Stakeholder Perceptions on Sustainability Challenges and Innovations in General Aviation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-constructed paper that provides solid background to the presentation of a survey of GA stakeholders. This latter is presented systematically and provides clear explanation of the results and their interpretation – although there are opportunities to make the delivery more concise but shortening those sections where no statistically significant differences are found (these have been highlighted in an annotated version of the submitted paper). The discussion highlights key points effectively. The conclusions could be a bit bolder! The implications for training I feel are clear and need further emphasis.

Overall the empirical study follows a well-trodden path and therefore is not novel in its approach; although there are some useful insights.

 

There are some small grammatical changes suggested in the attached annotated copy of the paper, but otherwise this paper should be accepted for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are very few grammatical errors and comprehension is clear throughout.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your helpful review.

I have revised the paper following all your points and feedback regarding language/grammar, structure, and content.

Thanks and best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author presented a quantitative study using data from a 2022 online survey involving 427 general aviation stakeholders to examine sustainability consciousness and perceptions within the general aviation community. The findings show shared sustainability concerns among stakeholders, the influence of sociodemographic factors on these perceptions, a positive relationship between non-aviation-related and aviation-related sustainability consciousness, and that pilots with prior experience in electric aircraft tend to have a more favourable view of electric aviation. I found the report (I doubt this is written as an academic article, valuable discussions can be found but the writing needs to be improved - having said that, I respect the decision from the author if they want to keep it in this form) very interesting, and valuable to be published, especially in the journal of "Sustainability". I believe that the presented report will be used as an open reference for discussions in GA sustainability and perspectives. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A proof-reading check not only for English but also for academic writing may be valuable. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your valuable and highly appreciated feedback. 

I have revised the paper according to your feedback and corrected English language mistakes. 

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

First: There is no review of previous literature

Second: There is no theoretical framework. Although the study refers to stakeholders, it is important to link it to the theoretical framework of stakeholder theory.

 

Introduction:

The introduction briefly introduces the concept of General Aviation (GA) and sustainability but could benefit from providing a more comprehensive definition and context for these terms. This is particularly important for readers who may not be familiar with these topics.

 

The introduction does not mention any theoretical framework or academic models that will guide the research. Providing this information would help the reader understand the lens through which the research will be conducted and analysed.

 

The introduction contains very short paragraphs that do not provide deep ideas. I suggest that the authors combine them in a good way to improve the flow of the paper

 

On the other hand, the introduction successfully identifies the problem in the context of General Aviation, which has received less attention compared to commercial aviation in terms of sustainability. It also brings out recent events and industry quotes to underscore the urgency of the issue, which is engaging.

 

Also, the paper acknowledges the research gap in the literature regarding sustainability in GA from a stakeholder perspective. This gap is clear and well-defined, creating a strong rationale for the study.

 

Materials and Methods

The section begins by mentioning a previous exploratory mixed-methods study [37]. However, it lacks a clear explanation of the key findings or results of this previous study, which is important to understand the context and motivation for the current research. 

 

The response rate of approximately 8% is mentioned, but it would be useful to include more context regarding how this response rate compares to typical response rates in survey research. 

 

Also, the fact that the study captured the views of only approximately 8% of the Swiss private pilot population is mentioned. It would be helpful to discuss the potential implications of this non-representative sample on the generalizability of the findings and the study's limitations.

 

Results and Discussion

The results section lacks citations to support the findings and claims. It's important to provide references to relevant literature to strengthen the credibility of the discussion and show how your findings align or differ from existing research in the field.

 

While the section presents the findings, it could benefit from a deeper level of interpretation. Instead of merely describing the results, delve into the "why" and "how" behind the patterns observed. This could involve discussing potential underlying causes or theoretical explanations.

 

The discussion, particularly in the first part, could be more in-depth. For instance, you mention that there was a shared apprehension for environmental and sustainability issues within the GA community, but you don't explore why this might be the case. Are there specific historical, cultural, or operational factors at play that contribute to this shared concern? A more profound discussion can provide a richer understanding of the results.

 

The section could benefit from a discussion of how the findings align or diverge from previous research in the field. Addressing the consistency or divergence can help establish the significance of your study and provide context for readers unfamiliar with the field.

 

 The discussion should include more practical implications of the findings. How can the insights gained from the research inform policy, practice, or future research in the field? 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your detailed and highly appreciated feedback. 

Following your comments, I have made several revisions, namely: 

Introduction:

1) General aviation and sustainability are now defined and explained in more detail and put into context.

2) The paper now clearly states the reference to the Geelsean Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability Transitions and explains the role of niche innovations in the GA context.

3) The paragraphs are now better connected and  the thoughts go a bit deeper

Materials and Methods: 

1) The key findings from the preceding mixed-methods study are now highlighted in the beginning. 

2) The response rate of 8% is further commented on and put into relation with the target population of private pilots in Switzerland.

3) The sample and response rate as well as potentially limited generalizability are elaborated and mentioned in the limitations section.

Results and Discussion

1) Further elaborations on potential "why" and "how" behind observed patterns are made and the findings are discussed in further detail. A more profound and balanced discussion was tried to be achieved in this revised version.

2) Consistencies and divergence in the perceptions and views of stakeholders are explained in further detail; statistical relations and correlations are commented in further detail.

3) Practical implications based on the insights and findings from the study are outlined and commented.

 

GENERAL: language and grammar mistakes have been corrected and more concise and clear interpretations of the results and implications are now provided in the revised paper.

Many thanks and best regards