Assessing Transformation Practices in China under Energy and Environmental Policy Goals: A Green Design Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for inviting me to review this paper. The paper points out an interesting concern on the policy driven goals on energy and environment in China in terms of a Green Design Index. I will only have some minor comments as follows:
1. First of all, please do a proofreading on the paper, as there are quite a few errors in written English. For example, ‘china’ in the title should be written as China.
2. The abstract was vague. For example, you write “Unlike previous studies, we chose green design as a new perspective to assess this process”… It should indicate what the previous studies are referred to.
3. It was unclear how you did work out the weighting for the GDI in Table 1. This should be well explained. Similar issues can be found in Table 2 as well.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Journal Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)
Manuscript ID sustainability-2183558
Type: Article
Number of Pages: 13
Title: Assessing transformation practices in china under energy and environmental policy goals: a green design perspective
Dear Authors,
It has been for me a great honour, as well as a pleasantly challenging activity, to review the article entitled “Assessing transformation practices in china under energy and environmental policy goals: a green design perspective.”
Overall, the article is interesting and easy to read. It deals with vital issues related to a green design perspective in the fields of building, construction, and urban planning. This issues are important both from a scientific and practical point of view, which could make the study very utilitarian, however, there are some shortcomings in this regard, which I mention below with reference to the last chapter of the work.
I think the paper has a good chance of attracting the attention of potential readers. However, I would suggest that the Authors introduce a few corrections (given below).
Firstly two small editorial remarks:
1) please change “china” into “China” in the title,
2) informal abbreviations should not be used in scientific texts, e.g. “Let's get this”, “it's” etc.
In my opinion, the Introduction chapter quite well introduces potential readers to the topics discussed by the Authors. However, it could be extended a bit. In particular, the research gap in the existing literature on the subject should be outlined more clearly and the novelties of this study should be indicated to a greater extent, referring to the main contributions of this paper indicated in the lines 49-54.
Literature review
Admittedly, this chapter is based on well-selected and up-to-date literature. However, in my opinion, it is too laconic and could be extended. In my opinion, it would also be worth referring to issues related to “smart energy” for the effective and efficient energy supply, which are currently widely discussed in the latest publications, e.g.:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.123
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15228676
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15228418
Construct and assess China's regional comprehensive GDI
This chapter is divided into logically following each other two subchapters (3.1. Construction of GDI and 3.2. Assessing the development of GDI in regions of China). It’s clear and easy to read, and well-illustrated by 4 figures and two tables. It is also based on well-chosen and current literature.
The Conclusions and policy implications are presented in an interesting way, however, in this chapter it should be clearly defined who and how can benefit from the publication of research results. This would determine the utilitarian nature of the work carried out.
Summing up, in my opinion the topic of the article is interesting and has the potential to interest potential readers. I don't feel competent to comment on linguistic correctness as English is not my mother tongue.
I wish the Authors good luck.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to thank the Authors for the changes made and the answers provided. In my opinion, the article can be published. I wish the Authors good luck in their further research work!
