Next Article in Journal
Port Cooperation and Bundling: A Way to Reduce the External Costs of Hinterland Transport
Next Article in Special Issue
Applying the ICAT Sustainable Development Methodology to Assess the Impacts of Promoting a Greater Sustainability of the Charcoal Value Chain in Mozambique
Previous Article in Journal
CO2 Emissions from Fuel Consumption in the Logistic Stages of the Brazilian Bioethanol Supply Chain
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

Towards Enhanced Transparency in Non-Annex 1 Countries? Challenges and Options for Measurement and Reporting in Georgia

Sustainability 2020, 12(23), 9981; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239981
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2020, 12(23), 9981; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239981
Received: 26 September 2020 / Revised: 22 November 2020 / Accepted: 25 November 2020 / Published: 29 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Transparency of Climate Policies for Sustainability Transition)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read and review this manuscript!

The paper is relatively well-written and interesting. Its focus on national implementation of an international agreement crucial to combatting climate change is of great significance, and research in this area, especially in the South Caucasus, is crucial.

However, although it is relatively well-written, I find the paper unfit for publication and potentially misleading regarding policy implementation in critical yet vulnerable non-Annex 1 countries such as Georgia. My reasons for this primarily stem from the relations among funding source, research design, and analysis. Having the research funder organize and facilitate interviews can strongly influence responses, especially when the number of interviews is so small and the form of analysis so vague. For example, it is unclear how findings from the small number of donor-arranged semi-structured interviews were verified. It also remains unclear how the empirics presented map on to the four-part argument the authors make regarding a sustainable M&R system for non-Annex 1 countries. The authors need to make the development of this central argument more explicit, including how the results brought the authors to these conclusions. Additionally, the consideration of Georgian society and government presented here is quite technical and economical, and would benefit from a more culturally and socially embedded contextualization.

Overall, the paper is well-written, and I applaud the authors’ attention to Georgia’s experience within the Paris Climate Accords. However, the paper would require far greater explanation than is currently offered to find the analysis convincing, especially given the funding and research context.

I am happy to review future iterations of this paper if these concerns are addressed as I find the topic of exceptional importance. Thank you!

 

Author Response

Please see attachment with cover letter covering responses to both reviewer 1 and reviewer 2. 

 

Best regards 

Sophie Louise Gladov 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting and important research paper towards the Paris agreement and its implementation. I do fully agree with the setup of the paper and it presentation.

Two minor points:

  • Sometimes is hard to read the text because of too much abbreviations. Even in the abstract the 15th word is an abbreviation.
  • line 412 and following lines:  CO2 has to be corrected to CO2

Author Response

Please see attachment with cover letter, covering replies to both reviewer 1 and reviewer 2. 

 

Best regards 

Sophie Louise Gladov 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I thank the authors for their diligent reconsideration of this manuscript, and the editors for the opportunity to review it. While this draft still requires some minor copy editing throughout, the writing stye is improved and quite clear.

 

My biggest concern for the previous draft was the set of relations among funding source, research design, and analysis present in the paper. However, the authors’ justification of sampling technique and facilitation is much more thoroughly justified in this revised draft. I still have certain concerns regarding this research design including what was involved in analysis (which remains opaque), however these are significantly diminished from my previous issues. I believe a further round of revision and explication could help clarify those methodological issues, and I applaud the authors’ transparency and thoughtful consideration of the matter I originally raised.

Less significant critiques include:

  • This manuscript remains quite technical, though I appreciate the nod to those more diverse considerations. My original concern was more that judging the personal beliefs and opinions of this small sample size, as the authors do, outside a culturally embedded understanding of Georgian history and bureaucracy leaves out some important context regarding the recent history of government restructuring and how this fits within broader Georgian social trends.
  • Near the opening of section 4.1.2 references “According to theory” – what theory, and how do you use it?
  • It remains somewhat uncertain how paper’s authors came to the conclusion regarding reducing complexity of the Enhanced Transparency Framework, and unclear what the effects of such a change include.

 

Thank you again for the opportunity to review this paper. Its focus on national implementation of an international agreement crucial to combatting climate change is of great significance, and research in this area, especially in the South Caucasus, is crucial. I feel with relatively minor revisions this manuscript is now closer to publication.

Author Response

Please see attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop