Contribution to the Net-Zero Emissions Target from the Transport Sector through Electric Mobility—A Case of Kathmandu Valley
, Ajay Kumar Jha 4 and Hari Bahadur Darlami 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe purpose of this paper was to quantify GHG emissions from conventional vehicles and analyze electric mobility in the Kathmandu Valley. In my opinion, the article is well-organized and written.
In their research, the authors used the Low Emission Analysis Platform (LEAP) as a tool for forecasting energy consumption, as well as for quantifying greenhouse gas emissions and selected local pollutants. They also specified what data they used, dividing them into two groups: secondary data and primary data. I have no critical comments.
The conclusion is consistent with the evidence and arguments and the do address the main question that is posed.
References are appropriate.
Minor comments:
Line 25 – please expand the abbreviation BAU (this is its first use).
Line 361 – please insert the correct literature reference.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors present a study on the contribution of vehicle electrification in Kathmandu province. This study is supported by forecasts based on very old data from 2011, 2014 and 2020, which are therefore out of date. On the other hand, they restrict their study solely to private transport, leaving out public transport and commercial vehicles for construction, agriculture, and other potential polluters. They neglect not the pollution associated with the production of electric vehicles, but more than anything the treatment to be given to them at the end of their life, such as the disposal of batteries and their polluting impact. It's a very golden environment. This introduction is explained in the following paragraphs.
1- The authors mention a series of acronyms that are not identified in their first reference. The acronym BAU presented in the abstract is only identified on page 7 line 250.
2- In figure 1, not only is it not necessary to put "Source" when they put the reference "[10] is on the next line.
3- It would be interesting for the authors to publish the values of the GoN's fees and subsidies, and a comparison with other policies adopted worldwide.
4- The authors could and should quantify the expected values in terms of investment and air quality mentioned in line 116.
5- The data presented by the authors is very old (2011 Census), as is the data from the National Human Development Report [38,39], which refers to 2014 and 2020.
6- The contribution to the construction of table 1 of each of the references [40-43] is not defined.
7- The study is very restrictive as it leaves out vehicles associated with construction, which are probably the most polluting.
8- The authors start from figures that are many years old and assume a series of factors that in themselves do not depend on their own will, but on world circumstances and the economic power of the population in general and states in particular (page 8).
The data presented in the table are from 2078 to 2070, if true they are very extrapolated, if 2018/19 they are very old.
10- The figures are referred to in general and then detailed, however, they are defined as several images (a, b, c, ...) never referred to individually. Refer to "Figure 3(a)" individually or delete (a, b, c, ...), for example.
11- In Figure 4(a), the units are missing.
12- Referencing errors on line 361.
13- In line 374, the authors present a kind of belief that everything will be resolved internally. If this is possible, what are the costs involved? Except how much energy is bought. What influence does it have on day-to-day life?
14- In line 478, the paragraph leaves a series of values in the air that are not understandable. We don't understand the relationship between 2045 and 2050. The data should be checked and corrected (Table 5).
15- On page 19, the authors refer to a series of challenges that need to be quantified, essentially with regard to recycling. What impact could vehicle scrapping have? What level of pollution do batteries cause at the end of their life cycle? to improve pollution levels and make cities in developing countries sustainable and liveable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe objective of this paper is to measure the greenhouse gas emissions from traditional vehicles and examine the potential impact of electric mobility in Kathmandu Valley, to transform it into a more habitable environment. The subject of the paper falls within the aims and scope of the Journal. However, the scientific soundness and contributions of the paper should be significantly improved. More detailed comments are provided below.
1. The Abstract should be corrected. The authors did not highlight the methodology of the study. They also didn't indicate whether the results and data they provided in the abstract are the results of their study or data taken from some reports and planning documents. They should also point out the main conclusion of their study and highlight the main contribution of the study.
2. Include LEAP in the keywords.
3. The authors did not identify aim of their study and research questions.
4. I suggest that authors to separate the literature review from the introduction. In the introduction, they can present the background and main motives for the study, but the literature review should be moved to a separate section and supplemented. They should also highlight the main research gaps, identified based on the literature review, that they will try to bridge in their study.
5. The literature review is too specific. The authors focus only on Nepal cases. The literature review should be more general. Emissions from the transport sector is a broadly investigated topic, and the authors should present the main aspects of the previous studies from the field.
6. The authors should provide more information on the survey creation and the respondents who were surveyed.
7. It is unclear how the scenarios were formed. By whom and based on what?
8. My biggest concern is the scientific contribution of this study. A simple application of the well-established methodology on a set of non-corroborated data can hardly be seen as a significant scientific contribution. In addition, the big question is the scope of the study. The subject area is too narrow. Can the results of this study be transferred to some other cities? The authors should make the greatest effort to try to elaborate and highlight the scientific contributions and broader use of their study.
9. The discussion section should be expanded. Currently, it only discusses the obtained results, but the discussion should also point out the main contributions of the study in comparison to the reviewed and studied literature. The authors should also discuss the theoretical and practical implications of the study, as well as the limitations. The last sentence of the conclusion might indicate some implications, but it should be elaborated much better and more extensively.
10. The authors did not provide any future research directions. They should provide at least 3-5 solid future research directions that would be interesting to most of the Journal readers.
11. There are some technical issues:
a. Figure captions should be as short and informative as possible. For example, the caption for Figure 10 is too extensive and there is some redundant information in it.
b. Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract; the main text; the first figure or table. For example, the abbreviation „BAU“ is not defined in the abstract. Check the rest of the paper.
c. References in the reference list are not formatted according to the Instructions for Authors (e.g. journal names are not abbreviated). Correct the formatting of the references.
d. The font in the figures does not match the font in the rest of the paper.
e. Tables are not formatted according to the Instructions for Authors.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor spelling, grammar, syntax, and style errors were identified.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have nothing more to say.
I am fully satisfied with the answers given by the authors and the subsequent revision of the article.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed all issues identified in the previous review round, thus significantly improving the quality of their paper. Therefore I suggest an acceptance of the paper in its present form.
