Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,
I am sending two comments to the article:
Low carbon lifestyles beyond decarbonisation: toward
a more creative use of carbon footprinting method 1. Please shorten the abstract. It's too long.
In the abstract, please show what was the main goal, h
ow the research was conducted and what was the research sample, research period.
2. Conclusions should be enriched with discussions in at least two cases.
Please show the most important findings and compare
them with studies carried out around the world as part of the discussion.

Sincerely
 

 

Author Response

Comment 1: Please shorten the abstract. It's too long. In the abstract, please show what was the main goal, how the research was conducted and what was the research sample, research period.

Author's Response: Abstract is shortened and restructured to cover the suggested points. Thank you for your suggestion.

Comment 2: Conclusions should be enriched with discussions in at least two cases. Please show the most important findings and compare them with studies carried out around the world as part of the discussion.

Author's response: 5. Discussion and 6. Conclusion are revised to cover the key discussion points that highlight the difference between the existing application of CFP and the cases of local implementation introduced here (Please see lines 1056 to 1077, 1079 to 1090, and 1105 to 1115).

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

1.      The novelty and originality shall be justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective in addition to focusing on the issues of one country/region. The knowledge gap needs to be clearly addressed.

2.      Literature review is insufficient to present the most updated status for further justification of the originality of the manuscript. The authors should carry out a thorough literature review of papers published in a range of top energy and resource journals in the last three/four years so as to fully appreciate the latest findings and key challenges relating to the topic addressed in the manuscript and to allow the authors to more clearly present their contributions to the pool of existing knowledge.

3.      Some papers may help readers to broaden their horizons are listed below.

Unpacking the experienced utility of sustainable lifestyle guiding policies: A new structure and model. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27: 486-495.

How the uptake of electric vehicles in China leads to emissions transfer: An analysis from the perspective of inter-provincial electricity trading, Sustainable Production and Consumption, 2021, 28：1006-1017.

4.      The discussion should be specific and detailed based on results found in this paper. The discussion usually contains a synthesis of the findings, the practical implications, the theoretical implications, the strengths and limitations of the research, and the future research directions. However, present discussion is really poor, and many contents are missing in this paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer: Thank you very much for your constructive comments highlighting vital points of the manuscript. We report all comments are reflected in the revision as follows.

Comment 1: The novelty and originality shall be justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective in addition to focusing on the issues of one country/region. The knowledge gap needs to be clearly addressed.

Author's response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have updated 1. Introduction, 2. Literature, 5. Discussion and 6. Conclusion sections. 
The international perspective is covered in sections 1 and 2 (lines 31 to 61, 107 to 128). 
The novelty of the study, or the difference of the cases with other cases applying CFP, are described in sections 5 and 6 in particular (Please see lines 1056 to 1077, 1079 to 1090, and 1105 to 1115).

Comment 2: Literature review is insufficient to present the most updated status for further justification of the originality of the manuscript. The authors should carry out a thorough literature review of papers published in a range of top energy and resource journals in the last three/four years so as to fully appreciate the latest findings and key challenges relating to the topic addressed in the manuscript and to allow the authors to more clearly present their contributions to the pool of existing knowledge.

Author's comment: Literature part (section 2) was restructured and enriched. 
In our understanding, the most important categories of existing literatures are stueids on the carbon footprint, analysis of the impact of messaging to behavioural changes, and the studies on local societal changes. 

Comment 3: Some papers may help readers to broaden their horizons are listed below.
    Unpacking the experienced utility of sustainable lifestyle guiding policies: A new structure and model. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27: 486-495.
    How the uptake of electric vehicles in China leads to emissions transfer: An analysis from the perspective of inter-provincial electricity trading, Sustainable Production and Consumption, 2021, 28：1006-1017.

Author's comment: Both papers are cited in sections 1 and 2.1. Thank you for your suggestion.

Comment 4: The discussion should be specific and detailed based on results found in this paper. The discussion usually contains a synthesis of the findings, the practical implications, the theoretical implications, the strengths and limitations of the research, and the future research directions. However, present discussion is really poor, and many contents are missing in this paper.

Author's response: 5. Discussion and 6. Conclusion are revised to cover the key discussion points that highlight the difference between the existing application of CFP and the cases of local implementation introduced here.

 

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

the revision is good 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your second review and suggestions.