Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments are written in the body of the attached draft, especially with regard to citations.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate the time you took to review our article, and we have made changes based on your suggestions. The changes include

1. Based on your suggestion on page 5, "Figure legend needs clarification.", we have made changes. Our software cannot produce clearer images, so we have removed image 1 and added table 2 for explanation. Please see page 4 of the new manuscript.
2. Based on your suggestion on page 15 that "This references was not included in the references list.", we have made changes. We apologize for using the wrong format for the citation. We thank you for your careful review, please see page 14 and page 20 of the new manuscript.
3. Based on your suggestion on page 18 that "No references may be cited in the conclusions.", we have made changes. We strongly agree with you and have excluded this document from the conclusions section. Please see page 18 of the new manuscript.
4. Based on your suggestion on page 19 that "We find citations in the text are missing in the references list and vice versa", we have made changes. We have reviewed all references, please see pages 18-21 of the new manuscript.

We thank you for your careful review.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Very interesting and important topic discussed in the article. I think, that it was possible to analyze more literature sources,especially foreign scientists.

This research is relevant.  This approach based on the previous reseaches and has the new achievements. The paper is well written.. The conclusions consistentwith the evidence and arguments presented. In whole, the articleis of scientific interest and will be useful for specialists.   As for me, I was interested in studing this work.   I think, this article contains the necessary material for publication.  Style is logical and understandable. Paper can be published.  

Author Response

We thank you for taking the time to review and approve our article, which we have revised based on your suggestions. We have added an analysis of more literature, especially foreign scholars, in the first part of the article, "Introduction". See pages 1-2 of the new manuscript.

Thanks for your careful review.

warm regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have to conclude that the depth of the scientific contribution is low. Motivation is not clear. Contributions are not clearly presented. The novelty of contributions, therefore, is vague. The contribution of the paper needs to be clearly identified methodologically and idea originality. The results (conclusion) should be expanded significantly and quantitatively. Only articles that meet good scientific standards  (rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence, etc.) are accepted for publication in a high-profile journal. The literature review on the topic should be extended. Basically, it substantially lacks good writing in English, a thorough review of existing studies published in international journals, and a consistent structure between theoretical and empirical analyses. I strongly suggest that authors shall carry out more studies to compare the results from this paper to that from other similar studies (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102038; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148632).

 

The manuscript suffers from many language challenges (main text and references, i.e., noncapital letter in journal title). 

Author Response

We appreciate the time you spent reviewing our article. Based on your suggestions, we have made changes to the article. The changes include.

1. Based on your suggestion, we have added an analysis of more literature in the first section of the article Introduction, especially the article you mentioned, which also provides a new basis for our contribution. Please see pages1-2of the new manuscript.
2. Based on your suggestion, we have restated our motivation for writing the article in the first section of Introduction. Please see page 2of the new manuscript.
3. Based on your suggestion, we have improved the language of the article.

We thank you for your careful review.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I accept revised version. Thank you.