Energy Transition Narratives in Spain: A Case Study of As Pontes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have enjoyed reading this study and find it insightful around what is clearly a substantive issue. The choice of setting, while narrow in fact, is relevant broadly, and the fact that the organisation plays (played) such an important role both economically and socially within its region makes the illustration even more substantive.

I find the study to be well written and to be quite honest, while in terms of scientific sophistication, the study is relatively modest, the overarching importance of the issue and what the setting has to offer in terms of broadly applicable insights makes the study a most interesting and informative read.

I'm not sure if I should apologise for having no substantive challenges to offer - rather I will simply state that I enjoyed reading the study and found it both informative and thought provoking / insightful

I wish you well with this study and related material that might develop

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you for your comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We are sure that they will contribute to improve the quality of our research paper.

Reviewer-s comments:

I have enjoyed reading this study and find it insightful around what is clearly a substantive issue. The choice of setting, while narrow in fact, is relevant broadly, and the fact that the organisation plays (played) such an important role both economically and socially within its region makes the illustration even more substantive.

I find the study to be well written and to be quite honest, while in terms of scientific sophistication, the study is relatively modest, the overarching importance of the issue and what the setting has to offer in terms of broadly applicable insights makes the study a most interesting and informative read.

I'm not sure if I should apologise for having no substantive challenges to offer - rather I will simply state that I enjoyed reading the study and found it both informative and thought provoking / insightful

I wish you well with this study and related material that might develop

Response to reviewer:

Thank you for your kind comments. This is a qualitative work on the narratives around the energy transition, highlighting the perspective of different stakeholders and the narratives supported by them to achieve their interests. We hope to contribute to highlight the importance of narratives in shaping the pace and direction of the energy transition in As Pontes (A Coruna, Spain)

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

It has been a pleasure to thoroughly read your manuscript. I consider it very interstingly. The example of the development in As Pontes in Spain is a book example of the impact of the narrative in the energy transition sector. I found the way you introduce and motivate your work very good. Specially the data collection and methodology used are excellently presented and described. Also the result and discussion and conclusion sections are written in a way that complete the work. 

I only have one important to suggestion to make. In the introductory section (see document attached) I made two suggestions. One important suggestion relates to the renewable sources or energies mentioned. The authors did not mentioned the geothermal energy, which has a huge potential and an excellent development, specially in Spain. I find it important to mention and also include recent citations of the respective renewable energies. I suggested one recent citation. I would appreciate considering it. Geothermal energy is a "modern" and renewable energy with a huge potential, specially in urbanized regions with a huge demand in heat and electric power.

Best wishes!

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you for your comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We are sure that they will contribute to improve the quality of our research paper.

Reviewer-s comments:

Comments were added to the manuscript.

Response to reviewer:

1. The reference number has been corrected.
2. Reference for Paris agreement has been added.
3. Figure caption has been corrected.
4. The names of the regional governments in English have been added.
5. In Spain, at the age of 16, all students finish ESO (Obligatory secondary education) and are able to work.
6. Footnotes have been moved to the reference list.
7. The reference list has been updated.

We hope we have answered all your questions. If you have any other comments, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you very much.

Reviewer 3 Report

It would be good to see some of data presented in paper shown in diagrams (graphs). Especially those considering types of energy used.

All in all I liked the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you for your comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We do not fully agree with you, but some of your suggestions will contribute to improve the quality of our research work. We have tried to incorporate them to the main text.

Reviewer’s comments:

The material sent is typical publicistic material. This material is not a scientific article. The authors presented a set of publicly available but not structured information on views on the energy transition. In the third point, no description of materials and methods that should or have been used by the Authors was found. "Doing extensive internet search based on a long list of keywords" is not a research or analytical method. The keyword selection principle is not presented and Table 2 has not been commented on. In general, the titles of individual items do not correspond to their content. In section 5.2, additional subheadings were introduced with the purpose of separating them unclear. The subtitle "Energy transition is misguided and costly" is the antithesis of the visible content of the material. Moreover, it is not known what the main goal of the Authors was, what are the basic results of the Authors' deliberations and to whom these results will be useful. In fact, the material does not present both the basic assumptions, the methodology of the conducted scientific analysis and the conclusions resulting from this analysis. Practically, the Authors did not present any conclusions, and a conclusion such as: "In short, the study of narratives reinforces the role of the social dimension of the energy transition ..." (lines 853 - 856) has no justification. To sum up, this material does not have any features of an analytical-research article, and its edition, even for publicistic material, should definitely be improved. This material is simply not readable. This material does not meet the substantive and editorial requirements for its publication in "Sustainability". Therefore, this material should be rejected.

Response to reviewer:

1. The paper is about narratives build by different actors. Mostly they use newspapers and public platforms to spread their views. Then it is understandable that some of the texts used in this article comes from different publicity materials which express the views of different stakeholders.
2. Table 1 provides a complete list of text material.
3. The keyword selection process has been described in the third section.
4. The reference and a brief description of Table 2 is added to the main text.
5. The subheadings in section 5.2 shows different prevalent narratives. These narratives show how different stakeholders perceive energy transition and decarbonization processes. We have contradictory narratives promoted by different stakeholders with different interests. These are presented in this section.
6. The main goal of this research was mentioned in the introduction as: As prevailing narratives have a huge impact on the implementation of decarbonization policies, it is important to study the prevailing narratives around the energy transition to identify the key factors that can accelerate the pace of the transition and increase its acceptability among different groups in a region.

Reviewer 4 Report

The material sent is typical publicistic material. This material is not a scientific article. The authors presented a set of publicly available but not structured information on views on the energy transition. In the third point, no description of materials and methods that should or have been used by the Authors was found. "Doing extensive internet search based on a long list of keywords" is not a research or analytical method. The keyword selection principle is not presented and Table 2 has not been commented on. In general, the titles of individual items do not correspond to their content. In section 5.2, additional subheadings were introduced with the purpose of separating them unclear. The subtitle "Energy transition is misguided and costly" is the antithesis of the visible content of the material. Moreover, it is not known what the main goal of the Authors was, what are the basic results of the Authors' deliberations and to whom these results will be useful. In fact, the material does not present both the basic assumptions, the methodology of the conducted scientific analysis and the conclusions resulting from this analysis. Practically, the Authors did not present any conclusions, and a conclusion such as: "In short, the study of narratives reinforces the role of the social dimension of the energy transition ..." (lines 853 - 856) has no justification. To sum up, this material does not have any features of an analytical-research article, and its edition, even for publicistic material, should definitely be improved. This material is simply not readable. This material does not meet the substantive and editorial requirements for its publication in "Sustainability". Therefore, this material should be rejected.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you for your comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We do not fully agree with you, but some of your suggestions will contribute to improve the quality of our research work. We have tried to incorporate them to the main text.

Reviewer’s comments:

The material sent is typical publicistic material. This material is not a scientific article. The authors presented a set of publicly available but not structured information on views on the energy transition. In the third point, no description of materials and methods that should or have been used by the Authors was found. "Doing extensive internet search based on a long list of keywords" is not a research or analytical method. The keyword selection principle is not presented and Table 2 has not been commented on. In general, the titles of individual items do not correspond to their content. In section 5.2, additional subheadings were introduced with the purpose of separating them unclear. The subtitle "Energy transition is misguided and costly" is the antithesis of the visible content of the material. Moreover, it is not known what the main goal of the Authors was, what are the basic results of the Authors' deliberations and to whom these results will be useful. In fact, the material does not present both the basic assumptions, the methodology of the conducted scientific analysis and the conclusions resulting from this analysis. Practically, the Authors did not present any conclusions, and a conclusion such as: "In short, the study of narratives reinforces the role of the social dimension of the energy transition ..." (lines 853 - 856) has no justification. To sum up, this material does not have any features of an analytical-research article, and its edition, even for publicistic material, should definitely be improved. This material is simply not readable. This material does not meet the substantive and editorial requirements for its publication in "Sustainability". Therefore, this material should be rejected.

Response to reviewer:

1. The paper is about narratives build by different actors. Mostly they use newspapers and public platforms to spread their views. Then it is understandable that some of the texts used in this article comes from different publicity materials which express the views of different stakeholders.
2. Table 1 provides a complete list of text material.
3. The keyword selection process has been described in the third section.
4. The reference and a brief description of Table 2 is added to the main text.
5. The subheadings in section 5.2 shows different prevalent narratives. These narratives show how different stakeholders perceive energy transition and decarbonization processes. We have contradictory narratives promoted by different stakeholders with different interests. These are presented in this section.
6. The main goal of this research was mentioned in the introduction as: As prevailing narratives have a huge impact on the implementation of decarbonization policies, it is important to study the prevailing narratives around the energy transition to identify the key factors that can accelerate the pace of the transition and increase its acceptability among different groups in a region.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

I do not feel satisfied with the Authors' answers. Very slight additions and extensions to the list of bibliographic items do not exhaust the issues raised in the review. The review is not a place of polemics with the Authors on the methodology of sociological (social) research and the statistical processing of the research results. The Internet is the source of a lot of information, often accidental and incorrect. I expected the character of the stakeholders along with the key of their selection, not only on the basis of the "search engine" as a research tool. I also expected the authors' comments on specific narratives. For these reasons, I still believe that this material is not a scientific study and may be published in a weekly or other major journal of publicistic significance.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you for your comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have tried to incorporate some of your suggestions to the main text.

Reviewer’s comments:

I do not feel satisfied with the Authors' answers. Very slight additions and extensions to the list of bibliographic items do not exhaust the issues raised in the review. The review is not a place of polemics with the Authors on the methodology of sociological (social) research and the statistical processing of the research results. The Internet is the source of a lot of information, often accidental and incorrect. I expected the character of the stakeholders along with the key of their selection, not only on the basis of the "search engine" as a research tool. I also expected the authors' comments on specific narratives. For these reasons, I still believe that this material is not a scientific study and may be published in a weekly or other major journal of publicistic significance.

Response to reviewer:

1. We have added some new references, but due to the word limit and the actual size of the reference list, we cannot add more refences, however, if the reviewer can suggest some references that should be added to the main text, he/she can suggest us. That will be greatly appreciated.
2. As for ‘internet as a source of accidental and incorrect information’, we are aware of that. As our motive is not to find the “objective truth”, but to highlight the main narratives propagated by different stakeholders (these narratives could be based on lies and false information) to satisfy their interests, we have focused on different narratives and their impact on the pace of decarbonisation efforts in Spain.
3. Stakeholders were selected based on their involvement in the energy transition and decarbonisation process. Subsequently, we classified them according to their power and interest in the energy transition process in Spain.
4. The author’s comments on the specific narratives are added to the main text.

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

I still believe that this material does not have an unambiguous nature of a scientific analysis and is publicistic material. There is a lack of methodology, especially in the manner and analysis of the collected data. However, considering the Authors' determination and the nature of the special edition of "Sustainability" devoted to "Individual and Collective Factors in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals", I could finally accept this material. However, it is necessary to develop at least the correct conclusions, namely: 1. The authors' unequivocal attitude to the energy transformation processes. 2. Specification of theses arising from the material and addressing these theses to specific stakeholders.

3. Presenting other non-environmental aspects, such as political, social and economic, speaking in favor of the energy transformation as perceived by society.

4. Ways to convince stakeholders to support the energy transformation.

I consider it necessary to correct and supplement the applications.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you for your comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have tried to incorporate some of your suggestions to the main text.

 

Reviewer’s comments:

 

I still believe that this material does not have an unambiguous nature of a scientific analysis and is publicistic material. There is a lack of methodology, especially in the manner and analysis of the collected data. However, considering the Authors' determination and the nature of the special edition of "Sustainability" devoted to "Individual and Collective Factors in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals", I could finally accept this material. However, it is necessary to develop at least the correct conclusions, namely: 1. The authors' unequivocal attitude to the energy transformation processes. 2. Specification of theses arising from the material and addressing these theses to specific stakeholders. 3. Presenting other non-environmental aspects, such as political, social and economic, speaking in favour of the energy transformation as perceived by society. 4. Ways to convince stakeholders to support the energy transformation. I consider it necessary to correct and supplement the applications.

 

Response to reviewer:

1. We have added some statements in the conclusion section to show our attitude towards the energy transformation processes in Spain.
2. The point of view of the different stakeholders are explicit from the narratives they propagate.
3. All narratives explain different aspects of the energy transformation including non-environmental aspects, such as political, social and economic.
4. This was not our objective, but we have added some suggestions in the conclusion section.

Round 4

Reviewer 4 Report

I still believe that this is publicistic material. Maybe it is even interesting material, but it is not scientific material with all the rules of presenting material based on research results with a developed methodology. In my opinion, publicistic materials should not be published in scientific journals, but I leave the final decision to the Academic Editor.