The Impact of Economic Growth, Natural Resources, Urbanization and Biocapacity on the Ecological Footprint: The Case of Turkey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I believe that this article is very interesting seen the new data which it gives onto the the impact of natural resources, urbanization, biological capacity, and economic growth on the ecological footprint in Turkey between 1970 and 2018.

The article is generally well written with appropriate data analyses and an interesting discussion.

Author Response

Response to the Reviewers

 

We thank the referees for their interest in our work. The referees' insightful comments significantly improved our manuscript. They have brought up some good points and we appreciate the opportunity to clarify our research objectives and results. As indicated below, we have checked all the general and specific comments provided by the referees; and have made necessary changes accordingly to their indications.

 

The reviewers' comments are in blue font, while our answers are in black. All changes have been yellow highlighted in the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer 1: I believe that this article is very interesting seen the new data which it gives onto the the impact of natural resources, urbanization, biological capacity, and economic growth on the ecological footprint in Turkey between 1970 and 2018.

The article is generally well written with appropriate data analyses and an interesting discussion.

Comment: We thank the reviewer for his contribution.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors!

Your research is focused on sustainable topic: the impact of natural resources, urbanization, biological capacity, 9 and economic growth (EG) on the ecological footprint (EFP) in Turkey between 1970 and 2018.

The topic of the research is original and relevant in the field of sustainability. The research results and findings, important policy recommendations are 18 provided for policymakers in Turkey to achieve sustainable growth and improve environmental 19 quality.

The research methodology and implemented methods of analyses are correct, original, and complex. Model and econometric strategy used for the research are original and complex. This study aims to investigate the determinants of EFP in Turkey, specifically focusing on 311 the EG, natural resources, and urbanization variables. Besides, the study will also examine the effect 313 of biological capacity on EFP and the validity of the EKC hypothesis. For this purpose, 314 the empirical model demonstrating the relationship between the variables. The subject area compared with other published material is prospective. The conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented in the methodology and research result.

The list of the references is appropriate, complex and consist of all modern relevant publications in the topic with more than 103 sources.

My suggestion will be connected only with conclusion. Please try to make conclusion more structured, concrete, and short. Also, You can add explanation how your research results could be used in applied science and modern applied tasks.

Best regards,

 

Your Reviewer

Author Response

Response to the Reviewers

 

We thank the referees for their interest in our work. The referees' insightful comments significantly improved our manuscript. They have brought up some good points and we appreciate the opportunity to clarify our research objectives and results. As indicated below, we have checked all the general and specific comments provided by the referees; and have made necessary changes accordingly to their indications.

 

The reviewers' comments are in blue font, while our answers are in black. All changes have been yellow highlighted in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2: Your research is focused on sustainable topic: the impact of natural resources, urbanization, biological capacity, 9 and economic growth (EG) on the ecological footprint (EFP) in Turkey between 1970 and 2018.

The topic of the research is original and relevant in the field of sustainability. The research results and findings, important policy recommendations are 18 provided for policymakers in Turkey to achieve sustainable growth and improve environmental 19 quality.

The research methodology and implemented methods of analyses are correct, original, and complex. Model and econometric strategy used for the research are original and complex. This study aims to investigate the determinants of EFP in Turkey, specifically focusing on 311 the EG, natural resources, and urbanization variables. Besides, the study will also examine the effect 313 of biological capacity on EFP and the validity of the EKC hypothesis. For this purpose, 314 the empirical model demonstrating the relationship between the variables. The subject area compared with other published material is prospective. The conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented in the methodology and research result.

The list of the references is appropriate, complex and consist of all modern relevant publications in the topic with more than 103 sources.

My suggestion will be connected only with conclusion. Please try to make conclusion more structured, concrete, and short. Also, You can add explanation how your research results could be used in applied science and modern applied tasks.

 

Comment : The last part of the research is divided into 2 parts as "Conclusion" and "Policy Implications". The "Policy Implications" section has been developed.

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of this study is interesting, but the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods were not clearly stated, especially repeated description in Introduction and literature review. Detailed questions are as follows:

Line 9 and 12: ‘investigates’ change into ‘investigated’, ‘run’ change into ‘term’.

Line 13: EKC should be defined when showing up first time.

Lines 125-141: It is redundant. Same sentence is written earlier.

Please merge introduction and literature review, there are a lot of repeats in theses two sections. Also, please specify the aims of this study using one paragraph.

Lines 300-302: delete it.

Lines 311-313: delete it.

Lines 327-328: check and rewrite this sentence.

Line 379: please add title for Table 1.

Line 392: check this sentence, missing ***.

Line 431: where is the title of the horizontal and vertical axes?

Line 484: how to specify short and long term?

Line 491: the results of previous studies should be put in discussion.

 

intensive edition

Author Response

Reviewer 3: The topic of this study is interesting, but the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods were not clearly stated, especially repeated description in Introduction and literature review. Detailed questions are as follows:

1. Line 9 and 12: ‘investigates’ change into ‘investigated’, ‘run’ change into ‘term’.
2. Line 13: EKC should be defined when showing up first time.
3. Lines 125-141: It is redundant. Same sentence is written earlier.
4. Please merge introduction and literature review, there are a lot of repeats in theses two sections. Also, please specify the aims of this study using one paragraph.
5. Lines 300-302: delete it.
6. Lines 311-313: delete it.
7. Lines 327-328: check and rewrite this sentence.
8. Line 379: please add title for Table 1.
9. Line 392: check this sentence, missing ***.
10. Line 431: where is the title of the horizontal and vertical axes?
11. Line 484: how to specify short and long term?
12. Line 491: the results of previous studies should be put in discussion.

 Comment :

1. We made all the changes.
2. We made all the changes.
3. By mistake, two paragraphs were written 2 times. That's why we deleted 262-296 lines.
4. By mistake, two paragraphs were written 2 times. That's why we deleted 262-296 lines.
5. We deleted 300-302 lines.
6. We deleted 311-313 lines
7. We rewrote 327-328 lines
8. We added title for table 1
9. We added ***.
10. We…….
11. We…..
12. We added results of previous studies (491 line)

Reviewer 4 Report

1. The data used during the research period is in Turkey between 1970 and 2018, with significant changes in the world economic situation. It is recommended that the research data should be available as of 2022, at least for 2021

2. Is the first three paragraphs (lines 161-238) in "1. Introduction" exactly the same as the first three paragraphs of the literature review? Is it a typographical error or other reason? What is the difference? Suggest deleting and rewriting all!, Introduction should introduce the background, significance, development status, current level, etc. of the research field; Point out the unsolved problems and technical gaps left by predecessors, and propose new problems, new methods and ideas to solve these new problems, thus leading to the motivation and significance of one's own research topic; Explain the purpose of your research topic; Summarize the main content of the paper or outline its overall outline. Please make the necessary modifications as required

 

3. Literature reviews should not heavily cite references. The writing method of literature review should be to summarize the research conclusions of predecessors, compare and analyze the scientific research achievements and achievements of the discipline, as well as the current level and problems, propose the author's own views, opinions, evaluation opinions, and improvement suggestions, and point out the future development trends. Suggest rewriting line 239-296 according to the above method, mainly summarizing the literature, such as research perspectives, research methods, and research content, and incorporating the author's innovation, which perspectives or contents are intended to be more advanced than previous studies, what conclusions will be drawn from the research, and what role and significance it will have in the research of this discipline

 

4. In lines 432-433, does the statement 'urbanization has a negative effect on EFP both in the short and long term' contradict the statement 'as well as having a positive effect on environmental quality and reducing EFP.'? Please correct or explain

 

5. In section 4.5, the research conclusions of "Rahman et al. (2019) and Etokakpan (2020)", "Baloch et al. (2019), Rahman et al. (2019), and 475 Hassan et al. (2019)" were cited. If the research conclusions of this article are consistent with them, is it still necessary to verify them? The author should explain why there is a one way causal relationship from EG and biological capacity towards EFP. Other factors do not have a causal relationship. Please revise and supplement

6. "5. Conclusion and policy implications" Please write in two parts: conclusion and policy, clearly expressing the research conclusion and policy

 

Author Response

Reviewer 4

1. The data used during the research period is in Turkey between 1970 and 2018, with significant changes in the world economic situation. It is recommended that the research data should be available as of 2022, at least for 2021
2. Is the first three paragraphs (lines 161-238) in "1. Introduction" exactly the same as the first three paragraphs of the literature review? Is it a typographical error or other reason? What is the difference? Suggest deleting and rewriting all!, Introduction should introduce the background, significance, development status, current level, etc. of the research field; Point out the unsolved problems and technical gaps left by predecessors, and propose new problems, new methods and ideas to solve these new problems, thus leading to the motivation and significance of one's own research topic; Explain the purpose of your research topic; Summarize the main content of the paper or outline its overall outline. Please make the necessary modifications as required
3. Literature reviews should not heavily cite references. The writing method of literature review should be to summarize the research conclusions of predecessors, compare and analyze the scientific research achievements and achievements of the discipline, as well as the current level and problems, propose the author's own views, opinions, evaluation opinions, and improvement suggestions, and point out the future development trends. Suggest rewriting line 239-296 according to the above method, mainly summarizing the literature, such as research perspectives, research methods, and research content, and incorporating the author's innovation, which perspectives or contents are intended to be more advanced than previous studies, what conclusions will be drawn from the research, and what role and significance it will have in the research of this discipline.
4. In lines 432-433, does the statement 'urbanization has a negative effect on EFP both in the short and long term' contradict the statement 'as well as having a positive effect on environmental quality and reducing EFP.'? Please correct or explain
5. In section 4.5, the research conclusions of "Rahman et al. (2019) and Etokakpan (2020)", "Baloch et al. (2019), Rahman et al. (2019), and 475 Hassan et al. (2019)" were cited. If the research conclusions of this article are consistent with them, is it still necessary to verify them? The author should explain why there is a one way causal relationship from EG and biological capacity towards EFP. Other factors do not have a causal relationship. Please revise and supplement
6. "5. Conclusion and policy implications" Please write in two parts: conclusion and policy, clearly expressing the research conclusion and policy

 

Comment

1. We updated our data. We used the data of the years 1973-2021. In addition, we rerun all analyzes according to current data.
2. We made a typographical error. We have included the existing literature review.
3. We made a typographical error. The same introductory part exists in the literature part. We have added the existing literature section. As a result, we revised and added the literature according to the reviewer's requests.
4. We revized 432-433 lines.
5. We rerun the analyzes in this section due to the data set being updated. And we got new findings. So we rewrote this section.
6. The last part of the research is divided into 2 parts as "Conclusion" and "Policy Implications". The "Policy Implications" section has been developed.

Reviewer 5 Report

I think the manscript presents interesting results about the impacts on the ecological footprint in Turkey. However, I consider authors should try to order the information, for example I found a lot of duplicated information in several sections, and also some information in the wrong section. When you present Results and Discussion joined in one section you have to be very orderly, I think this section is very hard to follow because it lack of this order. I think the manuscript needs Figures showing trends of the data analyzed since 1970, because is to hard for the lector to follow only Tables.

Some references are cited, but it is not clear what these cited authors proposed. Conclusions need some references, and some examples in other countries have to be presented to give some support to the policy proposals mabe by the authors of this manuscript. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 

Reviewer 5

I think the manscript presents interesting results about the impacts on the ecological footprint in Turkey. However, I consider authors should try to order the information, for example I found a lot of duplicated information in several sections, and also some information in the wrong section. When you present Results and Discussion joined in one section you have to be very orderly, I think this section is very hard to follow because it lack of this order. I think the manuscript needs Figures showing trends of the data analyzed since 1970, because is to hard for the lector to follow only Tables.

Some references are cited, but it is not clear what these cited authors proposed. Conclusions need some references, and some examples in other countries have to be presented to give some support to the policy proposals mabe by the authors of this manuscript. 

Comment

-The last part of the research is divided into 2 parts as "Conclusion" and "Policy Implications". The "Policy Implications" section has been developed.

-We made a typographical error. The same introductory part exists in the literature part. We have added the existing literature section. As a result, we revised and added the literature according to the reviewer's requests.

- We added figures with data

- We made the corrections that the reviewer marked in the text

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been improved. Accept in present form.

Reviewer 4 Report

The author has made significant revisions to the article according to the review comments, and has also provided supplementary explanations for the missing parts. Agreed to accept

Reviewer 5 Report

I think the manuscript could be published. However, the edition should be carefully review.