Novel Evaluation Method for Cleaner Production Audit in Industrial Parks: Case of a Park in Central China
, Jianhe Ding 1,4,5, Tianqi Tao 1,2,5, Shulian Wang 1,3,5, Kewu Pi 1,2,5 and Wen Xiong 2,3,4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this manuscript, a novel evaluation method for cleaner production audit in industrial parks is proposed, the overall structure is complete, the logic is reasonable, and it can provide reasonable suggestions for building a systematic and cyclical enterprise symbiotic network. However, some details and expressions need to be further discussed. Thus, the reviewer recommends this manuscript need a minor revision. Based on my review, i have some comments, suggestions, and questions as given below:
1. Lines 118-119, lines 122-123, relevant references need to be added.
2. Line 194, in addition to describing the method itself, it should also be explained how the method is applied in this paper.
3. Line 336, Table 4.1 overlaps with part of the text.
4. Lines 355-384, why are only 7 indicators introduced? It should be explained.
5. Lines 396 and 502. it is suggested to increase the clarity of Figures 4 and 6.
6. Lines 441-445, it is suggested to add relevant explanations and analyze the reasons for this situation.
7. This study proposes a set of cleaner production index systems for industrial parks, establishes an evaluation model based on a binary semantic evaluation method. It is necessary to verify the validity of the model.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIn this manuscript, a novel evaluation method for cleaner production audit in industrial parks is proposed, the overall structure is complete, the logic is reasonable, and it can provide reasonable suggestions for building a systematic and cyclical enterprise symbiotic network. However, some details and expressions need to be further discussed. Thus, the reviewer recommends this manuscript need a minor revision. Based on my review, i have some comments, suggestions, and questions as given below:
1. Lines 118-119, lines 122-123, relevant references need to be added.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript by Zhu Li et el is enough impressive. It is devoted to the new specially designed algorithm for the cleaner production audits of industrial park areas in China. The manuscript is well balanced and the main conclusions are enough reasonable. Nevertheless, the manuscript contains a lot of defects.
1. The requests of "Paris agreement" mentioned in the text of paragraph 1 should be demonstrated/ expressed in a more mild manner, just as a common recommendations for minimising the carbon emissions and pollution in the highly-developed industrial areas containing clusters of enterprises.
2. The large scheme in Figure 2 is practically not readable and should be made more understandable for eyes.
3. The number of mathematical formulas in the manuscript is very huge and should be reduced at least on 30-35%. For example, formulas with matrixes in the section 4.2 are hardly readable and difficult for understanding in the main text. They should be transferred into the Supplementary Data file. The same about the other hardly readable formulas.
4. Paragraph 4. Data in the tables 4.1 and 4.2 containing units of "million yuan". Because the "yuan" is the currency used in China, it would be better on my mind to use some conventional units instead of 1 yuan in the Tables 4.1 and 4.2, for example the units related with the cost of 10 kWh of electricity or the cost of one barrel of oil. Thus, it would be better to see the values in the Tables 4.1 and 4.2 expressed in the energetical units.
5. Figure 7 is enough complicated at first sight and should be made more simplified and clear from the viewpoint of its main idea.
6. The title of manuscript is very long on my mind. I prefer to see the more shorter title. Please delete at least 4-5 unnecessary words from the title.
The manuscript can be published after the necessary revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReviewer's comments on sustainability-2868232
In this article, the authors constructed a set of cleaner production index system for industrial parks in order to promote the regional coordinated development of cleaner production, and established a cleaner production evaluation model for industrial parks based on the binary semantic evaluation method, then selected an industrial park in Central China Industrial Park as an auditing pilot, which contributed to the improvement of cleaner production efficiency and the promotion of cleaner production through regional coordination. However, in my opinion, the manuscript in current form is not suitable for publishment, which should be rejected due to but not limited to the following comments,
1. The description and exposition of most of the figures were not well developed.
2. Figure 2 was not aesthetic, and the authors should find a more appropriate and clearer way of drawing it. No relevant discussion of Figure 2 appeared in the main text.
3. Figures 4 and 6 were not clear enough.
4. The definition of VOCs was not given during the first appearance of it.
5. The readers could not know whether the cleaner production indicator system for industrial parks and its evaluation model proposed in this manuscript were applicable to most parks, which should be discussed in detail.
6. A concluding discussion should be added to each section to summarize the work of each chapter.
7. Overall, the quality of all the figures was quite poor, which could not match the high standards of Sustainability.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a very interesting attempt to propose a general set of indexes to evaluate cleaner production. I have just some sugestions. Table 1 and figure 7 need to be improved. In table 1, maybe using current value instead of actuality value is better. Have you devised a plan for validating and/or implementing your method in other industrial parks?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIn general terms, English is used well.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author addresses the issues we raised very well and therefore recommends receiving this manuscript
Author Response
Thank you for your recommendation.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll the comments have been addressed.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments and suggestions .
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFirst, I admit being new to the literature and also to the regulatory and legal framework for which the indices are constructed. (Thus, the "Not Applicable" with reference to adequacy of literature review - I do not know.) Having said this, I wonder for whom this index is being constructed. In most other countries, the enterprise is the basic unit regulated. It has to follow all regulations, for all types of regulated pollutants. There is no index needed. Fines, agreement to improve processes or equipment, or even closure are remedies. If the company is located in an industrial park, it can have its waste treated, usually for a fee, and comply in that manner. This is a matter of public health.
The measurement of pollution is normally done by a third party with no interest in the business or local economy. (I know of local governments not turning on pollution control equipment in coal generating plants to save money, for example. They should not be measuring air pollution.) So, for me, the alternative to an index is to follow the law and regulations and make sure that the pollutants are accurately measured.
A pro-active IZ management can act as a green entrepreneur and clean up its electricity generation (switching to renewables and gas, where possible or using less polluting coal) or invest in waste water treatment to handle all regulated pollutants generated in waste water - for a cost. If that cost is less than each company complying alone, there should be a way to pay for the cost of the treatment. Again, no index is needed.
So, I guess my criticism, or question, is who is demanding an index and what useful function does it play? The object is to have cleaner output. If there are no laws and cleaning up is costly, who will comply - index or not. If there are laws (and fines and honest monitoring), then each pollutant must be dealt with. More generally, comparing each product or process to best practices in China or elsewhere, might provide a roadmap for improvements. This is what is needed for economical compliance.
A final observation is that the weight and importance of a pollution variable may be dynamic. As an example, French nuclear reactors had to operate at reduced power when during a recent drought, water flows fell and water temperatures rose beyond safe levels. Normally, discharging warmer water might be of relatively small importance. In some cases, it might be of major importance. This could be handled in an index but given the investment needed to cool water, it might be better to foresee the problem and require cooling facilities.
I do not pretend to judge the technical approach used in this paper. I understand the approach but do not know how robust it is or if it adds value compared to a more dis-aggregated approach. Nor do I understand the regulatory regime in China and how this paper fits into it.
Note: on line 145, "advanced" is used twice when the first one should be something else?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageQuality of writing is fine, though better explaining some of the jargon would be helpful.
Author Response
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The information that Figure 5 is trying to convey is not very easy to understand. Can you explain Figure 5 in more detail, as well as explain the information about S1, S2, and S3 in the previous section?
2. This paper does not state the real efficacy of the proposed cleaner production indicator system for G Industrial Park, nor does it describe whether the cleaner production recommendations provided are real and effective for G Industrial Park.
3. In the introduction section, a few previous studies related to cleaner production in industrial parks are presented, failing to cover the latest research related to the research topic.
4. Innovativeness is not clearly articulated. Failed to highlight the differences and innovations between this study and previous work.
5. Formulas are not standardized. The parameters of some formulas are not stated.
Comments on the Quality of English Language1. The information that Figure 5 is trying to convey is not very easy to understand. Can you explain Figure 5 in more detail, as well as explain the information about S1, S2, and S3 in the previous section?
2. This paper does not state the real efficacy of the proposed cleaner production indicator system for G Industrial Park, nor does it describe whether the cleaner production recommendations provided are real and effective for G Industrial Park.
3. In the introduction section, a few previous studies related to cleaner production in industrial parks are presented, failing to cover the latest research related to the research topic.
4. Innovativeness is not clearly articulated. Failed to highlight the differences and innovations between this study and previous work.
5. Formulas are not standardized. The parameters of some formulas are not stated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt may not be a good way to evaluate the level of cleaning industry with index that are not admitted by government
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author answered my concerns and therefore recommended publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
