Boosting Energy Efficiency in Turkey: The Role of Public–Private Partnership Investment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, authors spotlight the importance of public-private partnerships towards enhancing building efficiency under climatic conditions of Turkey. Authors only highlight various energy sources share of primary energy consumption from renewables and unclear energies along with energy usage intensity. Thereafter, statistical aspects have been discussed in form of tables. The manuscript should be improved after several revisions as discussed below,
(1) The objectives should be clearly and convincingly defined after the Literature Review. This should answer the following questions: What is already known in the open literature? What is missing (i.e., research gaps)? What needs to be done, why and how?
(2) Equations and assumptions that are not the direct outcomes of the present work must be referred from their original sources.
(3) The figure caption of Fig. 3 is wrongly written as Fig. 2. This should be corrected.
(4) A Nomenclature Section should included to list all symbols, subscripts and superscripts along with their respective SI units.
(5) Literature survey should be improved. Some of the previously published studies related to various renewable energy-based strategies in building energy engineering should be discussed. For e.g., following references can be seen: A novel variable refrigerant flow system with solar regeneration-based desiccant-assisted ventilation; Experimental study of a combined biomass and solar energy-based fully grid-independent air-conditioning system.
(6) It is necessary to highlight roles of widely used energy sources, like solar energy towards building energy efficiency. Annually averaged solar radiation and scope for utilizing this need to be discussed.
(7) Some comparative study of the proposed method should be done with other published work. Also, scopes for future extension of the present work should be given.
(8) It may be good to include some pi-charts to depict the following concepts: (i) percentage contributions of primary energy made by various sectors, (ii) current state of art in terms of percentage contributions of grid-based power and renewables in building sectors.
(9) The results should be quantitative, discussed and compared with the results published in the literature. It must be clear what results are original and presented for the first time and what is used from the literature for comparison, providing references.
Author Response
RESPONSE LETTER
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2166739
The authors are thankful to editor and anonymous referees for their constructive comments on the paper entitled “Boosting Energy Efficiency in Turkey Through Public-Private Partnership Investment” with Manuscript ID: sustainability-2166739 to improve the quality of our paper. We have reviewed the comments and generally agree with those. Accordingly, we have made changes in the paper in line with the referees’ observations to the extent practicable. We take this opportunity to thank each of the individuals involved in the process.
Academic Editor Comments
The manuscript is interesting and fits to the scope of the Sustainability. However, unfortunately it does not meet the formal expectations (missing names and affiliations of the authors, reference numbering, line numbering....). It should be revised, then I suggest forwarding to the reviewers.
Response: Many thanks for the valid observations by the kind managing associate editor, the revised version has updated the authorship list and format style of the manuscript in line with the sustainability format.
Reviewer #1
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the article adequately referenced? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In this paper, authors spotlight the importance of public-private partnerships towards enhancing building efficiency under climatic conditions of Turkey. Authors only highlight various energy sources share of primary energy consumption from renewables and unclear energies along with energy usage intensity. Thereafter, statistical aspects have been discussed in form of tables. The manuscript should be improved after several revisions as discussed below,
(1) The objectives should be clearly and convincingly defined after the Literature Review. This should answer the following questions: What is already known in the open literature? What is missing (i.e., research gaps)? What needs to be done, why and how?
Response: Thank you. We have improved the literature review following your suggestion. You can see the highlighted additional paragraphs which explain the research question, research gaps in the literature and the steps taken in the present study.
(2) Equations and assumptions that are not the direct outcomes of the present work must be referred from their original sources.
Response: Thanks to the anonymous Reviewer for this professional observation. The confusion is from the mixed up of equations of both periods (short run and long run), However, we have corrected this problem by separating the two equations in the revised version of the manuscript.
(3) The figure caption of Fig. 3 is wrongly written as Fig. 2. This should be corrected.
Response: Many thanks for the valid observation. We have corrected the Figure numbers in the revised version of the study.
(4) A Nomenclature Section should include to list all symbols, subscripts and superscripts along with their respective SI units.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. As suggested, we have included all the description of the indicator with their units of the variables and used abbreviations through study in Nomenclature.
(5) Literature survey should be improved. Some of the previously published studies related to various renewable energy-based strategies in building energy engineering should be discussed. For e.g., following references can be seen: A novel variable refrigerant flow system with solar regeneration-based desiccant-assisted ventilation; Experimental study of a combined biomass and solar energy-based fully grid-independent air-conditioning system.
Response: Thank you. We have improved the literature review following your suggestion. You can see the highlighted additional paragraphs. Guided by the scope of the present study, we focused on studies linking energy efficiency to PPP investment strategies.
(6) It is necessary to highlight roles of widely used energy sources, like solar energy towards building energy efficiency. Annually averaged solar radiation and scope for utilizing this need to be discussed.
Response: Thanks to the anonymous Reviewer for the observation which has potential to improve our study. This comment has been addressed by incorporating trend of solar energy capacity and utilization, and also the benefits have been added.
(7) Some comparative study of the proposed method should be done with other published work. Also, scopes for future extension of the present work should be given.
Response: Many thanks to the kind anonymous referee. We have improved the discussion section with more styled fact in compares with previous literature as suggested in section 4 of the revised manuscript.
(8) It may be good to include some pi-charts to depict the following concepts: (i) percentage contributions of primary energy made by various sectors, (ii) current state of art in terms of percentage contributions of grid-based power and renewables in building sectors.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. As suggested we have added the Figure which shows Energy consumption by sources and sectors with percentages in the Introduction section of the revised version.
Figure 1. Energy consumption by sources and sectors, Turkey
Source: IEA (2020), IEA World Energy Statistics and Balances (database), www.iea.org/statistics
(9) The results should be quantitative, discussed and compared with the results published in the literature. It must be clear what results are original and presented for the first time and what is used from the literature for comparison, providing references.
Response: Many thanks for the kind and valid observations by the anonymous referee. The revised version outlines its contribution, uniqueness, and originality to the literature with requisite references.”
The present study incorporates public-private partnership (PPP) into the energy-growth delate for Turkish economy While previous study concentrates on the role of PPP on environmental indicators like CO2 emission or ecological footprint. From a theoretical standpoint investment in PPP is generally connected to sustainable development due to its pertinent role to meet the unprecedented global energy demand (Cheng et al.,2021). Thus, PPP is employed as a policy tool and strategy for combating energy efficiency issues. Previous literature documentation outlines divergent impact of PPP on energy efficiency. To this end, the present study explores further for Turkey an emerging economy to underscore the pertinent role of PPP to its energy efficiency targets.”
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review report for
Boosting Energy Efficiency in Turkey Through Public-Private Partnership Investment
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2166739
Thank you for providing an opportunity to review this article. The authors explore the role of public-private partnerships (PPP) investment in energy for energy efficiency in Turkey. They show a long-run equilibrium relationship between PPP, GDP, FDI, trade, and energy efficiency as traced by the ARDL bounds test. They demonstrate a positive relationship between public-private partnership (PPP) investment in energy and the country's energy intensification in both short- and long-run. A similar trend is seen between FDI, GDP growth, and energy intensity. I have the following comments.
Please recheck if you have stated the formula of energy intensity calculation correctly below:
“To calculate (Et), the real GDP of economy divided by the energy consumption of that economy in our study by following the study of Marques et al. (2021).”
Literature review section is very brief and should be updated to include some recent references. Additionally, authors can consider formulating some hypotheses.
Please state the motivation for the choice of empirical settings. Why did you not go for a non-linear approach?
To improve the readability of the results and discussion, the authors are suggested to divide this section in short paragraphs, with one main idea in each paragraph. Currently, the main results are difficult to follow.
Some economic justification or theoretical significance should be provided for empirical results. Specifically, which economic theory supports/contradicts with PPP promoting energy efficiency in Turkey?
Authors should avoid discussing empirical results in the conclusion section. This section should provide concluding remarks, study limitations, policy implications and future research directions.
Suggested references:
Cheng, G., Zhao, C., Iqbal, N., Gülmez, Ö., Işik, H., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2021). Does energy productivity and public-private investment in energy achieve carbon neutrality target of China? Journal of Environmental Management, 298, 113464.
Author Response
Reviewer #2
RESPONSE LETTER
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2166739
The authors are thankful to editor and anonymous referees for their constructive comments on the paper entitled “Boosting Energy Efficiency in Turkey Through Public-Private Partnership Investment” with Manuscript ID: sustainability-2166739 to improve the quality of our paper. We have reviewed the comments and generally agree with those. Accordingly, we have made changes in the paper in line with the referees’ observations to the extent practicable. We take this opportunity to thank each of the individuals involved in the process.
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the article adequately referenced? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Boosting Energy Efficiency in Turkey Through Public-Private Partnership Investment
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2166739
Thank you for providing an opportunity to review this article. The authors explore the role of public-private partnerships (PPP) investment in energy for energy efficiency in Turkey. They show a long-run equilibrium relationship between PPP, GDP, FDI, trade, and energy efficiency as traced by the ARDL bounds test. They demonstrate a positive relationship between public-private partnership (PPP) investment in energy and the country's energy intensification in both short- and long-run. A similar trend is seen between FDI, GDP growth, and energy intensity. I have the following comments.
Please recheck if you have stated the formula of energy intensity calculation correctly below:
“To calculate (Et), the real GDP of economy divided by the energy consumption of that economy in our study by following the study of Marques et al. (2021).”
Response: Many thanks for the kind suggestion by the anonymous referee. We have leveraged on the suggestion to help reposition our study accordingly in the related section such and literature and method section.
Literature review section is very brief and should be updated to include some recent references. Additionally, authors can consider formulating some hypotheses.
Response: Thank you. We have extended/update the literature review section to include more recent references. Additionally, as you suggested, we formulated hypothesis to guide the study. You can see the highlighted additional paragraphs.
Please state the motivation for the choice of empirical settings. Why did you not go for a non-linear approach?
Response: Dear Reviewer. We consider the basic of econometric properties before selecting symmetric (ARDL) as our preferred approach. Considering the outcomes of skewness and kurtosis which show that the data is normally distributed. Then, we select ARDL as the preferred method. Also, we conducted diagnostic tests to confirm the reliability of the estimations for the selected model which passed all diagnostic tests with satisfactory results, such as no serial correlation issues, no ARCH effect, and no model misspecification as reported by the Ramsey specification test. Our fitted model is also stable, as presented by the CUSUM and CUMSUMs. However, the asymmetric relationship between the selected variables can be also investigated for the further studies.
To improve the readability of the results and discussion, the authors are suggested to divide this section in short paragraphs, with one main idea in each paragraph. Currently, the main results are difficult to follow.
Response: Many thanks to the kind anonymous referee. The revised version has revised the discussion section in a more readable and more coherent paragraph as suggested by the kind referee.
Some economic justification or theoretical significance should be provided for empirical results. Specifically, which economic theory supports/contradicts with PPP promoting energy efficiency in Turkey?
Response: Many thanks to the kind anonymous referee. The revised version has revised the discussion section with more motivation and comparison with previous literature as suggested by the kind referee.
Authors should avoid discussing empirical results in the conclusion section. This section should provide concluding remarks, study limitations, policy implications and future research directions.
Response: Many thanks to the kind anonymous referee. The revised version has revised the conclusion with policy direction, direction for future study and study limitation in section 5 as suggested by the kind referee.
Suggested references:
Cheng, G., Zhao, C., Iqbal, N., Gülmez, Ö., Işik, H., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2021). Does energy productivity and public-private investment in energy achieve carbon neutrality target of China? Journal of Environmental Management, 298, 113464.
Response: Many thanks to the anonymous kind referee. The study has been incorporated and we found it useful to reposition our study during revision stage
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Revisions are fine.
