Environmental Economics and the SDGs: A Review of Their Relationships and Barriers
, Csaba Bálint Illés 2, Anna Dunay 2, Abdul Hadi 1 and Tony Susilo Wibowo 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting contribution that analysis the relation between the environmental economics and SGDs. The manuscript was completed and improved, the analysis is appreciated as being well done. Overall the investigation is thorough and can be published.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The length of the abstract and the introduction are reasonable. The abstract is written aptly, has a good structure. The authors briefly stated the content of the paper. The study is mostly survey. The length of the study is extensive, it is related to the sequence of issues addressed. The goals are quite general. From a certain point of view, they can be considered trivial (the relationship between sustainable development and the environmental economy; an overview of obstacles to the implementation of the environmental economic strategy; finding ways to solve these problems). The contribution of the literature on the problem is extensive. Unfortunately, the authors omitted some interesting concepts related to the treated topic, e.g. biologization of economics, concept by academician Anton Blažej. The authors describe the connections between the national economy and environmental economic policy. The authors pay more attention to GDP. They also turned their attention to green consumerism. Here they describe contexts that are well known. Greenwashing should also be considered. The paper also mentions the possibility of fiscal policy acting on regulation in the area of environmental economic strategy. The authors also describe the issue of De-growth in context. The paper also presents the goals of sustainable development. The research that the authors have done is essentially of a literary nature. It doesn't change the quality of the paper. Searching databases and searching for data is also a kind of scientific work. The paper further brings what the authors managed to find. The analysis of the facts found in the literature, which the authors searched for databases, can be considered thorough. The data obtained relate to environmental taxes, de-growth model, sustainable development, etc. Under certain conditions, de-growth is in line with the goals of sustainable development. The authors also identified barriers to the implementation of environmental economics. The paper also brings a discussion. The authors consider the government's involvement in the implementation of the environmental economy to be important. The fight against the shadow economy is also important. The extended conclusion can be considered concise. There are plenty of resources, the bibliography is really representative.
The overall impression of the paper is good. We propose to at least mention the concept of biologicalization of the economy, which was proposed by the prominent scientist academician Anton Blažej (1927-2013).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
I have reviewed the manuscript ID (sustainability-1765285) entitled “Environmental Economics and the SDGs: A Review of its Relationships and Barriers”. Overall, this is a clear, concise, and well-written manuscript. Sufficient information about the study findings is presented for readers to follow the present study rationale and procedures. However, there are some points that need to be considered by the authors as follows:
1- The main contribution of the paper should be highlighted and emphasized.
2- It would be great if the drawbacks and gaps of literature are clear and, particularly, how the paper aims at filling these gaps.
3- If possible, it is preferable to provide a detailed experimental flowchart so that the proposed method can be easily referenced by other researchers.
4- The authors should explain clearly the contribution. What is the novelty of the manuscript? What is the message?
5- Authors should make an effort to better describe their proposed method.
Author Response
Please the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 4 Report
On pp 7, authors state that "..most environmental issues are caused by individuals, followed by the economy, healthcare, unemployment and crime." Many other areas within the paper assumes that humans act in their individual capacities to wreak havoc, and this is in isolation to the other factors mentioned. I think this is one area the paper can be refined, because humans wreak environmental disasters via those different conduits.
Another area which the paper can improve is to confound "green consumerism" (pp 6-7) or anything "green" as the solution. But one has to be careful on the greenwashing motivations by many companies to label their products as green to satisfy consumers' green thumb, but are actually just normal products with a token green label. Even the FDA or the other watchdogs are behold to the big corporations through the latters' lobbyings. This is something that needs to be mentioned and investigated in the paper through the meta analyses, as to what's real and what's not.
The meta analyses sample is low (n=79), the method used was basically reading through (no data software whatsoever) and the section on difficulties/barriers and solutions are very sparse. I was expecting to see a more lengthy discussion on the different aspects in this regard. Authors should dig a bit deeper so as to discuss the different barriers (and potential solutions) of marrying envt econ with the SDGs movement.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
The research topic focuses on Environmental Economics and SDGs and applied the semi-systematic method to build a new conceptual design. Although the research idea is interesting, there are major problems, and the authors have to add and revise for acceptance:
1. Including the indexing of articles that the authors have chosen to analyze (e.g. WoS, Scopus, …)
2. The conceptual framework should be applied in the empirical research part where the authors confirm findings by collecting data and measuring econometric methods to convince the audience. Therefore, the authors need to add content that presents the application of theoretical findings in empirical research.
I believe that three questions on lines 72-78 and the objectives of this study on lines 80 -85 in the introduction section are not enough for a scientific paper because it is just a literature review to build a theoretical research model. So the authors have to apply the conceptual design in the empirical research.
Kind regards
Author Response
The major revision for this article has been completed based on all of the reviews. Accordingly, the general structure of this article has been changed.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
· The paper tries to show a vision of the relationship between the aspects studied in Environmental Economics and the SDGs, in a generic way. The barriers and the consequences exposed and the extensive review of the literature can be highlighted as main strengths and contributions.
General concept comments
· The methodology used is clear, being a semi-structured method of reviewing the literature, it is presented in a simple and easy to understand way.
Within the methodology, it would be necessary to explain in more detail why the four economic strategies have been considered: (1) Green consumerism, (2) Fiscal Policy, (3) De-Growth Policy, an (4) The inclusion of environmental assets into the National accounts.
The study clearly presents how the economy is aligned with the goals of the SDGs, but it does not specify as clearly how environmental problems can be overcome (question 2, line 76).
Discussion (Line 677). Measures that can be applied: would it be relevant to mention the trading of emission rights that operate in different countries and that affect different gases?
Specific comments
Line 76: typographic error )
Line 122: typo error are:(1)
Line 123: In this regard, several studies have revealed that there is a positive correlation between the decline in the amount of human consumption and the extinction of the resource base. This implies that human-environmental economic movements may be influenced by human impulses. Can you reference these studies?
Line 146: the SDGs section is merely descriptive, it would be convenient to approach it from a more scientific point of view instead of an academic one. Perhaps it adds more to the document if it can be summarized in an image or table.
Line 257: typo error
Line 253-260: renames the SDGs but does not add anything other than what is explained in point 2.2. and to figure 1.
Line 271:Is it possible to write better the sentence? “One of the issues of environmental economic objectives is this problem” for a better understanding.
Line 294-298: The wording could be improved in this paragraph. Only two goals are detailed.
Line 388: explain what UNCLOS is (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea)
Line 428: With what criteria has table 2 been ordered?
Line 652: Can you reference this statement? There will be limitations not only to the extraction of natural resources but also to the ecosystem's ability to absorb waste pollution. Most importantly, many physical would eventually emerge if humans continued the same path of development.
Line 663: typo error
Author Response
The major revision for this article has been completed based on all of the reviews. Accordingly, the general structure of this article has been changed.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper combines the environmental economics and the SDGs discourse to make the analysis. Similar works can be found in studies (Khoshnava et al., 2019; Belmonte-Ureña et al., 2021; Georgeson et al., 2017). My comments are as follows:
- The abstract is too long. Please refine it so that the abstract can accurately summarize the content of the article.
- Part 1, line 75, the meaning of "its" and "it" is unclear and confusing to the reader, please use clearer language. Also, please delete the half brackets at the end of line 76.
- The quality of the literature review section needs to be improved, especially section 2.2, which reads rather vaguely and I could not capture the current research on SDGs.
- The literature review mentioned in the methodology of part 3 and the literature review in part 2 are different things, so the expression "literature review" in line 175 should be revised more accurately. Or, it is not appropriate to name part 2 as literature review. In addition, the end of line 178 is missing punctuation.
- Some of the manuscript reads as very redundant. For example, what is more needed in the conclusion are some general statements. The two paragraphs of redundant descriptions before section 6.1 seem unnecessary or could be abbreviated when the preceding content has been analyzed in some detail. Similarly, the discussion in section 5 suffers from this problem, and I was unable to find any logic or necessity for this section.
- Please check the page numbers carefully, some pages lack page numbers, and some pages have duplicate page numbers.
References:
Belmonte-Ureña, L.J., Plaza-Úbeda, J.A, Vazquez-Brust, D., Yakovleva, N., 2021. Circular economy, degrowth and green growth as pathways for research on sustainable development goals: A global analysis and future agenda. Ecological Economics, 185, 107050.
Georgeson, L., Maslin, M., Poessinouw, M., 2017. The global green economy: a review of concepts, definitions, measurement methodologies and their interactions. Geo: Geography and Environment, 4(1), e00036.
Khoshnava, S.M., Rostami, R., Zin, R.M., Štreimikien, D., Yousefpour, A., Strielkowski, W., Mardani, A., 2019. Aligning the criteria of green economy (GE) and sustainable development goals (SDGs) to implement sustainable development. Sustainability, 11(17), 4615.
Author Response
The major revision for this article has been completed based on all of the reviews. Accordingly, the general structure of this article has been changed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper needs rigorous English check, grammar and spelling also. I have noticed several grammatical mistakes and typo errors throughout the manuscript. The authors need to proofread the manuscript from a native English speaker and correct all the typos before submitting the revision.
The paper addresses an important issue, related to the environmental economics and SGDs. The manuscript has several shortcomings and needs to be improved: this work can be extended in more details, while the added value should be more clearly presented. The manuscript lacks motivation and it is not very clear the purpose or contribution of this paper. A clearer focus on what the authors intend to do with this paper must be outlined.
Although in the introductory part, the authors propose some questions, they were not clearly answered throughout the paper. Section 2.2. could be improved by detailing the history and evolution of SDGs and in the Methodology section, please describe the source/database of the analyzed journals or books. Also, please explain in more detail what is the purpose of section 4.1.
Author Response
The major revision for this article has been completed based on all of the reviews. Accordingly, the general structure of this article has been changed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The authors did not respond to the comments of the reviewer, and I did not receive any answers or explanations from my review. The authors just sent the paper without any notice where they revised, improved, or explained to the reviewer.
Regards,
Reviewer 4 Report
This manuscript has been improved and most of my specific and technical comments have been addressed. My recommendation is to publish the paper in the Journal.
