Towards a Neutral North—The Urban Low Carbon Transitions of Akureyri, Iceland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for giving me the chance to review manuscript sustainability-464569, entitled 'Towards a Neutral North – The Urban Low Carbon Transitions of Akureyri, Iceland'.

I found it very interesting and within the scope of the journal, as well as very well-written, and I have only minor revisions to suggest before recommending it for publication:

The abstract is well-written and adequately summarises the background, motivation, method and some core findings (although a mention of the MLP or systems of innovation would also add value). Furthermore, in line 18, the authors should add a sentence introducing the local context before jumping into what the paper investigates.

In Introduction, lines 37-38, the authors mention that "[...] there is a need for drastic energy transitions away from fossil sources and towards renewable sources". Although this seems to be correct and I personally agree, some might argue in favour of emerging technologies that do not exclude fossil fuels and could conditionally be viable.

In Section 2, lines 148-160, a small example case for each type of intermediary could help those unfamiliar with intermediaries and the MLP.

Some might argue that Section 3 (Materials and Methods) appears slightly weaker than the other sections. It might help to emphasise the value added from looking into the motives, strategies, concerns and knowledge of stakeholders, which constitute the basis of your manuscript, as discussed for example, in:

Turnheim, B., Berkhout, F., Geels, F., Hof, A., McMeekin, A., Nykvist, B., & van Vuuren, D. (2015). Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges. Global Environmental Change, 35, 239-253.

Doukas, H., Nikas, A., González-Eguino, M., Arto, I., & Anger-Kraavi, A. (2018). From integrated to integrative: Delivering on the Paris Agreement. Sustainability, 10(7), 2299.

Geels, F. W., Berkhout, F., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2016). Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 576.

Please mind section numbering. Results should be Section 4 (apply changes to subsections), Discussion Section 5 and Conclusions Section 6.

Quality of Figure 1 could be enhanced (resolution of the image, especially in texts). Also, the verbal form of the third bullet of the first point (on the left) reading "-Secure and enlarge the nature reserves" seems inconsisent (maybe switch to "securing and enlarging the nature reserves".

In the small paragraph following Figure 1, in lines 195-199, the authors attempt to give more context to CNAS. Maybe some more information on the strategy could add valuable context.

Figure 2 is of very poor quality; also, red and orange colours are not very clear.

In contrast, Figure 3 is an excellent illustration.

In lines 257-269, the carbon offsetting forestry programme is described. Maybe the authors could add some more words, i.e. what kind of programme is it (afforestation/reforestation, avoided conversion, or improved forest management)?

In Section 3.3.1 (edit to 4.3.1), line 276, the authors use the word "ambivalent". I am not sure I understand why.

The next Section (Environmental concerns and climate change) discusses the need to lobby for a transition accordingly, e.g. as economically beneficial projects rather than solutions to the global climate crisis. This, also discussed in detail in Section 4.3 (edit to 5.3: The ex-post strategy) is very interesting and should be further highlighted; it is also an approach that, for example, is also being attempted in Poland (see for example Antosiewicz, M., Nikas, A., Szpor, A., Witajewski-Baltvilks, J., & Doukas, H. (2019). Pathways for the transition of the Polish power sector and associated risks. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions.)

In Section 3.3.3 (edit to 4.3.3: Costs), the authors claim that "the economic benefits arose because of changes in legislation on the handling of organic waste by the EU and on the national level"; does this maybe pose an uncertainty worth discussing, at least in terms of it being a sustainable 'driver'?

In Section 3.3.5 (edit to 4.3.5: The green image), the authors mention Copenhagen and Malmo in Denmark and Sweden. Is this maybe something worth emphasising in terms of the key message reflected in the title, about a "Neutral North"? Also, in lines 338-339, the need to create local economic growth in response to the financial crisis that hit Iceland hard is mentioned; could this maybe constitute a 'success factor'?

Conclusions, lines 470-471: to be fair, this is manageable for the local levevl, at a town where the energy system (with all its complexities) is not part of the discussed transition. This is mentioned elsewhere in the manuscript, but it could also be brought up again here, as a limitation for exploiting the approach to other contexts?

What I missed in the Conclusions is the limitation part (e.g. how can this knowledge inform other scientific approaches, such as modelling) and the future prospects part.

The review report may seem long, but it really is a list of minor revisions. The authors should also feel free to disregard the proposed references.

Looking forward to reviewing the revised (and hopefully/expectedly) final version.

Author Response

Please find detailled comments in the attached document.

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have the following comments for the authors:

1. What are the policy implications of the studies in regard to Iceland meeting its climate change obligation?

2. What is the implication of the study for international climate agreement?

3. The authors should develop a section before the conclusion that highlights the need for a coherent policy design based on the interviews conducted.

4. The authors should prepare the manuscript for an international audience because the paper is too localised, and Sustainability is an international journal.

5. The authors should highlight the sustainability aspect in the conclusion section to reflect the scope of this journal.

Goodluck.

Author Response

Please find detailled comments in the attached document. Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf