Rural Energy Transition for Cooking in India—Revisiting the Drivers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments

1. Merge Section 1, Section 2 and Section 3.

2. It is better to add a graphical abstract to the study.

3. The results of the study should be explained in several graphs.

4. The formula in the manuscript should be typed.

5. In the conclusion, the authors have presented the literature review.

6. The authors have referenced in the Abstract. It is not correct.

7. What is the reference of Figure 1.

8. Conclusion and Discussion sections should be separated.

9. The quantitative results of the study should be discussed in the Conclusion and discussion sections.

Author Response

1.Merge Section 1, Section 2 and Section 3. – Section 2, and 3 are merged as subsections of Section 1 as 1.1, 1.2, 1.3

2. It is better to add a graphical abstract to the study – Visual graphs added

3. The results of the study should be explained in several graphs – graphs added

4. The formula in the manuscript should be typed – Formula typed

5. In the conclusion, the authors have presented the literature review – The literature review in the conclusion section has been inserted now in the second paragraph of 1.1 and in the page 4 after the Bhallamudi and Lingam (2019) study.

6. The authors have referenced in the Abstract. It is not correct. – IEA text referencing taken out

7. What is the reference of Figure 1 – Reference added

8.Conclusion and Discussion sections should be separated – Discussion now comes in the section 2 followed by Conclusion in section 3

9. The quantitative results of the study should be discussed in the Conclusion and discussion sections – Quantitative results of the model are narrated and are incorporated in the study

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The aim of the proposed paper is to examine the validity of energy ladder hypothesis in case of rural cooking energy transition. The topic dealt with the paper is in line with the goal of Sustainability, but in its present form the manuscript is unpublishable due to some weaknesses. Thus, the manuscript needs to be revised according the following comments.

The abstract must be written, showing more briefly-clearly what contribution of the manuscript you want provide. That is, the authors need to restructure the drafting of the abstract by following what problem you want to solve, what methodology you follow to run this problem, what results you obtain.

The “introduction section” should be reorganised according to the following item: i) present state of the art; ii) literature review; iii) motivation and objective of the study proposed; iv) innovative contribution.

The motivation and objective of the study should be more well justified as well as the Authors should underline the innovation of the proposed contribution respect to the state the art of literature on this field. Currently it is difficult to find out what’s your original contribution with respect to the current scientific knowledge.

Author Response

The abstract must be written, showing more briefly-clearly what contribution of the manuscript you want provide. That is, the authors need to restructure the drafting of the abstract by following what problem you want to solve, what methodology you follow to run this problem, what results you obtain.

Response:  

What problem you want to solve - The recent analysis from IEA on energy transition in India highlights that cooking continues to be the weakest link in the energy transition process for rural households and that rural energy transition of households is nonlinear in nature - (the problem  statement is added)

 What methodology you follow to run this problem - Therefore, an empirical exercise has been carried out at a national level to revisit the disconnect between the income growth and energy transition and identify the drivers of the energy transition process in cooking at the national as well as at the subnational state level for a developing country. - text added in the abstract

What results you obtain - “The paper adds to the current scholarship on drivers of household energy transition by analyzing the relationship between household energy choices and non-income determinants and proves the nonlinearity in energy consumption of rural households of Bihar. The analysis helps in inferring that subsidy on modern fuel and/or other cooking alternatives alone may not suffice to drive the transition process but more targeted intervention rooted in the local cultural context in consonance with social and cultural norms or community level factors could be more effective for sustained rural energy transition

” - text added in the abstract

The “introduction section” should be reorganised according to the following item: i) present state of the art; ii) literature review; iii) motivation and objective of the study proposed; iv) innovative contribution.

Response

The introduction section is now divided into - i) present state of the art; ii) literature review; iii) motivation and objective of the study proposed;

Innovative contribution is now clubbed with the research gap. Read the line - “The most innovative contribution of the paper is that it attempts to statistically direct towards the possible driving factors behind the rural energy transition process in cooking for rural households of Bihar. Further, it scientifically through a nonlinear, dynamic analysis establishes the nonlinearity in the firewood consumption of rural household of Bihar ” at the end of the section on research gap and innovative contribution of the study. 

The motivation and objective of the study should be more well justified as well as the Authors should underline the innovation of the proposed contribution respect to the state the art of literature on this field. Currently it is difficult to find out what’s your original contribution with respect to the current scientific knowledge.

Response -  Innovative contribution is now clubbed with the research gap. Read the line - “The most innovative contribution of the paper is that it attempts to statistically direct towards the possible driving factors behind the rural energy transition process in cooking for rural households of Bihar. Further, it scientifically through a nonlinear, dynamic analysis establishes the nonlinearity in the firewood consumption of rural household of Bihar ” at the end of the section on research gap and innovative contribution of the study. A section on - “Motivation and Objective” has been added. 

Section 2 provides relevant insights and motivation of the proposed study on the drivers of energy transition for cooking in India by drawing from the extant literature.

Objective of the paper is brought out in the line - “Hence, the paper identifies this gap and attempts to identify the driving factors behind the rural energy transition in cooking followed by analyzing the nature of rural energy transition process at the state level for an energy poor state like Bihar.”

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The report presents mostly negative correlation results between non-income factors and rural energy transition taking place in India. However, no positively-correlated factors that remain most decisive in the process of rural Indian energy transformation have been clearly named. The paper would benefit if the Authors try to list such dominant factors in the summary section.

The final section of the paper (starting from Line 552) contains most likely non-edited Editor suggestions regarding formatting of the final paragraphs of the text. However, the should be either edited or deleted, the current form is unacceptable.

Author Response

The report presents mostly negative correlation results between non-income factors and rural energy transition taking place in India. However, no positively-correlated factors that remain most decisive in the process of rural Indian energy transformation have been clearly named. The paper would benefit if the Authors try to list such dominant factors in the summary section.

Response: 

“Statistical significance of the positive impact of these variables on the probability of switching to a clean cookstove is also explained through the tables 4 to 7 in Annexures I – IV.”

It is clear from tables ‘4 to 7” that belonging to a particular community, social group under the random effects model positively impacts the probability of the chance of switching to a cleaner fuel.

“Statistical significance of the positive impact of these variables on the probability of switching to clean cookstove is also explained through the tables in Annexures. It is clear from tables that belonging to a particular community, social group under the random effects model impacts positively the probability of the chance of switching to a cleaner fuel. The fixed effect model with households as a fixed effect shows a positive impact of the household size on the probability of the chance of switching to a clean fuel for cooking from firewood.” 

The final section of the paper (starting from Line 552) contains most likely non-edited Editor suggestions regarding formatting of the final paragraphs of the text. However, the should be either edited or deleted, the current form is unacceptable.

Response: Line 552 has been removed from the text and the text has been rewritten

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

       In this paper, the authors present an analysis of the driving factors of household energy transition and its relation to household energy choices and non-income determinants. The organization of the paper is appropriate, and the contents are easy to follow. In addition, the graphical and tabular illustrations have been demonstrated from the logit models, along with the case studies from national and regional scales.  Meanwhile, I have a few questions and suggestion for the authors:

1.      What is the definition of ‘useful energy consumption’ in Fig. 2? Does these energy consumption purely come from the daily cooking alone? Is the monthly per capita expenditure (blue curve) solely based on the cooking alone? Is the green curve (Final energy consumption (Kcal/month)) based on per capita estimates?

2.      According to the authors, what are the possible solutions from social, cultural, and other aspects to address the issue that more subsidy on modern energy sources and cooking tools does not result in the successful transition of domestic cooking in India and other developing countries?

3.      What are the models 1, 2, 3 for generating the results in Table 3? Please add details about the explanations of these models.

4.      Can the authors add further explanations on Eq. 2 and Eq. 3? What are the differences between them?

5.      Please add the full names to some abbreviations in the paper such as IEA, , NSSO, and LPG.

Author Response

1.     What is the definition of ‘useful energy consumption’ in Fig. 2? Does these energy consumption purely come from the daily cooking alone? Is the monthly per capita expenditure (blue curve) solely based on the cooking alone? Is the green curve (Final energy consumption (Kcal/month)) based on per capita estimates?

Response:  In page 9 useful energy consumption definition is explained as - “The useful energy consumption was calculated by multiplying the fuel consumed, conversion rate, and fuel efficiency, considering a harmonized conversion factor of around 24% to 30% for every cooking fuel.”

** The useful energy consumption was calculated by multiplying the fuel consumed, conversion rate, and fuel efficiency, considering a harmonized conversion factor of around 24% to 30% for every cooking fuel. ** - The monthly per capita expenditure (blue curve) is solely based on the primary energy consumption for cooking alone. the green curve (Final energy consumption (Kcal/month)) based on per capita estimates assuming an average household size as 4

This is added as a footnote below the figure to give it more clarity below figure 6 now. 

2.     According to the authors, what are the possible solutions from social, cultural, and other aspects to address the issue that more subsidy on modern energy sources and cooking tools does not result in the successful transition of domestic cooking in India and other developing countries?

Response: Page 18 has now added the solution in the conclusion section - “One way to integrate local, social and cultural factors towards successful energy transition policy making can be through decentralised vocational centres in local village networks at the Panchayat level through self help groups which can feed on the local information to these vocational centres of policy making. Further, the local vocational centres can pass on the local, social, cultural information towards subnational policy making at the state level by means of these vocational centres. The states can further scale it up at a national level for a more effective national level clean energy transition policies in cooking.” 

3.     What are the models 1, 2, 3 for generating the results in Table 3? Please add details about the explanations of these models.

Response:  In Page 11,12, 13, the models are now explained by showing which variables are dropped and not tested in each model form using the logit structure. 

4.     Can the authors add further explanations on Eq. 2 and Eq. 3? What are the differences between them?

Response: Added a section - “In comparison to Equation 2, Equation 3 does not consider the impact of liquidity and household size on the probability of switching to a cleaner fuel by dropping the two independent variables owing to a possibility of a multicollinearity which can lead to an overestimation or underestimation of the elasticity”  in the page 8 of the paper.  

5.     Please add the full names to some abbreviations in the paper such as IEA, , NSSO, and LPG.

Response: All full forms are added

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

The topic of the manuscript is relevant, and its content may be of interest to potential readers. However, there are lot of gaps and shortcomings that authors need to remove before a manuscript can be published:

1. Main remarks:

1.1. The authors do not clearly enough describe the sources of receiving input information. How is information about the dependent and independent variables listed in Table 1 obtained? Maybe the authors conducted a survey among households? For some variables, the mechanism of determining their quantitative values is not entirely clear. For example, this applies to the size and characteristics of households.

1.2. The list of independent variables seems insufficiently justified. At present, there are many articles in the scientific literature devoted to the barriers that arise on the way to the energy transition. One of the main such barriers is financial and economic. These barriers include not only low household incomes, but also, for example, the need for significant investments in energy-saving measures, insufficient availability of financial resources from external sources, insufficient economic efficiency of energy-saving measures, etc. The level of prices for certain types of energy resources can also be important. So, in my opinion, the authors did not consider all the main factors that can affect the speed and scale of the energy transition. Also, the authors must make sure that the independent variables do not influence each other. This is especially true for variables that characterize households, in particular their expenditures.

1.3. The authors should prove more clearly, with reference to the relevant numerical material, that the empirical results obtained by them are statistically significant. There is also the question of the possibility of multicollinearity.

2. Other remarks:

2.1. It seems to me that the purpose of the research and a brief description (presentation) of the results obtained by the authors should be presented at the end of the introduction. At the same time, gaps in the literature should be described at the end of Section 2. Therefore, I recommend (but do not insist) that the material in Section 3 be moved to the previous two sections.

2.2. It is appropriate to formulate more clearly in the last section the scientific novelty of the results obtained by the authors. How do these results differ from the results obtained earlier by other scientists?

2.3. It is worth describing in more detail the technical features of the considered energy transition in cooking. Does it require investment?

2.4. It is necessary to carefully check the correctness of all formulas, in particular formula (1). Why is model (2) and model (3) presented separately? How are these models related to the three models discussed in subsection 5.1? The design of formulas (4) and (5) needs to be improved.

2.5. Grammar and style could be improved. Some sentences could be worded better. For example, I will give two sentences from the first paragraph of the introduction:

“On the one hand energy transition is about the pace at which alternate, cleaner and greener energy sources like LPG and renewable energy (RES) and the alternate energy technologies are evolving and disseminated to the intended users”.

Can it be better to write that "energy transition is characterized by the speed..."?

“Enabling policy measures to stimulate behavioral change also require - social acceptance; readiness to use alternate energies; a sense of ownership in energy transition; and a desire to engage in decision-making processes”.

This sentence could be worded better. I don't quite understand what the phrase "a sense of ownership in energy transition" means.

2.6. Authors should check the compliance of the manuscript design with the requirements of this journal. In particular, it seems to me that you need to refer to literary sources with numbers in square brackets. All symbols in formulas and abbreviations in the text must be deciphered after the first mention. Is there a reference to Figure 1 in the text?

I think it is appropriate to acquaint the authors with these comments, suggestions and questions. I hope that such acquaintance help to improve the quality of the manuscript, which is expected to be published in such a high-ranking journal as "Sustainability".

Author Response

1.1. The authors do not clearly enough describe the sources of receiving input information. How is information about the dependent and independent variables listed in Table 1 obtained? Maybe the authors conducted a survey among households? For some variables, the mechanism of determining their quantitative values is not entirely clear. For example, this applies to the size and characteristics of households.

Response: ** The variables have been listed in the NSSO Round and the input values of the     variables have emerged from NSSO Round

1.2. The list of independent variables seems insufficiently justified. At present, there are many articles in the scientific literature devoted to the barriers that arise on the way to the energy transition. One of the main such barriers is financial and economic. These barriers include not only low household incomes, but also, for example, the need for significant investments in energy-saving measures, insufficient availability of financial resources from external sources, insufficient economic efficiency of energy-saving measures, etc. The level of prices for certain types of energy resources can also be important. So, in my opinion, the authors did not consider all the main factors that can affect the speed and scale of the energy transition. Also, the authors must make sure that the independent variables do not influence each other. This is especially true for variables that characterize households, in particular their expenditures.

Response: The list of variable selection has followed a screening and filtering process. It started from the large macro level financial and economic factors which can have a macroscale effect. Extraneous determining factors to a household in the form of investments, financial resources from external sources do play an important role. However, the paper intentionally chose most variables which are endogenous in nature to the household. For instance, instead of a macro level variable like price, a variable called liquidity which determines the liquidity flow in households and hence decides the degree of transition is given a prioritised preference. Moreover it is this endogenous variable response which will have a linkage to the larger dynamic nonlinear nature of firewood consumption of households measured at a micro level through the BDS Statistics. Hence, a screening of macro factors were done and then deliberately micro level, endogenous variables were chosen. Moreover, in the selection process of the independent variables, the possibility of multicollinearity was ruled out later by running fixed effect and random effect model where certain variables were deliberately dropped out and certain variables were kept and the results with the model specifications were disseminated. For instance, the outcome figure 2B is a model with results where other variables are dropped which has a possibility of multicollinearity with the belonging to a social group. All other variables are dropped and only the variable belonging to the social group is kept. Similarly, in many of the other models, certain variables are dropped and the corresponding effect on the probability of switching to a cleaner fuel is found out through the logit model. 

1.3. The authors should prove more clearly, with reference to the relevant numerical material, that the empirical results obtained by them are statistically significant. There is also the question of the possibility of multicollinearity.

Response: In the Annexure, Tables 5(a), 5(b), 5(c) highlight the empirical results of the Logit Model with the depiction of the statistically significant results of the estimates. The possibility of multicollinearity is made redundant by dropping off some of the variables and testing their significant effects on the probability of the switch over to a clean fuel. Figures 2B, 2C highlight these effects. 

2. Other remarks:

2.1. It seems to me that the purpose of the research and a brief description (presentation) of the results obtained by the authors should be presented at the end of the introduction. At the same time, gaps in the literature should be described at the end of Section 2. Therefore, I recommend (but do not insist) that the material in Section 3 be moved to the previous two sections.

Response:

In Page 5, section added - “Hence, the paper identifies this gap and attempts to identify the driving factors behind the rural energy transition in cooking followed by analyzing the nature of rural energy transition process at the state level for an energy poor state like Bihar. The paper succinctly through an empirical analysis of an econometric model establishes the statistical significance of local factors determining the chance of switchover to a clean fuel from firewood and further by means of a nonlinear dynamic model establishes the nonlinear pattern of firewood consumption in rural households of Bihar through the application of the Census Data of Bihar. 

1.2 3. Research Gap and Innovative Contribution of the Paper - Section Added in Page 5 and introduced before the Research Methodology section

2.2. It is appropriate to formulate more clearly in the last section the scientific novelty of the results obtained by the authors. How do these results differ from the results obtained earlier by other scientists?

Response: In the page 17 of the Conclusion Section of the Paper - “The findings from BDS test for non-linearity reinforces the disconnect in the relationship between income and energy transition even at the subnational level and in a novel way scientifically proves that the system of firewood consumption of rural households of Bihar is nonlinearly dynamic which has not been proved by other papers in the extant literature on rural energy transition in India.- Highlighted.

An Uniqueness of the paper is highlighted in the Conclusion Section - “ One way the paper is unique in comparison to earlier papers is that it facilitates policy making to integrate local, social and cultural factors towards successful energy transition policy making can be through decentralised vocational centres in local village networks at the Panchayat level through self help groups which can feed on the local information to these vocational centres of policy making. Further, the local vocational centres can pass on the local, social, cultural information towards subnational policy making at the state level by means of these vocational centres. The states can further scale it up at a national level for a more effective national level clean energy transition policies in cooking. “ 

2.3. It is worth describing in more detail the technical features of the considered energy transition in cooking. Does it require investment?

Response: The paper does not have a focus to detail out the technical aspects of considered energy transition in cooking facilitated by investment. Investment detailing would be a specific component of a particular paper. This paper is mostly dealing with the outlining of the broad level endogenous household level influencing factors which can determine the chance of switch-over to a clean fuel. The paper only focuses on a scientific and empirical validation of the same at national and subnational level with specific policy recommendations addressing some of the factors. However, the paper can be followed up by a particular paper which only deals with technical aspects of transition. In the conclusion section - 

“In such a framework, specific determining factors related to investments need to be found out to understand how investment related factors facilitate rural energy transition through a feedback model. A simultaneous equation model structure or a systems dynamic model framework could perhaps be more appropriate  to capture this coupled effect and could be considered as a future area of research. In that context, it would also be worthwhile to explore if decentralized renewable energy-based cooking appliances could be utilized in the rural area of developing countries to enable smoother transition to cleaner choices.” 

2.4. It is necessary to carefully check the correctness of all formulas, in particular formula (1). Why is model (2) and model (3) presented separately? How are these models related to the three models discussed in subsection 5.1? The design of formulas (4) and (5) needs to be improved.

Response: 

The multinomial logit model uses the cumulative distribution function, specified   as below:

F(l)=P(L≤l) =1/1+e-l = (el/1+ el) (1)

Hence the equation specification of the model comes out to be as

Predicted Logit (lfp=1, 0) (choice of primary cooking fuel) =α+β1(mpce)+β2(district)+β3(internet)+β4 +β4 (regsal)+β5 (hh)+β6 (cv)+β7 (stat reg) +β8 (rel) + β9 (socgrp)  (2)

Predicted Logit (lfp=1, 0) (choice of primary cooking fuel) =α+β1(cv) +β2(stat reg) +β3(rel)+(socgrp)........................................................................................(3)

The equation 1 is corrected. Equation 2 and 3 are separated because in order to check the impact of multicollinearity on estimators certain variables are removed in Equation 2 and 3. 

A Table 2: Summary of the Four Models is added to explain how each model is related to the above equations and how each variable is dropped in each model specification - 

Source: Model Description by The Authors

2.5. Grammar and style could be improved. Some sentences could be worded better. For example, I will give two sentences from the first paragraph of the introduction:

“On the one hand energy transition is about the pace at which alternate, cleaner and greener energy sources like LPG and renewable energy (RES) and the alternate energy technologies are evolving and disseminated to the intended users”.

Response: Corrected

Can it be better to write that "energy transition is characterized by the speed..."?

“Enabling policy measures to stimulate behavioral change also require - social acceptance; readiness to use alternate energies; a sense of ownership in energy transition; and a desire to engage in decision-making processes”.

Response: Corrected to - “Policy measures to facilitate behavioural change also require - social acceptance; readiness to use alternate energies; a sense of ownership in energy transition; and a desire to engage in decision-making processes” 

This sentence could be worded better. I don't quite understand what the phrase "a sense of ownership in energy transition" means.

2.6. Authors should check the compliance of the manuscript design with the requirements of this journal. In particular, it seems to me that you need to refer to literary sources with numbers in square brackets. All symbols in formulas and abbreviations in the text must be deciphered after the first mention. Is there a reference to Figure 1 in the text?

Response: literary sources with numbers in square brackets have done 

 Page 6 has NSSO (National Sample Survey Organisation)  first and the n subsequently NSSO abbreviation is used, Similarly page 7 has LPG (Liquified Petroleum Gas) first used and then subsequent abbreviation is used

page 10 has a reference of figure 1- “Figure 1 Table 4 provides the monthly average consumption of various energy sources for India and Bihar”

I think it is appropriate to acquaint the authors with these comments, suggestions and questions. I hope that such acquaintance help to improve the quality of the manuscript, which is expected to be published in such a high-ranking journal as "Sustainability".

Response- All comments addressed specifically mentioning the pages and sections

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The paper is acceptable in the present form.

Author Response

Thank you for your reviewing comments for improving the paper.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

In the revised version of the paper, the authors have largely addressed my questions and suggestions for the paper. Please check any existing grammatical issue in the paper.

Author Response

Thank you for your reviewing comments for improving the paper.

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

In my opinion, the text of the manuscript has improved. The authors took into account a number of my comments. The authors provided sufficiently reasoned explanations for some of my remarks. At the same time, in my opinion, the text of the manuscript still contains some shortcomings (mostly of a technical nature), namely:

1. I am not very impressed with the decision of the authors to include subsections with a literature review in the introduction. It would be better to make a separate section dedicated to the literature review. It also seems to me that it was inappropriate to create subsections 1.3 and 1.3.1. However, if the authors do not wish to create a separate section with a literature review, then I advise dividing the introduction into three subsections with titles such as these:

1.1. Relevance of the Research Topic

1.2. Present State of the Art (will include current subsections 1.2 and 1.3)

1.3. Research Gap and Innovative Contribution of the Paper

2. At the beginning of Section 2, the authors state that this section is divided into two subsections. I don't see the names of these subsections in the text.

3. In section 2, it is not necessary to present the results of statistical analysis. What is the purpose of the last four columns in table 2? These data are presented in Table 3. Duplication is not required.

4. It is necessary to indicate the common name of the last four columns in table 3. It is also necessary to submit in the text of the manuscript an analysis of the numerical data presented in the last four columns of table 3.

5. In general, the numerical data presented in the tables, in particular in Table 3, should be described in more detail in the text.

6. I think that section 4 is too small. I propose to include most of the material from the conclusions (lines 515-566) in it. At the same time, section 5 may consist of two paragraphs. In the first paragraph, you can briefly summarize the results obtained, and the second paragraph will contain the material of lines 567-582.

7. Grammar and style can still be improved. I ask the authors to carefully check the entire text of the manuscript for such an improvement. For example, in line 235, the following is indicated: "One of the shortcomings that could be found in the design of the programme…". Readers may not understand what program we are talking about. Or, for example, the following sentence (lines 320-321): " Four models have been tested with a logit model and the four models can be explained in the following way." It seems that this sentence is incomplete.

8. Authors should properly form the material in lines 583-615.

9. The text of the manuscript needs significant improvement regarding its design, in particular:

9.1. References to sources are not formatted correctly.

9.2. All symbols in formulas must be deciphered after the first mention.

9.3. All abbreviations in the text should be deciphered after the first mention, for example LPG in line 41. Also, you should not use abbreviations in the list of keywords (line 33).

9.4. All tables and figures should be referenced in the text. These references should be placed before the appropriate tables and figures.

9.5. Subsection 3.1 cannot begin with a table.

9.6. It is necessary to check the correctness of the numbering and design of the names of the tables in the appendices.

I recommend that authors read carefully the requirements for submission of manuscripts in this journal. It is also worth reading articles that have already been published. Authors would then have samples for the proper design of their manuscript.

Author Response

REVIEWER COMMENTS

Reviewer 1: Date of this review

Reviewer 5; 30 Apr 2023 22:40:11

In my opinion, the text of the manuscript has improved. The authors took into account a number of my comments. The authors provided sufficiently reasoned explanations for some of my remarks. At the same time, in my opinion, the text of the manuscript still contains some shortcomings (mostly of a technical nature), namely:

1. I am not very impressed with the decision of the authors to include subsections with a literature review in the introduction. It would be better to make a separate section dedicated to the literature review. It also seems to me that it was inappropriate to create subsections 1.3 and 1.3.1. However, if the authors do not wish to create a separate section with a literature review, then I advise dividing the introduction into three subsections with titles such as these:

1.1. Relevance of the Research Topic – 1.1 has new added relevance of the research topic starting from transition literature

1.2. Present State of the Art (will include current subsections 1.2 and 1.3) – present state of the Art includes now subsections 1.2, 1.3

1.3. Research Gap and Innovative Contribution of the Paper – This section has been made as the Research Gap and Innovative Contribution

2. At the beginning of Section 2, the authors state that this section is divided into two subsections. I don't see the names of these subsections in the text. - The methodology section of the paper has been divided into two broad strands of analysis - a) one based on the analysis at the national and the other based on , b) sub-national level on rural energy transition in cooking – Change made in page 7 of 23
3. In section 2, it is not necessary to present the results of statistical analysis. What is the purpose of the last four columns in table 2? These data are presented in Table 3. Duplication is not required. – In page 9, the model description table is now introduced instead of model results

4. It is necessary to indicate the common name of the last four columns in table 3. It is also necessary to submit in the text of the manuscript an analysis of the numerical data presented in the last four columns of table 3. – In page 13 of the paper and above the table 3, a common name called – “Statistical Significance of the Four Model Estimators” is added. The page 15 has now a new addition of text as -

“The last four columns of the Table 3.1 highlights how the four logit models with different variable specifications shows the statistical significance of variables like calorific value of cooking fuel, household type, household size, marginal per capita expenditure ( as a proxy of liquidity), belonging to a particular religion or a social group in deciding the chance of shifting from firewood to other clean cooking fuels by rural households.”

5. In general, the numerical data presented in the tables, in particular in Table 3, should be described in more detail in the text.

The page 15 and 16 has now a new addition of text as -

“The last four columns of the Table 3.1 highlights how the four logit models with different variable specifications shows the statistical significance of variables like calorific value of cooking fuel, household type, household size, marginal per capita expenditure ( as a proxy of liquidity), belonging to a particular religion or a social group in deciding the chance of shifting from firewood to other clean cooking fuels by rural households.”

“The last four columns of the Table 3.1 highlights how the four logit models with different variable specifications shows the statistical significance of variables like calorific value of cooking fuel, household type, household size, marginal per capita expenditure ( as a proxy of liquidity), belonging to a particular religion or a social group in deciding the chance of shifting from firewood to other clean cooking fuels by rural households. The results clearly indicate household endogenous factors decided by their liquidity, identity, size, belongingness to a particular network or group does impact their decision to shift from firewood to a clean cooking fuel choice in a rural context. These endogenous variables are household specific and often generic macro and meso level energy transition policies fail to address these endogenous factor which are very localized with a strong cultural context. “

6. I think that section 4 is too small. I propose to include most of the material from the conclusions (lines 515-566) in it. At the same time, section 5 may consist of two paragraphs. In the first paragraph, you can briefly summarize the results obtained, and the second paragraph will contain the material of lines 567-582.

The content of the lines from 567 – 582 are recontextualised and brought in the section 4 as -

“Within the domain of rural energy transition literature from a developing country context, the paper empirically proves that household level endogenous factors do significantly impact the probability of a switchover of a rural household from firewood to a clean fuel for cooking. The paper moreover analyses the nonlinear nature of this transition pattern at a subnational level by showing scientifically that the pattern of firewood consumption of rural household is nonlinear in nature in an energy poor state within the larger system of rural household energy consumption for cooking. This, therefore lucidly brings forward the need of localized, culturally contextualized, dynamic and innovative rural energy transition policies for developing countries like India where every state by itself is a country owing to a large diversity of local level different group identities, social and cultural contexts, and with varying access to liquidity, developmental infrastructure in which the rural households are placed. The insights therefore drawn from the findings could easily be used for designing similar studies in other developing countries of Asia and Africa with identical challenges and impediments in rural energy transition.”

The section is added in page 20 of the paper now.

7. Grammar and style can still be improved. I ask the authors to carefully check the entire text of the manuscript for such an improvement. For example, in line 235, the following is indicated: "One of the shortcomings that could be found in the design of the programme…". Readers may not understand what program we are talking about. Or, for example, the following sentence (lines 320-321): " Four models have been tested with a logit model and the four models can be explained in the following way." It seems that this sentence is incomplete.

The lines have been rewritten

8. Authors should properly form the material in lines 583-615.
9. The text of the manuscript needs significant improvement regarding its design, in particular:

9.1. References to sources are not formatted correctly.-

Formatting has been done, references are arranged in the main article ( See page no 2 to 12) and references index ( see page no 23 to 26)

9.2. All symbols in formulas must be deciphered after the first mention.- we have explained all symbols used in formulas, equations after their first mention

Kindly See footnote of  page no 9 -

[1] Logit (p) = log (p/(1-p)) =log (e^l/1+ e^l/ 1 – { e^l/1+ e^l}) = log(e^l) = log (e α+β1(mpce)+β2(district)+β3(internet)+β4 +β4 (regsal)+β5 (hh)+β6 (cv)+β7 (stat reg)+β8 (rel) + β9 (socgrp) ⁾

P stands for probability, e is exponential, e-l = Exponential ^{– (}α+β x i)=>=α+β1(mpce)+β2(district)+β3(internet) +β4 (regsal)+β5 (hh)+β6 (cv)+β7 (stat reg) +β8 (rel) + β9 (socgrp), β1 to β9 are elasticity estimates of the variables

And  page no 12 and 13 - note regarding equation is added (Note: _m referes to vector clusters of household units, σ_m,I(ε) is Standard deviation of firewood consumption of I th households belonging to m vector clusters.)

9.3. All abbreviations in the text should be deciphered after the first mention, for example LPG in line 41. Also, you should not use abbreviations in the list of keywords (line 33).

Addressed. Full form added in the keyword and abbreviations are deciphered after the first mention ( for instance - keyword page no 1, Liquified petroleum gas in page no 2, carbon dioxide page no 2, National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) page no 7 etc

9.4. All tables and figures should be referenced in the text. These references should be placed before the appropriate tables and figures. 

Suitable references are added in the text . For instance, in page 13 - “Figure 2A, 2B, and 2C (See Annexure II, Table 5 A, B and C) highlight the results of how various context, location-specific variables like social group, community impacts the probability of transition to clean fuel/cooking options like biogas and LPG (denoted as Y). Four Model results along with the variable specifications are presented in the table below”

.”

9.5. Subsection 3.1 cannot begin with a table.

Addressed. Relevant text is added before table in Page no 13 - “

9.6. It is necessary to check the correctness of the numbering and design of the names of the tables in the appendices.

Corrections done in figure 5A, 5B and 5C and it is renamed as Figure 2A, 2B and 2C: Logit Regression Models and Outcomes, Page no 15

I recommend that authors read carefully the requirements for submission of manuscripts in this journal. It is also worth reading articles that have already been published. Authors would then have samples for the proper design of their manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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

Dear Authors, I am pleased to review your manuscript entitled 'Rural Energy Transition for Cooking in India – The Drivers'. Although this manuscript presents an interesting angle to approach the research question, I suggest authors to revise and resubmit this manuscript. In general, this manuscript is more like a technical report, and I can’t find significant academic contribution. Authors should elaborate the academic value of the driver factors exposed in this study to rural energy transition for cooking in India. The coherence between sections seems to be a major issue, it should be more clarified in revision.

Author Response

The manuscript has been revised and academic scoping and value addition sections have been substantiated with significant new literature Review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments

1. Explain what this research adds to the subject area compared with other published material.

2. There is some typing error in the paper (line 12, line 66, line 68, line 73, line 113, line 218, line 294, line 348, line 359, etc.).

3. Line 52 and 62: ICS was first introduced in line 52, but the complete form of it (improved cooking stoves (ICS)) was presented in line 62.

4. It is better to merge section 1 and section 2.

5. In the last paragraph of section 1, it should be explained that what will be done in this study.

6. The reference of the data which is mentioned in line 97, 101, 104, and 106 is too old.

7. What is the reference of the Table 3?

8. The title of the section 3.1 and 3.2 are not bold.

9. It is better to add a graphical abstract to the study.

10. The results of the study should be explained in several graphs.

11. Line 308: the formula in the line 308 has not been typed and can’t be seen.

12. Line 342-353: In the conclusion, the authors have presented the literature review.

13. Line 367: chapter?

14. References of the paper is too old and too few. The literature review is very incomplete.

Author Response

All comments have been addressed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article is a study on the prospects for moving from the use of non-sustainable cooking fuels in India to more sustainable fuels. The topic of the article is relevant and may be of interest to specialists and researchers in the fields of ecology and optimal use of resources. A few points should be noted as comments and recommendations:

1. All abbreviations in the text of the article should be deciphered at the first mention of them. Extra "dots" in lines 12, 348 and 359. References to the sources used should be indicated by numbers in square brackets. Table 2 follows after Table 3. Table 2 should be corrected to avoid character shifts. Line 276 is empty - it should be deleted. Formulas 4 and 5 are not marked. Formula 6 is poorly displayed. On pages 10 and 11, authors should remove the template sections or fill them in on their own.

2. Simultaneous citation of several sources should be avoided and each source should be considered separately.

3. The review of literature and sources used should be significantly expanded and modern and relevant research on the subject from international high-ranking journals should be used.

4. Very little attention is paid to the technical component of the issue and the use of renewable energy sources in cooking - solar energy (solar kitchens) and biogas plants (for example, DOI: 10.4018/IJEOE.2021010104, etc.).

5. Authors should add various drawings, graphs and diagrams to their work, which will enhance its scientific component and improve it visually.

6. The authors should add a subsection "Directions for further research" and indicate where and how it is planned to use the results obtained in the work.

7. Authors should pay special attention to the design of the sources used in accordance with the requirements of the publisher.

In general, the presented article leaves a positive impression, however, it is not without flaws. After eliminating these comments and taking into account the recommendations made, the presented article can be recommended for publication in the journal "Sustainability".

Author Response

Editing has been done and comments have been addressed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is acceptable in the present form.