Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Ciambra et al. analyzed the climate neutrality of Madrid by the SDG framework, which is an interesting study. In general, the manuscript is well written, but there still exist some parts that are not clear enough.

1.     L16: Add the full name of SDG here.

2.     For the sentences with the knowledge that is not found or proposed in this work (for example, L31-33, L43-45, L88-90, …and some other sentences), you must add citations. It is a serious problem for academic articles. Please review the article carefully, and ensure citations are added to all the corresponding sentences.

3.     Please go through the article carefully (including Tables), and correct CO2 to CO₂.

4.     Table 2: What do the grey colors mean in this table? Is a darker color means a higher value? Add an explanation in the caption.

5.     Figure 1: This figure seems not readable or clear enough. 1) The font size is too small; 2）What do the short names (such as MD, BC, BH,…) mean？3）What do the different colors mean? Please add a legend or explanation.

6.     Figure 2: Please use a larger font size, especially for the numbers

7.     L330: Does Madrid reach a kind of “Balance”? I don’t think so, because it ignores city services. Please rewrite the sentence.

8.     Section 4.1: In the text, the authors said the sample cities are selected by the two main criteria, but are these cities or regions really comparable? These regions are located in different countries with different populations, economies, political systems, and urban functions. The LRGs and VLRs can be affected by many other factors. It would be better to add more discussion of this issue in the manuscript.

 

9.     Figure 4: The font size is too small. Add a legend to the heatmap.

Author Response

• L16: Add the full name of SDG here

The comment has been addressed in the revised manuscript.

• For the sentences with the knowledge that is not found or proposed in this work (for example, L31-33, L43-45, L88-90, …and some other sentences), you must add citations. It is a serious problem for academic articles. Please review the article carefully, and ensure citations are added to all the corresponding sentences.

Citations were already present in all the passages mentioned in this comment and all citations were already systematically and rigorously introduced after all quotes throughout the original manuscript. In the citation style adopted by this journal, references are numbered by order of mention. Reference numbers are embedded in the text within square brackets (e.g., [1]). No change was required.

• Please go through the article carefully (including Tables), and correct CO2 to CO₂.

The comment has been addressed in the revised manuscript.

• Table 2: What do the grey colors mean in this table? Is a darker color means a higher value? Add an explanation in the caption.

Explanation added in the caption in the updated manuscript.

• Figure 1: This figure seems not readable or clear enough. 1) The font size is too small; 2）What do the short names (such as MD, BC, BH,…) mean？3）What do the different colors mean? Please add a legend or explanation.

We agree that given the constraints of copyediting and layout, Figure 1 may be less explanatory than it is confusing. The main rationale of Figure 1 was highlighting the distribution of indicator references in VLRs according to the analysis' five main dimensions. However, considering the interpretation and readability issues it may give way to, we have removed it in the revised manuscript.

• Figure 2: Please use a larger font size, especially for the numbers

The figure (now Figure 1) has been updated in the manuscript.

• L330: Does Madrid reach a kind of “Balance”? I don’t think so, because it ignores city services. Please rewrite the sentence.

The comment has been addressed in the revised manuscript (and all mentions of Madrid's balanced approach have been re-written).

• Section 4.1: In the text, the authors said the sample cities are selected by the two main criteria, but are these cities or regions really comparable? These regions are located in different countries with different populations, economies, political systems, and urban functions. The LRGs and VLRs can be affected by many other factors. It would be better to add more discussion of this issue in the manuscript.

Indeed, sample cities and regions analyzed are not per se comparable; this was done on purpose so as to ensure different kind of representation in the sample. A more detailed explanation has been added in the revised manuscript and the comment has been addressed in the revised manuscript.

• Figure 4: The font size is too small. Add a legend to the heatmap.

Because of layout constraints it was extremely difficult to make the heatmap more readable without altering format. In the updated manuscript (what was originally) Figure 4 is now split into Figure 3 (heatmap) and Figure 4 (SDG visualization in a pie chart). This would increase readability of both figures while, at the same time, improve their contextualization in the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

·        Abbreviations used, including in the title, should be given clearly in the text where they are first given. For example, SDG (Sustainable Development Goals). Not all readers need to know this abbreviation.

·        Not enough literature papers were searched to define the subject of the paper and to reveal the different aspects of the paper from other papers. The number of references used in the paper is extremely insufficient. More references should definitely be included in the paper. (See: https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2021.1889077)

·        For an article published in an international journal, the contribution of the results of the paper to the literature on a global scale should be determined. The paper's findings and conclusions should not be limited to Madrid. At the very least, suggestions and tips for its use on a global scale should be presented.

·        In Table 1, cite the references from which the data was obtained.

·        Follow the global spelling rules. CO₂ not CO2.

·        The authors have created abbreviations and text groups that only they can understand in many parts of the text [i.e., rq1, eq, Line 237-261, As for point 2)]

·        Citing pages in the text is meaningless and confusing. The page structure will change during typesetting.

·        Figure 1 is apparently a stacked column created from the numerical values of the "Relative" data given in Table 1.

A few questions;

1-Why did you feel the need to give the data given in the table again in the graph?

2- Why did you create bars containing the cumulative sum of all cities studied?

3- Why didn't you present the abbreviations given in Figure 1 with parentheses in Table 2?

4- If the shadings used are to raise awareness, Why is it different in Table and Figure?

·        The paper's findings and discussions should be clear and must be supported by the results of previous work.

 

·        The concluding section is very long and is prepared in the form of a story. The conclusion should summarize the main findings and results of the paper. Please provide definitive results for the paper.

Author Response

• Abbreviations used, including in the title, should be given clearly in the text where they are first given. For example, SDG (Sustainable Development Goals). Not all readers need to know this abbreviation.

The comment has been addressed in the revised manuscript and all abbreviations used have been explained when they first appear in the text.

• Not enough literature papers were searched to define the subject of the paper and to reveal the different aspects of the paper from other papers. The number of references used in the paper is extremely insufficient. More references should definitely be included in the paper. (See: https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2021.1889077)

The comment has been addressed in the revised manuscript where we included a total of 20+ additional literature references to better define the subject of the paper and its different aspects from other efforts. In detail, we covered different domains addressed in the literature when it comes to climate neutrality and ways to monitor it, including in transport; energy; circular economy; water and tourism.

• For an article published in an international journal, the contribution of the results of the paper to the literature on a global scale should be determined. The paper's findings and conclusions should not be limited to Madrid. At the very least, suggestions and tips for its use on a global scale should be presented.

The comment has been addressed in the revised manuscript where the authors have included a concluding paragraph on how local monitoring of climate neutrality can play an important role in achieving global climate goals. We mention the main outcomes that came out of our research and concern how a single city can set an example, help in the identification of best practices, can generate and provide data to the community, and finally, can foster innovation.

• In Table 1, cite the references from which the data was obtained.

The contents of Table 1 are not properly ‘data’: it is an overview of the indicators used throughout Madrid’s Roadmap to Climate Neutrality by 2050, with the unit of measurement that is adopted in the study as well as the time range for which the indicators have been developed. The manuscript has been updated so that this source is now mentioned in the table’s caption.

• The authors have created abbreviations and text groups that only they can understand in many parts of the text [i.e., rq1, eq, Line 237-261, As for point 2)]

In the case of ‘rq’, this is a frequently used abbreviation for ‘research question’. Please also note that this abbreviation is included in the following sentence: “this paper explores two main research questions (rq1 and rq2 below).” on line 58 of the original manuscript, a wording that should leave no doubts about what the abbreviation is referring to. At line 236, "Mt CO₂ eq" is the standard technical abbreviation of "million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent".

Since international guidelines only recommend spelling out units of measurement within the text and when they are not accompanied by numerals, we added the definition in full a few lines below (line 243) for clarity. It is unknown to the authors why the review highlights the usage in line 236 even if this abbreviation and a few similar ones had already been used earlier in the paper (Table 1 at line 186 for example). The “As for point 2” phrase (originally line 342) refers to point 2 in the list that immediately precedes that paragraph. However, since it seems to have raised concerns for clarity, we rephrased the beginning of that sentence.

• Citing pages in the text is meaningless and confusing. The page structure will change during typesetting.

The manuscript never refers to specific pages within the manuscript. The authors understand that the reviewer may be referring to page references in cited works (see for instance “[7] (p. 38)” on line 54): this does not refer to page 38 in the manuscript (which is 18-page long anyway) but to page 38 in reference no. 7 in the reference list. No change was therefore required.

• Figure 1 is apparently a stacked column created from the numerical values of the "Relative" data given in Table 1. A few questions:
• Why did you feel the need to give the data given in the table again in the graph?
• Why did you create bars containing the cumulative sum of all cities studied?
• Why didn't you present the abbreviations given in Figure 1 with parentheses in Table 2?
• If the shadings used are to raise awareness, Why is it different in Table and Figure?

Considering that various questions were raised by reviewers about the viability or necessity of this graph, the authors have removed it in the revised manuscript.

• The paper's findings and discussions should be clear and must be supported by the results of previous work.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is a first-of-a-kind effort to comparatively study a local policy document, with other documents on the monitoring of the SDGs. Given this, the authors provided additional contextualisation of their work in the field of monitoring climate neutrality in different domains and reinforced the discussion and findings based on the results of SDG monitoring as presented in the VLRs that are analysed (that are now added as reference literature).

• The concluding section is very long and is prepared in the form of a story. The conclusion should summarize the main findings and results of the paper. Please provide definitive results for the paper.

The authors would like to keep the narrative style of concluding remarks, but according to the reviewer's comments, have restructured certain sentences that allow the readers to quickly get the main takeaways of their work.

Reviewer 3 Report

The study is very well carried out and structured. This work is very useful in the field of climate change adaptation and mitigation. I am not the best person to assess the English writing but I was able to read the article in a very comprehensive and understandable way what makes me think that the written is good.

However, it should point out some of the conclusions, implications and research gaps. Perhaps it deserved more bibliographic references related to international studies. See the following articles on intentions to intervene in the environment that should be added to your work, taking into account the need for more interventions to respond to climate change problems, particularly in urban areas (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115161), during the COVID-19 period (https://www.mdpi .com/2071-1050/13/11/6399) and identified challenges for the transportation sector (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105661).

Congratulations. Good Work!

Author Response

• However, it should point out some of the conclusions, implications and research gaps. Perhaps it deserved more bibliographic references related to international studies. See the following articles on intentions to intervene in the environment that should be added to your work, taking into account the need for more interventions to respond to climate change problems, particularly in urban areas (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115161), during the COVID-19 period (https://www.mdpi .com/2071-1050/13/11/6399) and identified challenges for the transportation sector (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105661).

The comment has been addressed in the revised manuscript where the authors a) clearly mention future research areas (in Section 5) b) have restructured main takeaways to facilitate reading (in Section 5) c) enriched the document with additional references (on the different domains that the literature already studied climate neutrality, including the ones pointed out by the reviewer that were found particularly relevant).

Reviewer 4 Report

This article first analyzed and assessed Madrid 's 2050 climate neutrality roadmap, and then compared it to other local or regional governments by the concept of neutrality extracted from the roadmap. This paper showed that LRGs still had significant differences in achieving climate neutrality, and carbon emissions and sustainable transportation remained the top priorities.

 

However, this article still has some problems to pay attention to.

 

The theme of the article is not clear enough, and the cohesion and relevance of each part can be further enhanced. The language part of the article is somewhat lengthy and needs to be further condensed.It is suggested that some citations of the same type or related literature can be added to improve the integrity of the article.

Author Response

• The theme of the article is not clear enough, and the cohesion and relevance of each part can be further enhanced. The language part of the article is somewhat lengthy and needs to be further condensed.It is suggested that some citations of the same type or related literature can be added to improve the integrity of the article.

The comment has been addressed in the revised manuscript where the authors a) have reformatted and rephrased parts of their work to enrich cohesion and relevance of all parts with a support of an English native speaker b) condensed the language where necessary to avoid lengthy expressions with the support of an English native speaker and c) added a significant amount of additional literature references to improve the integrity of the article.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, all the comments have been responded suitably. The manuscript has been significantly improved compared with the first version. I suggest accepting the current manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have substantially improved their manuscript and answered most of my previous concerns. Its technical and scientific value improved fairly. English grammar errors were corrected. It now has the quality, in my opinion, to be published in its current form.

 I accept the publication of the revised manuscript sustainability-2249400-peer-review-v2 in sustainability.

Reviewer 4 Report

The author has made a more perfect modification of the article. I suggest that accept in present form.