presented and discussed. The aim of the paper was to clarify how technological innovation mediates the relation between environmental regulation and high-quality economic development. Based on the panel data of 34 industries in China from 2007 to 2015, authors firstly calculate the green total factor productivity (GTFP) as a proxy variable for the quality of economic development through the Super-Slack Based Measure model and then analyze the impact of environmental regulation and technical innovation on the GTFP by making use of the mediation effect model. I like the scientific content of the paper, however, what I miss in the paper - is the section about the limitations of the study - authors should well describe it. Please add the section about limitations.
Please correct also in line 52: Porter and vander Linde - please correct for: Porter and van der Linde and check again the paper for all typos. Please also prepare Reference List according to the requirements of the MDPI journal using the Vancouver System like: [1], [2], [3]. For now you have APA style.
Response :
We agree with that limitations should be added in the conclusion section, and the modification is made in the new manuscript.
Due to the limitations of research scope, length and data availability, this study still needs to be improved.The impact of environmental regulation and technological innovation on green total factor productivity may show firm heterogeneity or regional heterogeneity. The relationship between environmental regulation, technical innovation and GTFP will changes when the data samples are divided according to the heterogeneity of firms or regions. Therefore, It is of great importance to study the effect of environmental regulation and technology innovation on GTFP from the enterprise perspective or regional aspect.
Other correction are made as follow:
Porter and vander Linde is corrected as Porter and van der Linde
In-text citations and references have been re-written to match the journal’s standards.
.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is well-structured and especially in the introductory part good written. The authors detect the research gap. To show the topicality of the inquiry the authors must also refer shortly to a recent study, Sadik-Zada & Ferrari (2020) and Loewenstein et al. (2020).
It would make much more sense if the contents of Table 2 were presented not in natural logarithm, but rather in raw / levels. Otherwise it does not describe data insightful enough.
It is not clear wha the author refers to Hausmat test as Hausman endogeneity test. This is a kind of F-Test to choose between methods with diverging or unified slopes. Hausman test statistics have to be reported in the regression tables.
The interpretation of the coefficients of regressions are not sufficient. The authors should interpret the coefficients in percentage terms because this is the major reason for taking the data series in logs. In addition, the authors have to indicate that taking the logs contributes to the normalization of data.
In Section 5 the authors indicate that they make use of xtscc,fe. The authors have to indivate that xtscc- is for small N, large T panel datasets. Why does the author predetermine the employment of fixed effects from the very beginning? This has to be made clear based on statistical tests or theoretical considerations. Make clear that the employment of advanced panel cointegration techniques does not make sense because of a relatively short N. Refer to Niklas et al. (2019) and Sadik-Zada & Gatto (2020) for a cursory source for applied inquiries with the advanced panel cointegration techniques.
row 42: "Previous studies have extend" have to be "extended"
row 302: reguatiosn - correct the word
row 343: free space "Table2"
Table 5: Standard errors are not overall in parentheses.
The author presents "Robust Test" in subsection 5.4. This is a very unusual wording. This has to be changed to Robustness test. The authors do not sufficiently explain, why this regression could contribute to the robustness of the results. Refer also to Zada, Loewenstein & Ferrari (2018) as a good reference for robust fixed effect panel estimation methodology.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you for comments concerning our manuscript entitled “How does Technological Innovation Mediate the Relationship between Environmental Regulation and High-Quality Economic Development? Empirical Evidence from China” (ID: 1100062). 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 studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Point 1:
The paper is well-structured and especially in the introductory part good written. The authors detect the research gap. To show the topicality of the inquiry the authors must also refer shortly to a recent study, Sadik-Zada & Ferrari (2020) and Loewenstein et al. (2020).
Response : A purely national perspective of the EKC is not satisfactory (Sadik-Zada & Ferrari,2020).Therefore, it is necessary to study the relationship between environmental regulation and green total factor productivity further.The two references has been cited:
Sadik-Zada, E.R.; Ferrari, M. Environmental policy stringency, technical progress and Pollution Haven Hypothesis .Sustainability. 2020,12(9), 3880.
Sadik-Zada, E.R.; Loewenstein, W. Drivers of CO2-Emissions in fossil fuel abundant settings: (Pooled) Mean group and nonparametric panel analyses. Energies. 2020, 13.
It would make much more sense if the contents of Table 2 were presented not in natural logarithm, but rather in raw / levels. Otherwise it does not describe data insightful enough.
Response : The data of different industries vary greatly, so the logarithmic form is adopted..
It is not clear wha the author refers to Hausmat test as Hausman endogeneity test. This is a kind of F-Test to choose between methods with diverging or unified slopes. Hausman test statistics have to be reported in the regression tables.
Response : Hausman endogeneity test statistics are reported in the regression tables in the new manuscript.
The interpretation of the coefficients of regressions are not sufficient. The authors should interpret the coefficients in percentage terms because this is the major reason for taking the data series in logs. In addition, the authors have to indicate that taking the logs contributes to the normalization of data.
Response : It is really true as Reviewer suggested that the specific indication is added as “It is indicated that taking the logs contributes to the normalization of data.”
In Section 5 the authors indicate that they make use of xtscc,fe. The authors have to indivate that xtscc- is for small N, large T panel datasets. Why does the author predetermine the employment of fixed effects from the very beginning? This has to be made clear based on statistical tests or theoretical considerations. Make clear that the employment of advanced panel cointegration techniques does not make sense because of a relatively short N. Refer to Niklas et al. (2019) and Sadik-Zada & Gatto (2020) for a cursory source for applied inquiries with the advanced panel cointegration techniques.
Response :
We agreed with that Section 5 should be clearly constructed and supported literature are added in the new manuscript as follow:
The results of Hausman test showed that the fixed effect model should be selected, and the command "XTSCC, fe" was used for regression considering heteroscedasticity and cross-sectional correlation, so as to reduce the influence of heteroscedasticity and cross-sectional correlation on the regression results(Yu and Sun,207).
Yu, D.H; Sun, T. Environmental regulation, skill premium and international competitiveness of manufacturing. China Ind. Econ. 2017(05):35-53.
row 42: "Previous studies have extend" have to be "extended"
row 302: reguatiosn - correct the word
row 343: free space "Table2"
Response :
row 42: "Previous studies have extend" is corrected as "extended"
row 302: "Regulatiosn" is corrected as"Regulation"
row 343: free space "Table2" is deleted.
Table 5: Standard errors are not overall in parentheses.
Response : Table 5: Standard errors are overall in parentheses.
The author presents "Robust Test" in subsection 5.4. This is a very unusual wording. This has to be changed to Robustness test. The authors do not sufficiently explain, why this regression could contribute to the robustness of the results. Refer also to as a good reference for robust fixed effect panel estimation methodology.
We agreed with that "Robust Test" should be corrected as “Robustness test”,also supported literature are added in the new manuscript as follow:
Robustness test of substitution variables(Zhu and Li,2019;Bi and Yu ,2020;Luo et al,2020).In the analysis of empirical paper writing, the main object of the change variable method is the dependent variable (explained variable) and the independent variable (explanatory variable) of the subject under investigation. Depending on the measurement methods of different literature, the author may cite different measures of causal (self) variables to examine the robustness of the research problem or research hypothesis.
Zhu, J.S.; Li, D. Is technological innovation the effective way to achieve“Double Dividend”of enironmental protection and employment growth?——An empirical research based on the mediating effect model of 34 subdivided industries in China. China Soft Sci. 2019(08):1-13.
Bi, Q.; Yu, L.C. Environmental tax and enterprise technological innovation: promote or inhibit? Sci. Res. Manag. 2019,40(12):116-125.
Luo, Y.G.;Yang, J.Y.; Chen, S.Q. Air pollution, human capital flow and innovation energy: Empirical evidence based on individual patent invention. China Ind. Econ.2019(10):99-117.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I suggest a thorough editing of the text to remove repetitions and improve readability. Some sentences should be reviewed for clarity. A few suggestions are provided in the attached pdf.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you for comments concerning our manuscript entitled “How does Technological Innovation Mediate the Relationship between Environmental Regulation and High-Quality Economic Development? Empirical Evidence from China” (ID: 1100062). 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 studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Point：I suggest a thorough editing of the text to remove repetitions and improve readability. Some sentences should be reviewed for clarity. A few suggestions are provided in the attached pdf.
Response :
We agree with that a thorough editing of the text is necessary. Some sentences have been rephrased for clarity based on the suggestions. A few references have been added.
[1] Wang, Q.Y; Lu, F.Z. Can environmental regulation boost China's high-quality economic development? Empirical test based on provincial panel data. J. Zhengzhou Univ. (Philos. Soc. Sci. Ed.).2018,51(06):64-70.
[2] Chen, S.Y., Chen, D.K. Haze pollution, government governance and high-quality economic development. Econ. Res. J.2018,53(02):20-34.
[3] Fan, Q.Q.; Chu, C.J.; Gao, J.N. Impact of environmental regulation and industrial structure upgrading on high-quality economic development. China Popul. Res. Environ.2020,30(06):84-94.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, congratulations. The paper has been substantially improved. There is one last minor issue. Despite indicating in your response that you referred to Niklas & Sadik-Zada (2019) and Sadik-Zada & Gatto you have done it without making it explicit. I don't find these sources in the list of references.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you for comments concerning our manuscript entitled “How does Technological Innovation Mediate the Relationship between Environmental Regulation and High-Quality Economic Development? Empirical Evidence from China” (ID: 1100062). 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 studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Point 1:
Point：Dear authors, congratulations. The paper has been substantially improved. There is one last minor issue. Despite indicating in your response that you referred to Niklas & Sadik-Zada (2019) and Sadik-Zada & Gatto you have done it without making it explicit. I don't find these sources in the list of references.
Response :
We agree with that Niklas & Sadik-Zada (2019) and Sadik-Zada & Gatto(2020)should be cited in the paper. We have make them in the list of references.
Niklas, B.; Sadik-Zada, E.R. "Income Inequality and Status Symbols: The Case of Fine Wine Imports," J. Wine. Econ.2019,14(4): 365-373.
Sadik-Zada, E.R.; Gatto, A. The puzzle of greenhouse gas footprints of oil abundance. Socio Econ. Plan. Sci. 2020,100936.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
