Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research was carried out on an urgent topic, at a high level, has a scientific novelty. Recommendations for authors are presented in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, thanks for the interesting article. Please address my comments below.

Introduction: please provide references for what is stated in lines 76-78.

Material and Methods: Figure 1: what is the meaning of the arrow from interviews to prior studies?. Section 2.1: I would add more information about the sources considered for this literature review. As for now, it looks very generic. Table 2: do "sector" and "external" belong to "domain" or "category"?

Results: please add source for the EDEOS method. Table 3: what does "total" mean in the table? Please explain. Table 5: better introduce and outline the results reported in the table. Table 6: it is not clear how the shares of impact contributions were calculated. Was it based on the answers of the survey? Please clarify this point.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments:

In this paper, the authors presented the analysis of actions towards sustainability of the opera sector and contributed with novel research aimed at revealing factors that determine the environmental performance combined with a sustainability SWOT analysis. The logic of this paper is clear and this paper has put forward some innovative ideas, however there are still some questions in this manuscript. The following are the questions in this manuscript:

• In this paper, there is a lack of alignment among mark numbers. For example, in page 4 line 163, the mark number of ‘Experts’ discussion forum’ may be 4 instead of 3.
• In part 3.2.2, the authors mentioned the used materials, the consumed energy and the waste when assessing the environmental impacts. It is suggested that the authors could diagram connected factors.
• The authors mentioned ‘Covid-19’ in part 3.1 and the ‘Covid-19’ is a worldwide problem. It is suggested that the challenge of ‘Covid-19’ be added into part 3.2.3.
• In page 17 line 578, the authors mentioned that ‘the incorporation of sustainability practices does not necessarily hinder artistic quality standards and freedom of authorship and creativity’ and the exact relationship ought to be displayed by more researches.
• In part 5, it is suggested that authors make brief conclusion of this study and emphasize its novel effort.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf