Evolutionary Simulation of Carbon-Neutral Behavior of Urban Citizens in a “Follow–Drive” Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is one of the best papers I have reviewed since I started reviewing papers for MDPI publishing. The author used game theory and simulation analysis to calculate the problem from theory to deduction. Overall, the writing is rigorous. I only have a few minor questions to raise for your consideration, as follows:

 

1. The abstract is well-written, but it can be appropriately shortened.

2. Some references are too old, please replace them with references from the past five years.

3. Table 6 can be presented in a more concise manner, for example, using only text or displaying only the Initial Value in the table.

4. Add a section on research limitations and future research.

 

I wish you all the best in your work. Congratulations.

Author Response

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.       The use of Python software for simulating the formation and stabilization of carbon-neutral behavior under various influences appears to be an appropriate methodology. However, the paper could benefit from a more detailed description of the simulation parameters and more transparency about how the findings were derived

2.       The results provide valuable insights into the role of government incentives, group norms, and psychological-physical health in influencing carbon-neutral behavior. The policy recommendations could benefit from a more thorough explanation, tying them directly to the study's findings

3.       The language of the paper could benefit from some improvements. Certain terms and phrases are used that may not be familiar to readers outside the field, so providing definitions or explanations would increase readability and comprehension

4.       The paragraphing could use some adjustments for better readability. For instance, the section discussing the innovations of the study could be its own paragraph in introduction.

5.       In Literature Review, while you've highlighted individual studies well, it might be beneficial to synthesize the findings of these studies more explicitly. This can help to create a clearer picture of the consensus (or lack thereof) within the field.

6.       Make sure to include any contradictory findings or debates in the field to present a balanced overview. If there are any conflicting studies or theories, these should be mentioned and discussed

7.       There are instances of repetition that should be avoided, for example in lines 297-301, the sentence about Hines's meta-analysis is repeated

8.       You have defined psychological empowerment, work meaning, competence, autonomy, and influence, but not all readers may be familiar with concepts such as 'carbon-neutral citizenship behavior' and 'institutional theory'. Providing brief definitions or explanations of these concepts can help to maintain reader engagement

9.       In several instances, you mention studies and their findings, but do not provide enough context for a reader unfamiliar with those studies to fully understand their significance. For example, lines 282-283 refer to a study by Gregory et al. (2010) about organizational citizenship behaviors. It would be helpful to explain briefly what these behaviors are, and why they are significant.

10.   While it's clear that you have conducted extensive research, the sheer volume of studies cited can be overwhelming for the reader. You may want to consider focusing on the most salient studies and summarizing their findings more concisely.

11.   consider providing a brief conclusion at the end of each section to wrap up your points. This will help the reader understand the significance of the information presented and how it fits into the broader context of your paper.

12.   In section 3, the paper could benefit from the inclusion of simpler, less technical language to define key concepts and terms. For example, terms like "carbon-neutral behavior," "psychological-physical dual measure," "interpersonal costs," etc., might not be easily understood by readers not deeply versed in the subject. Providing straightforward definitions or examples could greatly improve the accessibility of the text

13.   Sub-sections might benefit from a brief summary or conclusion to help reinforce the key points of each section. Also, introducing the variables as they come up in the text, rather than all at once in a table, might aid in comprehension

14.   While the document provides a great deal of detail about the factors influencing carbon-neutral behavior, it would be helpful to include more specific examples or case studies to support the analysis. Furthermore, explaining how these variables were chosen, and why they are the most relevant, could provide more context and depth to your research.

15.   It's unclear from the document whether the government policies and incentives discussed are hypothetical or if they refer to actual policies in place. More context here would help readers understand the real-world implications of the research

16.   It would be beneficial to include a justification for the use of an evolutionary game analysis in this context. What advantages does it offer in studying carbon-neutral behavior? How does it compare to other potential methodologies?

17.   There are a few instances where the sentence structure or phrasing is slightly awkward, which can disrupt the flow and readability. Consider refining these sections for improved clarity and ease of reading

18.   It would be beneficial to simplify some of the more complex mathematical sections. The use of heavy mathematical language may be daunting for readers not intimately familiar with game theory.

19.   The use of an acronym like ESS should be defined the first time it's used. While the ESS (Evolutionarily Stable Strategy) is introduced later in the text, it would be clearer to provide this definition the first time it appears.

20.   The readability of the paper could be improved by incorporating more plain English explanations of the mathematical models, perhaps by including practical examples to illustrate the results.

21.   Some terminology such as "a dynamic replication equation" is mentioned without any prior definition or introduction. It would be helpful to explain such concepts for those not well-versed in this specific area.

22.   There are no illustrations or figures in the paper to visually aid the reader's understanding. For a complex, math-heavy paper such as this, including diagrams or flowcharts could be extremely helpful in illustrating the relationships and dynamics being discussed.

23.   It's not immediately clear what the variables in the equations (such as d, a, g, C1, etc.) represent. Including a table or explanation of these variables could make the paper more accessible to a broader audience.

24.   In section 4, There are a few places where the text could benefit from grammatical corrections and more precise language. For instance, "abundant citizens follow the probability of increasing carbon sink behavior, wherey2 > y1 0.5+α" is a bit unclear. Consider revising such sentences for clarity

25.   In Section 5-6, The paper refers to two types of citizens - "consensus citizens" and "ample citizens". More clarification or definition of these categories would be helpful for the reader to understand the context better.

26.   While the document refers to a number of studies, it does not provide any data or graphical representation to support the arguments. Incorporating visual aids or concrete data could make the arguments more persuasive

27.   The text could be hard to follow for readers not familiar with the topic due to the use of complex language and academic jargon. Simplifying language and explaining concepts in layman's terms could make the paper more accessible to a wider audience.

28.   The document could benefit from acknowledging its limitations or any challenges associated with implementing the proposed measures. This would give a balanced view of the situation and add to the depth of analysis.

moderate need grammar check and proofread

Author Response

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

all my comment already addressed