Acceptance and Potential of Renewable Energy Sources Based on Biomass in Rural Areas of Hungary

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.The article should be written impersonally, please change it

2. Change the graph in Fig.1 into right order <30, 30-60, >60

3. The factors in barckates in Tab1. and Tab.3 are not clear

4. Fig 5-9 should be more readable

5. The model should be described

6. The conclusion is too general. The obtained results should be compared to other known data.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

ref: [Sustainability] Manuscript ID: sustainability-1090078 - Minor Revisions

# 1 Expand the discussion of the presented graphs

Response 1: Detailed discussion and explanations of the graphs have been added in rows:

174-177; 186-188; 196-198; 205-208; 217-221; 243-246; 257-260; 267-271; 287-288; 295-297,

#2 Indicate the tests on the basis of which the statistical significance of the tested parameters was assessed

Response 2:

Materials and method chapter is completed with a paragraph dedicated to Statistical method. row: 142 For later convenient use MLR (row 143) and VIF (row 148) abbreviations are added.

Results main chapter also discusses the prior test of multicollinearity. Rows: 157-159

Below the Tables explanations are given for the method (p level). Rows: 173; 230-231; 242; 305-306; 

Sentences reporting the statistically significant variables are extended with the applied method in rows: 181; 250

Appendix 3 was added on the output of VIF test. Rows: 434-437

#3 The final conclusions seem superficial. The subject matter deserves in-depth conclusions and a proposal for future actions.
Response 3:

Chapter Conclusion is extended with 3 more paragraphs

- #1 on the general conclusions in a more specific formulation (rows: 363 – 366)

- #2 on further improvement of the model (rows: 377-381)

- #3 on broader aspect of possible policy implications and suggestion for further similar micro regions (rows: 382-398). This extended part contains 4 more references which are also included in the reference list now (#42-45)

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject matter presented in the manuscript is an important contribution to the development of energy technologies knowlege , including renewable energy, Activities that take into account increasing awareness of local communities in the field of environmental care, use of the available resource potential, environmental conditions, may improve the implementation effects in relation to the comand- legislative policy.
In my opinion, the work may interest Sustainability readers.
However, I suggest changes in the field of:
Expand the discussion of the presented graphs.
Indicate the tests on the basis of which the statistical significance of the tested parameters was assessed.
The final conclusions seem superficial. The subject matter deserves in-depth conclusions and a proposal for future actions.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

ref: [Sustainability] Manuscript ID: sustainability-1090078 - Minor Revisions

#1 In the introduction I suggest adding the structure of the paper in a few lines.
Response 1: In our opinion, the structure of the article follows a standard break down, with no specific information that may need further details in the chapter Introduction. Also many extensions have been added to make the whole article more understandable, that were required by the comments and remarks covering gaps of explanations on graphs, etc. Although in a number of articles this part of the introduction is given, many other authors also skip it.

#2 The literature should be updated. Few references have been included in 2020 and 2021.
Response 2: We accept the criticism on the older references, therefore we replaced with newer publications of same implications on our topic. The conceptual older references were kept. The changes cover the reference list (#1; 2; 6; 12; 13; 14; 16; 17; 18; 19; 22) and in one case the citation number in the text (row: 324).

#3 In the conclusions I would highlight the political implications (for example, identification of reference data that can be replicated in other contexts, support in multi-criteria decision-making processes, ...)) and the future prospects of this work.
Response 3: This part was also covered by reviewer 1, chapter Conclusion is extended with 3 more paragraphs

- #1 on the general conclusions in a more specific formulation (rows: 363 – 366)

- #2 on further improvement of the model (rows: 377-381)

- #3 on broader aspect of possible policy implications and suggestion for further similar micro regions (rows: 382-398). This extended part contains 4 more references which are also included in the reference list now (#42-45)

#4 In the Appendix the descriptive data of the analyzed sample can be inserted (minimum, average, maximum, standard deviation) for all the variables included in the model.
Response 4: We noticed here misunderstanding, which basically origins in the not clear introduction of the variables of our model. Therefore, we added the descriptions of the model variables (Appendix 1) and basic statistics (Appendix 2), as well. Rows 407 – 433.

#5 Please check typos in the manuscript.

Response 5: We applied Grammarly © for all typos and articles, prepositions and style words were corrected (indicated with track changes).

Rows affected: 12, 16, 17, 24, 33, 36, 38, 42, 43, 66 ,69, 74, 78, 81 ,85, 87, 91, 100, 101, 104, 110, 127,128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 138; 143; 155, 179, 195, 204, 216, 225, 226, 248, 255, 265, 277, 286, 293, 203, 303, 309, 313, 316, 318, 335, 337, 340, 348, 350, 351, 354, 355, 368

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors presented an interesting paper where reference data was obtained from a survey to help policymakers to include the social acceptance variable of biomass in Hungary in decision-making problems.
I have no important suggestions for the authors.
In the introduction I suggest adding the structure of the paper in a few lines.
The literature should be updated. Few references have been included in 2020 and 2021.
In the conclusions I would highlight the political implications (for example, identification of reference data that can be replicated in other contexts, support in multi-criteria decision-making processes, ...) and the future prospects of this work.
In the Appendix the descriptive data of the analyzed sample can be inserted (minimum, average, maximum, standard deviation) for all the variables included in the model.

Please check typos in the manuscript.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

ref: [Sustainability] Manuscript ID: sustainability-1090078 - Minor Revisions

#1 In the introduction I suggest adding the structure of the paper in a few lines.
Response 1: In our opinion, the structure of the article follows a standard break down, with no specific information that may need further details in the chapter Introduction. Also many extensions have been added to make the whole article more understandable, that were required by the comments and remarks covering gaps of explanations on graphs, etc. Although in a number of articles this part of the introduction is given, many other authors also skip it.

#2 The literature should be updated. Few references have been included in 2020 and 2021.
Response 2: We accept the criticism on the older references, therefore we replaced with newer publications of same implications on our topic. The conceptual older references were kept. The changes cover the reference list (#1; 2; 6; 12; 13; 14; 16; 17; 18; 19; 22) and in one case the citation number in the text (row: 324).

#3 In the conclusions I would highlight the political implications (for example, identification of reference data that can be replicated in other contexts, support in multi-criteria decision-making processes, ...)) and the future prospects of this work.
Response 3: This part was also covered by reviewer 1, chapter Conclusion is extended with 3 more paragraphs

- #1 on the general conclusions in a more specific formulation (rows: 363 – 366)

- #2 on further improvement of the model (rows: 377-381)

- #3 on broader aspect of possible policy implications and suggestion for further similar micro regions (rows: 382-398). This extended part contains 4 more references which are also included in the reference list now (#42-45)

#4 In the Appendix the descriptive data of the analyzed sample can be inserted (minimum, average, maximum, standard deviation) for all the variables included in the model.
Response 4: We noticed here misunderstanding, which basically origins in the not clear introduction of the variables of our model. Therefore, we added the descriptions of the model variables (Appendix 1) and basic statistics (Appendix 2), as well. Rows 407 – 433.

#5 Please check typos in the manuscript.

Response 5: We applied Grammarly © for all typos and articles, prepositions and style words were corrected (indicated with track changes).

Rows affected: 12, 16, 17, 24, 33, 36, 38, 42, 43, 66 ,69, 74, 78, 81 ,85, 87, 91, 100, 101, 104, 110, 127,128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 138; 143; 155, 179, 195, 204, 216, 225, 226, 248, 255, 265, 277, 286, 293, 203, 303, 309, 313, 316, 318, 335, 337, 340, 348, 350, 351, 354, 355, 368