Investigating Green Financing Factors to Entice Private Sector Investment in Renewables via Digital Media: Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Development in the Post-COVID-19 Era
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
-
Please rectify the typo of COVID-10, line 7 of section 1, introduction
-
Describe the scenario of RE development iin Pakistan as the preliminary introduction. Especially the new launched policies. Author could includes some challenges, potential, and the current green or RE policies (in general) showing the pre and post Covid-19 conditions in the country as the background
-
What is the role of the financing institutions in the context? Other than the policies from the government, the packages, as well as the bank policies, are important in enticing the private sector to invest in the RE. Please states some of the literature showing the context as mentioned.
-
Since the 3 cities were selected as the studied focus city, please justify and include some background of Lahore, Faisalabad, and Gujranwala(eg: the main cities with a total number of populations). Do include the map and location as well.
-
Out of various types of RE, the author only choose to focus on Solar Energy. Please justify. Gives some statistics/ data from literature review or policies showing solar energy is selected to represent RE in Pakistan.
-
Measures: Figure 1 could be explained here. Roughly explained the overall framework of the questionnaire: how many sections in overall? And the subheader of each section. Explained why the questionnaire was constructed in that way
-
State the limitations and scope of the studied topic.
- The significance of the studies has to be strengthened in the background and conclusion, where it would be an important benchmark to the surrounding countries or countries with similar context.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper aims "to enhance the investment intention connected with an investment in solar energy projects after COVID-19." This paper explores the factors behind the intention to invest in solar energy through digital media in Pakistan. To identify such factors, the authors of the work surveyed 295 respondents, the results of which were tested and analyzed using PLS-SEM. This is an interesting article, but its structure should be formed under the requirements of the journal "Sustainability."
Major comments:
- the description of data and methods should be moved from the section "Discussion and implication" to the new section "Materials and Methods";
- the "RESEARCH Methodology" section of this article should be divided into two sections: "Materials and Methods" and "Results";
- authors should clarify the aim of the article following the hypotheses that have been tested; now, it is not clear whether the aim of the article has been achieved or not;
- in the "Discussion" section, the authors should expand the interpretation of the results of the article in comparison with previous studies on the intention to invest in solar energy through digital media in Pakistan; there is a need to match the conclusions from the abstract with the findings that are given in the "Discussion and implication" section;
- authors should add a description of research methods in "Abstract"; write the article's results more accurately.
Minor comments:
- the abbreviation IISEDM should be defined at its first mention in the article ("intention to invest in solar energy through digital media"); the authors should carefully check the use of all abbreviations in the article;
- under Table 2 should be a rule of thumb for items (Factor loading, Cronbach's Alpha, Composite reliability, Average variance extracted);
- under Table 5 and Table 6, it is necessary to add rules for accepting or rejecting hypotheses;
- the authors should provide in the Appendix a list of questions from the questionnaire for a better interpretation of the article;
- in the section "Data Availability Statement," there are no links to the data; perhaps this section should be removed from the article since the study did not report any data.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The subject of the article is interesting and worth describing. However, the method of implementation requires correction. The authors in the Introduction presented an introduction to the subject. The Introduction section is deficient. It does not contain all the necessary elements. The main goal has not been clearly defined, and there are no specific goals. Research hypotheses should be in the Introduction section, but may be included in section 2 of the literature overview.
There are too many hypotheses. Most can be combined into one hypothesis. All parameters can be combined into one group and a linkage can be defined. Some of the hypotheses seem obvious. Some of them can be opted out.
Hypothesis 4 is not clear as it stands.
Hypothesis 6 concerns COVID-19. It is interesting, but before I reading the entire article, it seems to be debunked and is untrue.
2 or 3 hypotheses would be enough, but more specific.
In section 2, the authors have already presented some information on the characteristics of the research sample. Why table 1 is included in section 2. This information should be in section 3.
The layout of the work is not entirely correct. I have already listed the items that can be found in section 1 Introduction. The title of section 3 on Methodology is incorrect. Methodology is the study of scientific research methods, their effectiveness, and their cognitive value. Certainly, the author does not want to study research methods. Section 3 should be called Materials and methods.
The methods have not been described sufficiently. This does not allow other scientists to perform repeatable tests.
The research sample shows surprising results. The vast majority of people filling in the questionnaire are men. Where did such a result come from. I understand that society has an equal share of women and men (50% each).
In the Introduction section, the authors have already presented some information on data sources and methods. This information should be in section 2.
In section 3 on materials and methods there are test results. The Results section should be a separate section (as section 4). Additionally, the authors mix methods with results. It should be separated. There should be sections for this.
In section 4, the authors unnecessarily re-provide information on the number of questionnaires conducted. This information has been provided before (it should be in the Materials and Methods section)
I have comments on section 4. I understand the discussion as referring to other studies after presenting my research results. In my opinion, doing research without a clear comparison and reference to other research results in the fact that the obtained results cannot be properly assessed. Such references have appeared in other parts. Part of it is in section 2. Part of the text can be moved to the Discussion section. Currently, the authors only refer to a few studies. The discussion should be broadened and more references to research by other authors should be used.
Conclusion section is incomplete. You must certainly refer to the hypotheses or research questions posed. Is it possible to verify the hypotheses positively or negatively? The conclusions can be bulleted. This section is too long. Conclusions should be a synthesis. A policy recommendation should be a subsection within the Conclusions section. It needs to be shortened.
Other remarks:
Figure 2 is illegible. The font is too small. A similar remark is made to figure 3.
The article format does not conform to the journal's guidelines. Selected Lines are missing, which makes it difficult to give very specific comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors implemented most of the comments. However, some figures still need to be rectified. Eg: please do not compress Figure 1, the shape and the text are illegible. The intensity of text and clarity of Figures 3 and 4 have to be sharpened.
In the discussion section, extensive elaboration on the relationship of investment behaviour and covid-19 factor is recommended. Scenario and case study could be added to enhance the understanding of readers.
The solid statement on the hypothesis has to be emphasize in the conclusion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors implemented most of the comments. However, I still have reservations about the quality of some Figures. They are illegible.
Discussion section not expanded. The reference of the research results to those obtained by other scientists is modest and needs to be extended.
Conclusions should be underlined. The Conclusions should also contain clear information on whether the hypotheses have been confirmed or rejected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
