Social Capital and Energy Transition: A Conceptual Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very interesting and meaningful study. Overall, this manuscript is well written. Following points for author’s consideration.

(1)  In section 3.3, Fig.10 shows the different methods used for investigating SC. However, the data shown in the figure is different from the text. Please confirm this. Similarly, the inconsistency between text and figure also occurs in Fig.11 and Fig.12.

(2)  There are several mistakes in reference section.

Author Response

Point 1. In section 3.3, Fig.10 shows the different methods used for investigating SC. However, the data shown in the figure is different from the text. Please confirm this. Similarly, the inconsistency between text and figure also occurs in Fig.11 and Fig.12.

Response 1 . Thank you very much, I have made the changes.

Point 2.  There are several mistakes in reference section.

Response 2 . Thank you, Now the refences is correct.

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find enclosed file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Ponit 1. First, definitely the compared papers apply different econometric approaches depending on the data (either time series or panel data), sample length, single country or many countries. This seems to be the main reason of different findings (despite the definition of SC) in relation to energy transition. The author has mentioned neither the econometric methods nor the impact of time series or/and panel data (much more attention paid to qualitative methods). Consequently, one of the paper s purposes has not been realised. This is the main flaw of the paper. Therefore, the question: What are the indicators of SC that can influence energy transition? has not been answered. Moreover, the fig. 11 is wrongly built as the questionnaire is not a quantitative method, and secondary data is not any method at all but just type of data.

Response 1. The paper offers a descriptive analysis of the aspects of social capital that have been investigated in relation to energy transition. I don't use statistical tests neither to explore the impact of social capital on energy transition nor to highlight differences across studies. Therefore, I feel that the method of analysis employed in primary studies does not affect my review substantially. I do acknowledge that some of the findings available in primary studies might be broadly affected by authors' choice of the modelling approach. To account for this aspect, I included a footnote in pag. 13 with the following comment: "The different methods for data collection and data modelling are important because they might affect the results in primary studies. This aspect, however, should not affect my review because I concentrate on a descriptive analysis of the research available online and don't look for statistical differences across studies."

Point 2. Second, the discussion about the social capital dominates, i.e. it is not enough balanced by the paralleled discussion about the impact of the SC definition on the findings with regard the energy transition. Although, the title suggests this. More importantly, this is the key issue which may attract the attention of policy makers and other researchers.  

Response 2. Thanks for the suggestion, I added different references in the paper to try to balance the two concepts.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read this interesting review paper. I found it informative and the contents interesting, and have a few comments to further improve the paper.

1. Please have a thorough proof read of the English - some of the plurals and tense are a little awkward.

2.  The conclusions could be improved - what is the key take home message here - is it the EU's direction, or is it he development of SC study? The conclusion should be clear and not be a summary of the whole paper.

3. Please spend some time to discuss and describe the national linkages - I think this is a very interesting part of this paper.

Author Response

Point 1. Please have a thorough proof read of the English - some of the plurals and tense are a little awkward.

Response 1. In the new version I will review the grammatical errors in English with some qualified researchers.

Point 2.  The conclusions could be improved - what is the key take home message here - is it the EU's direction, or is it he development of SC study? The conclusion should be clear and not be a summary of the whole paper.

Response 2. In the new version, the conclusions have been changed, hoping to have managed to give a direct message of what is important to highlight with this review.

Point 3. Please spend some time to discuss and describe the national linkages - I think this is a very interesting part of this paper.

Response 3. I would like to ask you for more clarification on this point. What you are suggesting is to include more references to the different research done in the geographical areas, or the legislative implications for energy in each different country.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate that the author accepted some of my comments, especially those concerning the balance between the discussion on SC definition and energy transition. Certainly, I could debate with the author as to the answer to first comment (the impact of methods applied in studies), but I recognize the author's argument. Although, the problem itself still remains unsolved.

There are still some minor mistakes and misunderstandings. I list them below.

-          Description of OX axis in Figure 9 axis is still not clear, i.e. it is unknown what the numbers (1, 2,…5) mean; the author has not corrected it;

-          Title of Figure 11 has a selling error,

-          Lines 598-606: I recommend to proofread this paragraph; in my opinion:

Instead of: some aspects of SC that limit transition

Should be: some aspects of SC that limit energy transition;

The phrase: ‘and that make it so’ seems to be unfinished (?)

Author Response

I appreciate that the author accepted some of my comments, especially those concerning the balance between the discussion on SC definition and energy transition. Certainly, I could debate with the author as to the answer to first comment (the impact of methods applied in studies), but I recognize the author's argument. Although, the problem itself still remains unsolved.

I thank the reviewer for the useful comments and recognise that he/she is overall satisfied with my answers. In relation to the first comment, all primary studies have been published in academic journals and passed rigorous peer-review. Therefore, I must take for granted that results are reliable. All I can do is to acknowledge the influence of modelling approaches in the footnote. Additionally, quantitative papers in my review account for 22% of the total, therefore this comment is related to a minority of studies. The rest of the review contains qualitative papers, which suggest suggest similar results to quantitative papers. Therefore, I believe that the implications of this review are overall grounded on reliable sources.

There are still some minor mistakes and misunderstandings. I list them below.

-          Description of OX axis in Figure 9 axis is still not clear, i.e. it is unknown what the numbers (1, 2,…5) mean; the author has not corrected it; Done, thanks!

-          Title of Figure 11 has a selling error, Done, thanks!

-          Lines 598-606: I recommend to proofread this paragraph; in my opinion:

Instead of: some aspects of SC that limit transition

Should be: some aspects of SC that limit energy transition; Done, thanks!

The phrase: ‘and that make it so’ seems to be unfinished (?) Edited, thanks