Public Awareness, Lifestyle and Low-Carbon City Transformation in China: A Systematic Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, the impact of public awareness on low-carbon city transformation in China is summarized and the related concepts and theories are discussed, as well as the challenges and barriers of public attitude and behaviour change about low-carbon lifestyle. It is found that there is a clear gap between low-carbon awareness and low-carbon behaviour, and education and government policy have an influence on the population’s low-carbon behaviour in China.
I consider the content of this manuscript suitable for the readership of Sustainability. I suggest a minor revision of the manuscript. The interpretation of some results should be more detailed and the introduction part can also be enriched and improved.
- The length of the abstract exceeds the requirements of the journal and needs to be reduced appropriately. ‘Abstract: The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum’ (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions).
- For the Keywords, ‘challenges/barrier’, ‘awareness and behaviour’ and ‘education/government policy’ should be added to cause the broader interest of readers.
- Line 87, ‘In recent years, China took some measures to reduce carbon emissions, such as setting carbon emission reduction goals, eliminating backward production capacity, increasing carbon sink capacity, accelerating the development of low carbon cities, and conserving energy and improving energy efficiency (Yang W J et al, 2019).’Among the conserving energy and improving energy efficiency, the most important to reduce carbon emissions is avoiding as much as possible the usage of fossil fuels. So renewable energy resources should be developed widely, which is what China is currently doing [Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018): 2281-2290]. In addition, renewable energy sources are typically unstable and intermittent during generation, and thus these valuable electric energies are difficult to apply continuously and stably. Hence, the development and employment of energy storage systems are also important for low-carbon life [ChemSusChem 15.1 (2022): e202101798].
- Line 91, ‘But the ground reality with high population density, still growing private car ownership, and the concentration of industrial enterprises...’The trend for transferring gas/petrol cars to electrical vehicles should also be mentioned since this is very popular now in China.
- For Section 2, the literature, searching details are too many, I suggest reducing a bit.
- The structure of the manuscript is too mixed. For example, the classification is carried out only according to the research Question 1-2-3, and there is no further subdivision inside. At present, the discussion of each research Question section seems to be a simple stack of literature content, and the structure is very unclear. Such a way of writing and discussing would be boring to the reader and not very friendly to read.
- I consider government subsidies and incentives also have a very significant impact on individuals' low-carbon behavior, which doesn't seem to be discussed in this section. Furthermore, it is the government's coercive behaviour, such as the forced removal of fuel vehicles within 20 years, and there are only electric vehicles on the market, which will inevitably stimulate individuals' low-carbon behaviour in car purchases.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to review your paper Public Awareness, Lifestyle and Low-carbon City Transformation in China: A Systematic Literature Review. There are several suggestions for paper improvement:
- It is necessary to understand the purpose and aim of the paper as well as its "position" in relation to previous research (also gap analysis). In that sense improve the introduction section.
- The last paragraph in the introduction section is missing. It is usually a short methodology/structure of the paper (several sentences for each section).
- The paper must be more critical and exploratory, than descriptive and analytic.
- Practical and theoretical applications in the Discussion section must be distinguished from the Conclusion section.
- The conclusion section contains concluding remarks, limitations, future research directions, etc. The Discussion section is very modest. The authors must demonstrate the impact and insights of the research.
- Clearly state your unique research contributions in the conclusion section. The authors need to clearly provide several solid future research directions (this confirms a bad relationship with the gaps in the literature).
- Scientific and practical contributions should be more emphasized.
- The review paper should not just be a list of what everyone has done but should identify trends and gaps in the literature and offer suggestions for furthering the field relative to the specific phenomenon, with a very strong critical view and very strong methodology.
Suggested references:
Denyer, D. & Tranfield, D., (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (eds.) The sage handbook of organizational research methods. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, 671-689.
Kilibarda, M., Andrejić, M., & Popović, V. (2020). Research in logistics service quality: a systematic literature review. Transport, 35 (2), 224-235.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. & Smart, P., (2003). "Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review", British journal of management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read and reflect on your research note, I think this is very interesting. In my opinion in order to improve the quality of the research before publishing:
- Please use an adequate in-text citation style. Even if you did specify the number of the reference, you included authors’ first and last name. Please use only authors’ last names.
- In the conclusions (text 593-594) the authors state that this research may not be transferable to other countries or contexts.But have they expanded the scope of the literature review to other countries? I don't see that they explain anything about it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This article reports a systematic literature review regarding public awareness and public participation to respond to climate change. I have some comments for consideration:
11. Abstract and introduction sections: Please add more explanation regarding the reason to choose and to limit the study only to China. Is there any specific reason? What is the benefit of focusing on studies only in China? is there any initial assumption that the strategies and programs in China are more advanced compared with the rest of the world? Or, the reason is the population size? Please clarify, especially for clarification regarding the position of this study in the body of knowledge regarding climate change.
22. Introduction section: it is widely accepted that transportation is the main actor in climate change problems. Please clarify, whether this study will focus on the transportation sector or any sectors?
33. Introduction section, lines 99-107; please clarify whether these questions are restricted for public awareness in China only?
44. Line 118: please clarify the meaning of “SLR”
55. Section 2, Table 1: please clarify why there is no word “China” or “Chinese” to limit the location. Please clarify, how the Authors limit the study to focus on study in China only?
66. Line 204-205: please clarify how the Authors judge the ‘scientific soundness.’ What are the criteria for judgment?
77. Section 2.4, Figure 1; please add more information on how the Authors do the removal based on theme or subject area? Is it manually read by the Authors or using the software?
88. Figure 1: please clarify what is the meaning of TAK, as appears in the figure “…excluded according to TAK ….”
99. Figure 1: please clarify the eligibility assessment, as appears in the figure “…reason 7. 8, and journal ...”
110. Line 219; please clarify where is sheet 2, as written “…step (Fig. 2 and Sheet 2)….” Similarly for Sheet 4 and 5 (as appears in line 252), sheet 6 (line 391), sheet 7 (line 457), and so on.
111. Section 3.1: how the Authors are sure about the quality of the article? Please clarify its reliability
112. Section 4; please elaborate on the lesson learned for other countries, the position in the body of knowledge regarding climate change as well as public participation.
113. This article needs the help of a professional proofreader to improve the English quality.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
This study examined in order to understand the impact of public awareness on low-carbon city transformation based on three questions. And then it suggested future research on the relationship between public perception and low-carbon city development. Overall, the paper seemed to be written down on the basis of literature reviews.
In addition, it needs a clearer explanation of the contribution of this paper. The current paper has limited contributions for practical implications.
It would like to encourage the authors to submit their work to a case study or exploratory study-focused journals instead, in which the theoretical and empirical extension would make valid contributions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
Dear Authors,
The manuscript entitled “Public Awareness, Lifestyle and Low-carbon City Transformation in China: A Systematic Literature Review” deals with an interesting and current topic. I have only minor concerns, but several of them, that need to be addressed.
What is the source of the statement that “many people even do not believe that they can do much as individuals about climate change”? Please, insert a citation here.
You should use the full term for the first time you use an abbreviation, and the abbreviation should be in brackets (SLR, GHG, TAK, CLA).
Why did you use low-carbon and especially PM2.5 as a search term substituting the term climate change (i.e., with OR relation)? Isn’t it better to use them as complements (with the use of AND relation)? You at least partly explain the use of low-carbon but not PM2.5 as search terms.
You wrote you restricted the search to specific disciplines. Is it true for all data bases? Please, make it clear around lines 177-179. The included areas mentioned in lines 177-178 contradict those mentioned in lines 192-195, and the excluded areas mentioned in lines 178-179 contradict those in lines 196-198.
When you refer the “Sheets”, please specify where those sheets can be found.
In Fig. 1 the second step of screening is incorrect: 349-199=/=159.
The peak of carbon emission reduction research in 2021 may also be attributed to the effect of COVID lockdown (lines 231-232).
You mention “the most important cities” in lines 247-248 but being “important” is very subjective in this context; so in what terms are they the most important cities?
I recommend you to show the values in descending order on Figures 3 and 4 for the better understanding.
In section 3.2.2, please, indicate the number of studies using the given theories.
TPB is a little bit more complicated than you state (“people’s behaviour can be affected by their attitude and willingness”), basically, the behaviour is affected by the intention (willingness) and then the intention is influenced by the attitude and subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. Moreover, behind each of these variables there are beliefs (attitudinal, normative, and control beliefs, respectively).
Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 would benefit from summarizing tables similar to Tables 2-4.
You mention government restrictions and censorship that may cause uncertainty in research results (lines 367-368). What does it exactly mean? Majority of the prospective readers of your study do not understand how could the government influence scientific questionnaires and their results, especially published in not Chinese journals.
What does “travel elements” as an experimental method mean?
Field survey method mentioned in Table 2 is not discussed in text.
The sentence in brackets in lines 397-398 should be the Notes of Table 2.
Some situational factors (economy, supporting facilities, and technology) are not discussed in the paragraph in lines 513-534.
Why do you think that only universities and primary schools can provide more low-carbon knowledge to students? What about secondary schools?
The formatting of citations and the references list is not in line with the journal’s requirements.
There are numerous typos and grammatical mistakes in the manuscript (see, e.g., lines 13, 34, 142, 156, 165, 186, 204, 207, 213, 233, 289, 305, 321, 347, 365, 369, 401, 420, 451, 465, 467, 478, 492, 518, 521, 531, 590, 593, Fig. 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper should be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Many thanks for your time to review our article and gave us the valuable comments.
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for the Authors’ effort in responding to my comments. I still have some minor comments for clarification as follows:
1. Lines 189-191: the exclusion of the field as the source of the article seems to be a limitation of the result. Please explain and discuss the reason and impact of this exclusion.
2. Section 2.4; there is a significant decrease in the number of articles to be finally included in the discussion. Please elaborate on the possibility of missing a significantly related study (from around 4000+ to only 1%).
3. Conclusion section: please elaborate on the limitation of this study which in the end limits the interpretation of the study. Further studies should be mentioned based on the findings of this study. Even though the Authors have mentioned the practical contributions of this study, I personally believe it is too general. A more detailed practical contribution based on the findings of this study is needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The authors have made appropriate modifications based on comments. However, it is recommended to modify the font size and spacing in the table.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Many thanks for your advice. We have modified the font size and improve the spacing in the table.
