Potential Contribution to Carbon Neutrality Strategy from Industrial Symbiosis: Evidence from a Local Coal-Aluminum-Electricity-Steel Industrial System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to thank the authors for the opportunity to read their manuscript. The manuscript addresses the environmental benefits of urban industrial symbiosis, more specifically in carbon footprints. My reading confirms the relevance and timeliness of the manuscript. I like the idea of integrating a process-based inventory and input-output analysis as a methodology approach. The results highlight the importance of turning waste into raw materials. I see great value in this paper, and the topic is becoming more popular nowadays because of data accessibility.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper concerns the issues of potential contribution to carbon neutrality from urban industrial symbiosis in the case of China. The article is well-organized and presents important and interesting research. It has rich literature. The applied methods are proper.
However, English language and style corrections are recommended. Please correct the articles (the/a/an) in abstract:
- add “a”: “is a critical target” (line 1)
- add “the”: “to the ecological system” (line 5)
- add “a”: “as a critical component” (line 10)
- add “a”: “a crucial understanding” (line 13)
and in the whole text, for example, not “an” but “a preventative” (line 27).
Please, go through the rest of the text and correct it, as shown above.
Please, notice the following mistakes:
- “cities’ response” not “cities response” (line 2)
- “imitation of the ecological system” not “imitation to the ecological system” (line 5)
- “understanding of” not “understanding about” (line 14)
- “can be reached” not “can bereached” (line 15)
- “perspective of industrial” not “perspective industrial” (line 24)
There are many more mistakes, therefore, it is recommended to check the text again for linguistic mistakes.
Figures 1, 4 and 8 are illegible. They should be enlarged. They should be possible to see and read in the 100% scale of document. In my opinion Figure 3 should be also enlarged a bit.
Please increase the space after the titles of figures.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This study tried to apply the hybrid LCA to identify the environmental benefits of urban industrial symbiosis focusing on the urban carbon footprints. It is a well-written paper containing interesting results and discussions. The justifications are given below.
- It is recommended that to enrich the Introduction section, to clarify the research trend, challenges in this field, and research questions of this study.
- Please enlarge Figure.1.
- Line 172, “T The” should revise to “The”, please check the full manuscript to avoid the same problem.
- The results section needs to be improved, especially in Figure. 9 and Table.2.
- Conclusion and implications should be shortened.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I thoroughly reviewed the manuscript entitled “Potential contribution to carbon neutrality strategy form Industrial Symbiosis: evidence from a local coal-aluminum-electricity-steel industrial system” in which the authors have made an attempt for estimation of carbon footprints (CFP) of urban industrial symbiosis using a hybrid approach integrating process-based inventory analysis and input-output analysis (IOA). This is a well-written manuscript that can be accepted for publication in the Sustainability. However, I have few suggestions for the improvement of the manuscript which can be included.
First of all, the authors have given three tables and 11 figures in the manuscript out of which only one table (table 3) and 2 figures (figure 10 and 11) represent the results of the study and that is too single value without variation. Although authors have given limitations for the uncertainty analysis, still variation in the final results needs to be given. If possible, provide some uncertainty analysis because it is not beyond the scope of the current study and, in fact, will add substantially to the credibility of the analysis to be able to point out where the biggest uncertainties lie and which component for the higher uncertainties.
Another issue is that the authors have not done any analysis and the single mean value for each scenario is given in the results section. The results are given as the simple excel based calculation only. If possible, give the mean values along with the standard deviation and standard error.
The one-by-one section-wise comments are mentioned below
Abstract: Out of 16 rows of the abstract, 1-11 is about problem identification, aims, and objective, M&M. Only one line (12-13) is for the results. I recommend that the result section must be strengthened in the abstract giving the percentage change over baseline CFPs and sectoral CFPs.
Section 3.3: Data source: It is not clear that what type of dataset was used for the running analysis. If possible, give the primary dataset in the supplementary file. Analysis of the data using suitable statistical analysis and give the results in mean values along with the variation.
Uniform units must be used throughout the manuscript including text, figures, and tables. The unit of resource consumption used in line 183 is million tons and in Figure 6 it is in ten thousand ton.
Give the abbreviation dull form of the abbreviation when used first time in the manuscript. of the. For example CNY and DMC in figure 7, GDP in line 185, kt/y tce and GJ.Kt: 103 ton in Table 2.
Line No 193-215: Section 5.1. The setting of scenarios of results and discussions section could be considered in the M&M section.
Table 3. What is the A, B …E? Insert a column representing the full name A, B …E.
Line: 232-233. Why CFPs of agriculture reduce from 1.054 in 2002 to 0.39 in 2012? I think the intensification of agriculture production is enhanced in the region during the period.
Figure 10. Only mean values? What about variation? Result of which sector is highly variable?
Line 244-245: Not clearly understanding. Rewrite the paragraph using similar headings as given in Fig. 11.
Line 250-251: “Dramatically Reduced the carbon footprints”? Only 3.63% lower CFPs were reported in the UIS2012 scenario as compared to BAU 2012 as mentioned in line No. 241. I think the authors are over-emphasizing the results of the study and that is without the statistical analysis of the results.
Line No. 257: “Uncertainty will be generated”. I think it must be part of this study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Authors considered the majority of the suggestions and it can be accepted in present form
