A Review of Behavioral Energy Reduction Programs and Implementation of a Pilot Peer-to-Peer Led Behavioral Energy Reduction Program for a Low-Income Neighborhood

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this research, the authors tried to develop a behavior-based energy reduction programs aimed specifically at low-income residences. However, the conclusions about peer-to-peer energy education are not clear and lack sufficient scientific evidence, although the article is interesting and meaningful. The comments are as follow.
Major comments:
1. The data presented in this paper are too limited (only 8 houses) to draw significant conclusions and bring contributions to the subject. I advise the authors to conduct more surveys and gather more data samples, update the manuscript and then resubmit. The eight data cannot even be compared for statistically meaningful comparisons. How can readers be convinced of their academic significance?
2. The abstracts and conclusions lack specific quantification and clear conclusions. They only emphasize the importance of community development, and cannot even point out what actions should be taken for low-income users to achieve what effect.
3. The overall article structure is good. However, there is not enough reason to be convinced by 8 data. The presentation of the results is more like household statistics, rather than specific measures and practices. First of all, it is impossible to accept such a small amount of data collection, which will have obvious errors, unless there are sufficient reasons to rule out this possibility. Furthermore. The presentation of data should be quantitatively presented in terms of measures that affect user behavior.
4. The current research is more like a small-scale report, and this article cannot be viewed from a research perspective.
Minor comments:
5. P3, 131-133, more details are needed to explain the reduction of 14% although the value is cited from others. The meaning of this value should be explained.
6. Fig 1c, the not important category is not used so why showing it? If it is used then the colors are confusing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The aim of the paper is to analyze the correlation between energy behaviour and cost reduction. The work is well organized and argumented. For its publication minor revision are needed.

In particular, it is suggested to add more references in Section 1. This in order to substantiate the assertation in the text. In addition, it is advisable to specify the reference year where authors are mentioned in full (e.g.,not exhaustive, see row 53).   

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is well structured and relevant in the energy behaviour literature field. Its position can be recognized in the number of studies aiming to identify the role that changing people energy behaviours can have on climate change and, in particular, on energy consumption. It is in fact focused on investigating the role that energy behaviour has in promoting energy savings in particular among low-income residents and using a peer-to-peer approach. It is, in particular, focused on the U.S. context and it provides a specific case study analysis conducted through a multiple method that included hiring a peer-to-peer energy educator, a survey, interviews and data collection on energy consumptions. I believe that the contribution is very interesting as this topic is key for making energy transition effective. Authors encountered some barriers during their study, especially in the participation of people in the pilot and in the linked activities (e.g. surveys). However, this is actually common, and the contribution provide a very clear description of those barriers and a very honest evaluation of the ongoing research. I personally think that the contribution can help other researchers in addressing similar activities within communities and, especially, in case of energy poverty phenomena.

Indeed, the contribution is well designed, structured and the arguments are well presented and clearly expressed. I think the contribution is already publishable as it has lots of strengths and the changes that I am suggesting are minor. These are described following.

The Introduction paragraph is well developed. It states clearly the contest of the research, and it provides all the necessary definitions. I think this is a strength for the manuscript as including the most important definitions allow the reader to go through it faster and deeper. In particular, I appreciated the definitions linked with energy justice and the differences between energy insecurity and energy burdens. The Introduction also gives a useful picture of the energy assistance programs actually available in the U.S. Very few elements can be implemented here, as following:

• lines 91-92 should include a reference;
• lines 116-119 should include some data and a reference, if available. It would be very interesting to understand what is the amount (or the percentage) of people that actually need to pay back the energy benefits;
• lines 127 should include a reference.

The Background section is, in general, well presented. It includes a brief state of the art on energy consumption behaviours (2.1) and a slightly longer state of the art on Peer-to-peer educations (2.2). In the first part of the background the authors report the perspectives on energy behaviour from Lindeberg & Steg, Hines et al. and Poortinga et al. This is, in my opinion, enough to understand the background that the authors acknowledge for the purposes of their research. However, a deeper review on energy behaviour can improve the quality of the paper. In particular, I suggest checking the nudging theory, e.g. Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein work. The peer-to-peer section is sufficient in my opinion and well drafted.

The Case section is also well presented. It is divided in three sub-paragraphs. As this section aims to present the case study, I think that the following additions can improve the paper:

• a short table resuming key aspects of the pilot program can support the reader in a deeper understanding of it (e.g. surface covered, people involved, type of financing, specific social composition of the community, medium income, etc);
• lines 279-280 can benefit from data support;
• in line 331 authors say that from the 84 households only 11 actively participated in the pilot program. I think that a reflection on this should be included somewhere in the manuscript, maybe in the Results/Conclusion sections. Why a so small number of households decided to participate? Did you decided to implement additional measures in order to try to involve more of them? How do you think that this fact impacted the results of your research? Of course, the results cannot be read on a statistical point of view, as the coverage is only of the 13% of households, but they can be analysed on a qualitative base. How much do you think your results are valid and can describe the real situation? Some considerations on this are provided in lines 517-521 but I think that recalling these points also at the end can benefit the paper.
• Lines 335 to 344 can be supported by a diagram or an infographic in order to ease the understanding of the process.

The Methods section is very well written. I think the method the authors used is well designed and relevant. Also, the tables included in this section are useful for the understanding of the content. As the authors had to deal with a complex situation, they decided to use multiple methods to deeply understand the case study and the behaviours underneath the area. I think that this is a strength on a methodological point of view.

Nevertheless, I found few typos and elements that can be improves:

• Of course, the number of surveys completed is very low, thus no statistical analysis is possible. I suggest thinking about mitigation measures to be taken from now on in order to increase the number of answers to surveys. For example, authors can think about doing interviews also with participants. Few lines can be addressed in the Conclusion section on this topic.
• Check English in line 409.
• Lines 494-499 tells that an energy model have been produced. More information on this could benefit the manuscript (e.g. software used, a brief description of the method under the software, etc).
• I would be interested in understanding if all households shared their own energy consumption data or just a part of them. The paragraph 4.3 says that those data were made accessible by households, but no specific data/quantities have been provided.

The Results as well as the Conclusion sections are very well written. It includes in fact analysis of results from the different methods used. In particular, authors are aware that they gained few answers, especially from surveys, but their aim is well defined and the use of those data is in my opinion appropriate.

In line 746 it is stated that three households increased their energy usages. It can be interesting to address a comment on this point or even plan interviews with these households, eventually.

In general, for improving the manuscript, I suggest additional few actions that can make the paper even more interesting:

• the manuscript is focused on the U.S. context. However, energy justice is a very relevant topic worldwide. It would be very interesting to address how this study can be potentially replicated in other countries and how it would be possible to do it. I suggest including a paragraph about it in the Conclusion section.
• Even if the manuscript is well understandable and the background provided is sufficient in my opinion, for the purposes of this paper, an overview of Energy Poverty background can improve it a lot. In particular, I suggest writing an additional sub-paragraph in Section 2 on the most recent energy poverty findings and definitions. For example, I suggest checking Stefan Bouzarovski works.
• The abstract should better report the barriers encountered during the research so that readers know since the beginning that there are no statistical analysis provided but more a quantitative one.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the author is still unable to solve my most original concerns, especially an academic article, based on respecting the opinions of other reviewers and accepting part of the response and modification, I think this article can be accepted under the author’s full explanation of all the research limits mentioned in the response.  

Therefore, it is recommended that the author clearly add a new paragraph to explain the research limitations in the discussion or conclusion section.

Understand the value of this article as a reference for redisgn, but such value is still too limited for academic papers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf