An Analysis of the Impact of Market Segmentation on Energy Efficiency: A Spatial Econometric Model Applied in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• The research paper is well written but a final language edit is required.
• The title needs change from a language use point of view. Maybe: AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF MARKET SEGMENTATION ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY: A SPATIAL ECONOMETRIC MODEL APPLIED IN CHINA.
• All figures and tables are poorly presented and explained. Figure 1 for example is very small and is also not explained. Same with Fig 2, fig 3, and the tables seems excessive in size and poorly explained. 
• in line 279 it is stated that regional economic development is measured using GDP/labour and GDP growth rate. i can not agree with this as regional economic development should be measured using more applicable variables such as GDP per capita or HDI or an index of variables.
• The question could also be asked why the study end in 2018 data. Why not up to 2020?  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The units in Figure 1, 3 are missing.
There is no description of all symbols in the formulas.
There is also no description of symbols in the tables.
Not all usedmethods  were discussed in the methods chapter
Why was the period 1995-2018 considered?
The results were not discussed, why the results of the calculated indicators differ in individual provinces, what influences it, what shapes energy efficiency, which factors can reduce it - thanks to this, it will be possible to conclude how to shape the level of efficiency.
The authors do not specify what software they used, e.g. how the maps were created.
Conclusions should be separated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Title.

Instead of asking a question, authors should affirm.

 

Abstract.

Title and abstract are not aligned.

The structure of the abstract should be modified according to the suggestions of the publisher:

"The abstract should be an objective representation of the article, it must not contain results which are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions".

It can be done in this way:

"First, place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study. Then, describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied. Next, summarize the article's main findings. Finally, indicate the main conclusions or interpretations."

 

Keywords:

Spatial econometric model? This is included in the title but not in the keywords.

 

Introduction:

According to the instructions and suggestions of the publisher, "the introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. Please highlight controversial and diverging hypotheses when necessary. Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work and highlight the principal conclusions. As far as possible, please keep the introduction comprehensible to scientists outside your particular field of research. "

World-China-Particular industries of China is a better order to introduce the topic. This must be interesting for readers in China but also in other contexts.

There are more examples apart from room air conditioners  that should be taken into account. 

Whhich is the negative impact of environmental regulation and GTFEE?

Relation between GTFEE and TFEE should be better explained and described.

(Negative or positive) factors impacting on TFEE should be considered into a more systematic mode.

The gap should be stressed instead of reviewing  current literature without doing it. Controverses, divergences and weaknesses are not highlighted.

 

Mechanism description:

Objectives are not well explained. This need to be improved. 

Hypotheses are clear, but not the objectives to be achieved.

 

Methodology and Data:

All the parameters, data and variables defined in Equations 1-6 must be explained and distinguished. Only some of them are done.

Content of leyend of Figure 1 must be better explained.

Why does this paper use the Super-SBM model. This is not put into context. Advantages, disanvantages, limitations, etc. are not stressed.

Why Data calculation is based on 2004?

720 observations? The evolution of 24 years into 30 provinces. Is representative the mean of the 30 provinces? This mean is not ponderated and is measuring all the provinces  equally. Can be obtained the sum of the variables of the 30 provinces to get a better presentation of the country? Instead of measuring by province, compile and measure the country. Differences with the mean will be get.

Analysis of results compiled in Table 1 is not included.

 

Empirical analyses:

Table 2 must be better introduced, explained and justified.

Idem Table 3.

Idem Table 4.

Idem Table 5.

Statistics must be the support of a theoretical plan. And not vice versa.

For a better understanding, Figures a) and b) should be rotated 90º.

 

Mechanism and robustness tests:

Are the authors sure stepwise regression is the best choice?

This should be previously discussed.

Regression does not mean causality. 

Reliability, confidence and goodness are not taken into account.

 

Conclusion and policy implications:

Relation is considered. Causality is not proven.

Are policy recommendations based on results of this research? Which is the link?

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The problem with this paper is the theoretical and empirical foundation. These components were not completed in the literature review.

the methodology is unclear and should be re-written in a more logical way. Give background on how the study was done, why methods selected and why variables were selected. theoretical base again. 

Results a problem and not well explained and not linked to other studies. 

The paper also is too long with too many components, it must be more focused. 

conclusions and recommendations lacks components such as the contributions of the research, limitations, future research, implications of the research etc.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have one more doubt. Energy efficiency is the ratio of outputs, services, goods or energy obtained to the energy input.  therefore, I do not understand why the indicator should not have a unit, it always has a unit, sometimes it is in%.

Author Response

   Yes, in fact, the unit of energy efficiency is 1%. however, it is generally not emphasized energy efficiency's units in existing literature.

    Finally, Thanks for the reviewers to recognize this article. It is the professional opinion of the reviewer to improve the quality of this article. The Quality of Thesis is inseparable from the academic assistance of the reviewers.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Point 1:

Title is ok.

Point 2:

The problem of market segmentation, prior to relating it to EE, is not included.  This would lead to why you want to relate it to EE.

Explain, why do you measure? 

Point 3: 

Results that are no significant must not to be included in the abstract.

You are stablishing causal relationships relating positive o negative impacts. Noise, indirect effects and other events must be checked in order to eliminate them.

Point 4:

Ok.

Point 5:

Ok.

Point 6:

Ok.

Point 7: 

This is still not solved. Can lead...is not enough.

Point 8:

The explanation must be included for readers, not for me.

However, explanation is a little naif.

Point 9:

The questions is not adressed. You are answering other issue.

If described in text: Why do not indicate where and how?

Point 10:

This is not enough. No references are included to justify it. 

Point 11:

The general and specific objectives of the paper remain unclear.

Point 12:

This has been partially corrected.  Their puropose is not stressed. 

Point 13:

Ok. However, try to use all the size available to increase the size of the figure in order to show its content better.

Point 14:

Any references to justify it and/or to demonstrate its previous use by other authors?

Point 15:

Any references to justify your choice (2004)?

Point 16:

If "it is difficult to obtain a more accurate estimate with too few data  samples" then there is a lack, a limitation in the paper. And this must be included at the end of the conclusions.

Point 17: 

Yo cannot justify your choice in this way: "Statistical tables are generally not described in the text."

Point 18: 

Content added is not enough.

Point 19:

If pictures are not rotated, then the available space must be used.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is now ready for publication

Reviewer 3 Report

Good job!