Analysis of How Green Growth and Entrepreneurship Affect Sustainable Development: Application of the Quintuple Helix Innovation Model in the African Context

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting and meets the scope of a journal. Although it has some drawbacks which must be addressed before the paper warrants publication:

1) The hypotheses derived are somehow ambigious. It should not contain more than one statement. For example H1 consists of statements: Entrepreneurship which is part of the QHIM, Entrepreneurship is an economic variable (which is obvious) and : Entrepreneurship  have a negative relationship with sustainable development.

2) The selection of the research methods should be substantianated more thoroughly. There are more research tools which could be applied.

3) OLS is part of thw SEM family. So the sentence in an abstract : "We analyze the connection using Ordinary Least  Squares and Structural Equation Model (SEM) in a quantitative manner" is absolutelly incorrect.

4) The selection of the indicators for the research should be justified and supported by the literature. Please provide references for the each indicator.

5) The conclusions part could be more structured. It would help to increase comprehensibility.

Author Response

Comment 1

The hypotheses derived are somehow ambiguous. It should not contain more than one statement. For example, H1 consists of words: Entrepreneurship which is part of the QHIM, Entrepreneurship is an economic variable (which is obvious) and: Entrepreneurship has a negative relationship with sustainable development.

Response 1: Using two dimensions of entrepreneurship as stated by Global entrepreneurship monitor (GEM) we have revised and established a new hypothesis for example H1: There is a positive and significant relationship between entrepreneurial attitude and sustainable development

Comment 2

The selection of the research methods should be substantiated more thoroughly. There are more research tools which could be applied.

Response 2: The study methodology has been substantiated thoroughly

Comment 3

OLS is part of the SEM family. So the sentence in an abstract: "We analyse the connection using Ordinary Least Squares and Structural Equation Model (SEM) in a quantitative manner" is absolutely incorrect.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion, it has been corrected now

Comment 4

The selection of the indicators for the research should be justified and supported by the literature. Please provide references for each hand.

Response 4: The indicators for the study have been indicated and supported by literature for example entrepreneurship is measured by entrepreneur attitude and entrepreneur activity the measurement criteria was based on Global Entrepreneurship Monitor(GEM) and Green growth is measured by resource productivity and natural capital.

Comment 5

The conclusions part could be more structured. It would help to increase comprehensibility.

Response 5: As indicated the conclusion part has also been structured. In all the manuscript has been revised

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The introduction is well-written and supported by the scientific literate properly; however, the authors should state the goal/aim of the research in that part.

2. The authors should highlight the novelty of the paper in the introduction and its contribution to the scientific literature.

3. Figure 2 should be redrawn as now some parts are hardly visible. Please use professional software.

4. part 2.1 cannot be ended with the picture, the authors' comments on it should be provided after.

5. The authors should discuss more in Figure 2 and not end the chapter with a picture.

6. The methodology should be substantially revised. The authors should provide all the theoretical models in this part. Moreover, they should explain how the check the robustness of the results. The authors use several methods, so all the methods should be presented theoretically in the Methodology.

7. It is not clear why the authors have calculated Cronbach's alpha. An explanation should be provided.

8. The results are provided in Tables 1-3, but they are not discussed. Please provide an explanation on each table.

9. The authors provided the results of regression analysis; however, some necessary tests are missing, i.e. VIF, Durbin-Watson, ANOVA, etc.

10. In line 105, the authors stated, "Results are presented and discussed in Section 4 105, and Section 5 concludes with policy recommendations"; however, I failed to find policy implications. They ought to be stated in the Conclusions part.

11. Please, consider citing the following article: Mačiulytė-Šniukienė, A., & Sekhniashvili, D. (2021). The eco-innovation impact on economic and environmental performance of EU Member States. Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 19(2), 212-228. https://doi.org/10.3846/bmee.2021.14497

Author Response

Comment 1

The introduction is well-written and supported by the scientific literate properly; however, the authors should state the goal/aim of the research in that part.

 Responses 1: The aim and goal have been stated. In this article, we analyse the connection between green growth, entrepreneurship, and its effects on sustainable development in South Africa using the Quintuple Helix Model (QHIM). Hence the purpose of the study is to foster the need for entrepreneurship and green growth for sustainable development.

Comment 2

The authors should highlight the novelty of the paper in the introduction and its contribution to the scientific literature

Response 2: The novelty and contribution has been stated in the introduction as indicated

This study is the first to analyse entrepreneurship and green growth using the QHIM in South Africa. There are not many theoretical and empirical studies that connect QHIM with the identified indicators in this study, as far as we know, thus, this study adds to the academic literature on the push towards sustainable development. By using the suggested models, the study hopes to close the gaps that have been found and promote sustainable growth. As a result, the document is unique and beneficial to policy-makers such as governments, this will allow them to optimize the assignment of resources to address priority issues.

Comment 3

Figure 2 should be redrawn as now some parts are hardly visible. Please use professional software.

Response 3: Figure 2 has been eliminated since the model is enough to describe the indicators used in the study.

Comment 4

 Part 2.1 cannot be ended with the picture, the author's comments on it should be provided after

Response 4:  Figure 1 has been re-adjusted with the explanation beneath it

Comment 5

The authors should discuss more in Figure 2 and not end the chapter with a picture.

Response 5: Figure 2 has been eliminated as indicated

Comment 6

The methodology should be substantially revised. The authors should provide all the theoretical models in this part. Moreover, they should explain how the check the robustness of the results. The authors use several methods, so all the methods should be presented theoretically in the Methodology.

Response 6: The methodology has been revised

In South Africa, the Quintuple Helix Model (QHIM) is being used to analyze the relationship between entrepreneurship, green growth, and its effects on sustainable development. Using SPSS, a quantitative, correlative, and explanatory empirical analysis is performed to determine the causal links among the variables. The information from official sources covers the years 2000 to 2019. As shown in figure 1, Indicators for the measurement of entrepreneurship were based on prior literature like [2] and were sourced from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). 14 indicators were identified. Measurements for green growth were based on OCED measure criteria which were also based on prior literature such as [33, 38]), 26 indicators were identified in all. In order to minimize the number of variables, identify the factors and prevent multicollinearity problems from occurring, we thus employ principle components analysis (PCA), as done in past research like [39]. An Eigenvalue greater than one is used to determine the total number of components. Furthermore, the exclusion of any variables is not desirable as they all may contain pertinent information which could explain economic growth. In all the study uses 16 indicators under four dimensions. Two dimensions represent Entrepreneurship which is Entrepreneurial Activity and Attitude and two dimensions represent Green growth Resource productivity and natural capital which indicate the QHIM as an analysis criterion that is associated with the Sustainable development goals (SDGs) [17]. Using the quintuple helix model is the most applicable for this research because it incorporates several domains that resonate and work together to address shared problems [19]. Following [40] The factors are then rotated using the varimax rotation which contains estimates of the correlations between each of the variables and the estimated components.  Using Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability, we assess the variables' validity and reliability. Bartlett's test and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test were also used to make sure our data was suitable for factor analysis. The study employed the Shapiro-Wilk test to evaluate whether the data were normal. Pearson's correlation was utilized to examine the correlation coefficients between the selected variables. The amount that each selected QHIM subsystem contributes to sustainable development was then analyzed utilizing ordinary least squares (OLS). A robust check was finally assessed using a generalized linear model (GLM). To assess the total contribution of the chosen QIHM subsystems to sustainable development, we finally sum up all the variables, including the controlling variable.

Comment 7

It is not clear why the authors have calculated Cronbach's alpha. An explanation should be provided.

Response 7: Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability are used to determine the reliability and validity of the modified measures. When Cronbach's alpha is larger than or equal to 0.7, the construct is considered to have internal consistency [28]. All of the Cronbach alpha values are more than or equal to 0.7, as seen in Table 4. Showing how closely related the values are as a group.

Comments 8

The results are provided in Tables 1-3, but they are not discussed. Please provide an explanation for each table.

Response 8: Explanations have been given to each table as indicated

Comment 9

The authors provided the results of regression analysis; however, some necessary tests are missing, i.e. VIF, Durbin-Watson, ANOVA, etc.

Response 9: Durbin Watson test, VIF and ANOVA have all been done and included in the study.

VIF for the coefficients shows no multicollinearity for Green growth variables ranging from (1.278 – 2.88) which is within the range and Entrepreneurship ranges from (1.23- 2.56). The Durbin-Watson (DW) statistic assumes a value between 0-4. DW=2 indicates that there is no autocorrelation. DW<2 indicates positive autocorrelation and DW> 2 indicates a negative correlation. In this study DW = 1.422 indicates that there is a correlation among the variables. The results are presented in Table 6.

Comment 10

In line 105, the authors stated, "Results are presented and discussed in Section 4 105, and Section 5 concludes with policy recommendations"; however, I failed to find policy implications. They ought to be stated in the Conclusions part.

Response 10: Recommendations have been provided and stated in the conclusion part

Given our findings, we, therefore, recommend that entrepreneurial education be pushed and that funds be invested in developing the capabilities of the next generation, such as by making skilled employment a requirement for admission to the school. This will support the early development of the entrepreneurial spirit. Encouraging graduates to work for themselves, so raising the level of living. Early-stage business needs to be supported financially and individual entrepreneurs need to be educated on innovative ideas. This will prevent business closures that might be due to trends or technological inefficiencies. This will also address urbanization, one of South Africa's biggest environmental problems. The urbanization process has a negative impact on the consumption of renewable energy because it has a positive influence on the consumption of non-renewable energy. If urbanization is curbed, deforestation and fire outbreaks will also decline, resulting in lower pollution levels and a greener South African economy. Therefore there is a need for the preservation and protection of South Africans such as educating indigenous communities about the importance of protecting the land forest to prevent deforestation. South Africa must focus on a green growth strategy to achieve the SDGs.

Comment 11

Please, consider citing the following article: Mačiulytė-Šniukienė, A., & Sekhniashvili, D. (2021). The eco-innovation impact on the economic and environmental performance of EU Member States. Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 19(2), 212-228. https://doi.org/10.3846/bmee.2021.14497

Respond 11: Articles on the eco-innovation impact on economic and environmental performance have been cited and included in the results of the study

Appreciation: We are very grateful for those insightful comments which we believe have significantly improved this study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors. I wish you success in researching this actual problem.

The article outlines two subject areas of research, "entrepreneurship" and "green economy," and their impact on sustainable development. However, the authors emphasize the green economy and poorly justify the choice of entrepreneurship. It is advisable to narrow down the research subject and provide more evident arguments about it.

Green economy, sustainable development - the outlined issues are generally relevant in modern conditions. However, the conducted research does not have a clear structural scheme. The authors try to combine two complex questions, and as a result, the article contains material that does not look like a coherent study. That is why the scientific contribution of the paper to the subject area of ​​science is not significant. The authors do not prescribe scientific work. Even the conclusions lack suggestions.

The authors examine these issues in the example of South Africa. Given the global nature of the problem of sustainable development, the experience and trends of each country are important. However, the author does not provide sufficient analytical material regarding the state of affairs in this direction in South Africa. The authors are fond of describing the results of statistical analysis but pay little attention to the explanation of the obtained results from the point of view of the development of economic science. References to the works of other scientists are also given in the conclusions, while the emphasis should be on one's findings.

The key problem in the article is the weak substantiation and formulation of hypotheses, as well as the lack of actual research methodology. It is advisable to prescribe the research algorithm, justify the research methods' choice, and indicate their use's advantages.

The purpose and objectives of the article are not formulated, the methodology is not presented, and therefore the conclusions are unclear.

 Figure 1 is taken from the source and is not copyrighted. In addition, it does not provide information to outline the two main issues the author considers in the article.

The connection between Figure 2 and Figure 1 is weak, although the author notes its existence. The title of figure 2 is not good.

Most of the tables in the article contain the results of the analysis, and therefore fig. 3 does not seem appropriate.

All in all, the article needs significant revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper fails completely to address sustainable development, SD. There is no attempt to differentiate SD from the standard metrics used in economic accounts. The literature on sustainability is ignored – not even the basics such as the Bruntland report and the Sustainable Development Goals. The analysis of “SD” actually addresses the standard economic metrics. And even then, the econometric analysis is simplistic, falling far short of the state of the art.

The dependent variable is “Sustainable Development” measured by year-to-year growth in net national income, NNI, and gross domestic product, GDP.

·       These are standard economic indicators that do not represent the concept of sustainable development as expressed e.g. in the Bruntland report or the Sustainable Development Goals. Measuring economic performance in this way is regarded as the problem, not the solution, in sustainability circles. Valid measures of SD would include valued goods and services that are not reflected in markets, e.g. (i) the benefits of human health (which here is treated as merely an expense), and (ii) the many non-market benefits of forest land, which registers in this analysis mostly as an inferior producer of revenue.

·       This completely inappropriate dependent variable is likely the reason for counter-intuitive results, e.g., forests, health, and renewable energy work against “SD”.

·       The sustainability question – can the relevant economic indicator values be sustained over time, which in the case of sustainability spans generations? – requires a long-term perspective, which is why inclusive wealth plays a prominent role in many sustainability assessments.

·       For 20 years, a short time span in the context of sustainability, it may well be possible to sustain NNI and GDP by drawing down important components, e.g. natural resources, of inclusive wealth.

 A few details:

22ff: “We also discovered that the green environment is significant and adversely connected with sustainable development, indicating that entrepreneurship and green growth, despite being unfavorable, are essential to the long-term sustainability of the South African economy.” What on earth does this mean? I take it as undermining the authors’ whole approach.

339ff: entrepreneurship has a negative impact, perhaps because data do not distinguish between necessity (self-employment is often a euphemism for unemployment) and opportunity motivations. Surely there are better measures of entrepreneurship.

Table 5 shows that economy, environment and health are all negatively related to “sustainable development”, while population density is positive. These results are likely to be reversed if we had an appropriate measure of SD.

Econometrics:

·       We do not see the regression equations, but it seems that the econometrics is naïve and poorly matched to the data and the hypotheses.

·       The authors use annual data from 2000 to 2019. Each year’s observations are treated as independent, whereas they share many unaccounted characteristics in common.

·       The data would permit analysis of time-trends, which would be useful for evaluating SD if the authors had appropriate indicators of SD.

The abstract is poorly written and too long. The results summarized on lines 20 – 25 seem confusing and perhaps confused. Remember that the abstract is a key indicator that people use in deciding which articles to read.

Re hypotheses:

356:      A hypotheses is accepted. Failing to reject would be more appropriate.

H4: It is possible to conduct research within the framework of the QHIM is a nonsense hypothesis – how could one refute it? Failing to conduct research would not show that research cannot be conducted.

Furthermore, the use made of QHIM made here is minimal, i.e., suggesting variables for regression equations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations to the authors. The paper has been extensively revised and improved. The only remaining comment from my side is a request of the results to be more thoroughly juxtaposed with the current theoretical streams. It would help to better position the findings of this research in the literature.

Author Response

Comment

The results should be thoroughly juxtaposed with the current theoretical streams. It will help to better position the findings of the research in the study.

Response: The results are thoroughly juxtaposed

According to our results, Resource productivity which is an important indicator of sustainable development goals is positively and significantly correlated with economic growth in South Africa. Resource productivity reduces the economy's requirement and diminishes the associated environmental impacts. Factors such as material footprint and renewable energy make a tremendous contribution to economic growth in South Africa according to our findings. Therefore accepting our H1 we hypothesise that resource productivity has a positive relationship with economic growth. Natural capital on the whole had a negative and significant relationship with economic growth. The findings demonstrate the importance of natural capital valuation for sustainable development since it enables governments to take into consideration how nature affects the economy and human well-being. The inverse link, however, demonstrates that the loss of natural capital such as forest loss, pollution etc. comes at a cost to society and subsequent generations. Consequently, rejecting our H2.

In sum, Renewable energy and natural resources significantly have an influence on environmental performance hence economic growth [70, 71].  Scientists claim that the buildup of CO2 emissions has caused global warming and more unpredictable weather. All of this suggests that long-term environmental costs are rising as the economy grows [72]. According to[73] in South Africa, there are three significant environmental problems: pollution, a shortage of energy, and deforestation. Therefore, South Africa's environmental issues will be resolved if the deforestation problem is resolved. The Global Forest Watch report shows that between 2001 and 2021, there was a 26% decrease in the loss of tree cover and 945 mt of CO2 emissions. This is consistent with research by [55] who discovered that deforestation caused by altering permanent land use for producing goods accounts for more than a quarter of worldwide forest loss. According to authors [74], resource extraction and processing have a negative impact on the environment; as a result, the relationship between CO2 emissions and economic growth has significant implications for both environmental and economic policies [75]. Due to the fact that CO2 emissions are a measure of an environmental footprint [37], it is necessary to lower CO2 emissions while also bolstering the South African economy [52]. Authors [76] in their study, concluded that globalization and urbanization as a whole increase the ecological and material footprint.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Figure 1 is not visible, please redraw it with professional software.

2. All other comments have been implemented.

Author Response

Comment

Figure 1 is not visible, please draw it with professional software.

 Responses: Figure 1 is visible now

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear colleagues, good luck with further research.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment

411-417- the text has a smaller font

Response:  The font size has been changed.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have worked hard on their revisions, and I am pleased to see new independent variables that capture “green” development and natural capital. The regression equations are now revealed. Nevertheless, the fatal flaw in this paper persists.

Sustainable development:

·       The dependent variable is still GDP or growth of GDP. The whole point of enquiring about sustainability at the macro level is that GDP fails in many serious ways to measure the performance of a country (or whatever) in generating and sustaining human wellbeing. There is no avoiding the fact that this article offers an econometric analysis of whether various independent variables, some of them “green” in various ways, influence GDP and growth thereof. Do various green things and actions boost or reduce GDP and its growth? This is a legitimate question, but it is not about “affecting sustainable development”.

·       The finding that health expenditures are drags on GDP is understandable, because GDP is indifferent to welfare improvements from better health outcomes. It is likely that this relation would positive-signed if the dependent variable was a valid metric of SD. Similarly, forest area is likely to increase SD, but may reduce GDP especially if the alternative is timber harvest.

·       The insertion of a long paragraph of platitudes about SD does not change the fact that the dependent variables do not measure sustainable development.

Econometrics:

·       It is a time-series analysis, but it uses the simplest specification where, among other things, the benchmark for R-squared is relatively high.

·       The specification is naive. For example, (i) the independence of some RHS variables is questionable (e.g.) resource rents are more nearly components of GDP than independent explanators thereof; and (ii) there is no consideration of lagged response to some of the “independent” variables, as might be the case with entrepreneurial attitudes and activity.

Author Response

Comment: The dependent variable is still GDP or growth of GDP. The whole point of enquiring about sustainability at the macro level is that GDP fails in many serious ways to measure the performance of a country (or whatever) in generating and sustaining human well-being. There is no avoiding the fact that this article offers an econometric analysis of whether various independent variables, some of them “green” in various ways, influence GDP and growth thereof. Do various green things and actions boost or reduce GDP and its growth? This is a legitimate question, but it is not about “affecting sustainable development”.

Response: 

We used Human Development Index (HDI) to measure our dependent variable. HDI gives an overall index of economic development much more than GDP. It also it includes economic and social indicators such as health, and education, which helps reduce anomalies. According to OECD and prior literature.

Sustainable development which served as the dependent variable was measured using Human Development Index (HDI)[45]. HDI has a greater emphasis on human development taking into consideration life expectancy (Health), average years of schooling, mean years of schooling (education) and gross national income per capita which recognizes people and their capabilities in assessing a country’s development. Data was obtained from Human Development Index.

Comment: The finding that health expenditures are drags on GDP is understandable because GDP is indifferent to welfare improvements from better health outcomes. It is likely that this relation would be positive-signed if the dependent variable was a valid metric of SD. Similarly, forest area is likely to increase SD but may reduce GDP especially if the alternative is timber harvest.

Response: 

Forest area as a percentage of land area remains negative and very significant with a coefficient of -6.171(p=0.000). Forest area had a higher coefficient which indicates that forest area is a substantial determinant of economic growth in South Africa. From reducing the consequences of climate change to preventing soil erosion in agricultural lands. However, the adverse consequences demonstrate the necessity for South African land preservation and conservation to stop deforestation caused by, for example, forest clearing for agricultural purposes or timber demand. According to [54], Urbanization, commodity-driven deforestation (oil and gas, minerals, etc.), and agricultural activity deforestation are the main causes of permanent deforestation in South Africa. Results of [55] whom classified drivers of global forest loss indicate that 27% of global forest loss can be attributed to deforestation. This result is in line with[56].

Comment:

The specification is naive. For example, (i) the independence of some RHS variables is questionable (e.g.) resource rents are more nearly components of GDP than independent explanatory thereof; and (ii) there is no consideration of lagged response to some of the “independent” variables, as might be the case with entrepreneurial attitudes and activity.

Response:

Resource rent positively correlated with sustainable development but not significant for example

Natural gas had a 10.186(0.777) positive and insignificant correlation with sustainable development. We also discovered that the effects estimated size appears to be big, demonstrating that natural gas is the most environmentally friendly fossil fuel when compared to coal power plants. Natural gas users save an average of $69 per year on heating, cooking, water heating, and clothes drying. But because methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is released while burning natural gas and seeps into the atmosphere in large quantities, it cannot be used to address the climate catastrophe [57, 58] therefore the results obtained by the study.

Oil rent and coal rent were positively correlated with sustainable development but insignificant with a coefficient of 1.252(0.904) and 0.617(0.062). As indicated by [59-61]. The insignificant of these two variables to economic growth could be attributed to the need for sufficient energy sources owned as well as the need for substantial cost in the process for its use in South Africa.

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

It is pleasing to see 2 significant improvements in this article: the change in dependent variable from GDP to HDI, and the disappearance of the “finding” that human health expenditures are an impediment to SD. The required minor revisions are:

271:     “HDI has a greater emphasis on human development …” Greater than what? This is the place to slow down and write a clear discussion of how HDI differs from GDP and why it provides a better measure of sustainable development than GDP. Briefly, which SDG(s) does HDI address and how does HDI compare with other measures of SD that are routinely reported, e.g. ANS or similar measures of genuine savings?

Throughout:

(i) There are repeated references to economic growth, HDI, and green growth. A word search finds 61 occurrences of “economic growth”, surely a hang-over from the earlier use of GDP growth as a dependent variable. Now, you are addressing the relationship between green growth and SD measured as HDI. Clarity is essential: with SD, HDI and green growth, do you still need economic growth? If so, define it carefully and explain how it is distinct from SD, HDI, and GG, and what additional insights it brings to this research.

(ii) Check the final manuscript carefully for coherence and grammar.

Author Response

Comment

HDI has a greater emphasis on human development …” Greater than what? This is the place to slow down and write a clear discussion of how HDI differs from GDP and why it provides a better measure of sustainable development than GDP. Briefly, which SDG(s) does HDI address and how does HDI compare with other measures of SD that are routinely reported, e.g. ANS or similar measures of genuine savings?

Response

The HDI is a composite indicator that considers people and their capacities when evaluating a country's progress. It is based on three components: life expectancy (health), average years of schooling, mean years of schooling (education), and gross national income per capita(GNI). It serves as a more accurate gauge of societal well-being than the GDP. In contrast to GDP, HDI incorporates a wide range of information and is not bound to a single metric, using two types of social data—health and education—and one type of economic data—GNI. As a result, it is a considerably more precise indicator than GDP. The HDI was developed to underline that, rather than relying solely on economic growth to gauge a nation's development, consideration should be given to people and their potential

Comment

 There are repeated references to economic growth, HDI, and green growth. A word search finds 61 occurrences of “economic growth”, surely a hang-over from the earlier use of GDP growth as a dependent variable. Now, you are addressing the relationship between green growth and SD measured as HDI. Clarity is essential: with SD, HDI and green growth, do you still need economic growth? If so, define it carefully and explain how it is distinct from SD, HDI, and GG, and what additional insights it brings to this research.

Response

Clarity has been established in the study. For example, Renewable energy has a significant positive relationship with sustainable development by 0.902(0.025) suggesting a 1% increase in renewable energy will increase sustainable development by 0.902%. As indicated by [51, 52] indicating that renewal energy consumption is important for sustainable development in South Africa

Comment

Check the final manuscript carefully for coherence and grammar.

Response

The final manuscript has been checked