Public Perceptions of Renewable Energy in the Philippines

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well-structured and well written. The objectives of the study are clear. The design of the study is solid. There are some minor issues regarding the composition of the article that might be improved:

Some of my concerns are related to the following points:

Introduction

In the paragraph stating the research questions, modify “support” with “public support”

Results

I find a bit confusing the number of regressions in the article. I would suggest that the authors focus on three main analysis: a) Descriptives (distribution of public support for RE and willingness to install); b) Regression Analysis of Overall Support for RE; c) Regression Analysis of WTI

I would focus the analysis on the effect of specific independent variables such as level of education and income (is support for RE equally distributed among education and income levels?), and also perception of climate change and environmental attitudes (the variable on “economy comes first” to “environment comes first). Why are these two important variables not included in the regression analysis?

Discussion

This section suffers from some shortcomings that weaken the article. I would suggest rewriting this section following this structure: Principal findings; Interpretation of findings; Interpretation in context of literature (e.g. the work by Devine-Wright was cited in the introduction but then is not discussed in the discussion section); Implications; Limitations; Conclusion/Summary. Every paragraph in this section should have a clear purpose. This is not clear in the current version.  

 

I hope you find these suggestions useful and will consider them within your review.

Author Response

Thank you again for your extremely helpful and constructive comments.

 

Introduction

In the paragraph stating the research questions, modify “support” with “public support”

this has been corrected.

Results

I find a bit confusing the number of regressions in the article. I would suggest that the authors focus on three main analysis: a) Descriptives (distribution of public support for RE and willingness to install); b) Regression Analysis of Overall Support for RE; c) Regression Analysis of WTI

I would focus the analysis on the effect of specific independent variables such as level of education and income (is support for RE equally distributed among education and income levels?), and also perception of climate change and environmental attitudes (the variable on “economy comes first” to “environment comes first). Why are these two important variables not included in the regression analysis?

After a discussion between the authors, it was decided that this is sound advice. We have focused on the three areas you have suggested, making a much more compact and more readable article.

 

Discussion

This section suffers from some shortcomings that weaken the article. I would suggest rewriting this section following this structure: Principal findings; Interpretation of findings; Interpretation in context of literature (e.g. the work by Devine-Wright was cited in the introduction but then is not discussed in the discussion section); Implications; Limitations; Conclusion/Summary. Every paragraph in this section should have a clear purpose. This is not clear in the current version.  

We have re-written parts of the discussion and conclusion to more closely and clearly  follow this structure.

 

Thank you again for your support and comments. They have all been greatly appreciated.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper address the public perception of the use of renewable energy in the Philippines.  On line survey was used. A larger context is discussed with issues that contribute for the public interest in the RE and with projections about consequences or general utility.

The paper is well written with good structure and overall appropriate analysis. The overall analysis and framework are quite broad, by  discussing major difficulties to implement RE  in Philippinnes.

 

Minor improvements suggested: 

 

Fig. 1:

It is better to describe soon in the text (rather than latter): Luzon, Mindanao, Visayas.

 

Lines 87-88 

It is better to improve the sentence: "including..."

 

Table 1:

It would be interesting to explain how representative the "samples of people" are the overall population, i.e. to what extent they correspond to the Philippine's population patterns.

 

Fig. 4:

to draw legend

 

Fig. 7:

It is interesting but somewhat difficult to read, if possible it should be improved or divided into 2 figures.

 

Discussion:

The conclusions should restrict to the Philippine people even if the generalization is easily expected.

Conclusions:

Please make sure that the interpretation of the results concerning WTP is totally uniform along  the paper, since it is stated in the Conclusions that  "it is relatively high".

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

 

Fig. 1:

It is better to describe soon in the text (rather than latter): Luzon, Mindanao, Visayas.

We have introduced them in the second paragraph

 

Lines 87-88 

It is better to improve the sentence: "including..."

This has been dropped and changed to a new sentence.

Table 1:

It would be interesting to explain how representative the "samples of people" are the overall population, i.e. to what extent they correspond to the Philippine's population patterns.

this has been done briefly in the first paragraph of 3.2.1

Fig. 4:

to draw legend

this is below the plot.

Fig. 7:

It is interesting but somewhat difficult to read, if possible it should be improved or divided into 2 figures.

 On the advice of another reviewer, we have focussed on two dependent variables: renewable energy and willingness to install. This has meant we have removed Fig 7.

Discussion:

The conclusions should restrict to the Philippine people even if the generalization is easily expected.

we have emphasised in the discussion and conclusion that the results are only pertaining to the Philippines.

Conclusions:

Please make sure that the interpretation of the results concerning WTP is totally uniform along  the paper, since it is stated in the Conclusions that  "it is relatively high".

we have corrected this.

Thank you again for your invaluable support and comments. They are greatly appreciated.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for your work. There are concerns I have about the vercity of your source data from Datafish. I don't find a lot of problems with your analysis, but the source data is of concern, and as you point out, there are issues of corruption sometimes. 

The referencing to some of your key figures could also be improved. These are important parts of your communication, and it is important to leave the reader really confident about your figures especially as you would have spent a lot of time generating them. The text following the figure then can focus on interpreting the implications and not explaining the figure's meaning.

I also suggest using a Grammar checker such as the Word Grammar tool (it is quite powerful and usually available to most people.)

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, we have found them useful and have tried to address them to the best of our ability.

There are concerns I have about the vercity of your source data from Datafish. I don't find a lot of problems with your analysis, but the source data is of concern, and as you point out, there are issues of corruption sometimes. 

Pollfish.com is a well known service and used widely in academic research. A quick search on MDPI found two recent papers having used pollfish.com:

• • https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413244
  • https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9101138

A quick google.scholar search found 227 results, suggesting that the service they provide is trusted by a wide range of researchers and journals. 

We hope this addresses your concerns.

The referencing to some of your key figures could also be improved. These are important parts of your communication, and it is important to leave the reader really confident about your figures especially as you would have spent a lot of time generating them. The text following the figure then can focus on interpreting the implications and not explaining the figure's meaning.

At the suggestion of another reviewer, we have reduced the analysis to two independent variables: overall support for renewable energy, and willingness to install (WTI). This has simplified the discussion a great deal. We have also improved the references for the figures.

 

I also suggest using a Grammar checker such as the Word Grammar tool (it is quite powerful and usually available to most people.)

We have run the text through the Writefull grammar checker, correcting the mistakes as suggested. 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

--

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

The manuscript deals with experimental activities and an overview of Public Perceptions of Renewable Energy in the Philippines. The topic is well aligned with the scope of SUST. journal. The authors should improve the readability and scientific soundness, the manuscript cannot be accepted in this present form, please carefully revise it to improve the quality, the reviewer has been highlighted several open points below:

1. The abstract should be about 150-250 words. Answer the questions: What problem did you study and why is it important? What methods did you use? What were your main results? And what conclusions can you draw from your results? Please make your abstract with more specific and quantitative results while it suits broader audiences.
2. Highlight the novelty aspect - add sentences in the INTRO section.
3. Fig. 1 should be better explained and discussed, particularly in context to  the US and EU achievements on Renewable Energy Sector.
4. Consider recent published papers as the RnEn sources: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-021-02103-1 and https://doi.org/10.3390/en15030922 
5. Literature review section should be merged smoothly into INTRO section. Plz. do it.
6. Section M&M should be extended, add more info on the area and audients should be provided.
7. Statistical data - add it.
8. Fig. 3. add the discussion and the reflection on the future perspectives - it is interesting for readers and indicates the ways of future development.
9. Paragraph "Models" - soulnds like fashion models, add the proper description in title of paragraph. This section should be extended and detailed on the methodological assumptions.
10. Let’s separate sections Discussion and Conclusion into two independents. Reorganize this section.
11. Write short and concise conclusion.

(!)  improve the manuscript with attention to above.  

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed review and apologies for taking so long to get back to you. We will do all we can to address the numerous issues you have brought up.

A couple of points:

(5) Literature review section should be merged smoothly into INTRO section. Plz. do it.

are you suggesting we do away with the Lit Review and merge it into the introduction?

(6) Section M&M should be extended, add more info on the area and audients should be provided.

by area do you mean the regions covered in the study, and by audients [sic], do you mean more on the survey participants?

(7)  Statistical data - add it.

do you want us to provide a summary of all the data? Maybe as an appendix?

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for writing this interesting. It gives a overview of the energy opinions in Philippines. The findings are good and the Discussion is also good but the paper can be improved. Please find my comments in the form of Sticky notes  in the pdf file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, and apologies for the delay in responding.

We have tried to incorporate as many of your comments into the re-draft as possible.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors did not improve MS according to my comments (the is no track of changes in the MS), and the responses on my comments are unclear. Therefore I cannot recommend this MS for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revision. Please see some minor comments. The manuscript has improved quite much. Please do a final review. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf