The Costs of Overcoming Social and Institutional Barriers to Implementing Co-Benefit Solutions in Thailand’s Transport and Residential Energy Sectors: Methods and Applications
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsBrief summary
Dear Authors:
Following the COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers, I am pleased to submit the review report of the paper:
How Much Should Governments Spend to Implement Co-benefits Solutions?: The Case of Thailand’s Transport and Residential Energy Sectors
I have read it carefully in its entirety, thanking the authors for their effort and dedication in its elaboration and consider the journal Climate for its review and possible publication.
The authors propose to answer the following research questions:
RQ1: How much should government spend to overcome social and institutional barriers to co-benefit solutions?
RQ2: How can the costs of overcoming these barriers be estimated?
Methodologically, The authors integrated survey data, expert consultations and public budgets to arrive at estimates of the costs of strengthening the implementation of the solutions and public budgets to calculate the costs of strengthening the implementation of the main key solutions. The authors set out in Figure 3 the qualitative and quantitative steps for the development of the research. In this way, the authors found that: The Effects of Implementation Barrier: emission reductions for the full implementation scenario were approximately 30% greater than thefive-year delay scenario by 2050 (in the range of 8 kton black carbon (BC) for full imple-mentation compared to 12 kton BC for five-year delay); while the difference was closer to50% for the longer ten-year locked-in delay by 2050.
The authors confirm that the Costs of Overcoming Implementation Barrier: that the current costs for implementing the cookstoves programmes are approxi- mately 300,000 US dollars per year (or approximately 12 to 14 million Thai Bhat); about 70% of that overall total allocated for policy implementation functions and the remaining 30% allocated for awareness raising functions. demonstrate that an additional 70,000 to 100,000 US dollars would be needed for an ideal programme that would enhance implementation.
The authors present an investigation at national level searching for a solution to be taken into account by the local governmental agencies and methodologically they used information from reliable sources that beyond the technical aspects, methodologically it was approached adequately and this methodology can be used for the analysis of other countries, in my opinion the work requires improvements in aspects of structure and adequate drafting of the sections that make up the manuscript. Good job !
Specific comments
The authors write the manuscript in the style of a technical report of a corporate institution, there is unnecessary text. I suggest deleting the following paragraphs:
“This section parallels the organization of section 3. It begins with a review of the sizeof barriers and resultant delays in implementation. It then concentrates on the costs ofovercoming those barriers and easing implementation.”
“The study is divided into five sections. The next section (section 2) synthesizes sev-eral bodies of literature to show why and how transaction costs can help connect work onfeasibility with IAMs. Section 3 focuses on the methods used to assess of delay from dif-ferent barriers and outlines the four-step approach used to estimate the costs of overcom-ing the institutional and social barriers. Section 4 discusses the implications of the esti-mated transaction costs. Section 5 concludes with a review of areas for future research”
“This section synthesizes work on 1) co-benefits; 2) feasibility; 3) costs in integratedassessment models (IAMs); and 4) transaction costs. It suggests that greater integration ofinsights from these areas of work can help understand how much governments need tospend to overcome social and institutional barriers. In so doing, it sets the stage for anestimate of those costs in Thailand’s residential energy and transport sectors.”
“The next section reflects on how tocalculate the size of those barriers and costs to overcome them for a key set of co-benefitsolutions”
“This section begins with brief overview of the selected co-benefit solutions. It thenoutlines an approach that can translate different barriers for these solutions into delays inimplementing those solutions. It finally turns to measuring costs for getting around keychallenges. The methods are innovative in that integrate data from surveys, expert consul-tations and government budgets to arrive at estimates of the costs of strengthening implementation of key solutions”
“This section parallels the organization of section 3. It begins with a review of the sizeof barriers and resultant delays in implementation. It then concentrates on the costs ofovercoming those barriers and easing implementation”
“This section discusses five implications from the estimates of transaction costs andrelated findings. In so doing, it moves from points that pertain to issues featured in theliterature on co-benefits, feasibility and transaction costs. It then touches upon implicationsinvolving applications for policymakers and institutional design”
1.-Title:
The title starts with a research question, that is common in some papers, however, the word “Governments” is plural and is not appropriate, each country is different and its characteristics may differ, the paper was conducted in Thailand and the study variables are noted in the title, land's Transport and Residential Energy Sectors. I understand that the work can be replicated in other countries, but the work reports a specific case.
Therefore, the authors may consider from an epistemological point of view of scientific research to integrate the following elements in the title.
The object of study: costs in the transportation and residential energy sectors and associated co-benefits
The subject of study: in Thailand
Method: Estimation
In my opinion, the method should be added, this from an epistemological point of view in the title, in this way it would be better explained in consistency with the statistical analysis performed.
Estimation of implementation costs in the transportation and residential energy sectors and associated co-benefits in Thailand.
Clear and consistent.
2.-The Abstract
Is the most read section of an article, so it is important that it is orderly, trying to separate the sections.
The introductory paragraph is appropriate;
Interest in co-benefits the multiple benefits from mitigating climate change while addressing other sustainability challenges has grown as policymakers seek to lower the costs of de- carbonization. Much of this interest stems from data-driven models that quantify how much im- proved air quality, better health, and other co-benefits can offset those costs,
add
Therefore, the objective ( or research question) was ............................
Methodologically......................................
the results indicated......................
finally, the evidence allows us to conclude that ....
I suggest that the abstract be restructured.
3.-Keywords:
Keywords: Co-benefits, Transaction Costs, Feasibility, Barriers Analysis, Integrated Assessment Models
Keywords are important for the editorials for indexing purposes, a proposed idea is that the words included in the title are not repeated in the keywords, it would be interesting to place a keyword that is related to ODS addressed.
Eliminate: Feasibility, Barriers Analysis, Integrated Assessment Models
Examples: Climate Change, ODS 7, ODS 11, ODS 13 or others.
Note 4.-Introduction.
It is recommended that the authors begin the introduction with the field of knowledge under study, state the problem, and justify it.
Eliminate.” The study is divided into five sections. The next section (section 2) synthesizes sev- eral bodies of literature to show why and how transaction costs can help connect work on feasibility with IAMs. Section 3 focuses on the methods used to assess of delay from dif- ferent barriers and outlines the four-step approach used to estimate the costs of overcom ing the institutional and social barriers. Section 4 discusses the implications of the estimated transaction costs. Section 5 concludes with a review of areas for future research”.
Intenten agregar en la introducción los 6 aspectos evaluados.
. I suggest the authors answer the following questions and analyze the introduction section:
- Is it focused on the problem clearly from macro to micro? Partially
- Is it enjoyable and fruitful to read, does it condense the letters and is it prolific in ideas? Not
- Does it clearly state the reasons for conducting the study? Yes
- Does it state the premises on which the study is based? Not
- Does it clearly define the objectives of the study? Details are explained in note 3.
- Does it state the hypotheses that the study intends to demonstrate? Not presented
In addition to incorporating the theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions of the work and the originality of the work, this can be added after the literature review.
Normally, after the introduction, reviewers and editors look for the work to contain at least one of the three elements: Research question, Research objective, Hypotheses that should be answered with the empirical elements of the work normally in the conclusions section.
Note 5. The objective
The authors do not state research objectives; the following research questions are formulated:
How much should government spend to overcome social and institutional barriers to cobenefit solutions?
How can the costs of overcoming these barriers be estimated?
Research questions arise in empirical research following a literature review and analysis of a specific problem,
The authors in the title pose another question:
How Much Should Governments Spend to Implement Co-benefits Solutions?
Therefore, there are three questions in the manuscript, the authors should clarify what their research questions are in the manuscript, according to the main variables of the work.
The question: How much should government spend to overcome social and institutional barriers to cobenefit solutions?
This question is very general, since it talks about governments (plural) and the work was carried out in Thailand.
How can the costs of overcoming these barriers be estimated?
This question can be answered in many ways and methods, I think that this question is also very open, it is not precise, it should be corrected.
Sometimes research articles can present their objective, research question or hypothesis together and in perfect congruence with each other, but it is also valid to express only the question, objective or hypothesis, which should be answered with the evidence generated in the research work. Therefore, the authors can leave only the research questions that are very clear or write the general objective of the work aligned to the research questions.
In the results section they declare:
The next key question is what are the costs for implementing the solutions thatwould help overcome institutional and social barriers listed in Figure 1?
In other words,how much would it costs to strengthen implementation and move from the black to the blue line in Figures 2?
More research questions? The writing style should be changed and just explain the results.
Note 6. The hypothesis
Not presented.
Note 7.-Methodology
The authors set out in Figure 3 the qualitative and quantitative stages for the development of the research.
1.-Series of consultations with current and former policy makers to acquire official budget data on programs or to estimate the number of staff dedicated to the various policy development and awareness functions in key sectors. Qualitative Stage
The authors divided transaction costs into two categories:
(a) Focused primarily on policy design and implementation, which was assumed to be used to overcome institutional barriers; and
- b) Applied to awareness raising and training, which was assumed to be used to overcome social barriers. Quantitative stage
3.-The amount needed to overcome barriers was estimated. Quantitative stage
With information from the same former and current Thai officials who considered what it would cost to implement an “ideal” program that could overcome the institutional and social barriers.
A Mixed Methodology was applied at this stage.
4.-The authors with the information of the additional people and activities for an ideal program) were added to existing funding (existing people and activities for a program crippled by barriers.
It is very clear how they approached the work, however, I suggest that the authors structure section 3 as:
3.-Materials and methods
3.1 Study site
3.2.-Type of research
3.3.-Participants and selection criteria
3.4.-Instruments and Study variables
The Cases of Transport and Residential Energy
The Size of Implementation Barriers for Transport and Residential Energy
The Costs of Overcoming Barriers
Assumptions for Transaction Costs
3.6.-Data collection
3.7.-Statistical analysis
3.8.-Software used
Example: Sunny Design Version 5.22.5 (Niestetal, DEU: SMA Solar Technology AG Corp, Rocklin, CA, USA).
With this information it is intended that the authors structure the methodology in an adequate way.
It will be important that the instruments used are appended with appendices.
Equation 1 to 4 it is advisable to have some reference or explain the reason for its application.
Recommendations for the methodology
Did you provide all the necessary information about the variables studied and the products used (doses, origin, etc.)? can be improved.
Did you include all the methods used in the study? Yes.
Did you describe them in detail? yes
Did you correctly cite the methods? Yes.
Are the statistical procedures rigorous? Yes.
Is the use of data description and statistical treatment consistent? Not applicable.
These are reflection questions that support your work.
8.-Results
Recommendation for the conclusion and for its support.
Is the parallelism between the presentation of results in text and the presentation of data in tables and figures perfect? May be improved
Does the order of presentation of the different types of results follow a logical order? May be improved
Have you highlighted the star results? Yes.
Is it clear in all comparisons which values are compared and which test is used for comparison?
Is the use of descriptive parameters and tests consistent with the sample sizes and type of data distribution? could justify it. Not applicable.
could justify it, to ensure the representativeness of the findings. May be improved
Do you provide the p value in the text or illustrations when the test is significant? Not applicable.
Can you present the data in a more concise way? Yes
Specific comments:
The results are very graphical and divided into the appropriate sections, however, in the interpretation they should be clarified as Figure 2a Figure 2B
The supplementary material should be described correctly according to the authors' guide.
Remember your study variables indicated in the methodology, present the results in the same order.
9.-Discussion
Recommendations for discussion of the results:
Begin by presenting the answer to the main question stated in the introduction? Not
Does it deduce applications or implications of your answer? Yes .
Does it highlight the novelty of the work by explaining what the conclusions reached add to existing knowledge? No..
Do you claim priority if appropriate? No..
Do you explain why the answer follows from the results, why it is reasonable, and how it fits within existing knowledge? Not
Do you use scientific hypotheses rigorously? Not applicable.
Do you not reiterate the results? Not.
Is the manuscript clear, relevant to the field, and presented in a well-structured manner? Yes.
The structure of the discussion section would be similar to section of results.
The discussion can be improved or integrated as a single Results and Discussion section, the authors only used two references in this section, so I recommend searching the available empirical evidence for data that contribute to a scientific discussion.
10.-Conclusions
The conclusions are too broad, and normally should not include references, it is not a section to discuss, it is a section that should give answers, expand the existing knowledge based on the evidence generated.
Recommendation for conclusions:
Is the original contribution? Yes,
Degree of linkage to the objectives. Not
Degree of integration of the theoretical and application framework. Not
Discussion raised regarding the results obtained. Not
Derivation of normative or explanatory processes on reality. Not
Clarification of the limits of the study and proposals for new studies. Yes
These are questions for reflection and support.
Finally, it was not possible to observe the supplementary material, the authors do not present:
Supplementary Materials:
Author Contributions:
Funding:
Data Availability Statement:
Acknowledgments:
Conflicts of Interest:
Author Response
Comments Matrix: The Costs of Overcoming Social and Institutional Barriers to Implementing Co-benefit Solutions in Thailand’s Transport and Residential Energy Sectors: Methods and Applications
Reviewer 1
|
Comment |
Response |
|
The authors write the manuscript in the style of a technical report of a corporate institution, there is unnecessary text. I suggest deleting the following paragraphs: “This section parallels the organization of section 3. It begins with a review of the sizeof barriers and resultant delays in implementation. It then concentrates on the costs ofovercoming those barriers and easing implementation.” “The study is divided into five sections. The next section (section 2) synthesizes sev-eral bodies of literature to show why and how transaction costs can help connect work on feasibility with IAMs. Section 3 focuses on the methods used to assess of delay from dif-ferent barriers and outlines the four-step approach used to estimate the costs of overcom-ing the institutional and social barriers. Section 4 discusses the implications of the esti-mated transaction costs. Section 5 concludes with a review of areas for future research” “This section synthesizes work on 1) co-benefits; 2) feasibility; 3) costs in integratedassessment models (IAMs); and 4) transaction costs. It suggests that greater integration ofinsights from these areas of work can help understand how much governments need tospend to overcome social and institutional barriers. In so doing, it sets the stage for anestimate of those costs in Thailand’s residential energy and transport sectors.” “The next section reflects on how tocalculate the size of those barriers and costs to overcome them for a key set of co-benefitsolutions” “This section begins with brief overview of the selected co-benefit solutions. It then outlines an approach that can translate different barriers for these solutions into delays in implementing those solutions. It finally turns to measuring costs for getting around key challenges. The methods are innovative in that integrate data from surveys, expert consul-tations and government budgets to arrive at estimates of the costs of strengthening implementation of key solutions” “This section parallels the organization of section 3. It begins with a review of the size of barriers and resultant delays in implementation. It then concentrates on the costs ofovercoming those barriers and easing implementation” “This section discusses five implications from the estimates of transaction costs andrelated findings. In so doing, it moves from points that pertain to issues featured in theliterature on co-benefits, feasibility and transaction costs. It then touches upon implicationsinvolving applications for policymakers and institutional design”
|
Thank you. The text in question has been removed. |
|
The title starts with a research question, that is common in some papers, however, the word “Governments” is plural and is not appropriate, each country is different and its characteristics may differ, the paper was conducted in Thailand and the study variables are noted in the title, land's Transport and Residential Energy Sectors. I understand that the work can be replicated in other countries, but the work reports a specific case. Therefore, the authors may consider from an epistemological point of view of scientific research to integrate the following elements in the title. The object of study: costs in the transportation and residential energy sectors and associated co-benefits The subject of study: in Thailand Method: Estimation In my opinion, the method should be added, this from an epistemological point of view in the title, in this way it would be better explained in consistency with the statistical analysis performed. Estimation of implementation costs in the transportation and residential energy sectors and associated co-benefits in Thailand. Clear and consistent.
|
Thank you for this. The title has been changed as suggested to the following: Estimating the Costs of Overcoming Social and Institutional Barriers to Implementing Transport and Residential Energy Co-benefit Solutions in Thailand: Methods and Applications |
|
2.-The Abstract Is the most read section of an article, so it is important that it is orderly, trying to separate the sections. The introductory paragraph is appropriate; Interest in co-benefits the multiple benefits from mitigating climate change while addressing other sustainability challenges has grown as policymakers seek to lower the costs of de- carbonization. Much of this interest stems from data-driven models that quantify how much im- proved air quality, better health, and other co-benefits can offset those costs, add Therefore, the objective ( or research question) was ............................ Methodologically...................................... the results indicated...................... finally, the evidence allows us to conclude that .... I suggest that the abstract be restructured |
Thank you. The abstract has been reorganized as suggested. In particular, the objective is now clearly stated. In addition, the sentence on what the methods reveal has also been revised. Finally, the conclusions and implications are more clearly presented. |
|
3.-Keywords: Keywords: Co-benefits, Transaction Costs, Feasibility, Barriers Analysis, Integrated Assessment Models Keywords are important for the editorials for indexing purposes, a proposed idea is that the words included in the title are not repeated in the keywords, it would be interesting to place a keyword that is related to ODS addressed. Eliminate: Feasibility, Barriers Analysis, Integrated Assessment Models Examples: Climate Change, ODS 7, ODS 11, ODS 13 or others.
|
Thank you. We have added climate change to the key words. We are not sure what is meant by ODS and have decided not to include that in the key words. |
|
Note 4.-Introduction. It is recommended that the authors begin the introduction with the field of knowledge under study, state the problem, and justify it. Eliminate.” The study is divided into five sections. The next section (section 2) synthesizes sev- eral bodies of literature to show why and how transaction costs can help connect work on feasibility with IAMs. Section 3 focuses on the methods used to assess of delay from dif- ferent barriers and outlines the four-step approach used to estimate the costs of overcom ing the institutional and social barriers. Section 4 discusses the implications of the estimated transaction costs. Section 5 concludes with a review of areas for future research”. Intenten agregar en la introducción los 6 aspectos evaluados. . I suggest the authors answer the following questions and analyze the introduction section:
In addition to incorporating the theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions of the work and the originality of the work, this can be added after the literature review. Normally, after the introduction, reviewers and editors look for the work to contain at least one of the three elements: Research question, Research objective, Hypotheses that should be answered with the empirical elements of the work normally in the conclusions section.
|
Thank you for this. The roadmap paragraph that sets out how the paper is organized has been deleted. The premise for the study—namely, that estimating implementation costs can offer a clearer view of how much governments need to expend to implement solutions effectively—is now included in the introduction.
On the point regarding hypothesis testing, kindly note that the study is a forward-looking assessment of costs and therefore does not explicitly test a hypothesis with historical or experimental data. The objective of the study is now clearly spelled out in the abstract and the introduction.
|
|
Note 5. The objective The authors do not state research objectives; the following research questions are formulated: How much should government spend to overcome social and institutional barriers to cobenefit solutions? How can the costs of overcoming these barriers be estimated? Research questions arise in empirical research following a literature review and analysis of a specific problem, The authors in the title pose another question: How Much Should Governments Spend to Implement Co-benefits Solutions? Therefore, there are three questions in the manuscript, the authors should clarify what their research questions are in the manuscript, according to the main variables of the work. The question: How much should government spend to overcome social and institutional barriers to cobenefit solutions? This question is very general, since it talks about governments (plural) and the work was carried out in Thailand. How can the costs of overcoming these barriers be estimated? This question can be answered in many ways and methods, I think that this question is also very open, it is not precise, it should be corrected. Sometimes research articles can present their objective, research question or hypothesis together and in perfect congruence with each other, but it is also valid to express only the question, objective or hypothesis, which should be answered with the evidence generated in the research work. Therefore, the authors can leave only the research questions that are very clear or write the general objective of the work aligned to the research questions.
|
Thank you for this. The article now states that the main objective is to “develop and apply methods for estimating the costs of overcoming institutional and social barriers to implementing transport and residential energy (cookstove) solutions in Thailand.” This is stated in the abstract and introduction. |
|
In the results section they declare: The next key question is what are the costs for implementing the solutions thatwould help overcome institutional and social barriers listed in Figure 1? In other words,how much would it costs to strengthen implementation and move from the black to the blue line in Figures 2?
More research questions? The writing style should be changed and just explain the results.
|
Thank you for this. The question has been removed and the text now moves directly to reporting the results. |
|
Note 6. The hypothesis Not presented.
|
Thank you for this. In my experience, a hypothesis is an if/then claim that can be tested empirically with historical or experimental data. This study is a forward-looking assessment of the costs of implementing key technologies and does not lend itself to testing. |
|
Note 7.-Methodology The authors set out in Figure 3 the qualitative and quantitative stages for the development of the research. 1.-Series of consultations with current and former policy makers to acquire official budget data on programs or to estimate the number of staff dedicated to the various policy development and awareness functions in key sectors. Qualitative Stage The authors divided transaction costs into two categories: (a) Focused primarily on policy design and implementation, which was assumed to be used to overcome institutional barriers; and
3.-The amount needed to overcome barriers was estimated. Quantitative stage With information from the same former and current Thai officials who considered what it would cost to implement an “ideal” program that could overcome the institutional and social barriers. A Mixed Methodology was applied at this stage. 4.-The authors with the information of the additional people and activities for an ideal program) were added to existing funding (existing people and activities for a program crippled by barriers. It is very clear how they approached the work, however, I suggest that the authors structure section 3 as: Materials and methods 3.1 Study site 3.2.-Type of research 3.3.-Participants and selection criteria 3.4.-Instruments and Study variables The Cases of Transport and Residential Energy The Size of Implementation Barriers for Transport and Residential Energy The Costs of Overcoming Barriers Assumptions for Transaction Costs 3.6.-Data collection 3.7.-Statistical analysis 3.8.-Software used Example: Sunny Design Version 5.22.5 (Niestetal, DEU: SMA Solar Technology AG Corp, Rocklin, CA, USA). With this information it is intended that the authors structure the methodology in an adequate way. It will be important that the instruments used are appended with appendices. Equation 1 to 4 it is advisable to have some reference or explain the reason for its application. Recommendations for the methodology Did you provide all the necessary information about the variables studied and the products used (doses, origin, etc.)? can be improved. Did you include all the methods used in the study? Yes. Did you describe them in detail? yes Did you correctly cite the methods? Yes. Are the statistical procedures rigorous? Yes. Is the use of data description and statistical treatment consistent? Not applicable. These are reflection questions that support your work.
|
Thank you for this. Some of the suggestions have been accepted; however, many of the suggestions “related to materials and methods” appear better suited for a laboratory experiment. Accepted suggestions include the following: There is no greater emphasis on the mixed methods approach. The section has been changed to suggest that the data for transaction costs was analysed on a simple spreadsheet. |
|
8.-Results Recommendation for the conclusion and for its support. Is the parallelism between the presentation of results in text and the presentation of data in tables and figures perfect? May be improved Does the order of presentation of the different types of results follow a logical order? May be improved Have you highlighted the star results? Yes. Is it clear in all comparisons which values are compared and which test is used for comparison? Is the use of descriptive parameters and tests consistent with the sample sizes and type of data distribution? could justify it. Not applicable. could justify it, to ensure the representativeness of the findings. May be improved Do you provide the p value in the text or illustrations when the test is significant? Not applicable. Can you present the data in a more concise way? Yes
Specific comments: The results are very graphical and divided into the appropriate sections, however, in the interpretation they should be clarified as Figure 2a Figure 2B The supplementary material should be described correctly according to the authors' guide. Remember your study variables indicated in the methodology, present the results in the same order.
|
Thank you for this. The results section has now been reorganized so that it presents the empirical results first and then reflects on the methodological advances later in the paper. |
|
9.-Discussion Recommendations for discussion of the results: Begin by presenting the answer to the main question stated in the introduction? Not Does it deduce applications or implications of your answer? Yes . Does it highlight the novelty of the work by explaining what the conclusions reached add to existing knowledge? No.. Do you claim priority if appropriate? No.. Do you explain why the answer follows from the results, why it is reasonable, and how it fits within existing knowledge? Not Do you use scientific hypotheses rigorously? Not applicable. Do you not reiterate the results? Not. Is the manuscript clear, relevant to the field, and presented in a well-structured manner? Yes. The structure of the discussion section would be similar to section of results. The discussion can be improved or integrated as a single Results and Discussion section, the authors only used two references in this section, so I recommend searching the available empirical evidence for data that contribute to a scientific discussion.
|
Thank you for this. The discussion has been modified slightly; however, I believe that many of the concerns that are raised in this section are already in the manuscript. |
|
10.-Conclusions The conclusions are too broad, and normally should not include references, it is not a section to discuss, it is a section that should give answers, expand the existing knowledge based on the evidence generated. Recommendation for conclusions: Is the original contribution? Yes, Degree of linkage to the objectives. Not Degree of integration of the theoretical and application framework. Not Discussion raised regarding the results obtained. Not Derivation of normative or explanatory processes on reality. Not Clarification of the limits of the study and proposals for new studies. Yes These are questions for reflection and support.
|
Thank you for this. The discussion of the different estimates of benefits and the policymaking process has been removed to make the section more concise. My training suggests that the conclusion should be short, reiterating the main findings and then reflecting on the limitations and future research. The conclusion covers those areas. |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper investigated the costs of overcoming social and institutional barriers to achieving the estimated benefits of mitigating climate change. It is an interesting topic and worth investigation.
However, most of the calculations presented in the paper are based on assumptions or estimations, and there is no justification for the selection of certain parameters, such as the annual growth rate. It is OK to do so, but it is better to have a sensitivity analysis to see the impact of change in those parameters.
The presentation of the results can be improved. For instance, for figures 2 & 5, it is very difficult to see the details in the figure. Figures 4 and 5 show the error bars which reflect the results of a sensitivity analysis but it is unclear how this is accomplished.
The figures should be placed in incremental order. Currently, they are in the order of figures 1, 3, and 2.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageN/A
Author Response
Comments Matrix: The Costs of Overcoming Social and Institutional Barriers to Implementing Co-benefit Solutions in Thailand’s Transport and Residential Energy Sectors: Methods and Applications
Reviewer 2
|
|
|
|
The paper investigated the costs of overcoming social and institutional barriers to achieving the estimated benefits of mitigating climate change. It is an interesting topic and worth investigation. However, most of the calculations presented in the paper are based on assumptions or estimations, and there is no justification for the selection of certain parameters, such as the annual growth rate. It is OK to do so, but it is better to have a sensitivity analysis to see the impact of change in those parameters. The presentation of the results can be improved. For instance, for figures 2 & 5, it is very difficult to see the details in the figure. Figures 4 and 5 show the error bars which reflect the results of a sensitivity analysis but it is unclear how this is accomplished. The figures should be placed in incremental order. Currently, they are in the order of figures 1, 3, and 2. |
Thank you for this. We have now included a discussion of the sensitivity analysis in the direct text of the paper. We have also renumbered the figures and improved the formatting to make them clearer.
|
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I highly recommend for future submissions to include all the elements that the MDPI author's guide provides for review, in this case the manuscript lacks the information that the editorial office will request during the process.
The most relevant aspect for atebder is the lack of supplementary materials that are not available in the manuscript or were not properly loaded into the system.
“The approach, detailed in the supplementary materials, has three notable features.”
This is a very important aspect, it was an observation that was made and was not addressed, so I suggest that it be provided for the publication of the manuscript.
Finally, the authors generally addressed the suggested observations and in my opinion the manuscript can be accepted with minor editing observations.
information to be requested by the editorial office:
Supplementary Materials: .
Author Contributions:
Funding:
Data Availability Statement:
Acknowledgments:
Conflicts of Interest:
