Quantifying Sectoral Carbon Footprints in Türkiye’s Largest Metropolitan Cities: A Monte Carlo Simulation Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lack of references concerning tables, figures, and equations. Crucial aspect of scholarly writing is the proper referencing of tables, figures, and equations. The absence of references for these elements in the manuscript poses a substantial challenge to the clarity and verifiability of the presented data. Each table should be accompanied by a clear reference, providing readers and reviewers with the necessary context and sources.

While the study does draw a conclusion, it is noted as being somewhat obvious and lacks depth. A more comprehensive and insightful conclusion, synthesizing the findings and their implications for the field, would significantly enhance the manuscript's overall impact.

 

The manuscript falls short in clearly indicating its novelty within the broader academic landscape. While the application of Monte Carlo Simulation to assess uncertainties in emissions data is noteworthy, the manuscript could benefit from a more explicit discussion of how this methodology contributes to the existing body of knowledge in the field of carbon footprint assessment.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Lack of references concerning tables, figures, and equations. Crucial aspect of scholarly writing is the proper referencing of tables, figures, and equations. The absence of references for these elements in the manuscript poses a substantial challenge to the clarity and verifiability of the presented data. Each table should be accompanied by a clear reference, providing readers and reviewers with the necessary context and sources.

While the study does draw a conclusion, it is noted as being somewhat obvious and lacks depth. A more comprehensive and insightful conclusion, synthesizing the findings and their implications for the field, would significantly enhance the manuscript's overall impact.

 

The manuscript falls short in clearly indicating its novelty within the broader academic landscape. While the application of Monte Carlo Simulation to assess uncertainties in emissions data is noteworthy, the manuscript could benefit from a more explicit discussion of how this methodology contributes to the existing body of knowledge in the field of carbon footprint assessment.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback on our paper. We have implemented the suggestions provided by the reviewers, and we believe that the paper has improved with these comments. We are presenting the revised version to you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, there are some improvements that need to be made, namely:

- in the abstract, the written english needs to be improved. Also, you have to write the meaning of IPCC

-Along the text you make the same mistake, for instance, you write: [1,2,3,4] and you should instead write :[1 - 4]

- You write CO2, but you need to write the full meaning of the acronym when you write it for the first time.

- Figures, tables and images must have the sources

- I believe that all the sections from 3.3.1. to 3.3.2.4 should be more succinct. They are too long. Could you put it shorter, but maintaining the key information?

-Most of your data are until 2020. Is it possible to use more recent data?

-       -   English needs to be improved.

-           

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language needs to be improved

 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback on our paper. We have implemented the suggestions provided by the reviewers, and we believe that the paper has improved with these comments. We are presenting the revised version to you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is based on an impressive amount of data and the study covers all GHG producing sectors. The conclusions are not surprising, as Istanbul is known to produce the largest amount of GHG in the region. I appreciate the paper for the method and the presentation of the results. Instead, the purpose of the study is not sufficiently presented. Why is this hierarchy necessary? Who uses it (local authorities, government, other institutions)?

A paragraph should be formulated in the conclusions that presents what follows after this study... It will be used by certain entities to raise awareness of the problem of GHG production in the analyzed cities... And certain measures will be implemented to reduce the amount of GHG produced annually.

 

1. What is the main purpose of the study? What exactly will it be used for? Which authorities can use the information to implement GHG reduction measures in the cities studied? 2. The study is similar to the analyzes made in many European cities, regarding the level of GHG produced. What is specific and interesting is that the paper covers all GHG producing sectors. 3. Centralized inventory of GHG production sources in cities is the strong point of the paper. 4. I don't think the methodology needs improvement... 5. A paragraph or more relating to the usefulness of the data provided should be included in the conclusions. Who will use this study? If specific GHG reduction measures can be chosen based on it, it must be specified! 6. The references are appropriate. 7. I have no additions or suggestions...

 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback on our paper. We have implemented the suggestions provided by the reviewers, and we believe that the paper has improved with these comments. We are presenting the revised version to you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

General comment：

The significance of this study, which assesses greenhouse gas emissions from different sectors in three Turkish cities, categorized into five dimensions, is more detailed and comprehensive, and is located in Turkey, with the aim of providing a policy rationale for Turkey's future low-carbon goals. According to the results, Istanbul has the highest emissions over the years, which should be an important concern for policy makers. The results are clearly presented throughout the article, but there are still some minor problems.

 

1.      The third paragraph of the literature review gives some examples of cities emitting greenhouse gases, but it needs to be further condensed and summarized.

2.      Perhaps the study of urban carbon footprint is more appropriate in large cities. Because large cities tend to have denser populations and more complex urban functions, but this is related to the size of the city, industrial cities and tourist cities will also lead to differences in carbon emissions, which would be richer if these were taken into account in the review section of this article.

3.      Figure 2:Gray maps should also best painted

4.      It is best to indicate the table cited in section 3

5.      In Section 3.4.1, it is advisable to indicate the total emissions of livestock

6.      The words in Figure 8 seem to be a little too small

7.      There seems to be a lot of discussion in the conclution, for example the second paragraph begins, why not put it in the 4 part

 

 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback on our paper. We have implemented the suggestions provided by the reviewers, and we believe that the paper has improved with these comments. We are presenting the revised version to you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf