The Determinants of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Empirical Evidence from Canadian Provinces
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments of this reviewer on the manuscript Sustainability-2902352 are as follows:
1. The main drawbacks of this manuscript are the length of manuscript, its deviation from the classic form of a research paper and an uncommon style of presentation.
2. The manuscript has 30 pages, it is a research paper by topic, and more or less 10 of the 30 pages are dedicated to the literature review. In particular, Sections 1, 2 and 3 deal with the literature review.
3. This manuscript provides an overview of everything that exists related to the topic of the study and ten Canadian provinces and territories.
4. This reviewer believes that the manuscript contains a lot of information that is unnecessary for modeling and drawing conclusions.​
5. There are a large number of lumped citations in this manuscript.
6. Keywords should be in singular form and listed in alphabetical order. Moreover, the use of country names as keywords is unacceptable.
7. This manuscript looks like a chapter of a book. Why?
8. A significant number of tables start on one page and end on another.
9. Scientific significance of the conclusions is questionable. Moreover, the conclusions should be quantified where possible.
10. The manuscript contains a huge amount of data taken from the literature, the verification of which would require a great deal of time of this reviewer.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Thank you for your very insightful/valuable comments and observations. Adhering to the suggestions/recommendations has undoubtedly helped improve the draft. The manuscript has been updated accordingly.
- The main drawbacks of this manuscript are the length of manuscript, its deviation from the classic form of a research paper and an uncommon style of presentation.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, and comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft. The paper has been reduced to 21 pages now.
- The manuscript has 30 pages, it is a research paper by topic, and more or less 10 of the 30 pages are dedicated to the literature review. In particular, Sections 1, 2 and 3 deal with the literature review.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, and comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft. The literature review section is merged into the introduction section, some of the studies are included in the model section, and some of the studies are adjusted in the discussion section.
- This manuscript provides an overview of everything that exists related to the topic of the study and ten Canadian provinces and territories.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, and comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft. All information is reduced accordingly and readjusted in different sections.
- This reviewer believes that the manuscript contains a lot of information that is unnecessary for modeling and drawing conclusions.​
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, and comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft.
- There are a large number of lumped citations in this manuscript.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, and comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft.
- Keywords should be in singular form and listed in alphabetical order. Moreover, the use of country names as keywords is unacceptable.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, and comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft.
- This manuscript looks like a chapter of a book. Why?
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, and comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft. Actual it is based on the thesis,
- A significant number of tables start on one page and end on another.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, and comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft.
- Scientific significance of the conclusions is questionable. Moreover, the conclusions should be quantified where possible.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, and comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft.
- The manuscript contains a huge amount of data taken from the literature, the verification of which would require a great deal of time of this reviewer.
Response: Thanks very much – I also agreed that due to a large amount of data, it is not worthwhile to update the data (1-2 more years of data points) in the limited time provided for the revisions, the author believed that it does not make a big difference and produced qualitatively similar results that are still reliable.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The author have presented a manuscript about the determinants of greenhouse gas emissions applied to Canada.
It worth my attention that the filiation is incomplete and the reference style do not accomplish the requirements from the Instructions for Authors.
In the figures 1 and 2, CO2 must be written as CO2. The same in line 826.
To the people who is not familiar with Canada, an small introduction about the country, the different provinces, economy sectors and population is required. If not, the information from figures 1 and 3 are out of context.
Tables 1 and 2 are not the proper format. Please revise the instruction for authors in the document. Also the equations are not properly formatted.
Lines 526-532 are not in the adequate format.
What are the tables CANSIM? It is necessary to mention them?
Why the superior diagonal of the correlation matrix is empty in the table 4?
I recommend to pass several tables as an appendix and remark only the important values in the main text to enhance the readability of the document.
A policy recommendation should be added at the end of the text.
Author Response
Thank you for your very insightful/valuable comments and observations. Adhering to the suggestions/recommendations has undoubtedly helped improve the draft. The manuscript has been updated accordingly.
The author have presented a manuscript about the determinants of greenhouse gas emissions applied to Canada.
It worth my attention that the filiation is incomplete and the reference style do not accomplish the requirements from the Instructions for Authors.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, and comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft.
In the figures 1 and 2, CO2 must be written as CO2. The same in line 826.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, and comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft.
To the people who is not familiar with Canada, an small introduction about the country, the different provinces, economy sectors and population is required. If not, the information from figures 1 and 3 are out of context.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, and comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft.
Tables 1 and 2 are not the proper format. Please revise the instruction for authors in the document. Also the equations are not properly formatted.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, and comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft.
Lines 526-532 are not in the adequate format.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, and comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft.
What are the tables CANSIM? It is necessary to mention them?
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, and comments are addressed d and corrected accordingly in the revised draft., Statistics Canada published data formerly called CANSIM (Canadian Socio-economic Information Management System), that summarizes the data bank contents, by subject and by source publication, and provides primary (matrix) identification numbers which form the key to the second catalogue, the Series Directory. The Directory gives detailed information about the available statistics and the series identification numbers required for data retrieval and manipulation but now it changed to the new system and all data tables are published with new catalog number.
Why the superior diagonal of the correlation matrix is empty in the table 4?
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, actually the values are the same for both upper and lower diagonals, so does not make sense to complicate the table by putting the same values in the upper diagonal.
I recommend to pass several tables as an appendix and remark only the important values in the main text to enhance the readability of the document.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, and comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft.
A policy recommendation should be added at the end of the text.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, and comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript presented the main findings of the basic model show that provinces with greater populations, younger ages, and more income produce more levels of greenhouse gas emissions. The results of the extended model (per capita greenhouse gas emissions as dependent variable) showed that only five factors (out of ten potential determinants identified)— oil production per capita, gas production per capita, motor vehicles registered per capita, electricity generation intensity, and heating degree days—are significant determinants of the per capita greenhouse gas emissions. The results also reveal that the provinces with older populations have lower per capita greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Overall, the work would be of interest to the broad audience. However, the authors should address the following points outlined below to improve the scientific quality. After the suggested revisions are carefully addressed, this work may be considered for publication.
1. Why show similar results in the basic model between the extended model, in which the per capita of greenhouse gas emissions is used as the dependent variable, produced qualitatively?
2. What is the main reason for population and average income have no role in determining the greenhouse gas emissions per capita in Canada.
3. Figure 1 presents the level of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and its provinces, which shows that over time, the trend in greenhouse gas emissions is increasing in Canada. Why time to 2019.
Author Response
Thank you for your very insightful/valuable comments and observations. Adhering to the suggestions/recommendations has undoubtedly helped improve the draft. The manuscript has been updated accordingly.
The manuscript presented the main findings of the basic model show that provinces with greater populations, younger ages, and more income produce more levels of greenhouse gas emissions. The results of the extended model (per capita greenhouse gas emissions as dependent variable) showed that only five factors (out of ten potential determinants identified)— oil production per capita, gas production per capita, motor vehicles registered per capita, electricity generation intensity, and heating degree days—are significant determinants of the per capita greenhouse gas emissions. The results also reveal that the provinces with older populations have lower per capita greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Overall, the work would be of interest to the broad audience. However, the authors should address the following points outlined below to improve the scientific quality. After the suggested revisions are carefully addressed, this work may be considered for publication.
- Why show similar results in the basic model between the extended model, in which the per capita of greenhouse gas emissions is used as the dependent variable, produced qualitatively?
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, and comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft. In the extended model, two variables were introduced “motor vehicles per capita and livestock per capita” that have no affect on the sign and significance of the base model variables, we can say that "Although the two models produced different results, but they were qualitatively similar." meaning that in term of magnitude of the coefficients, both models are not similar but they are “qualitatively similar”.
- What is the main reason for population and average income have no role in determining the greenhouse gas emissions per capita in Canada?
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, and comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft.
Due to some of the collinear variables (such as both trend variables having a high correlation) lead to a population and average income variable being insignificant in the final model. Especially specific trend variables which is negative and significant that might allow for the gradual roll-out of energy-saving incentives or regulations, which would result in a different trajectory.
- Figure 1 presents the level of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and its provinces, which shows that over time, the trend in greenhouse gas emissions is increasing in Canada. Why time to 2019.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion. Data were not available at the time when this paper was written, as there is a time lag in energy and greenhouse gas emissions at the provincial level data, and due to a large amount of data, it is not worthwhile to update the data (1-2 more years data points) in the limited time provided for the revisions, the author believed that it does not alter the study results and will produce qualitatively similar results.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. This manuscript is identical to a master's thesis. Please pay Attention to copyright issues.
2. The introductory section would benefit from an expanded discussion on the similarities and differences between Canadian climate policy and those of other countries..
3. Line 372: Research has been conducted on the key factors affecting greenhouse gas emissions in different industries in Canada. Please note the difference between your paper and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119026.
4. In Figure 1, what are the sources of the data, and the distinction in line colors is insufficient. The data currently goes up to 2019; if possible, it would be beneficial to use some more recent data.
5. The provinces that stand out in terms of per capita emissions (Alberta and Saskatchewan) differ from those that stand out in terms of total emissions (Alberta and Ontario). Is there further explanation for this?
6. Line 395: It is inappropriate to say that the model was developed by you. A more accurate description would be the application of an existing model.
7. While the manuscript successfully identifies critical factors influencing climate emissions in Canadian provinces, extending this analysis to include findings from other countries could enrich the discussion.
8. The predominance of tabular presentations in the manuscript could be balanced with a greater utilization of graphical representations, such as heat maps.
Author Response
Thank you for your very insightful/valuable comments and observations. Adhering to the suggestions/recommendations has undoubtedly helped improve the draft. The manuscript has been updated accordingly.
- This manuscript is identical to a master's thesis. Please pay Attention to copyright issues.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, comments are addressed accordingly in the revised draft.
- The introductory section would benefit from an expanded discussion on the similarities and differences between Canadian climate policy and those of other countries..
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft.
- Line 372: Research has been conducted on the key factors affecting greenhouse gas emissions in different industries in Canada. Please note the difference between your paper and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119026.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft. Author compared and Contrast the study results with the suggested article.
- In Figure 1, what are the sources of the data, and the distinction in line colors is insufficient. The data currently goes up to 2019; if possible, it would be beneficial to use some more recent data.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft. The source of this data is National Inventory Report, Government of Canada, and to distinction in line colors, both figures are presented after converted data into an Index at 1990=1.0 that make it now very clear for each provincial curve, as there are large differences in the level of greenhouse gas emissions data at the provincial levels which make it more complicated when presented by the line chart.
- The provinces that stand out in terms of per capita emissions (Alberta and Saskatchewan) differ from those that stand out in terms of total emissions (Alberta and Ontario). Is there further explanation for this?
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft. First of all, this asserts that 60% of the GHGs emissions in Canada are contributed by two provinces: Alberta (37.7 %) and Ontario (22.3%) according to the year 2019. Alberta is oil -rich and Ontario is most populated province. So, all oil-rich provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and NFL etc.) have produced more GHGs emissions as compared to the others. Secondly in term of per capita GHGs emissions, this also assert that the GHGs emissions growth are higher relative to the population, the pace of the growth of GHGs emissions is higher than the population growth, this means that GHGs emissions grew at a higher pace than the population growth in Saskatchewan and NFL and vice versa in all other provinces.
- Line 395: It is inappropriate to say that the model was developed by you. A more accurate description would be the application of an existing model.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft.
- While the manuscript successfully identifies critical factors influencing climate emissions in Canadian provinces, extending this analysis to include findings from other countries could enrich the discussion.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, comments are addressed and corrected accordingly in the revised draft.
- The predominance of tabular presentations in the manuscript could be balanced with a greater utilization of graphical representations, such as heat maps.
Response: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestion, the author understands the importance of this new graphical presentation of the results but it is not workable to do at this point, and to be honest I have no expertise on this tool, please accept my sincere apologies. But I have moved some of the results Tables in the appendix.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
There are no additional comments from the side of this reviewer.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for addressing the proposed changes.
Regards.
