Development of Policy-Relevant Dialogues on Barriers and Enablers for the Transition to Low-Carbon Mobility in Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The content of the submitted manuscript is good but the presentation way of current form is not fulfilling the journal requirements. Modification is needed to consider for publication.

 

The title of the paper looks good but in the same time, it can be modified to represent the manuscript in a better way.

-          The abstract is not well written

-          You should include some of the main finding in the abstract section.

Abstract should have a conclusion of the study.

-                 The objective of the study is also not clearly mention.

·       Add more on the basic of the problem in the introduction

·       The author should focus mainly on the importance and significance of the study.

·       I suggest the author to demonstrate what does the paper add to the current literature? and what new knowledge is added by this study?

Literature review part is need to be updated.

Add the unique of this study compared to other studies discuss the same issue.

-Discus merits and limitations of technique applied.

 

-          Please rewrite the conclusion with the proper explanation in the R & D.

 

 

Other comments:

English editing is needed in some parts of the manuscript.
Abbreviations should be explained before the introduction.

 

 

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents the barriers and policy instruments for the transition to low-carbon mobility in Brazil.

Procedure for identifying mitigation measures, barriers, and policy instruments is unclear and insufficiently presented.

The authors made the following statements:

Lines 164-165: "... in phase 3, structured and semi-structured interviews with the identified stakeholders are conducted to structure and refine the most important mitigation options, barriers and policy instruments ..."

Lines 175-176: "The collected data are tabulated and analyzed, verifying the consistency of the responses with parameters collected in phases 1 and 2".

These statements should be developed in the manuscript.

The quality of Figure 1 should be improved.

The research results are not presented clearly enough.

Also, conclusions and discussion should be focused more on the results obtained and not only on on general interpretations and citing some references.

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

My only suggestion for improvement is to provide the reader with more information about the collective group of interviewees.  Obviously, you do not wish to name them, but you could give more detail about their affiliations, if only to give more insight into the respective representation from the respective groups.  In other words, were stakeholders from the business sector more numerous than those from NGOs or vice versa?  Would it even be possible to give actual organizational names for each interviewee?

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors took note of the reviewers' comments and improved the presentation of their manuscript accordingly.