Navigating Carbon Offsetting: How User Expertise Influences Digital Platform Engagement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The paper is written on the actual topic.

2.  English used in the manuscript is appropriate for scientific paper but there are typos which should be corrected

3.   The Article can be recommended for publication.

As comments it should be noted:

4. The authors did not fully describe the basic purpose of the KlimaDAO platform as a blockchain-based carbon economy initiative.  The authors emphasized that the target purpose of the platform is to impact global carbon emissions by providing users with tokenized bonuses, but they did not provide details that the KlimaDAO platform offers KLIMA tokens based on blockchain, and each provides a one-ton reduction in carbon emissions.

 5.    The KlimaDAO platform makes it easy to interact with the carbon market  as well as  buying  or sending tokenized blockchain-based carbon assets to be staked. The research to confirm the authors' hypotheses is relevant in this regard.

6. However, the hypotheses need to be presented more clearly and clarify what was meant by the experts panel and ordinary users.

7. English needs to be checked and typos corrected.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English should be checked because there are some misprints  including both lexis and stylistics

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We deeply appreciate your insightful feedback on our manuscript. Based on your comments, we have made several enhancements:

1. Title and Topic Alignment: We're glad that the revised title now more accurately reflects the focus of our paper. Your acknowledgment of this improvement is highly encouraging.
2. Typographical Errors: Thank you for pointing out the typographical errors. We have conducted a thorough review and corrected these, ensuring our manuscript meets the high standards of academic writing.
3. Feedback Incorporation: Your constructive suggestions have been invaluable. We have diligently revised our paper, incorporating feedback from you and other reviewers to enrich its content and clarity.
4. KlimaDAO Platform Explanation: We have expanded the methodology section (Section 2.1) to provide a comprehensive explanation of the KlimaDAO platform, detailing its role in the blockchain-based carbon economy and its impact through KLIMA tokens.
5. Interaction with Carbon Market: In response to your suggestion, we have added detailed analysis in Section 5.3, focusing on how the KlimaDAO platform facilitates user interaction with the carbon market and the significance of tokenized carbon assets.
6. Clarity on Hypotheses and Expert Panel: The hypotheses have been restructured for greater clarity, as you recommended. Additionally, we have provided a more detailed explanation regarding the perspectives of the expert panel and ordinary users, enhancing the depth of our analysis.
7. Language and Typos: We have undertaken a comprehensive review by external parties to eliminate any remaining typographical errors and to ensure the language adheres to academic standards.
8. This paper examines the voluntary carbon market, a sector distinct from the compliance-based carbon market. It's important to note that the primary author is affiliated with Kakubi AG, holding a position on its board and owning equity or stocks. Kakubi AG is active in the compliance carbon market, which differs significantly from the voluntary market discussed in this study. As such, KlimaDAO, the data source for our research, does not compete with Kakubi AG. This ensures that there are no conflicting interests that could affect the neutrality of our research. Additionally, ChatGPT has been utilized to enhance the clarity and readability of this paper.

Your feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality and rigor of our work. We are confident that these revisions have substantially improved our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the article chosen by the authors is very relevant in the face of a deepening climate emergency. The authors substantiate the relevance of this topic in detail, emphasising the need for both a global solution to this problem and the involvement of individuals and companies. The authors reasonably consider digital platforms as a tool for solving the problem. 

In the reviewer's opinion, the research methodology is not sufficiently substantiated by the authors in Section 3 of the article. The methodology should be supplemented with justification of the number of participants in the experiment, justification of the choice of research method.

Figures (1-4) would be better moved to the appendices.

Conclusions (section 6 of the article) should be improved - they should be linked to the results of the study and the hypotheses put forward. There is no need to make references to sources of information in this section (Numbers 8 and 40). It is desirable to structure and number the conclusions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive feedback on our manuscript addressing the urgent issue of the climate emergency. We have made the following revisions in response to your comments:

1. Research Methodology Enhancement: We have now incorporated a quantitative approach with regression analysis to substantiate our research methodology. This addition provides a more robust justification for the number of participants and the choice of our research methods.
2. Figures Relocation: Following your suggestion, Figures 1 to 4 have been moved to the appendices. This change streamlines the main body of the article, allowing for a more focused narrative while retaining the accessibility of these visual aids.
3. Conclusions Improvement: The conclusions have been thoroughly revised. They are now more coherently linked to our study results and the hypotheses. We have also removed unnecessary references and structured the conclusions numerically for enhanced clarity and readability.
4. This paper examines the voluntary carbon market, a sector distinct from the compliance-based carbon market. It's important to note that the primary author is affiliated with Kakubi AG, holding a position on its board and owning equity or stocks. Kakubi AG is active in the compliance carbon market, which differs significantly from the voluntary market discussed in this study. As such, KlimaDAO, the data source for our research, does not compete with Kakubi AG. This ensures that there are no conflicting interests that could affect the neutrality of our research. Additionally, ChatGPT has been utilized to enhance the clarity and readability of this paper.

Your insights have been invaluable in refining our manuscript, ensuring that it contributes effectively to the discourse on digital platforms in addressing climate challenges.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides an exploration of user behaviors on KlimaDAO, focusing on the engagement disparities between expert and regular users in the context of combating carbon emissions and addressing climate change. 

There are some concerns to be addressed:

1- Additional justifications could be considered to support the hypothesis. 

2- Contributions as well as the research gap in the Introduction need further attention.  

3- Further literature review could be considered. E.g., 

Alternative governmental carbon policies on populations of green and non-green supply chains in a competitive market. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(5), pp.4139-4172.

Joint impact of CSR policy and market structure on environmental sustainability in supply chains. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 185, p.109654.

4- I suggest improving the fluency and readability of the paper as well as removing minor typos. 

Good luck in revising the paper. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I suggest improving the fluency and readability of the paper as well as removing minor typos. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript examining user behaviors on KlimaDAO. We have addressed your concerns as follows:

1. Hypothesis Justification: We have expanded our use of existing literature to strengthen the foundation of our hypothesis. These have been reformulated for increased clarity and better alignment with the research objectives.
2. Introduction and Research Gap: The introduction has been significantly enhanced to clearly lead to the identification of the research gap. This improvement provides a stronger framework for the study.
3. Literature Review Expansion: In response to your suggestion, we have incorporated additional literature, including the articles you recommended. This broader review further contextualizes our study within the existing body of research.
4. Fluency and Readability Improvements: The manuscript has been reviewed by an external party to enhance fluency and readability. All minor typographical errors have also been corrected.
5. This paper examines the voluntary carbon market, a sector distinct from the compliance-based carbon market. It's important to note that the primary author is affiliated with Kakubi AG, holding a position on its board and owning equity or stocks. Kakubi AG is active in the compliance carbon market, which differs significantly from the voluntary market discussed in this study. As such, KlimaDAO, the data source for our research, does not compete with Kakubi AG. This ensures that there are no conflicting interests that could affect the neutrality of our research. Additionally, ChatGPT has been utilized to enhance the clarity and readability of this paper.

We believe these revisions address your concerns effectively and enhance the overall quality of our paper.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this article, the authors analyse carbon offset platforms and their importance for climate emergency.  They establish two categories of users and develop a study about their differences using  KlimaDAO. The insights in the study can help to make better designs of this type of platform to contribute to fostering actions to address climate change and reinforce the commitment to sustainability. Authors formulate 4 hypotheses that they validate with a statistical analysis to compare four variables in each one of the categories of users: experts and regular in the platform.

The structure is straightforward and the article is relevant to the field of Sustainability. The authors present a review of previous literature about platforms to contextualize this work based on references appropriate and recent. However, there are methodological issues with statistical tests: 

• There isn’t any validation for the requirements for the variables to apply the t-test. Also, there isn’t any consideration of possible anomalies in the data (Table 1.) 

• The number of Offsets has a minimum and median value of 1.0, however, max value is 101.0. 

• It’s necessary to describe better the variables and indicate the domain of variables to determine if variables are qualitative or quantitative: 

• Tonality of Message is a sentiment value of (+, -) ?

• Quality of Offsets is 0, 1?

• Tangible evidence?

• These variables are qualitative and the authors are using t-test for quantitative continuous variables?

• What about the evidence for normality required for the t-test?

The main results are based on these tests, but I suggest the authors present evidence that the t-test is appropriate for these data. I suggest using visualizations and other statistical tests. Also, if variables are qualitative they must be reviewed and must be used suitable tests and the discussion and conclusions with the new results must be changed if it is necessary.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your insightful comments on our manuscript. We have addressed your concerns as detailed below:

1. Validation of Variables for T-Test: We have revised our approach to include a stepwise logistic regression, ensuring robustness in our model and data. This method provides a more appropriate analysis given the nature of our data.
2. Data Anomalies and Skewness in Offsets: We recognized the skewness in the 'Number of Offsets' data, particularly the maximum value of 101.0. To address this, we applied a square root transformation to reduce skewness and variance, ensuring a more accurate representation of the data.
3. Description and Domain of Variables: The manuscript now includes a clearer description of the variables, explicitly stating their domain to distinguish between qualitative and quantitative types.
4. Appropriateness of Statistical Tests: Considering your concerns, we have shifted from using t-tests to a stepwise regression analysis. This approach is better suited for the nature of our qualitative variables and enhances the robustness of our model.
5. This paper examines the voluntary carbon market, a sector distinct from the compliance-based carbon market. It's important to note that the primary author is affiliated with Kakubi AG, holding a position on its board and owning equity or stocks. Kakubi AG is active in the compliance carbon market, which differs significantly from the voluntary market discussed in this study. As such, KlimaDAO, the data source for our research, does not compete with Kakubi AG. This ensures that there are no conflicting interests that could affect the neutrality of our research. Additionally, ChatGPT has been utilized to enhance the clarity and readability of this paper.

We hope these revisions adequately address your concerns and significantly improve the quality and clarity of our research.

Sincerely,

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your detailed explanations, you have worked hard to improve your statistical study, and it is now clear and the conclusions are supported by your results.