The Role of Performance in Smart Meter’s Acceptance: A Survey in Joinville, Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors:

The manuscript urbansci-2719353 describes the work carried out by the authors in relation to the acceptance of smart meters in the electrical grid in the city of Joinville, Brazil.

The manuscript studies the sociological issues that may affect the introduction of the smart meters in the Brazilian electrical system. The authors propose a survey that is analyzed according to the UTAUT and UTAUT2 models. The authors develop the mathematical study to recognize the results obtained to understand the incorporation of smart meters into the electrical service.

The reviewer considers that the methodology of the study is correct and that the study is appropriately developed and explained. Even so, some points must be defined to be understandable by potential readers:

1.       The authors should provide information about the area of knowledge to which they are assigned at their universities when presenting their affiliation at the beginning of the manuscript.

2.       The authors must provide a global idea about the introduction of the use of smart meters in the Brazilian electrical system. The reviewer proposes some points that the authors should consider:

a.       How was the survey carried out? How were the results of the surveys obtained?

b.       What is the Brazilian electricity system like: is it dependent on the public administration or private companies?

c.       If it depends on companies, is it a small number of large companies or a large number of small companies?

d.       Is an introduction of smart meters in the electrical system expected in the near future?

e.       Who would bear the cost of introducing the device, the user or the companies?

f.        Will the implementation of smart meters be regulated by companies, or will it be designed by law? Will it be voluntary?

g.       Would the implementation be for a part, or for the entire Brazilian population?

h.       Does hourly pricing exist nowadays or is it being considered in electrical contracts in Brazil? This is one of the main uses, at the user level, that can be assigned to smart meters.

i.         Is self-consumption with surplus to the grid considered in the Brazilian electricity system? For example, the use of solar panels. In this case the use of smart meters could be necessary.

j.         What is the level of knowledge about the smart meter technology and its applications of the Brazilian population?

3.       The authors should indicate how the survey questions were chosen. The reviewer considers that there are relevant questions that could have been included in and that would provide further support to the study. Some of them could be:

a.       Customer evaluation of the managers of the Brazilian electrical system.

b.       Assessment of the quality of the electrical service offered in Brazil.

c.       Level of knowledge of the users about smart meter technology and applications.

d.       Initial opinion of users regarding smart meters.

e.       Possibility of energy self-consumption by the user.

4.       The authors should consider adding a short description of the theoretical models used in the manuscript UTAUT, UTAUT2... since they are the basis of the study.

5.       The reviewer suggests the addition of an active DOI link to the references that have it

6.       The authors must complement the final points of the journal template: Author Contributions, Funding, Acknowledgments, Conflicts of Interest…

As already mentioned, the reviewer considers that the study is interesting but not adequately defined, so the authors are asked to consider the points mentioned. For this reason, the reviewer proposes a major revision.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We are pleased to have the opportunity to submit our new version of the revised paper, in which all changes are presented as follows. In revising the paper, we have carefully considered your comments and suggestions. We have attempted to explain the changes made (in red) in response to all comments. After addressing the issues raised, we feel the quality of the paper is much improved and we hope it fulfils the necessary requisites for pointed out by the reviewers.

Regards,

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I wanted to reach out and express my sincerest appreciation for your efforts in writing this paper.

The study discusses the need of upgrading the electrical grid to a smart grid, incorporating renewable energy sources and implementing smart meters. It focuses on assessing factors influencing the acceptance of smart meters in Joinville, Brazil, using the UTAUT2 framework resorting to a sample of 136 respondents. The study findings intend to provide evidence for planning the electrical grid upgrade in southern Brazil through smart meter implementation.

Here are my overall comments on this study:

The manuscript is clear and well-structured in a classical manner. As far as I can discern, it is relevant to the field, addressing a clear gap and purpose: providing evidence for the rejection of smart meter implementation—a crucial aspect for digital transitions and the development of efficient and robust energy grids. It makes an original contribution to the field and has the potential to pave the way for better implementation policies. However, I believe there is room for complementary studies, especially in other Brazilian regions with different cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. I call your attention for a very similar content in lines 47-49 and 53-55.

The LR could be more developed. While the authors mention numerous studies addressing the issue, they lack details. For instance, where were these studies performed? Were there similar studies in Brazil? What implementations were carried out, and what were the outcomes, both positive and negative? Additionally, the authors should highlight how their study differs from remotely similar ones. It would be beneficial to integrate some of the studies referred the Discussion into the literature review.

Overall, I find the manuscript scientifically sound, with some concerns here and there. For instance, the authors do not state the respondent selection criteria, and there is a lack of information on how the inquiry was conducted (on the street, on a park, in people houses, in a controlled facility, at work…) as well as the method of approach. An ethical disclaimer about the methods and collected data is also missing. This gap makes the entire process unreproducible and demands further information from the authors. Moreover, for what I understood, it is a online questionnaire. Did you resort to any statistical analysis software to assess the PLS-SEM approach? If not, more details regarding data treatment are required.

There are no incongruencies during the statistical analysis process, which is well-structured. However, the figures need improvement. They should be larger for better readability, especially Figure 3. I suggest enhancing their presentation quality, as they currently appear dull and unappealing. Additionally, consider adding graphical figures (charts) to explain demographic aspects and other relevant parts of the statistical analysis for quick visualization and understanding.

The Discussion is well-executed; however, some of the cited studies lack a proper introduction in the LR. This coherence would strengthen the overall narrative.

The Conclusion is well written and consistent with the outcomes and arguments presented. However, it introduces content that was not addressed earlier, specifically in lines 364-365 and 372-373. I recommend stating these issues in the Introduction and Discussion sections and summarizing them once again in the Conclusion.

In summary, the article's content is complex and provides a tangible contribution to the field. Despite this, there are issues that need addressing and clarification. Therefore, I recommend its publication with some adjustments, which I consider to be within the scope of "major revisions."

Keep up the good work and all the best!

Author Response

Manuscript ID: urbansci-2719353

Title: The Role of Performance on Smart Meter’s Acceptance: A Survey in Joinville, Brazil

Dear Reviewer

We are pleased to have the opportunity to submit our new version of the revised paper, in which all changes are presented as follows. In revising the paper, we have carefully considered your comments and suggestions. We have attempted to explain the changes made (in red) in response to all comments. After addressing the issues raised, we feel the quality of the paper is much improved and we hope it fulfils the necessary requisites for pointed out by the reviewers.

Regards,

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and observations in the attached file, please.

Thank you

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Manuscript ID: urbansci-2719353

Title: The Role of Performance on Smart Meter’s Acceptance: A Survey in Joinville, Brazil

Dear Reviewer

We are pleased to have the opportunity to submit our new version of the revised paper, in which all changes are presented as follows. In revising the paper, we have carefully considered your comments and suggestions. We have attempted to explain the changes made (in red) in response to all comments. After addressing the issues raised, we feel the quality of the paper is much improved and we hope it fulfils the necessary requisites for pointed out by the reviewers.

Regards,

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

Thank you for the work done on the manuscript urbansci-2719353 both before and after the review.

The reviewer considers that the suggestions made have been satisfactorily answered by the authors and that the definition of the study is now more adequate.

The reviewer considers that the manuscript is now publishable, although there are some last suggestions the authors should take into account:

· Give meaning to the coefficient β shown in Table 6 and Appendix A, providing an interpretation for the values it takes.

· Is the table in Appendix A complete and only the parenthesis of β needs to be closed, or are more columns missing?

· The position of the definitions of the figures should be changed since they should go as a figure caption according to the journal's template.

· The authors should make a final review of the document as there may be errors such as “Figure 01” in line 143.

· Since it can be assumed that the construct Associated Costs (AC) is important to the study, the authors would be asked to suggest some idea about how this construct can be included in this kind of studies.

A minor revision will be suggested to make these changes.

Best regards

Author Response

Manuscript ID: urbansci-2719353

Title: The Role of Performance on Smart Meter’s Acceptance: A Survey in Joinville, Brazil

Dear Reviewer

We are delighted to resubmit our revised paper, incorporating all changes as outlined below. In response to your valuable comments and suggestions, we have meticulously considered each point and implemented revisions highlighted in red. We are confident that addressing these issues has significantly enhanced the quality of the paper, fulfilling the requirements outlined by the reviewers.

Regards

The authors.

Answers to Reviewer 1 

R1’s Comment #1: Dear Authors. Thank you for the work done on the manuscript urbansci-2719353 both before and after the review. The reviewer considers that the suggestions made have been satisfactorily answered by the authors and that the definition of the study is now more adequate. The reviewer considers that the manuscript is now publishable, although there are some last suggestions the authors should take into account:

Answer #1: Thank you, we appreciate your observation.

R1’s Comment #2: Give meaning to the coefficient β shown in Table 6 and Appendix A, providing an interpretation for the values it takes.

Is the table in Appendix A complete and only the parenthesis of β needs to be closed, or are more columns missing?

The position of the definitions of the figures should be changed since they should go as a figure caption according to the journal's template.

The authors should make a final review of the document as there may be errors such as “Figure 01” in line 143.

Since it can be assumed that the construct Associated Costs (AC) is important to the study, the authors would be asked to suggest some idea about how this construct can be included in this kind of studies.

A minor revision will be suggested to make these changes.

Answer #2: Thank you for your review. We addressed all issues in the manuscript and provided below how we deal with them.

1. Give meaning to the coefficient β shown in Table 6 and Appendix A, providing an interpretation for the values it takes.

Answer: Thank you. We included in the manuscript the following sentence: “The coefficient value (β) indicates the strength of the relationship between constructs, and p-values determine the probability of confirming this relationship in the population”.

1. Is the table in Appendix A complete and only the parenthesis of β needs to be closed, or are more columns missing?

Answer: Thank you, we fixed it.

1. The position of the definitions of the figures should be changed since they should go as a figure caption according to the journal's template.

Answer: Thank you. We updated all Figure captions and moved them just after the Figure.

143. The authors should make a final review of the document as there may be errors such as “Figure 01” in line 143.

Answer: Thank you for your review. We carried out a complete examination of the article and fixed this error and others.

1. Since it can be assumed that the construct Associated Costs (AC) is important to the study, the authors would be asked to suggest some idea about how this construct can be included in this kind of studies.

Answer: Thank you for your observation, and we provide more information about how we built this construct. The sentences about it included in the manuscript are read as follows:

“Associated Costs, another construct that diverges from the original UTAUT2 framework yet holds relevance in the context of smart meter acceptance, encompasses individual and social costs (subsidies) essential for the success of the implementation [42], particularly in Brazil, where the householders are responsible for paying for the meter [31]. The items used to build the AC and other constructs included in the proposed model were sourced from the literature (Appendix B). Some items were adapted for smart meter purposes and translated into Portuguese. Figure 1 displays the model proposed in this study.”

Thank you very much for your effort. Your enlightening comments make it possible to implement many improvements in the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I would like to thank you for the effort made in addressing my comments and suggestions. I am pleased with the majority of your responses. I believe the article has become more robust, the methodology clearer, and generally easy to interpret.

I appreciate the effort put into the figures, especially Figure 3. The way the questionnaire was developed was, at the very least, unconventional. However, the description of the subsequent steps demonstrates some seriousness in filtering responses and analyzing and interpreting the results.

The content of lines 372-373 escaped my notice initially, but I appreciate the effort to include the content of lines 364 and 365 in Section 2.1.

I am grateful for sharing the responses of other reviewers. They were enlightening.

All the best in your future endeavors.

Author Response

REVISION REPORT R2 

Manuscript ID: urbansci-2719353

Title: The Role of Performance on Smart Meter’s Acceptance: A Survey in Joinville. Brazil

Dear Reviewer

We are delighted to resubmit our revised paper, incorporating all changes as outlined below. In response to your valuable comments and suggestions, we have meticulously considered each point and implemented revisions highlighted in red. We are confident that addressing these issues has significantly enhanced the quality of the paper, fulfilling the requirements outlined by the reviewers.

Regards

The authors.

Answers to Reviewer 2 

R2’s Comment #1: Dear authors, I would like to thank you for the effort made in addressing my comments and suggestions. I am pleased with the majority of your responses. I believe the article has become more robust, the methodology clearer, and generally easy to interpret.

I appreciate the effort put into the figures, especially Figure 3. The way the questionnaire was developed was, at the very least, unconventional. However, the description of the subsequent steps demonstrates some seriousness in filtering responses and analyzing and interpreting the results.

The content of lines 372-373 escaped my notice initially, but I appreciate the effort to include the content of lines 364 and 365 in Section 2.1.

I am grateful for sharing the responses of other reviewers. They were enlightening.

All the best in your future endeavors.

Answer #1: Thank you for the kindly comment.

Regarding the questionnaire building, we included sentences in the manuscript to make it clearer for the reader.

“Associated Costs, another construct that diverges from the original UTAUT2 framework yet holds relevance in the context of smart meter acceptance, encompasses individual and social costs (subsidies) essential for the success of the implementation [42], particularly in Brazil, where the householders are responsible for paying for the meter [31]. The items used to build the AC and other constructs included in the proposed model were sourced from the literature (Appendix B). Some items were adapted for smart meter purposes and translated into Portuguese. Figure 1 displays the model proposed in this study.”

Thank you very much for your effort. Your enlightening comments make it possible to implement many improvements in the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf