Renewable Heat Policy in China: Development, Achievement, and Effectiveness
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper shows how the renewable heating policy in China, which accounts for more than 40% of worldwide energy-related CO2 emissions in 2020, works in the last 2 decades and how effective the policy was.
The authors analysed and evluated 146 central government policy documents and developed a policy intensify index for four types of polices for 21 years. The results are reproducible but it would be difficult to apply to other countries.
The Indicators shown in Table 1 are depending on some rules and they are clear, but here should be a weighting for the sub-indicators. The formula is only used for the results in Figure 5 and not for figure 4. A Comparison between Figure 4 and 5 would be great.
The policy intensify index shown in figure 5 should be supplemented by the time component of the policies. For example: How long are the policies of 2017 valid?
Specific comments:
Line 13: a space is missing after "structure.The growth..."
Line 63: reference number 14 - Lucas is the first name - Kranzl is the last name and should be written here.
Table 1: what means the shortcut PPI?
Figure 1: The shortcut NPC is not given in the abbreviations
Figure 1: The shortcut MHURD is used in the figure, but in the abbreviations MOHURD is used.
Line 147: 323,1 m² (not m2)
Is figure 2 useful when in the article onla the solar heating market development is shown - the other markets will also be very useful - hydro power, biomass ...
Figure 3 not readable
Line 430: RHP renewable heating policy - shortcut not given
Author Response
Many thanks for your comments which are very helpful. Major modification has been made, including that:
(1) the article is restructured. Section 3.1 and Section 3.2 exchanged the order.
(2) Most sections are rewritten to make it more clear, including section 1, section 2, section 3 and section 4.
(3) Major changes are made on the pictures and tables. Figure 1 is deleted and Table 2, Figure 4( original Figure 5) are redrafted.
(4) The writing is extensively improved and a proofreading is made.
In terms of responses to specific comments, please see the attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Despite the interest of the theme and of the proposed methodology, the review process was seriously conditioned and could not be fully completed by the formatting of the document namely since two important figures (Figure 1 and Figure 5) have been truncated.
Also the references were improperly cited since for a significant part of them the citations are incorrect (the reference number cited in the text does not correspond to the adequate reference at the end of the article). The authors should also check the list of references since the references do not seem to conform to the usual requirements.
The list of acronyms is incomplete and the same institution is referred to by using different acronyms.
The use of the english language must be extensively reviewed since there are a substantial number of errors and mistakes.
The format used in tables is amateurish and the spacing between paragraphs in not uniform.
The authors should carefully check the formatting requirements of the publication and confirm that these requirements are respected.
Only after these corrections are conducted, can a reviewer address the content of the topics covered in the document.
Author Response
Many thanks for your comments and apologies for the mistake I have made.
Major modification has been made in the updade version, including that:
(1) the article is restructured. Section 3.1 and Section 3.2 exchanged the order.
(2) Most sections are rewritten to make it more clear, including section 1, section 2, section 3 and section 4.
(3) Major changes are made on the pictures and tables. Figure 1 is deleted and Table 2, Figure 4( original Figure 5) are redrafted.
(4) The writing is extensively improved and a proofreading is made.
In terms of responses to specific comments, please see the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. This research examined the 11 evolution of China's renewable heating policies during the last 20 years, as well as the current policy structure but nothing is provided for future perspective of this heating policies.
2. Related work should be mentioned in a separate section by highlighting the comparative analysis in tabular manner. What are the unique features of this study compared to the existing works?
3. A flowchart related to the methodology of the proposed work is required to clearly understand the performed work.
4. Contributions should be highlighted in bullet points and justified
5. Based on the past and present heating policies, recommendation should be clearly mentioned in the separate section.
6. Probabilistic indicators such as international issues, environmental incidents should also be clearly discussed and in the light of these factors, recommendation should be provided.
7. What type of pricing mechanism will be utilized or proposed by the authors, it should be clearly mentioned.
8. Conclusion should be based on the discussed points.
Author Response
Many thanks for your comments which are very helpful.
Major modification has been made, including that:
(1) the article is restructured. Section 3.1 and Section 3.2 exchanged the order.
(2) Most sections are rewritten to make it more clear, including section 1, section 2, section 3 and section 4.
(3) Major changes are made on the pictures and tables. Figure 1 is deleted and Table 2, Figure 4( original Figure 5) are redrafted.
(4) The writing is extensively improved and a proofreading is made.
In terms of responses to specific comments, please see the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The document still needs minor improvements. See please enclosed file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Many thanks for your suggestions which enlighten me a lot. I have rechecked the article carefully and revised writing mistakes. Regarding other suggestions, the following revision has been made:
- All writing mistakes have been revised and a proofreading has been done.
- For the format of the references, I checked the format delivered by Sustainability and revised all the references according to it.
Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Title of the chapter. In Book Title, 2nd ed.; Editor 1, A., Editor 2, B., Eds.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, 2007; Volume 3, pp. 154–196.
3. About the effectiveness analysis
More detailed analysis of the data has been added in the section 4.1. This article aims to provide effectiveness evaluation from the perspective of implementation, as PII has been tested as a way by other researchers. Based on that, more specific analysis of the effectiveness of four types of instruments has been added, from 320 to 340. Besides, more detailed suggestions were put forward based on the analysis of the effectiveness of the four types of instruments, pls see Section 5.2.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors tried to incorporate reviewer's comments but still the manuscript requires more modifications.
1. Contributions should be clearly mentioned and justified.
2. Comment number 7 should be incorporate in better way by adding more discussions as well as sub sections. it should incorporate before the conclusion section.
3. Recommendation section should be presented in sub section under conclusion section.
4. Comment number 6 related to the Probabilistic indicators should be incorporate as future scope of the manuscript as authors are unable to incorporate in present manuscript.
Author Response
Many thanks for your suggestions which enlighten me a lot. I have rechecked the article carefully and revised writing mistakes. Regarding other suggestions, the following revision has been made:
(1)For the format of the references, I checked the format delivered by Sustainability and revised all the references according to it.
(2)More detailed analysis of the data has been added in the section 4.1. This article aims to provide effectiveness evaluation from the perspective of implementation, as PII has been tested as a way by other researchers. Based on that, more specific analysis of the effectiveness of four types of instruments has been added, from 320 to 340.
(3)The suggestions have been separated from the conclusions and more detailed suggestions have been made ,pls see section 5.2.
