Driving the Future: Strategic Imperatives and Systemic Challenges in Myanmar’s Transition to Electric Mobility

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While numerous countries have researched and proposed policies for the transition from internal combustion engines to EVs, studies specifically focused on Myanmar are scarce, lending value to this work.

The paper commendably identifies clear drivers and barriers to EV adoption. Notably, the highlighted barriers – institutional instability, economic inequality, and inadequate infrastructure – are crucial considerations. Consequently, proposals such as retrofitting existing vehicles for EV conversion and prioritizing battery swapping stations appear to be contextually relevant to Myanmar's current circumstances.

Given that these drivers and barriers are somewhat universal across developing nations, a more comprehensive review of how similar countries facing comparable challenges are accelerating their EV transitions could bolster the persuasiveness of the policy recommendations presented later in the paper.

However, a significant limitation of this analysis is its singular focus on the EV transition. Considering the identified drivers and barriers, this reviewer questions whether prioritizing EV transition is the most pressing mobility innovation needed across both urban and rural Myanmar. Addressing this requires envisioning the future of mobility by analyzing the diverse transportation needs and existing means of different age groups and occupations in both urban and rural settings, alongside the necessary resources (time, finances, skills). Only then can the role of personal vehicles and EVs within that broader mobility landscape be effectively evaluated.

This lack of comprehensive consideration results in instances where the discussion of drivers and barriers is not well-integrated with (or even contradicts) the policy recommendations. For instance, the proposal to lower import taxes could potentially impede the growth of domestic EV manufacturing, a key anticipated benefit of the EV transition.

Author Response

Comment 1. While numerous countries have researched and proposed policies for the transition from internal combustion engines to EVs, studies specifically focused on Myanmar are scarce, lending value to this work.

Response 1: Thank you for acknowledging the relevance and novelty of our study focusing on Myanmar.

Comment 2. The paper commendably identifies clear drivers and barriers to EV adoption. Notably, the highlighted barriers – institutional instability, economic inequality, and inadequate infrastructure – are crucial considerations. Consequently, proposals such as retrofitting existing vehicles for EV conversion and prioritizing battery swapping stations appear to be contextually relevant to Myanmar's current circumstances.

Response 2: We are grateful for your positive feedback.

Comment 3. Given that these drivers and barriers are somewhat universal across developing nations, a more comprehensive review of how similar countries facing comparable challenges are accelerating their EV transitions could bolster the persuasiveness of the policy recommendations presented later in the paper.

Response 3: In section 4.4, we have included case studies from Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia to showcase the comparable challenges

Comment 4. However, a significant limitation of this analysis is its singular focus on the EV transition. Considering the identified drivers and barriers, this reviewer questions whether prioritizing EV transition is the most pressing mobility innovation needed across both urban and rural Myanmar. Addressing this requires envisioning the future of mobility by analyzing the diverse transportation needs and existing means of different age groups and occupations in both urban and rural settings, alongside the necessary resources (time, finances, skills). Only then can the role of personal vehicles and EVs within that broader mobility landscape be effectively evaluated.

Response 4: We have revised the manuscript (Sections 1 and 4.3) to emphasize that EV adoption should not be pursued as a standalone goal, but rather as part of a broader, inclusive mobility strategy. This includes:

• Highlighting the relevance of rural-specific solutions such as solar-powered e-bikes, electric tuk-tuks, and microgrids, especially where electricity access is limited.

• Recommending greater focus on the electrification of public transportation, including buses and shared services, rather than only private EV ownership.

• Acknowledging that age, income level, and occupational mobility patterns shape transport needs differently across regions.

Comment 5. This lack of comprehensive consideration results in instances where the discussion of drivers and barriers is not well-integrated with (or even contradicts) the policy recommendations. For instance, the proposal to lower import taxes could potentially impede the growth of domestic EV manufacturing, a key anticipated benefit of the EV transition.

Response 5: We have revised the policy recommendations in Section 4.1 to clarify that import tax exemptions should be applied selectively and time-bound, targeting early-stage market development and specific vehicle categories (e.g., two- and three-wheelers for low-income or rural users). At the same time, we have added language encouraging the gradual introduction of local content requirements and tiered fiscal incentives to stimulate domestic assembly and battery recycling

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This opinion paper examines Myanmar's EV transition, framing it as a systemic shift driven by environmental urgency, energy insecurity, sustainable goals, and geopolitical considerations. The authors, using secondary data and policy analysis, identify key drivers like environmental imperatives and economic resilience, while also pinpointing significant barriers such as unreliable electricity grids, political instability, and high EV costs. The paper advocates multi-dimensional strategies, including policy incentives, infrastructure upgrades, and public engagement to facilitate an equitable and sustainable transition.

 

The paper moves beyond the typical focus on isolated variables (such as fuel costs or government incentives) by integrating environmental, economic, policy, and infrastructural perspectives. This approach highlights the systemic nature of the EV transition and the need for coordinated action. The paper provides actionable recommendations, such as grid modernization, public engagement, and international partnerships, which are based on both Myanmar’s unique context and regional best practices. I rather like how the article concludes with a values-based call for inclusive, future-oriented policymaking to align Myanmar’s transition to an EV system with broader sustainability and development goals, thus adding a normative dimension that is often missing in technical policy discussions.

However, there are a few things that the authors need to address. The recommendations, though relevant, remain high-level. The paper could benefit from more detailed implementation roadmaps at a more granular level, including resource requirements and risk mitigation strategies for each proposed intervention. A good example of a similar approach can be found in Preedakorn et al (2023).

While post-2021 coup dynamics, and the ongoing political instability and governance challenges are acknowledged, they are not deeply analyzed, risking outdated assumptions about governance and investment feasibility. I would like to see the authors provide an in-depth discussion of the political and institutional risks to EV adoption in Myanmar and propose some adaptive strategies for policy continuity in this volatile governance environment.

 

References.

Preedakorn, K., Butler, D., & Mehnen, J. (2023). Challenges for the Adoption of Electric Vehicles in Thailand: Potential Impacts, Barriers, and Public Policy Recommendations. Sustainability, 15(12), 9470. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129470

Author Response

Comment 1. This opinion paper examines Myanmar's EV transition, framing it as a systemic shift driven by environmental urgency, energy insecurity, sustainable goals, and geopolitical considerations. The authors, using secondary data and policy analysis, identify key drivers like environmental imperatives and economic resilience, while also pinpointing significant barriers such as unreliable electricity grids, political instability, and high EV costs. The paper advocates multi-dimensional strategies, including policy incentives, infrastructure upgrades, and public engagement to facilitate an equitable and sustainable transition.       

Response 1. We sincerely thank the reviewer for this thoughtful summary of our paper’s objectives and scope.

Comment 2. The paper moves beyond the typical focus on isolated variables (such as fuel costs or government incentives) by integrating environmental, economic, policy, and infrastructural perspectives. This approach highlights the systemic nature of the EV transition and the need for coordinated action. The paper provides actionable recommendations, such as grid modernization, public engagement, and international partnerships, which are based on both Myanmar’s unique context and regional best practices. I rather like how the article concludes with a values-based call for inclusive, future-oriented policymaking to align Myanmar’s transition to an EV system with broader sustainability and development goals, thus adding a normative dimension that is often missing in technical policy discussions.        

Response 2. We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of our integrative approach and the normative conclusion. We have strengthen the cohesion between the technical, contextual, and normative dimensions in our conclusion.

Comment 3. However, there are a few things that the authors need to address. The recommendations, though relevant, remain high-level. The paper could benefit from more detailed implementation roadmaps at a more granular level, including resource requirements and risk mitigation strategies for each proposed intervention. A good example of a similar approach can be found in Preedakorn et al. (2023).    

Response 3. Thank you for this important recommendation. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded Section 4 to provide more granular implementation strategies for each major policy recommendation.

While post-2021 coup dynamics, and the ongoing political instability and governance challenges are acknowledged, they are not deeply analyzed, risking outdated assumptions about governance and investment feasibility. I would like to see the authors provide an in-depth discussion of the political and institutional risks to EV adoption in Myanmar and propose some adaptive strategies for policy continuity in this volatile governance environment.  We thank the reviewer for highlighting this critical oversight. To address this, we have significantly revised Section 3.2, expanding the discussion on Myanmar’s political instability following the 2021 military coup.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comment

This article is an opinion paper that examines the current conditions, structural challenges, and strategic opportunities for adopting electric vehicles (EVs) in Myanmar. It is solidly grounded in an extensive literature review and addresses environmental, political, economic, and infrastructure-related factors.

The article fulfills its objective of offering a normative and strategic perspective on advancing electric mobility in a country with fragile structural conditions. However, as an opinion-based work and not an empirical study, its scientific contribution is more propositional than conclusive. In addition, the discursive style is sometimes repetitive and overly normative, and while the references are relevant, they exhibit a certain lack of consistency in formatting. The comparison with other Southeast Asian countries, although useful, lacks sufficient contextualization to be fully effective. In summary, this is a timely and well-intentioned article with an integrated approach, but it would benefit from greater academic rigor, standardized referencing, and a less redundant argumentative structure.

Specific Comments

1. The comparisons are superficial; that is, Myanmar is compared with countries such as Thailand, Vietnam, or Indonesia without accounting for structural differences (GDP, political stability, degree of electrification). It is recommended to contextualize such comparisons using comparative tables or SWOT analyses and to explicitly acknowledge the limitations of regional benchmarking.
2. The study lacks key quantitative indicators. Although it cites data on emissions, vehicle registration, and energy consumption, these are not systematized in tables nor visually represented. It is suggested to include at least one comparative table and a figure summarizing the evolution of emissions or the projected growth of EVs to enhance both visual impact and argumentative strength.
3. It would be valuable to include a life cycle analysis of EVs and the environmental impact of batteries and recycling processes. A specific subsection titled “Environmental trade-offs of EVs” could be added to discuss the indirect impacts of the supply chain, supported by references to Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies.
4. While the analysis focuses on major cities such as Yangon or Mandalay, it omits rural viability and the role of decentralized energy systems. If possible, a specific discussion on the ruralization of electric transport and solar microgrids should be included.
5. Deepening the institutional analysis could also strengthen the paper. Although political instability is mentioned, the current institutional structure is not evaluated, and key actors (e.g., ministries, energy, or transport agencies) are not identified. It is recommended that a stakeholder mapping and a critical review of Myanmar’s existing regulatory framework for EVs be incorporated.
6. The references do not follow a consistent citation style and combine journal articles, doctoral theses, blogs, and informational websites. It is advisable to adopt the reference style required by the World Electric Vehicle Journal and standardize all citation elements: authors, year, italicized titles, volume, page numbers, and DOI.
7. Some references are from non-academic sources (e.g., Global New Light of Myanmar, mymyancar.com, IQAir, Voice of America). Peer-reviewed journal articles should be prioritized. If gray literature is included, its use must be justified and limited strictly to the contextual background.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1. This article is an opinion paper that examines the current conditions, structural challenges, and strategic opportunities for adopting electric vehicles (EVs) in Myanmar. It is solidly grounded in an extensive literature review and addresses environmental, political, economic, and infrastructure-related factors.The article fulfills its objective of offering a normative and strategic perspective on advancing electric mobility in a country with fragile structural conditions. However, as an opinion-based work and not an empirical study, its scientific contribution is more propositional than conclusive. In addition, the discursive style is sometimes repetitive and overly normative, and while the references are relevant, they exhibit a certain lack of consistency in formatting. The comparison with other Southeast Asian countries, although useful, lacks sufficient contextualization to be fully effective. In summary, this is a timely and well-intentioned article with an integrated approach, but it would benefit from greater academic rigor, standardized referencing, and a less redundant argumentative structure.   

Response 1: A deep appreciation for the reviewer for providing their valuable and constructive feedback. In response, we have revise the manuscript to enhance the academic rigor, reduce redundancy, and improve structure. Specific actions taken include:

• Strengthening comparative analysis with contextual data
• Adding new visual elements
• Including stakeholder mapping table specific to Myanmar to clarify institutional responsibilities

These improvements align with the journal’s expectations and enhance the manuscript’s policy relevance and scholarly quality.

Comment 2. The comparisons are superficial; that is, Myanmar is compared with countries such as Thailand, Vietnam, or Indonesia without accounting for structural differences (GDP, political stability, degree of electrification). It is recommended to contextualize such comparisons using comparative tables or SWOT analyses and to explicitly acknowledge the limitations of regional benchmarking.

Response 2. We fully agree. The manuscript now includes a detailed comparative table (Table 3) presenting GDP per capita, electricity access, political stability, and EV incentives in Myanmar and its ASEAN neighbours. We also added a SWOT analysis (Table 4) to frame Myanmar’s internal and external position more realistically. These additions appear in Section 2.3 and address the structural asymmetries in benchmarking. We also explicitly acknowledge the limitations of such comparisons.

Comment 3. The study lacks key quantitative indicators. Although it cites data on emissions, vehicle registration, and energy consumption, these are not systematized in tables nor visually represented. It is suggested to include at least one comparative table and a figure summarizing the evolution of emissions or the projected growth of EVs to enhance both visual impact and argumentative strength.

Response 3. We added several visual enhancement:

• Figure 1: Myanmar's Transport Fossil CO2 emissions, million tonnes
• Table 1: Live most polluted major city ranking
• Table 2: Life Cycle Emissions of Electric & Combustion Engine Vehicles (in tCO2e)
• Table 3: Comparative Analysis between Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia
• Table 4: SWOT analysis of EV market in Myanmar
• Table 5: Stakeholder Mapping Table

Comment 4. It would be valuable to include a life cycle analysis of EVs and the environmental impact of batteries and recycling processes. A specific subsection titled “Environmental trade-offs of EVs” could be added to discuss the indirect impacts of the supply chain, supported by references to Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies.

Response 4. We added a new subsection which is named as “2.1.1 Environmental Trade-offs of EVs”. Inside there it includes the life-cycle emissions comparison (Table 2), analysis of battery manufacturing impacts, and discussion of recycling, second-life use, and resource scarcity. The information inside this section are all supported by recent LCA literature.

Comment 5. While the analysis focuses on major cities such as Yangon or Mandalay, it omits rural viability and the role of decentralized energy systems. If possible, a specific discussion on the ruralization of electric transport and solar microgrids should be included.

Response 5. We expanded Sections 3.1 and 4.2 to address rural electrification challenges. Specifically, we discuss the role of solar-powered microgrids and off-grid charging infrastructure to support EV adoption in remote areas. Citations such as Bugaje et al. (2021) and Xu et al. (2019) were added to support these rural electrification strategies.

Comment 6. Deepening the institutional analysis could also strengthen the paper. Although political instability is mentioned, the current institutional structure is not evaluated, and key actors (e.g., ministries, energy, or transport agencies) are not identified. It is recommended that a stakeholder mapping and a critical review of Myanmar’s existing regulatory framework for EVs be incorporated.

Response 6. To provide a deeper institutional analysis and identification over the key government involved, section 4.1 are being deeply strengthen by incorporating a Myanmar-specific stakeholder mapping table.

Comment 7. The references do not follow a consistent citation style and combine journal articles, doctoral theses, blogs, and informational websites. It is advisable to adopt the reference style required by the World Electric Vehicle Journal and standardize all citation elements: authors, year, italicized titles, volume, page numbers, and DOI.

Response 7. We have fully revised and standardized all references according to the World Electric Vehicle Journal style guide. All entries now include consistent author names, italicized journal titles, publication years, DOIs where available, and proper formatting of both academic and gray literature.

Comment 8. Some references are from non-academic sources (e.g., Global New Light of Myanmar, mymyancar.com, IQAir, Voice of America). Peer-reviewed journal articles should be prioritized. If gray literature is included, its use must be justified and limited strictly to the contextual background.

Response 8. Where possible, non-academic references (e.g., news sites) have been replaced with peer-reviewed sources or official institutional data (e.g., ADB, Statista, World Bank). For recent statistics (e.g., EV registration, AQI rankings), we retained selected gray literature sources but now clearly justify their use as necessary for contextual accuracy in a data-scarce environment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses a pressing issue—clean mobility in the Global South—in a highly under-researched national context (Myanmar).

• The authors integrate environmental, economic, infrastructure, and governance dimensions into a well-rounded analysis.
• The paper provides actionable recommendations, including policy incentives, public-private partnerships, and capacity building.
• The discussion of regional trends in countries like Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam enhances the paper’s relevance for ASEAN stakeholders.
• It draws from a wide array of sources, including academic literature, international reports, and news agencies.

 

Remarks

1. 
   While framed as an opinion paper, the manuscript relies entirely on secondary literature. This limits its analytical novelty and weakens the robustness of the claims made. A brief qualitative data (e.g., stakeholder interviews, focus groups, or expert surveys) would greatly enhance the depth.
2. 
   Several sections are highly information-rich with long paragraphs. This affects readability and weakens the thematic focus. Use more subheadings and consider visual aids (e.g., summary tables, frameworks, or figures) to break down complex sections.
3. The paper references an “extensive review” of literature and policy documents but provides no methodology for how sources were selected or synthesized. It is recommended to briefly outline the literature review method (e.g., criteria, scope, databases) to enhance credibility.

4.The political instability section touches on Myanmar’s military coup, but the implications for international cooperation, aid, and technology transfer could be explored further.  Integrate a short risk-mitigation framework or discuss how transition scenarios could vary under different governance conditions.

5.Some ideas (e.g., poor electricity access, public health impacts) are repeated across sections with similar wording. Try to eliminate the redundancy.

6.While generally well-written, the paper would benefit from a final proofread to polish transitions and avoid passive voice overuse.

7.There are no visual aids. Inclusion of at least one comparative table (e.g., Myanmar vs. ASEAN EV adoption metrics) would improve engagement.

 

8.Add a conceptual framework showing the interaction of drivers, barriers, and strategic enablers.

9.Include a box or sidebar highlighting 2–3 case studies (e.g., Thailand’s battery policy, Vietnam’s consumer campaign).

10.Consider revising the conclusion to avoid repetition and offer 2–3 policy imperatives for the next 5 years instead.

Author Response

Comment 1. The paper addresses a pressing issue—clean mobility in the Global South—in a highly under-researched national context (Myanmar).

Response 1. We appreciate the recognition of our focus on a critical but underexplored topic.

Comment 2. The authors integrate environmental, economic, infrastructure, and governance dimensions into a well-rounded analysis.

Response 2. Thank you for acknowledging the multi-dimensional nature of our analysis.

Comment 3. The paper provides actionable recommendations, including policy incentives, public-private partnerships, and capacity building.

Response 3. We are grateful that you found the recommendations actionable.

Comment 4. The discussion of regional trends in countries like Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam enhances the paper’s relevance for ASEAN stakeholders.

Response 4. Thank you

Comment 5. It draws from a wide array of sources, including academic literature, international reports, and news agencies.

Response 5. Thank you.

Comment 6. While framed as an opinion paper, the manuscript relies entirely on secondary literature. This limits its analytical novelty and weakens the robustness of the claims made. A brief qualitative data (e.g., stakeholder interviews, focus groups, or expert surveys) would greatly enhance the depth.

Response 6. We acknowledge this limitation and have clarified it in the revised manuscript. While primary data was not collected due to the paper’s opinion-oriented nature, we now explicitly note this as a limitation and recommend future research to incorporate qualitative methods such as stakeholder interviews, focus groups, and expert surveys to strengthen contextual understanding and empirical grounding.

Comment 7. Several sections are highly information-rich with long paragraphs. This affects readability and weakens the thematic focus. Use more subheadings and consider visual aids (e.g., summary tables, frameworks, or figures) to break down complex sections.

Response 7. We revised the structure by introducing more subheadings and reducing paragraph length. We also added visual aids, including a comparative table and a conceptual framework, to improve readability and engagement.

Comment 8. The paper references an “extensive review” of literature and policy documents but provides no methodology for how sources were selected or synthesized. It is recommended to briefly outline the literature review method (e.g., criteria, scope, databases) to enhance credibility.

Respponse 8. We have clarified in the revised manuscript that the paper draws on a purposive review of literature and policy documents, selected based on their thematic relevance to Myanmar’s transport and energy sectors, the ASEAN EV transition, environmental justice, and mobility equity. This explanation has been incorporated into Line 128-141.

Comment 9. The political instability section touches on Myanmar’s military coup, but the implications for international cooperation, aid, and technology transfer could be explored further. Integrate a short risk-mitigation framework or discuss how transition scenarios could vary under different governance conditions.

Response 9. We have expanded the political instability section to include implications for international cooperation, investment risk, and technology transfer. We also introduced a brief risk-mitigation framework outlining strategies under different governance scenarios. (see Section 3.2).

Comment 10. Some ideas (e.g., poor electricity access, public health impacts) are repeated across sections with similar wording. Try to eliminate the redundancy.

Response 10. We have conducted a thorough review to remove repetitive language and consolidate overlapping content, particularly in Sections 3 and 4. These revisions improve conciseness and coherence.

Comment 11. While generally well-written, the paper would benefit from a final proofread to polish transitions and avoid passive voice overuse.

Response 11. We have completed a final round of proofreading, improved transitions, and reduced the use of passive voice to enhance readability and flow.

Comment 12. There are no visual aids. Inclusion of at least one comparative table (e.g., Myanmar vs. ASEAN EV adoption metrics) would improve engagement.

Response 12. We added a comparative table between Myanmar and other countries in section 2.2.

Comment 13. Add a conceptual framework showing the interaction of drivers, barriers, and strategic enablers.

Response 13. We added a conceptual framework in section 2.3.

Comment 14. Include a box or sidebar highlighting 2–3 case studies (e.g., Thailand’s battery policy, Vietnam’s consumer campaign).

Response 14. We included 3 case studies in section 4.4.

Comment 15. Consider revising the conclusion to avoid repetition and offer 2–3 policy imperatives for the next 5 years instead.

Response 15. We included policy imperatives for the next 5 years in conclusion.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has adequately addressed the previous review comments. Compared to the initial draft, this version examines the necessary conditions and implications for Myanmar's automotive and transportation transition from a broader perspective. It also discusses the introduction of EVs in a manner appropriate for Myanmar's specific circumstances, the importance of community support, and the need for medium- to long-term policies. Given that this manuscript is not an empirical research paper, I believe it has reached a sufficient level of quality.

I have one suggestion: The meaning of "EV Transition" as discussed in this manuscript is quite broad, encompassing the expansion of EV share in vehicle sales, infrastructure development, and the establishment of EV manufacturing and maintenance technical systems. I believe that explicitly defining this broad scope by the end of Section 1 would make the discussions in Section 2 ("Drivers") and Section 3 ("Barriers") easier to follow. What are your thoughts on this?

Author Response

Comment 1: I have one suggestion: The meaning of "EV Transition" as discussed in this manuscript is quite broad, encompassing the expansion of EV share in vehicle sales, infrastructure development, and the establishment of EV manufacturing and maintenance technical systems. I believe that explicitly defining this broad scope by the end of Section 1 would make the discussions in Section 2 ("Drivers") and Section 3 ("Barriers") easier to follow. What are your thoughts on this?

Response 1: Thank you for the helpful suggestion. We agree and have added a clarifying paragraph at the end of Section 1 to define “EV transition” as a broad systemic process. This aims to enhance the clarity and coherence of the discussions in Sections 2 and 3.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The observations have been adequately addressed. Only a few minor corrections are recommended, including adjustments to table formatting, correction of grammatical errors, and updating references with broken or missing links. Once these improvements are made, I consider the article ready for acceptance.

Author Response

Comment 1: The observations have been adequately addressed. Only a few minor corrections are recommended, including adjustments to table formatting, correction of grammatical errors, and updating references with broken or missing links. Once these improvements are made, I consider the article ready for acceptance. 

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. We have addressed the minor issues by correcting table formatting, grammar, and reference links.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript shows a remarkable improvement. It now includes a valuable section on environmental trade-offs, comparative tables, and a SWOT analysis that strengthen its policy relevance. The added discussion on political risks and governance challenges brings needed realism. The paper also improves by addressing rural and inclusive mobility needs and clarifying its review approach, making the overall analysis more credible and comprehensive.

 

1.While the paper is framed as an opinion piece, it now blends elements of a review article and a policy analysis. This hybrid approach is acceptable but should be explicitly clarified to avoid genre confusion.

2.Some of the new content (e.g., life-cycle emissions table, political risk mitigation strategies) could benefit from tighter integration into the overall argument. There are moments where the paper feels slightly fragmented.

3.The writing quality, while improved, still has grammatical inconsistencies and occasional awkward phrasings that may warrant light professional editing for publication.

-Some sentences are awkward or overly complex, e.g., “Myanmar has its own constraints and opportunities for the ASEAN.”

→ Consider revising to: “Myanmar faces unique constraints and opportunities within the ASEAN context.”

-Some subject-verb agreements need polishing, e.g.,“Climate crisis continues escalating” → should be “continues to escalate”.

- Redundancies, “The temperature projections (e.g., 2.07 °C by 2060) are mentioned twice in quick succession in the introduction. Consider merging or streamlining.”

4. Figure/Table Referencing

-Figure 2 (Conceptual Framework) is referenced but not fully described in-text. Consider briefly explaining its elements in the main narrative.

-Ensure Table and Figure numbers are auto-labeled or consistent throughout. Some seem manually numbered and may need formatting (e.g., Table 2, Table 3, Figure 1, Figure 2).

 

5.The conclusion section should be evaluated carefully to ensure it synthesizes key insights and delivers actionable takeaways, ensure that a clear, concise conclusion is included that: Synthesizes findings /Reiterates policy implications/ Proposes immediate next steps.

Author Response

Comment 1: While the paper is framed as an opinion piece, it now blends elements of a review article and a policy analysis. This hybrid approach is acceptable but should be explicitly clarified to avoid genre confusion.

Response 1: We have included the hybrid approach clarification in the introduction.

Comment 2: Thank you for this valuable observation. We acknowledge that certain sections, such as the life-cycle emissions table and the discussion of political risk mitigation strategies, may appear somewhat detached from the core narrative. As this is an academic paper, we aimed to maintain objectivity and avoid offering personal judgments on political strategies. In Section 3.2, our intention was to neutrally outline potential risks and consequences without making normative claims. Nonetheless, we will revisit these sections to enhance their coherence with the central argument and ensure smoother integration throughout the manuscript.

Comment 3: The writing quality, while improved, still has grammatical inconsistencies and occasional awkward phrasings that may warrant light professional editing for publication.

Response 3: We have revised the article and improved our writing.

Comment 4: Some sentences are awkward or overly complex, e.g., “Myanmar has its own constraints and opportunities for the ASEAN.” → Consider revising to: “Myanmar faces unique constraints and opportunities within the ASEAN context.”      

Response 4: We have revised and changed the words.

Comment 5: Some subject-verb agreements need polishing, e.g., “Climate crisis continues escalating” → should be “continues to escalate”.

Response 5: We have revised and changed the words.

Comment 6: Redundancies, “The temperature projections (e.g., 2.07 °C by 2060) are mentioned twice in quick succession in the introduction. Consider merging or streamlining.”      

Response 6: We have revised and removed the redundancies.

Comment 7: Figure/Table Referencing - Figure 2 (Conceptual Framework) is referenced but not fully described in-text. Consider briefly explaining its elements in the main narrative.

Response 7: We have added the explanation for the conceptual framework (Figure 2).

Comment 8: Ensure Table and Figure numbers are auto-labeled or consistent throughout. Some seem manually numbered and may need formatting (e.g., Table 2, Table 3, Figure 1, Figure 2).

Response 8: We have changed the labelling to automatic instead of manual labelling.

Comment 9: The conclusion section should be evaluated carefully to ensure it synthesizes key insights and delivers actionable takeaways, ensure that a clear, concise conclusion is included that: Synthesizes findings /Reiterates policy implications/ Proposes immediate next steps.

Response 9: We have revised and improved accordingly.