Regional Total Factor Energy Efficiency Evaluation of China: The Perspective of Social Welfare
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper evaluates energy efficiency of China´s provinces as well as the energy saving and emission reduction potential by using hybrid DEA model. The paper is interesting as it pays attention to the unstudied relationship between social welfare, energy, environment and economic growth, especially in areas of high environmental pollution such as China. However, some aspects should be clarified before being considered for publication in the prestigious journal Sustainability.
Introduction
Is well documented with literatures, however a common practice in scientific papers is to include a brief paragraph at the end of the Introduction in order to indicate the structure of the document. This helps the reader to have an accurate idea about the organization and facilitates the reading. This reviewer suggests including such a paragraph to enhance the manuscript presentation.
Also, I would suggest defining the concept of energy efficiency and explain the measurement method used for its calculation.
Data and variable selection
Can you specify the different emission coefficients used for the calculation?
Results and discussion
Line 288: In 2016 seven (or eight?) provinces reached the frontier of energy efficiency.
In view of the results in table 2, it would be useful to stress the factors that influence the difference between the energy efficiency values of the different provinces.
According to the data presented, can any kind of relationship be established between the energy efficiency of a region and the air quality? or between energy efficiency and social welfare?
Does the energy saving potential only take energy efficiency into account? Can other variables be considered in its calculation?
What is the baseline for calculating the potential for saving greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, SO2, NOX, dust)? Is all the energy provided considered to come from the burning of fossil fuels? Could the use of renewable sources be considered?
Conclusions and implications
Authors should add some empirical findings of several previous studies in order to help readers to understand the difference between the current study and previous ones. I think it is also important to present the recommendations for future studies. Are there any further research streams?
As a conclusion of the revision, if all the described suggestions are addressed, the manuscript will reach a better presentation and scientific level, according to the prestigious journal Sustainability.
Author Response
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer 1:
1. Comment: a brief paragraph at the end of the Introduction should be included in order to indicate the structure of the document.
Response: we are very sorry for our negligence of the structure arrangement of the paper. The referee’s advice is quite important. We have added the structure at the end of the introduction. The revised details can be found in Line 92-95, page 2.
2. Comment: define the concept of energy efficiency and explain the measurement method used for its calculation.
Response: Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. We have given the brief introduction to the concept of energy efficiency and the calculation equation for total factor energy efficiency and analyzed the advantages of DEA method in evaluating energy efficiency. The revised details can be found in Line 63-91, page 2.
3. Comment: specify the different emission coefficients used for the calculation?
Response: Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. We find it is necessary to present the process of calculating carbon emission coefficients. Therefore, we revised it according to the comments. The revised details can be found in Line 313-315 and table 2, in page 8.
4. Comment: In 2016 seven (or eight?) provinces reached the frontier of energy efficiency.
Response: Thanks for the referee’s kind remind. Just like what the referee said, we made a mistake in the numbers of provinces that reached the frontier in 2016, it should be eight, not seven. We have made correction in the manuscript in line 335.
5. Comment: stress the factors that influence the difference between the energy efficiency values of the different provinces.
Response: Thanks for the referee’s suggestion. Although we have done some explanations on the reason why some provinces have excellent performance in energy efficiency, while some others did not. But since the referee gave such a suggestion, it must be that the expression is not clear enough, so we adjusted the structure of the analysis in section 5, and made a brief summary of the influencing factors, which can be seen in line 370-373, page 10.
6. Comment: can any kind of relationship be established between the energy efficiency of a region and the air quality? or between energy efficiency and social welfare?
Response: Thanks for the referee’s suggestion. To answer this question, we found some air quality indicators such as Annual average concentration of SO2, Annual average concentration of NO2 and Annual average concentration of PM2.5, and try to find their relationships with energy efficiency. But it’s regretful that we didn’t find any linear relationship between air quality and energy efficiency. After discussion, we think that such a result is acceptable. Because energy efficiency score is the result of the comprehensive effect of various inputs and outputs, it depends on multiple factors. Some provinces are energy efficient because of their higher social welfare, while others may be due to better air quality. We hope our explanation can be recognized by the referee.
7. Comment: Does the energy saving potential only take energy efficiency into account? What is the baseline for calculating the potential for saving greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, SO2, NOX, dust)?
Response: Thanks for the referee’s good question. It reminds us to add the calculation method of energy saving potential and emission reduction potential, as can be seen line 414-417, equation 16 and 17, page 12.
8. Comment: Is all the energy provided considered to come from the burning of fossil fuels? Could the use of renewable sources be considered?
Response: Thanks very much for the referee’s suggestion. In this study, we only consider fossil fuels as energy input. But we found this suggestion very reasonable, which can be considered for further research. We have added it in the last section, in line 487-492, page 14. Thanks again for the referee’s good idea.
9. Comment: add some empirical findings of several previous studies in order to help readers to understand the difference between the current study and previous ones.
Response: Thanks very much for the referee’s suggestion. we do get some conclusions that are different from previous studies. Considering the Referee’s suggestion, we have made a comparison with the conclusion from other studies, which can be found in line 459-463, page 14.
10. Comment: present the recommendations for future studies.
Response: Thanks very much for the referee’s suggestion. We have added the Directions for further research, which can be seen in line 487-492, page 14.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for submitting an interesting paper. The paper is well written well and follows the main opinion in the field. However, there are two weaknesses, which should be considered by the authors before publication:
1) there is no clear differentiation between energy efficiency in the end use sector and energy efficiency of primary energy inputs, e.g. power sector. Therefore, it is not clear where the main potential for energy efficiency improvements is. Probably this differs between the provinces depending on their industrial structure.
2) Have the authors considered, that switching from fossil fuels in the energy sector to non combustible renewable energy sources increases the energy efficiency considerably? Non combustible RES is counted one primary unit for one usable unit, whereas in for fossil and nuclear energy there is a considerable difference between primary and usable units. The authors should consider to mention this facts in the introduction.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
1. Comment: there is no clear differentiation between energy efficiency in the end use sector and energy efficiency of primary energy inputs.
Response: Thanks for the referee’s good suggestion. It’s true that we didn’t introduce the concept of energy efficiency. According to the referee’s suggestion, we have given the brief introduction to the concept of energy efficiency and the calculation equation for total factor energy efficiency, which is put forward by Hu and Wang(2006). The revised details can be found in Line 63-80, page 2.
2. Comment: Have the authors considered, that switching from fossil fuels in the energy sector to non combustible renewable energy sources increases the energy efficiency considerably?
Response: Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. In this study, we only consider fossil fuels as energy input. But we found this suggestion very reasonable, which can be considered for further research. We have added it in the last section, in line 487-492, page 14.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript presents a study of sustainability elements from human social well-being perspectives regarding the Regional Total Factor Energy Efficiency Evaluation of China during the period of 2012 to 2016. Considering the radial and non-radial characteristics of different input and output indicators, and the inseparability between energy input and undesirable output, this study employs the non-separable hybrid DEA model to evaluate the total energy efficiency. The topic is interesting and it is adapt to this journal. The subject may attract some interest to the readers.
In general, this manuscript is well organized and written, with comprehensive literature review, detailing the framework approach of the study and clearly stated methodology.
It is obviously the core contribution of this manuscript attempts to expand the existing literature from the following two aspects: (1) considering the impact of energy consumption on human social well-being, taking human social well-being as desired output instead of GDP indicators; (2) using non-separable Hybrid DEA model of undesired output, considering the radial and non-radial characteristics of different input and output indicators, evaluating the regional total factor energy efficiency in the perspective of human social well-being and calculate the energy-saving and emission reduction potential of provinces.
On top of it, it would be nice if you can make it clear what theoretical contributions, if any, are presented. For example, in Section 2. Research Method and in Section 3. Data and Variable Selection, which part of the methodology is original, vs. which has been proposed before and you are just applying it? How different is your problem formulation from previous literature?
The authors need to clarify and explain the difference of the current study with the available literature, as well as the main contribution of the study to the science. This can be done giving further emphasis to its regional and/or global importance.
The results of the study are presented in tabular form, and these were poorly presented with no sufficient data to analyse or replicate the results. + There are few explanations on tables connected to results. The readers can not understand what the authors want to claim.
Some minor presentation and language issues:
- define all notations that is used where the concept appears first mentioned in the text, some of the abbreviations are not explained;
- the quality of Figure 1 should be improved;
- the authors must follow strictly the manuscript guidelines to format the whole article in accordance with the “MDPI” requirements (tables, figure 1, formulas using math equation editor, row spacing, letter size).
The quality of the English should be improved. The clarity of the manuscript can be improved.
Having mentioned the above, this manuscript is proposed to be published after major revision.
Author Response
Reviewer 3:
1. Comment: What theoretical contributions have the paper made? Explain the difference of the current study with the available literature.
Response: Thanks for the referee’s good suggestion. Just like what the referee said, we didn’t explain clearly how different is our research from previous ones. We have re-written this part according to the Referee’s suggestion, which can be found in line 81-91, page 2. And we also clarify that we apply Toner’s hybrid DEA model, but to analyze different problems at different perspective, which can be seen in line 204-208, page 5; we gave the calculation process of Carbon emission coefficients and show it in table 2, page 8; We have made a comparison with the conclusion from other studies, which can be found in line 459-463, page 14.
2. Comment: The results of the study are presented in tabular form, and these were poorly presented with no sufficient data to analyse or replicate the results.
Response: Thanks for the referee’s good suggestion. We find the referee’s advice is quite important. So we have rearranged the empirical analysis in Part 5 to make the analysis more orderly, and added corresponding plotline and histogram to make the reader understand the results of this paper more intuitively. The revised details can be found in Line 327-336, figure 2 page 9, figure 3 in page 10 and figure 4 in page 12.
3. Comment: define all notations that is used where the concept appears first mentioned in the text, some of the abbreviations are not explained
Response: Thanks for the referee’s good suggestion. We are very sorry for our negligence. We have checked the whole manuscript, and make sure that all notations are defined and all of the abbreviations are explained. Line 47: “(International Energy Agency)”was added.
4. Comment: the quality of Figure 1 should be improved
Response: Thanks for the referee’s kind remind. We have improved the quality of Figure 1 .
5. Comment: the authors must follow strictly the manuscript guidelines to format the whole article in accordance with the “MDPI” requirements (tables, figure 1, formulas using math equation editor, row spacing, letter size).
Response: Thanks for the referee’s kind remind. We have carefully check the format of the article, including the tables, figures, formulas, references. We hope our correction could meet the requirements.
Line 53: “(Pan Jiahua, 2018)” was deleted;
Line 56:”(Lamb et al., 2014)” was deleted;
Line 100:“ (Liu Guoping, 2017) ” was deleted;
Line 110: “(Hu&Wang, 2006)” was deleted;
The order of references has been adjusted.
Line 253: “(MengQingchun et al., 2016)” was deleted;
Line 513-522: reference 6 to 10 were added;
Line 565-569: reference 31 to 33 were added.
6. Comment: The quality of the English should be improved.
Response: Thanks for the referee’s suggestion. We have invited an English native speaker to help us to improve the English quality.
Line 10: the statement “important” was corrected as “essential”; “factor” was deleted;
Line 15: the statement “China in provincial level administration regions” was corrected as“Chinese provinces”; “during the period of 2012 to 2016” was corrected as “between 2012 and 2016”;
Line 24：”can not” was corrected as “cannot”;
Line 32: The statement “and excessive pursuit of economic growth speed” was corrected as “for high speed economic growth”
Line 38: “intermediate” was deleted;
Line 97: the statement ” important input factor” was corrected as “essential input”;
Line 99: “way” was corrected as “approach”;
Line 109: “input factors” was corrected as “inputs”
Line 119:“Eco-environmental” was corrected as “ecological environment”
Line 175:“is no longer a single” was corrected as “isn’t limited to”;
Line 177:“The output of energy consumption should include both economic growth and social welfare. ” was deleted;
Line 178: the word “aim” was corrected as “goal”;
Line 208: the statement “under the orientation” was corrected as “in the perspective”;
Line 251: “be” was added;
Line 254:”also” was added;
Line 252: “nitrogen oxides ()”was deleted;
Table 3: “NEIMENGGU” was corrected as “INNER MONGOLIA”; “national” was corrected as “whole country”
Line 333: the statement “total factor energy efficiency was” was corrected as “score”
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All suggestions have been addressed, having significantly improved the manuscript, so that I recommend its publication.
Author Response
thanks for your valuable suggestion.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for considering the suggestions and comments from the first round of reviews.
This version reads much better and it is more detailed and comprehensive. The authors have sufficiently improved and corrected the manuscript.
The paper is well organized now and has been upgraded in many respects.
I think the paper is good for publication.
Author Response
thanks for your valuable suggestion.
