Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found your paper to be interesting and the results very compelling.  The paper is also well written and makes good use of a large body of literature.

However, I believe you could greatly improve the manuscript by rewriting the literature review. Currently you summarize each published article. I would like to suggest reorganizing the lit review to tell a story. Perhaps you could group together overall findings and organize the lit review by topic or similarity in findings.  You should then link the overall lit review to your work - explain how the literature review is informing your hypotheses and ultimately, where your work fits.  What theories does your work support or refute. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some minor typographical issues. Overall, the English is very good and leaves not room for misunderstanding.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found your paper to be interesting and the results very compelling. The paper is also well written and makes good use of a large body of literature.

However, I believe you could greatly improve the manuscript by rewriting the literature review. Currently you summarize each published article. I would like to suggest reorganizing the lit review to tell a story. Perhaps you could group together overall findings and organize the lit review by topic or similarity in findings.  You should then link the overall lit review to your work - explain how the literature review is informing your hypotheses and ultimately, where your work fits.  What theories does your work support or refute. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some minor typographical issues. Overall, the English is very good and leaves not room for misunderstanding.

 

Response: Thank you for the useful comment. Upon the comment, the following explanations are given.

The findings under the title of literature review have been reexamined and reorganised according to your suggestion. The studies were grouped according to the similarities of the results (positive relationship, negative relationship, no significant relationship, etc.). (The revised content from the manuscript is shown in cyan blue. Page 5-7/ lines between 194-312)

The whole text was reviewed again and typographical issues were tried to be corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present study: Are natural resource rents and renewable energy consumption solutions for environmental degradation? Fresh insights from a modified ecological footprint model have been reviewed. Here are my points:

• The abbreviations should be checked in the whole text.

• The introduction part is required to add a few more sentences to increase the strength of this article.

• The literature review needs to be updated

• Should equation 1 be well framed?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I suggest a major revision. Here are my points:

• The abbreviations should be checked in the whole text.

• The introduction part is required to add a few more sentences to increase the strength of this article.

• The literature review needs to be updated

• Should equation 1 be well framed?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment for manuscript.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present study: Are natural resource rents and renewable energy consumption solutions for environmental degradation? Fresh insights from a modified ecological footprint model have been reviewed. Here are my points:

• The abbreviations should be checked in the whole text.
• The introduction part is required to add a few more sentences to increase the strength of this article.
• The literature review needs to be updated
• Should equation 1 be well framed?

 

Reviewer-2 (Changes in the manuscript are in red and cyan blue for Reviewer-2)

Response: Thank you for the useful comment. Upon the comment, the following explanations are given.

1. The abbreviations should be checked in the whole text.

Response: Thank you for the comment. Upon the comment of the referee, the abbreviations have been checked in the whole text.

 

2. The introduction part is required to add a few more sentences to increase the strength of this article.

Response: Thank you for the comment. Upon the comment of the referee, the introduction part has been added a few more sentences as follows.

In the modern era, natural resources are recognized as critical indicators that contribute significantly to reducing environmental pressure and increasing economic growth. However, as the global economy gains momentum and efforts for development intensify, the world increasingly faces the escalating cost of environmental degradation. Furthermore, the growing uncertainty surrounding non-renewable energy sources, coupled with the dimensions of climate change and environmental degradation, underscores the urgent necessity of transitioning to clean energy. (Page 1, The revised content from the manuscript is shown in red )

 

3. The literature review needs to be updated.

Response: Thank you for your literature suggestions. The studies you suggested have been examined and the following additions have been made to the literature.

The findings under the title of literature review have been reexamined and reorganised according to your suggestion. The studies were grouped according to the similarities of the results (positive relationship, negative relationship, no significant relationship, etc.). (Page 5-7, The revised content from the manuscript is shown in cyan blue, lines between 194-312)

 

4. Should equation 1 be well framed?

Response: Thank you for the comment. Upon the comment of the referee, The framework of Equation (1) has been reorganized and expanded on the manuscript as follows.

The ecological footprint and biocapacity are two important concepts that lay the foundation of ecological calculations regarding sustainable development. While the ecological footprint measures human activities' demand for natural resources, biocapacity represents the amount of resources that nature provides to meet this demand. The traditional ecological footprint model evaluates the pressure humans exert on nature, how quickly they consume natural resources, and the environmental impacts of this consumption, offering a one-dimensional perspective. However, EFPI simultaneously consider the supply and demand dimensions, providing a broader perspective on environmental sustainability and risks and allowing for a more accurate assessment of consumption's environmental impact. Therefore, when determining sustainable development goals and evaluating ecological footprints, using the EPI provides a stronger and more comprehensive understanding. (Page 7-8, The revised content from the manuscript is shown in red, lines between 324-335)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper studies the EKC hypothesis and uses the ecological footprint pressure index to find that REC and NRR can slow down environmental degradation in the five ASEAN countries. It is recommended that policymakers enhance REC and NRR in order to minimize environ-mental destruction. The article is informative, but I have the following questions and suggestions for the paper:

 (1): The abstract briefly mentions the use of the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis and the Method of Moments Quantile Regression (MMQR) approach. Consider providing a bit more detail on why these methods were chosen and their advantages.

 (2): The abstract touches on the importance of policy recommendations. Consider explicitly stating these recommendations based on your findings. Conclude by summarizing the broader implications of your study for policymakers and the field of environmental sustainability.

 (3): In Section 2, Consider breaking down your literature review into subsections for REC and NRR for better readability. This will make it easier for readers to navigate through the information.

 (4) In Section 6, Consider breaking down the conclusion into subsections for better organization, such as summarizing key findings and then presenting policy implications separately.

 (5): In Section 6, When discussing the causal relationships, provide a brief explanation of the methodology used for the Granger non-causality test and how it supports your conclusions. Clearly distinguish between the causal relationships among variables to avoid any confusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment for manuscript.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper studies the EKC hypothesis and uses the ecological footprint pressure index to find that REC and NRR can slow down environmental degradation in the five ASEAN countries. It is recommended that policymakers enhance REC and NRR in order to minimize environ-mental destruction. The article is informative, but I have the following questions and suggestions for the paper:

(1): The abstract briefly mentions the use of the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis and the Method of Moments Quantile Regression (MMQR) approach. Consider providing a bit more detail on why these methods were chosen and their advantages.

(2): The abstract touches on the importance of policy recommendations. Consider explicitly stating these recommendations based on your findings. Conclude by summarizing the broader implications of your study for policymakers and the field of environmental sustainability.

(3): In Section 2, Consider breaking down your literature review into subsections for REC and NRR for better readability. This will make it easier for readers to navigate through the information.

(4) In Section 6, Consider breaking down the conclusion into subsections for better organization, such as summarizing key findings and then presenting policy implications separately.

(5): In Section 6, When discussing the causal relationships, provide a brief explanation of the methodology used for the Granger non-causality test and how it supports your conclusions. Clearly distinguish between the causal relationships among variables to avoid any confusion.

Response: Thank you for the useful comment. Upon the comment, the following explanations are given.

 Reviewer-3 (Changes in the manuscript are in yellow for Reviewer-3)

1. The abstract briefly mentions the use of the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis and the Method of Moments Quantile Regression (MMQR) approach. Consider providing a bit more detail on why these methods were chosen and their advantages.

Response: Thank you for the comment. Upon the comment of the referee, the following explanations are given.

 The present study covers the period between 1990 and 2018. The study utilizes the Moments Quantile Regression Method (MMQR) approach, an advanced panel technique that yields reliable results in the presence of outliers, endogeneity, and non-normal distribution. (Page 1, The revised content from the manuscript is shown in yellow, lines between 17-19 ))

Additionally, the following sentence in the abstract has been updated as follows.

For this purpose, the present study investigates the effects of renewable energy consumption (REC) and natural resource rents (NRR) on environmental degradation within the scope of the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis for ASEAN–5 countries. (Page 1, The revised content from the manuscript is shown in yellow, lines between 12-14 )

 

2. The abstract touches on the importance of policy recommendations. Consider explicitly stating these recommendations based on your findings. Conclude by summarizing the broader implications of your study for policymakers and the field of environmental sustainability.

Response: Thank you for your review. Based on the reviewer's suggestions, the authors have explicitly suggested policy recommendations as follows.

Given these findings, policymakers in the ASEAN-5 countries are recommended to utilize productivity gains from natural resource rents for investment in clean energy and to shift their energy consumption policies towards renewable energy technologies and research. (Page 1, The revised content from the manuscript is shown in yellow, lines between 22-25)

 

3. In Section 2, Consider breaking down your literature review into subsections for REC and NRR for better readability. This will make it easier for readers to navigate through the information.

Response: Thank you for the comment. Upon the comment of the referee, the following explanations are given.

The findings under the title of literature review have been reexamined and reorganised according to your suggestion. The studies were grouped according to the similarities of the results (positive relationship, negative relationship, no significant relationship, etc.). ( Page 5-7, The revised content from the manuscript is shown in cyan blue, lines between 194-312)

4. In Section 6, Consider breaking down the conclusion into subsections for better organization, such as summarizing key findings and then presenting policy implications separately.

Response: Thank you for the comment. Based on the reviewer's suggestions, , the authors have reorganized and presented policy implications separately.  

Based on the results obtained, the following policy implications are suggested for ASEAN–5 countries in order to reduce environmental degradation and increase the level of sustainable development.

• Policymakers in the ASEAN-5 countries should adopt determined and strategic approaches to redirect their natural resource revenues and productivity gains from natural resources towards clean energy. During this process, attention should be paid to the unconscious use and exploitation of natural resources, and the harmony between NRR and sustainable environment and growth should never be compromised.
• Environment-friendly methods and technologies should be utilized in the mining sector. Additionally, post-mining sites should be reforested and rehabilitated to restore and contribute to nature.
• Current energy policies should be reviewed, and tax incentives, tax exemptions, and easy credit opportunities should be provided to encourage renewable energy production and consumption. The financing of renewable energy investments should be diversified with alternative financial instruments such as green bonds.
• Even though policymakers should focus more on investing in renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, they should not compromise on stringent energy efficiency standards for buildings and industries.
• Environmental awareness should be increased through education, seminars, advertising activities, and the share of renewable energy infrastructure investments should be increased within total investments. (Page 17-18, The revised content from the manuscript is shown in yellow, lines between 655-676)

5. In Section 6, When discussing the causal relationships, provide a brief explanation of the methodology used for the Granger non-causality test and how it supports your conclusions. Clearly distinguish between the causal relationships among variables to avoid any confusion.

Response: Thank you for your comment. On the suggestion of the referees, The superiority of the methodology used for the Granger causality test is mentioned as follows.

 The D-H Granger non-causality test helps to address the cross-sectional dependence issue and the presence of slope heterogeneity. (Page 17, The revised content from the manuscript is shown in yellow, lines between 626-628)

 Response: Thank you for your comment. On the suggestion of the referees, it was explained how the Granger causality test results support the estimation results.

 In other words, the causality results indicate that economic activities are one of the determinants of environmental pressure. The causality results support the estimation results that find the role of economic activities in environmental pressure. (Page 17, The revised content from the manuscript is shown in yellow, lines between 636-639)

In this context, the causality results are consistent with the estimation results that demonstrate the reducing role of renewable energy consumption in environmental pressure. (Page 17, The revised content from the manuscript is shown in yellow, lines between 649-651)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Should equation 1 be well framed?

Response: Thank you for the comment. Upon the comment of the referee, The framework of Equation (1) has been reorganized and expanded on the manuscript as follows.

 

In response to my above question, I think the author should go through the denominator of equation 1 and justify the meaning of "Bioapacity"

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I strongly recommend the English Editing

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors adresses my concerns adequately.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx