Impact Assessment of Climate Mitigation Finance on Climate Change in South Asia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript provides a report on the impact assessment of climate mitigation finance on climate change in south Asia. The topic is important and interesting. However, the presentation of the manuscript is not scientific sounds, rather than a general report, there are some points need to be correct before it can be considered for publication.

-        Abstract should be rewritten, the abstract is too descriptive and the authors need to provide some values on their foundings.

-        Introduction should be rewritten. I don’t see the point to have introduction and literature review separate, it’s better to combine both.

-        Novelty of the study, the authors need to point out their objectives clearly and novelty of the study, which need to be stressed. The study site of 4 Asia countries is not new.

-        The Materials and Methods need to delete a lot of explanation of basic parameters, instead, the authors need to provide access to the data, the website which all the data were collected must be given, otherwise other authors can not repeat or testifiy the result of this study.

 

-        The discussion part is weak. A more detailed discussion of factors affecting the observed performance should be added. Make every attempt to improve the discussion by critically analyzing your findings.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 1 comments.

The manuscript provides a report on the impact assessment of climate mitigation finance on climate change in south Asia. The topic is important and interesting. However, the presentation of the manuscript is not scientific sounds, rather than a general report, there are some points need to be correct before it can be considered for publication.

1. Abstract should be rewritten, the abstract is too descriptive and the authors need to provide some values on their foundings.

Authors’ Response: Thank you for your comments. The abstract was rewritten and the result was given in quantitative form/values.

2. Introduction should be rewritten. I don’t see the point to have introduction and literature review separate, it’s better to combine both.

Authors’ Response: The study introduction was rewritten and the literature section was merged with the introduction section.

3. Novelty of the study, the authors need to point out their objectives clearly and novelty of the study, which need to be stressed. The study site of 4 Asia countries is not new.

Authors’ Response: Thank you for your suggestions. The novelty of the study was pointed out in the second paragraph of the rewritten introduction. The purpose of the study was also clearly stated. Further studies were conducted for the South Asia region/site, but the effect of climate mitigation finance on climate change was not explored before this study and this study examines the effect of climate mitigation finance on climate change.

4. The Materials and Methods need to delete a lot of explanation of basic parameters, instead, the authors need to provide access to the data, the website which all the data were collected must be given, otherwise other authors cannot repeat or testify the result of this study.

Authors’ Response: Thank you for your comments. Necessary changes were made to the methods and materials sections of this study. Data sources were mentioned in the “description of variables” and also full references were provided in the references section. The data are freely available from the cited sources.

5. The discussion part is weak. A more detailed discussion of factors affecting the observed performance should be added. Make every attempt to improve the discussion by critically analyzing your findings.

Authors’ Response: Thank you for your comments. The results of this study have been re-discussed in detail and significant changes have been made in the results and discussion section.

Reviewer 2 Report

The idea of the topic is good and the potential of this study for theory and practice is high. However, I have some comments mostly related to the references of the study. They are missing. Also some other comments that you can see bellow:

Why the examining period does not include the years after 2019? Now it is 2023 already.

Please, cite “Global Risks Perception Survey 2020”.

Who proved: “Extreme weather events like heat waves, droughts, floods, and tropical cyclones are becoming more frequent and more intense.” ?

You say: “These events are also causing water mismanagement, decline in output of agricultural sector, aggravating food insecurity, raising health risks, causing critical infrastructure to be damaged, and disturbing the supply of necessary services like water and sanitation, education, energy, and transportation.” Here is the article (https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010070 ) that found a correlation between climate change, water scarcity and other sectors that are affected with these processes.

Also, please, provide references when you make a strong statement such as: “All these extreme weather events and their consequences are caused by climate change.” Or “There are many sources of GHGs emission and consequently climate changes.” And others...

As you see, already in a very first paragraph of the introduction that I read so far, a lot of references are missing. In the academic article you can not argue anything (except of your own research results) without citing relevant literature that proved the things your state.

Besides, you make the introduction of the study based on few works. You have whole paragraphs citing only 1 or 2 researches. Since the introduction defines the actual problem and the purpose of the study, making it based on few studies might cause the mistake in a very beginning of the research that could lead the bigger mistakes in the results and conclusion. I suggest to discuss the same topics with more literature, prove the statements with more citations, or discuss also some studies that argue contrary ideas... You have done this (proving a statement with more than 1 studies) in the middle of the introduction: citation number [5]. That’s what I mean.

“Transportation sector has the second largest recipient of mitigation finance which has received 14 percent of total climate finance” – Why? How this sector is connected to the largest sources of emission listed few lines above? What was the motivation of financing transport sector if other sectors (“Land use, direct industrial process and waste”) generate more GHGs? What do you mean in “land use”?
These studies argue that (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111548; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.01.001) the transportation sector is one of the fields that generate significant amount of GHGs, therefore, authors propose to shift to Electric vehicles. But if the Energy sector generates more GHGs, will this outcome be valid? Authors also talk about the importance of using renewable energy sources, is it a solution?
There are a lot of things on this topic to analyze. You review very few articles to be valid your introduction.

Please provide the sources of the tables and figures.

“South Asia is considered the vulnerable region to climate shocks.” Who has proved?

“...south Asian citizens were affected by climate changes.” The whole world population has been affected, not only Asian citizens

How did you choose a second indicator for analyzing? Why is it important for the result?

“Akpan and Akpan [9] found that 80 percent of world GHGs emission are caused by energy consumption.” It is the article of 2012. 13 years have passed. Don’t you think, something might be changed after that?

I suggest to add a table with the outcomes of literature review indicating the source and what did they explore – what is the determinant for climate change. Then, in the results, you will easily compare your study outcomes with the previous ones. Also, for reader will be clearer.

“Climate change mitigation means any effort or activity which prevents or decreases 248 the emission of Greenhouse gases is called climate change mitigation.” Also “Any fund allocated to climate change mitigation is called climate change mitigation finance.“ Provide references when you make a definition.

“Transportation is another major source of climate change.” Yes but references?

Please compare your results with the previous studies. Are they similar or exclude each other and what is the reason? Do your results (each of them) deepen the previous knowledge in the field and what it gives us additionally than previous studies?

You say “more finance should be allocated for climate change mitigation.” But in which direction? To finance what? To strengthen which field and how precisely? This will be real recommendation not just indicating that more finances are needed.

 

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2 comments.

The idea of the topic is good and the potential of this study for theory and practice is high. However, I have some comments mostly related to the references of the study. They are missing. Also some other comments that you can see below:

1. Why the examining period does not include the years after 2019? Now it is 2023 already.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your comments. Key variable data, i.e., climate mitigation and CO₂ emission funding beyond 2019 and data availability beyond 2019, were mentioned as limitations of the study in the conclusion section.

2. Please, cite “Global Risks Perception Survey 2020”.

Authors’ response: The “Global Risk Perceptions Survey 2020” was cited in the text and the reference was also listed in the references section.

3. Who proved: “Extreme weather events like heat waves, droughts, floods, and tropical cyclones are becoming more frequent and more intense.” ?

Authors’ response: Thank you for your suggestions. The introduction was rewritten and the sentence highlighted by the respective reviewer was omitted.

4. You say: “These events are also causing water mismanagement, decline in output of agricultural sector, aggravating food insecurity, raising health risks, causing critical infrastructure to be damaged, and disturbing the supply of necessary services like water and sanitation, education, energy, and transportation.” Here is the article (https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010070 ) that found a correlation between climate change, water scarcity and other sectors that are affected with these processes.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your suggestions. The article suggested by the reviewer was reviewed. The correlation between climate change and water scarcity was outlined by this article and this article helped to improve our study.

5. Provide references when you make a strong statement such as: “All these extreme weather events and their consequences are caused by climate change.” Or “There are many sources of GHGs emission and consequently climate changes.” And others...

Authors’ response: The first sentence “All these extreme weather events and their consequences are caused by climate change” highlighted by the respected reviewer was not included in re-written introduction. The source of second sentence “There are many sources of GHGs emission and consequently climate changes.” highlighted by respected reviewer was cited and reference number is 19 in reference section.

6.As you see, already in a very first paragraph of the introduction that I read so far, a lot of references are missing. In the academic article you can not argue anything (except of your own research results) without citing relevant literature that proved the things your state.

Besides, you make the introduction of the study based on few works. You have whole paragraphs citing only 1 or 2 researches. Since the introduction defines the actual problem and the purpose of the study, making it based on few studies might cause the mistake in a very beginning of the research that could lead the bigger mistakes in the results and conclusion. I suggest to discuss the same topics with more literature, prove the statements with more citations, or discuss also some studies that argue contrary ideas... You have done this (proving a statement with more than 1 studies) in the middle of the introduction: citation number [5]. That’s what I mean.

Authors’ Response: Relevant references have been cited in the introduction and elsewhere in this article. More literature was cited to clearly define the problem and elaborate the purpose of the study.

7. “Transportation sector has the second largest recipient of mitigation finance which has received 14 percent of total climate finance” – Why? How this sector is connected to the largest sources of emission listed few lines above? What was the motivation of financing transport sector if other sectors (“Land use, direct industrial process and waste”) generate more GHGs? What do you mean in “land use”?
   These studies argue that (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111548; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.01.001) the transportation sector is one of the fields that generate significant amount of GHGs, therefore, authors propose to shift to Electric vehicles. But if the Energy sector generates more GHGs, will this outcome be valid? Authors also talk about the importance of using renewable energy sources, is it a solution?
   There are a lot of things on this topic to analyze. You review very few articles to be valid your introduction.

Authors’ Response: The articles suggested by respected reviewers were reviewed. The reason behind high emission by transport sector was explained by these articles. These articles helped in improvement of our study and the reason of high emission delineated by these articles were mentioned and cited. Renewable energy emits Greenhouse gases or degrade the environment less than the nonrenewable energy and this argument is also supported by a recent study of Brini (2021) who found the negative relation of CO₂ with renewable energy. The second largest source of emission cited in this article “Land use” was rectify as “agricultural, forestry and land use” and the land use includes the use of land for human food and livestock.

8. Please provide the sources of the tables and figures.

  Authors’ Response: Thank you for your suggestions. Sources were provided keeping in view reviewer’s comments.

“South Asia is considered the vulnerable region to climate shocks.” Who has proved?

“...south Asian citizens were affected by climate changes.” The whole world population has been affected, not only Asian citizens

Authors’ Response: The World Bank report stated that “South Asia is considered the vulnerable region to climate shocks.” The reference of that report was cited. As the World Bank report declared this region as more vulnerable region, therefore, the authors considered imperative to study this region.

9. How did you choose a second indicator for analyzing? Why is it important for the result?

Authors’ Response: Most of the studies used a single climate change indicator whereas this study used two indicators which contain more information about climate change than the single indicator i.e., CO2.

10. “Akpan and Akpan [9] found that 80 percent of world GHGs emission are caused by energy consumption.” It is the article of 2012. 13 years have passed. Don’t you think, something might be changed after that?

Authors’ Response: This study was cited to prove the negative relationship of climate change with energy consumption through empirical evidence. Recent studies were cited to justify the negative relationship of these two variables mentioned.

11. I suggest to add a table with the outcomes of literature review indicating the source and what did they explore – what is the determinant for climate change. Then, in the results, you will easily compare your study outcomes with the previous ones. Also, for reader will be clearer.

Authors’ Response: The summary table of literature reviews was added in the study.

12. “Climate change mitigation means any effort or activity which prevents or decreases 248 the emission of Greenhouse gases is called climate change mitigation.” Also “Any fund allocated to climate change mitigation is called climate change mitigation finance.“ Provide references when you make a definition.

Authors’ Response: Thank you for your suggestions. The sources of both definitions have been cited and climate mitigation finance has been defined and rephrased to make it clearer.   

13. “Transportation is another major source of climate change.” Yes but references?

Authors’ Response: Reference of this information was cited in the revised version of the manuscript.

14. Please compare your results with the previous studies. Are they similar or exclude each other and what is the reason? Do your results (each of them) deepen the previous knowledge in the field and what it gives us additionally than previous studies?

Authors’ Response: Results are consistent with the previous studies and theories were also discussed. This study adds climate mitigation finance as a determinant of climate change.

15. You say “more finance should be allocated for climate change mitigation.” But in which direction? To finance what? To strengthen which field and how precisely? This will be real recommendation not just indicating that more finances are needed.

Authors’ Response: The sectors to which climate mitigation finance to be allocated were mentioned the last section of this article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Please refer the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 3 comments.

The issue of this article is interesting and worthy of consideration. However, one purpose of this article is to examine solutions to mitigate risks, but I find that less space explains this part. Please change a more appropriate paper title or enhance substantial in content.

 

1. In Abstract: The findings of this study demonstrate that in the long run, climate mitigation finance has a significant role in climate change mitigation while in the short run, climate mitigation finance has insignificant effect on climate change. What is the exact difference between in the long run and in the short run?

 

Authors’ response: The short run is a period in which changes in the independent variables occur and the long run is the periods/years preceding the period in which changes in the independent variables occur.

2. Please provide the source regarding Table 1 shows the sectors and sub-sectors which are recipients of climate change mitigation finance.

Authors’ response: Source of information presented in table 1 was provided.

3. As for the part of Literature review, I suggest the authors put some sub-titles for improving the understanding of relationships among variables. This article just proposes two indicators of climate change i.e., CO2 emission and temperature for estimating the effect of climate change mitigation finance on climate change. Is it enough or not? CO2 or CO2 Please use consistent words. The rest may be inferred by analogy.

Authors’ Response: The literature reviews was presented with sub-titles. The discussion about the relationship of climate change with all independent variables was delineated in the method and material section.  Sub indicator of climate change is CO₂ emission, not CO2.

4. My another initial concern with the literature review being disjointed and occasionally non-descriptive remains unaddressed, discussed from the previous literature, but few results are shared and no context is given to how these studies inform the literature and our understanding of impact assessment of climate mitigation finance. More importantly, it is unclear from the literature review why the authors’ study is important to the literature beyond.

Authors’ response: Literature reviews were rewritten, reorganized and key information from the reviewed studies was incorporated. The reviewed studies help us identify research gaps and the empirical linkage of all independent variables to climate change. This study adds new knowledge to the Climate Change Economics literature and is also important for policy making as it gives some suggestions for policy making in the conclusion section.

5. As to Formula (1), (2), (3), please make more explanation.

Authors’ response: These formula were explained more.

 

6. From Line 281-, the authors put the part about Globalization in here. I cannot fully understand the connection with the propositions proposed by this paper.

Author response: In the methodology section it was explained that globalization affects climate change through three channels and one of these channels is the technological effect and the technological effect of globalization on climate change is negative. Our findings show the negative effect of globalization on climate change, which is consistent with the technological effect of globalization on climate change.

 

7. Regarding Methodology, why the authors choose to use principal components analysis to testify your questions. Please provide a complete and simplified explanation of principal component analysis (PCA) and explain how it works step by step, so everyone can understand it and make use of it, even those without a strong mathematical background. Through each step, providing logical explanations of what PCA is doing and simplifying mathematical concepts such as standardization, covariance, eigenvectors and eigenvalues without focusing on how to compute them,

Authors’ Response: In the methodology section, the reason for using the PCA was explained. Previous literature, cited in the methodology section, outlines the superiority of PCA over other index construction/dimension reduction techniques. At the suggestion of a respected reviewer, the step-by-step PCA process has been explained.

8. In the final, I still feel fair comparison to relevant alternative methods is worth presenting.

Authors’ Response: Thank you for your suggestions. in light of comments from respected reviewers, desired changes have been made to the PCA discussion and throughout the materials and methods section.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised manuscript improved a lot. I have no further comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much for considering our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have modified very well the first paragraph of the introduction but the rest of the paper needed same! As I told in my previous report, it is not a good idea to cite whole paragraphs (that include different statements) with only one citation (ex. Lines 72-87; lines 100-107; lines 117-123 and many others). Also, the strong statements should be cited! (ex. “climate change is defined as...” This is one example but there are a lot in the paper). Or when you mention “Previous studies” did something, you should cite them!

Are you sure, the UNFCCC needs so detailed description and dedicating whole paragraph?

Lines 133-151 looks like more “conclusion and implication” rather than “introduction”.

It is not necessary to write this phrase: “The reviews of several studies about determinants of climate change for South Asian countries and other regions of the world were presented below which helps in identification of a gap which needs to be filled.” It should be evident from the text thanks to your “storytelling” ability and it should lead to the aim of the study and the research question logically. Now there is a lot of text in the introduction but messed up.

Besides, if you start to explain the gap only from this point, then what was the purpose of the text before? I think, you were just lazy to adapt the new text with the previous one and simply added new paragraph.

Thus, I think, the paper misses the continuity... So, after all modifications authors need to read again their paper as a third party and check the flow of the arguments that should be smooth.

There are a lot of typos. Authors repeat also some phrases, ex. “UNFCC has near-universal membership” and others.

When you use the abbreviation once, you have to use it in the rest of the paper and not the full form again.

There are differences and errors in the formatting and listing the references.

It is not clear still, how did you choose second indicator – temperature? Where this idea came from? Based on what [academic] knowledge or experience you decided to include this indicator?

Author Response

Authors responses to Reviewers’ 2 comments

Authors have modified very well the first paragraph of the introduction but the rest of the paper needed same! As I told in my previous report, it is not a good idea to cite whole paragraphs (that include different statements) with only one citation (ex. Lines 72-87; lines 100-107; lines 117-123 and many others). Also, the strong statements should be cited! (ex. “climate change is defined as...” This is one example but there are a lot in the paper). Or when you mention “Previous studies” did something, you should cite them!

 

Authors’ response: According to suggestion of the respected reviewer, claims or statements by authors were cited properly.

 

Are you sure, the UNFCCC needs so detailed description and dedicating whole paragraph?

 

Authors’ response: As per comment of the reviewer, unnecessary long paragraph was rewritten and made the discussion about UNFCCC brief. Thanks for such a valuable suggestion. 

 

Lines 133-151 looks like more “conclusion and implication” rather than “introduction”.

 

Authors’ response:  Thank you for your suggestions. Introduction was modified to make it more relevant.

It is not necessary to write this phrase: “The reviews of several studies about determinants of climate change for South Asian countries and other regions of the world were presented below which helps in identification of a gap which needs to be filled.” It should be evident from the text thanks to your “storytelling” ability and it should lead to the aim of the study and the research question logically. Now there is a lot of text in the introduction but messed up.

    Besides, if you start to explain the gap only from this point, then what was the purpose of the text before? I think, you were just lazy to adapt the new text with the previous one and simply added new paragraph.

 

Authors’ response: Thank you for suggestions. The unnecessary phrase highlighted by respected reviewer “The reviews of several studies about determinants of climate change for South Asian countries and other regions of the world were presented below which helps in identification of a gap which needs to be filled” was removed.

 

Thus, I think, the paper misses the continuity... So, after all modifications authors need to read again their paper as a third party and check the flow of the arguments that should be smooth.

 

Authors’ response: keep in view the comment of respected reviewer, the authors tried their best to improve the continue in the content of this paper.

 

There are a lot of typos. Authors also repeat some phrases, ex. “UNFCC has near-universal membership” and others.

 

Authors’ response: The whole paper was thoroughly proofread and authors made their best efforts to remove typos. The repeated phrase “UNFCC has near-universal membership” was removed.

 

• When you use the abbreviation once, you have to use it in the rest of the paper and not the full form again.

Authors’ response: changes were made as per suggestion of the respected reviewer.

• There are differences and errors in the formatting and listing the references.

 

Authors’ response: All references were listed as per references format of journal “sustainability” through Endnote.

 

• It is not clear still, how did you choose second indicator – temperature? Where this idea came from? Based on what [academic] knowledge or experience you decided to include this indicator?

Authors’ response: There are many indicators of climate change such as CO₂ emission, temperature, rise in sea level, ocean acidification and precipitation(Fawzy, 2020). Many studies have used CO₂ emission as indicator of climate change and a study by Leon et al. (2020) used average temperature as indicator of climate. This study combined CO₂ emission and average temperature by most used method of combining variables i.e., PCA to authenticate climate change by more data. Other indicators of climate change were not considered for construction of climate change index due to unavailability of complete data of other indicators.  Moreover, it is difficult to make meaningful and interpretable index from two or more variables which move in opposite direction to measure the same phenomenon i.e., measurement of climate change through CO₂ emission and rainfall as increase in CO₂ emission indicates climate change and decrease in rainfall indicate climate change. If we used these two indicators to make index and thus measure climate change, then this index will not show any change in climate as increase in CO₂ will be counterbalance by decrease in rainfall. Though CO₂ emission value is much bigger than rainfall but PCA needs to standardize all variables and assign same weight to all variables, therefore, increase in CO₂ will be counterbalance by decrease in rainfall/precipitation.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Authors responses to Reviewers’ 3 comments

• In Abstract: I recognize the result difference between in the long run and in the short run? However, the authors may not need to illustrate “The resultsshow that a one 17 percent increase in climate mitigation finance mitigatesclimate change by 0.01 percent in the long 18 term, while in the short term,a 1% percent increase in climate mitigation finance mitigates climate 19change by 0.001 percent. The results also show that, in the long term, a 1%percent increase in GDP 20 and globalization mitigate climate change by23% and 0.25%, respectively, while a 1% percent 21 increase in energyconsumption increases climate change by 0.66%.”To put the figures in here is not a good style of writing. Please find the better writing way to present your idea or concept.

Authors’ response: Keeping in view the suggestion of respected reviewer, the abstract of this study was rewritten and figures from abstract were removed. The discussion about results/ figure are present in 4^th section of this study.

 

• As for the part of Literature Review, the authors already add quite a bundle of articles. I consider this part is much more improved. However, the section tittle 2. Literature Review seems missing. Extant studies on climate change for South Asian countries or extant studies on Climate change for other regions is the section title?

 

Authors’ response: The title of the section 2 “literature” was added. Extant studies on climate change for South Asian countries and extant studies on Climate change for other regions are the sub-titles of empirical reviews of studies about “factors or determinants of climate change”.

 

• In the final, I still consider the content of literature Review is disorder and confused. Please do some adjustment to make your arguments more logically and comprehensively.

 

Authors’ response: The section literature reviews was reorganized and divided as theoretical reviews of studies regarding determinants of climate change and reviews of empirical studies regarding factors/ determinants of climate change. Further, empirical review was divided in two parts as Extant studies on climate change for South Asian countries and extant studies on Climate change for other regions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is further improved. Still, I have some minor comments:

The shift from the first paragraph (climate change, floods...) to fuel is not smooth. Indeed, you have a space there. I think, you forgot to connect those parts to each other.

“Extant studies regarding climate change explored...” – cite, which studies

“Extant literature has investigated...” – same for this... cite!

“This article made a significant contribution to the literature of determinants of climate changes and to the economics of climate changes.” – which article? Your? It is in its introduction. How you cand say in the introduction if it MADE or not any contribution? I have done this comment also before.

“Therefore, this study brought an addition 124 to the existing stock of literature about climate change and its determinants” – same for this.

 

Even if I do not find typos or rough grammar errors, still, I think that proofreading by NATIVE English speaker will be helpful for correcting the style of the writing, syntax of the sentences and for using more academic words, therefore, for advancing the quality of the paper in terms of the quality communication.

 

Author Response

The shift from the first paragraph (climate change, floods...) to fuel is not smooth. Indeed, you have a space there. I think, you forgot to connect those parts to each other.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your suggestions. To make the first paragraph smooth and connected, appropriate changes have been made.

“Extant studies regarding climate change explored...” – cite, which studies

                 “Extant literature has investigated...” – same for this... cite!

Authors’ response: Review of previous studies that explored and investigated climate change drivers have been presented in the literature review section of this article and all these studies have been cited and references listed in the references section.

“This article made a significant contribution to the literature of determinants of climate changes and to the economics of climate changes.” – Which article? Your? It is in its introduction. How you can say in the introduction if it MADE or not any contribution? I have done this comment also before.

“Therefore, this study brought an addition to the existing stock of literature about climate change and its determinants” – same for this.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your suggestions. Appropriate changes were made to elaborate the contribution of this study.