Response to the Editor and Reviewers

Title of the Paper: Dynamic Linkages Among Energy Consumption, Urbanization and
Ecological Footprint: Empirical Evidence from NARDL Approach.

Respected editor and reviewers

Management of Environmental Quality, an International Journal

At the very outset we would like to thank you and your editorial team for considering our
manuscript for publication titled as "Dynamic Linkages Among Energy Consumption,
Urbanization and Ecological Footprint: Empirical Evidence from NARDL Approach”
in your journal, Management of Environmental Quality, an International Journal. The
comments and suggestions from the editor and reviewers are really insightful which has
enhanced the understanding of our subject matter and improved the quality of the manuscript.
Thank you for giving us a chance to improve it. The detailed response to the comments is
mentioned below:

Comments of Reviewer 2
1. The English language needs more work. There are many grammatical and typo mistakes in
this manuscript. The paper needs to be edited by a native English speaker.

Response: As per the suggestions, grammatical and typo mistakes are corrected and language
improved.

2. I suggest the authors revise the introduction of the study per the comments raised. The
authors can also use the following points below as a guideline to help them come out with an
interesting introduction that is more scientific.

Background & Significance: (What general background does the reader need in order to
understand the manuscript and how important is it in the context of scientific research).

Response: Background and Significance is improved according to the comments. We have

provided a general background for the readers and also highlighted its importance in the
context of scientific research.
We have mentioned in the manuscript;
Human actions, according to experts, are wreaking havoc on the global ecology. The
worldwide economy has expanded tremendously since the Industrial Revolution. However, it
has been propelled by increased natural resource usage. Rising demand to fulfil the
requirements of ever-growing population has revolutionised the way crucial resources are
harnessed leading to significant environmental damages (Richardson, 2018). The demand for
resources, particularly land, water, and energy, induces ecological pressure that makes it
difficult for the Earth to regenerate at its natural pace. As a matter of fact, human
consumption of the Earth's resources has exceeded its biocapacity to the extent that 1.6 Earths
is necessary for humans to meet their requirements (Network G.F., 2018). This is a clear
indication that the trajectory of resource consumption is not sustainable. Given this scenario,
scientific community at large making serious attempt to address the sustainability concern of
the planet and trying to figure out the factors critical in mitigating the environmental
problems. In this setting, several elements have been found in the economics literature
explaining the economic drivers of environmental deterioration such as energy consumption,
industrialization, agricultural development, transportation, urbanization, trade openness,
financial development, foreign direct investment, population expansion and so on (Dar and
Asif 2018; Zafar et al. 2022; Itoo and Ali 2022).

Problem definition: (What are the research questions to fill in the gaps of the existing
knowledge body or methodology (Methods are not a contribution, but a tool to assess
whether your hypothesis or predictions are supported or not supported)? I would like to see
well-developed arguments for predicting or proposing specific relationships in this study.

Response: As for the research questions, we tested whether or not EKC hypothesis holds in
the context of the study area and time period.
We have mentioned in the manuscript;
Several empirical examinations are done to check the validity of EKC in a different context.
However, there has been no agreement on the actual nature of the link between income and
environmental deterioration until recently. The evidence supporting the EKC theory is
conflicting. Overall, the findings seem to be influenced by the selection of variables, model
specifications, selection of pollutants, and the employed econometric methodology (Shafik &
Bandyopadhyay 1992; Stern, 2001). As a result, the lack of agreement in this area permits
researchers to revisit the relation between income & environment on a regular basis.
Besides EKC hypothesis, we studies urbanization and its effect of ecological footprint, a
better proxy of environmental deterioration than carbon dioxide emission. The variable
“urbanization” until recently is less explored in the context of its resource intensive nature
affecting ecological footprint of the country. Even if some studies made attempt to address it,
but their outcomes seem to be conflicting. Therefore, the same research question is
investigated further.
We have also mentioned in the manuscript;
The second crucial determinant of the environmental damage in this study is urbanization. It
is held that urbanization also finds its way as an economy prospers. The need for
transportation & industrialization grows due to urbanization. Individuals migrate to cities due
to improved access to health care, education and work in urban areas. In effect, Urbanization
necessitates the use of energy ultimately contributing to environmental deterioration. (Al-
Mulali & Ozturk 2015; & Zhang et al. 2015). In contrast, urbanization may decrease the pace
of environmental deterioration by facilitating innovations, R&D activities, investment in
green technology, resource efficiency & economies of scale (Charfeddine & Ben Khediri
2016; Charfeddine & Mrabet 2017). Urbanization improves the buying power of urban
residents, which may lead to an increase in the demand for clean energy consumption, hence
produces positive externalities (Danish & Wang, 2019).
Motivations & Objectives: (Why are you conducting the study and what are the goals to
achieve?).

Response: Motivation and Objectives are clearly mentioned in the ‘Introduction’ section
where things are discussed at length. In the first paragraph we provided adequate background
of the problem. In the second paragraph, we explored the advantage of using ‘ecological
footprint’ as a proxy of environmental deterioration. The third paragraph deals with the two
crucial determinants of environmental problems (variables of interest). The fourth paragraph
highlights the context of study and answer question that why India needs to be investigated.
The fifth paragraph outlines the contribution of the present research and final section
discusses objectives of the study. These all paragraphs together explain the motivation of the
research.
We have added in the manuscript;
The outcomes of this research are meaningful to the environmentalist, policy makers,
researchers and economists working in Indian context. It provides a roadmap towards
achieving sustainable development goals like shifting to non-renewable sources of energy for
the purpose of decarbonization, investing in green projects and sustainable urban
agglomeration.

3. I would like to suggest that authors should update the introduction, and other parts.
Specifically, the latest research trends, and in order to highlight the academic frontier of the
research, the references of the recent year need to be referenced. In this regard, the below
mentioned studies could be benefited.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-022-04638-2,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112780, htt
ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.09.134, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2022.10.018, https://
doi.org/10.3390/su142113910, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23345-6, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156662, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22256-w,

Response: As per the suggestions, introduction and other parts are updated. The latest
research trends are also included to highlight the academic frontier of the research. The
mentioned manuscript is found useful. We are very thankful to you for providing the link of
useful research papers relevant to the present research.

4. The conclusion of the study should have a realistic empirical overview and not a summary.
The conclusion should provide an overall thought from the author(s) empirical and
conceptual viewpoint on why and how things exist or went the way they were discovered,
what are the implications of that and what are the advantages that to the key study areas
under survey. Is this development attributable to the method or the variables or are these
findings the reality of the situations on the ground or what is to be expected soonest etc? This
should be presented professionally, logically, and philosophically to convey key scientific
thoughts to the readers. The present conclusion provided in the manuscript needs to be
improved to a reasonable scientific standard.
Response: We have provided a brief realistic empirical overview of the study in the first
paragraph of the conclusion and policy implication. The second paragraph tells the possible
reason of why things exist. Third and fourth paragraph deals with the policy implication of
the study. I think this development is attributable to methods as well as it shows the ground
reality of the findings.

Comments of Reviewer 3
Although I was not in part of the first round of review, I have a couple of observations to
further strengthen the study

• In the introduction, the flow from one paragraph to the other is missing. Please bring some
interconnection between the paragraphs

Response: We brought interconnection between the paragraph in the Introduction section.

The section is now improved.

• Most of the cited literature are old. Please update with recently published works in 2022
and
2023. The following are possible studies to add to the literature

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.igd.2023.100037
https://doi.org/10.22034/jon.2022.1972216.1203
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEAS-01-2022-0005
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teler.2022.100013
https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-10-2021-0248
Response: Literature is updated by adding recently published article such as those mentioned
above. Authors are thankful for sharing the relevant article.

• A theoretical frame needs to be added with appropriate literature.

Response: Theoretical frame is added. The relationship between environmental deterioration

and income is mentioned in the Introduction section while separate section is created in the
literature review with regard to variables of interest (a) relation between environmental
deterioration and energy, and (b) relation between environmental deterioration and
urbanization. Appropriate literature is cited. The text is highlighted.

• While explaining the properties of NARDL, please cite the studies

https://doi.org/10.46557/001c.32615
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121142
https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2021.1985542
Response: Cited the mentioned studies.

• Please explain the economic meaning of each variable based on descriptive statistics in
Table 1.
Response: According to the descriptive statistics, economic meaning of the variables is
explained in the section 3.1. The text is highlighted.

• The breadth of discussion should be enhanced

Response: We elaborated the length of discussion section

• There should include managerial implications and theoretical implications

Response: This study has significant practical implications from policy perspective, which
has been well discussed at length. Besides, outcome of this study is not relevant to provide
theoretical and managerial implications.

• Finally, the limitation and future scope should be added.

Response: We have included the limitation and scope of the study in the last two paragraph
of conclusion and policy implication.

A language editing is necessary for publication.

Response: Done