Optimizing Ghana’s Socioeconomic Metabolism Amid Urbanization from 2000 to 2019: An Emergy Synthesis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research investigates the assessment of Ghana’s sustainability using emergy synthesis, specifically focusing on the relationship between changes in Ghana's socioeconomic metabolism and the expansion of urban areas. The study aims to estimate the Emergy Sustainability Index (EmSI), which is integrated with emergy synthesis to assess Ghana's socioeconomic system. The studies on emergy synthesis are limited in African countries. The manuscript is in the scope of the journal and the interest of researchers. However, the paper has certain shortcomings that need to be addressed before publication. A broader perspective is missing - I would like to see more global-wide analysis in the introduction and while competing results. Figures are wrongly prepared lacking obvious things like axis units or legends and legends description. For example, the caption in Figure 3 is not clear. The axis units or legends in Figures 10 and 11 are required to be edited. It is essential to elucidate the novelty of the study and discuss how this methodology can benefit a wider scientific audience. Additionally, attention should be given to the necessity of discussing uncertainties associated with estimates of energy synthesis used in the study.

Specific comments

 

1.     The introduction is too lengthy. 

 

2. The references are inadequate. Several paragraphs should be backed up by the latest references.

 

3.     Some references are classic but some latest references relevant to the study should be updated. 

 

4.     The style of references should be edited according to the requirements of the journal. 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to express my sincerest gratitude for taking the time to review this paper. Your insightful feedback and constructive criticism have been immensely valuable.

Receiving your review was both enlightening and encouraging. Your attention to detail and thoughtful analysis demonstrated a deep understanding of the subject matter, which not only validates our efforts but also provides us with valuable insights for improvement.

Below is the detailed response to your comments, highlighted in yellow.

We look forward to any future interactions and opportunities for collaboration.

All the best,

 

 

Reviewer #1

 

The research investigates the assessment of Ghana’s sustainability using emergy synthesis, specifically focusing on the relationship between changes in Ghana's socioeconomic metabolism and the expansion of urban areas. The study aims to estimate the Emergy Sustainability Index (EmSI), which is integrated with emergy synthesis to assess Ghana's socioeconomic system. The studies on emergy synthesis are limited in African countries. The manuscript is in the scope of the journal and the interest of researchers. However, the paper has certain shortcomings that need to be addressed before publication. A broader perspective is missing - I would like to see more global-wide analysis in the introduction and while competing results. Figures are wrongly prepared lacking obvious things like axis units or legends and legends description. For example, the caption in Figure 3 is not clear. The axis units or legends in Figures 10 and 11 are required to be edited. It is essential to elucidate the novelty of the study and discuss how this methodology can benefit a wider scientific audience. Additionally, attention should be given to the necessity of discussing uncertainties associated with estimates of energy synthesis used in the study.

 

Figure 3 Caption

Conceptual Emergy Diagram is typical term for drafting such system.

 

Figure 10 & 11 Axis Units

The legends are deleted for figure 10&11

 

Specific comments

 

1. The introduction is too lengthy. 

We reorganzied introduction.

 

2. The references are inadequate. Several paragraphs should be backed up by the latest references.

We changed the reference to meet the journal style

 

3. Some references are classic but some latest references relevant to the study should be updated. 

We also added more recent references.

 

4. The style of references should be edited according to the requirements of the journal. 

 We changed the reference to meet the journal style

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research problem addressed is important and topical. It is not yet adequately explained in the literature. However, it is of great relevance to developing countries in terms of assessing the consequences of socio-economic development based on the mechanisms of exploitation of factor resources that characterised the conduct of the 20th century in developed countries. With the growing consequences of unsustainable development (low productivity of the socio-economic system, over-exploitation of resources, import dependence and environmental burden), Ghana and other developing countries should avoid the mistakes in resource management made by more developed countries.

It is interesting to apply emergy synthesis to assess Ghana's sustainable development. This method made it possible not only to assess the country's environmental performance and measure the level of sustainable development, but also to determine the impact of the expansion of urbanisation on the country's metabolism. The choice of research method also ensured that the results were comparable with those obtained for other countries belonging to different development groups.

The article fits the profile of the journal and may be of interest to readers. However, it requires improvement of several elements in the following parts of the paper.

1. Introduction

(a) The description of the second and third research objectives should be improved. I propose to write:

The second research objective is to measure Ghana's level of sustainability using .....

The third research objective is to determine the impact of ...........

(b) The study lacks hypotheses, so in either the 'Introduction' or the 'Literature Review' section, the authors could - in addition to the research questions - provide hypotheses. In the "Conclusions", on the other hand, they should then refer to whether the hypotheses were verified (positively or negatively).

c) I suggest adding information on the structure of the study - which parts it consists of.

2. Literature Review

The literature should be reinforced with more recent literature on the subject, e.g. emergy accounting theory or other issues discussed in the article.

Example source:

Abel T., Evaluating information with emergy: how did Howard T. Odum incorporate human information into emergy accounting?, Discover Environment, 2023, 1:9

3. Conclusions

(a) After introducing the hypotheses in the article, the authors should address them - whether the hypotheses are verified.

(b) The final part of the article should point out the research limitations that have occurred and the direction of future research.

Editorial comments requiring correction:

(a) In the text of the article, the numbers of the appendices are incorrectly indicated - they should be described with the letters A and B, not the number 2 (e.g. line 484, line 488).

b) In the text, the authors introduced incorrect numbering of some of the figures, e.g. in lines 526 and 546, information about figure 17 appeared. Such number of figures is not present in the whole article. From this point onwards, in the rest of the paper, the figure references have wrong numbers and do not match the illustrations in the text. A similar problem applies to Table 6 in section 5.1.Increasing urban energy demand. There are only three tables in the whole article and two tables in the following appendices (Appendix A and B).

(c) I recommend placing tables and figures nearer to the places of first citation. This will make it easier for the reader to understand the argument in the text.

 

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to express my sincerest gratitude for taking the time to review this paper. Your insightful feedback and constructive criticism have been immensely valuable.

Receiving your review was both enlightening and encouraging. Your attention to detail and thoughtful analysis demonstrated a deep understanding of the subject matter, which not only validates our efforts but also provides us with valuable insights for improvement.

Below is the detailed response to your comments, highlighted in yellow.

We look forward to any future interactions and opportunities for collaboration.

All the best,

 

 

 

Reviewer #2

 

The research problem addressed is important and topical. It is not yet adequately explained in the literature. However, it is of great relevance to developing countries in terms of assessing the consequences of socio-economic development based on the mechanisms of exploitation of factor resources that characterised the conduct of the 20th century in developed countries. With the growing consequences of unsustainable development (low productivity of the socio-economic system, over-exploitation of resources, import dependence and environmental burden), Ghana and other developing countries should avoid the mistakes in resource management made by more developed countries.

It is interesting to apply emergy synthesis to assess Ghana's sustainable development. This method made it possible not only to assess the country's environmental performance and measure the level of sustainable development, but also to determine the impact of the expansion of urbanisation on the country's metabolism. The choice of research method also ensured that the results were comparable with those obtained for other countries belonging to different development groups.

The article fits the profile of the journal and may be of interest to readers. However, it requires improvement of several elements in the following parts of the paper.

 

1. Introduction

(a) The description of the second and third research objectives should be improved. I propose to write:

The second research objective is to measure Ghana's level of sustainability using .....

The third research objective is to determine the impact of ...........

 

We changed the research objectives per reviewer’s comments

Page2 line80-85

 

 

(b) The study lacks hypotheses, so in either the 'Introduction' or the 'Literature Review' section, the authors could - in addition to the research questions - provide hypotheses. In the "Conclusions", on the other hand, they should then refer to whether the hypotheses were verified (positively or negatively).

We added hypothesis in page 5 line 224-232

Also we discussed hypothesis in conclusion section in page 20

 

1. c) I suggest adding information on the structure of the study - which parts it consists of.

Structure of study is added in introduction page 2 line 86-93

 

 

2. Literature Review

The literature should be reinforced with more recent literature on the subject, e.g. emergy accounting theory or other issues discussed in the article.

Example source:

Abel T., Evaluating information with emergy: how did Howard T. Odum incorporate human information into emergy accounting?, Discover Environment, 2023, 1:9

We added more recent references

 

 

 

3. Conclusions

(a) After introducing the hypotheses in the article, the authors should address them - whether the hypotheses are verified.

 

We discussed the outcome of the hypothesis in page 20

 

(b) The final part of the article should point out the research limitations that have occurred and the direction of future research.

We added research limitations in conclusion in page 20

 

Editorial comments requiring correction:

(a) In the text of the article, the numbers of the appendices are incorrectly indicated - they should be described with the letters A and B, not the number 2 (e.g. line 484, line 488).

1. b) In the text, the authors introduced incorrect numbering of some of the figures, e.g. in lines 526 and 546, information about figure 17 appeared. Such number of figures is not present in the whole article. From this point onwards, in the rest of the paper, the figure references have wrong numbers and do not match the illustrations in the text. A similar problem applies to Table 6 in section

We corrected the figure numbers, figure 17 ->5 , figure 18->6,  figure 19->7

 

5.1.Increasing urban energy demand. There are only three tables in the whole article and two tables in the following appendices (Appendix A and B).

(c) I recommend placing tables and figures nearer to the places of first citation. This will make it easier for the reader to understand the argument in the text.

 We moved the appendix A and B closer to the first citation

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General evaluation

The paper offers an approach that could make for an interesting publication. The topic is relevant, the authors provide a good global overview of previous studies on the subject and justify their investigation with the fact that studies from Africa have so far been largely missing. So far, so good.

Unfortunately, the description of the methodology, including the description of the data used, by no means meets scientific standards.

The detailed evaluation of the other chapters must therefore be reserved to a possible resubmission of the paper.

Specific comments

3.2 Data sources

It remains unclear which data come from which sources, how the quality of these data is to be assessed, to what extent their up-to-dateness and resolution are comparable, etc.

3.3 Emergy Sythesis

Here are some concrete indications of the weaknesses.

Formula 1 cannot be interpreted mathematically. The explanation of the variables points to an index x, the equation to a summation over i, the mathematical symbols are unclear.

Table 1: How were the indicators selected? From the literature? Authors' own selection? If so, with what justification? Several of the abbreviations used are not explained (N, F, G, P21, ...)

Figure 3: It is completely unclear how this Figure, which is the center piece of the entire methodology, was created. Reference is only made to Odum, 1996 for the general methodology. Where do the specified object classes and relations come from? It must be explained in detail how the authors developed this concept, why which objects were included in the concept, etc.

Chapter 3, in particular sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, must be completely revised if the paper is to be published.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no serious issues detected

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to express my sincerest gratitude for taking the time to review this paper. Your insightful feedback and constructive criticism have been immensely valuable.

Receiving your review was both enlightening and encouraging. Your attention to detail and thoughtful analysis demonstrated a deep understanding of the subject matter, which not only validates our efforts but also provides us with valuable insights for improvement.

Below is the detailed response to your comments, highlighted in yellow.

We look forward to any future interactions and opportunities for collaboration.

All the best,

 

 

 

Reviewer #3

 

General evaluation

The paper offers an approach that could make for an interesting publication. The topic is relevant, the authors provide a good global overview of previous studies on the subject and justify their investigation with the fact that studies from Africa have so far been largely missing. So far, so good.

Unfortunately, the description of the methodology, including the description of the data used, by no means meets scientific standards.

The detailed evaluation of the other chapters must therefore be reserved to a possible resubmission of the paper.

Specific comments

3.2 Data sources

It remains unclear which data come from which sources, how the quality of these data is to be assessed, to what extent their up-to-dateness and resolution are comparable, etc.

Method and data section is reorganized for clarification.

 

3.3 Emergy Sythesis

Here are some concrete indications of the weaknesses.

Formula 1 cannot be interpreted mathematically. The explanation of the variables points to an index x, the equation to a summation over i, the mathematical symbols are unclear.

 

Formula1 is deleted .

 

Table 1: How were the indicators selected? From the literature? Authors' own selection? If so, with what justification? Several of the abbreviations used are not explained (N, F, G, P21, ...)

Table 1 is standard emergy indicators. We added reference to each. Also, we added description for abbreviations

 

Figure 3: It is completely unclear how this Figure, which is the center piece of the entire methodology, was created. Reference is only made to Odum, 1996 for the general methodology. Where do the specified object classes and relations come from? It must be explained in detail how the authors developed this concept, why which objects were included in the concept, etc.

We added newer references and explain the concept

 

Chapter 3, in particular sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, must be completely revised if the paper is to be published.

 

Methodology section is rewritten to address the comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept

Author Response

Thank you for the review.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General assessment

The authors invested a significant amount of work to improve their manuscript by carefully and skillfully addressing all comments on the original manuscript. They revised the methodology and data sections, added detailed references where appropriate, and expanded and reorganized the list of references accordingly. I consider it a rare case that authors have revised their manuscript in such a compelling way.

Minor issues

With reference to my general assessment, I have found only some very minor editorial mistakes that need to be corrected.

Line 336f: ‘This study utilized the latest global emergy baseline (12.0E+24seJ/yr) …’
Appendix A : ‘UEV’s refer to Global Emergy base 15.83E+24seJ/year’

Should both values be the same? If so, correct the incorrect value, if not, explain the difference.

The numbering is not consistent for all Figures and Tables

In total, the manuscript contains no more than 11 Figures, but the references include ‘Figure 17’ (line 470), ‘Figure 21’ (line 556) and others.

The same applies to Tables. The manuscript contains 3 Tables, but the references include ‘Table 6’ (page 17).

Please check the numbering and correct it where needed.

Other minor typos include missing blank spaces, misspellings of monetary figures et cetera. Such imperfections can be easily corrected by simple proofreading.

 

Author Response

Thank you for the review. 

we addressed the all the comments from the review and revised accordingly.

thank you