If the Government Pays for Full Home-Charger Installation, Would Affordable-Housing and Middle-Income Residents Buy Electric Vehicles?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Usually keywords don't take (over) sequences from the title (e.g. charging station, home and so on) - please replace them in the way to reflect the article ideas and not just be redundant
- Please specify the source of each figure and each figure / table (e.g. “Author's own processing” or other expressions / sources, if it’s the case) between square brackets after the name of the figure / table
- In order not to abound with abbreviations and explanations in abstract or / and article’s body, I recommend placing the explanation of all / each character(s) or abbreviation(s) (e.g. for each parameter, variable, attribute and so on) in appendix, at the end of the article. The article must be easy to understand, both for specialists and for those less familiar with the subject. Please check the consistency and accuracy of each of them, both in the text and in the figures
- The section of introduction should include (just briefly at the end of the chapter): the context of the study, which are the main results presented in short, which is the originality of this paper, the main implication policy of these results and a description of the structure of the paper - the role of each section of the paper. Some of them are missing - please fill it accordingly
- The “Literature Review” (part of Introduction chapter or – my recommendation - separate chapter after Introduction) should include in more detail the “gap” in existing literature (especially “recent” literature) and the innovative aspects brought by this paper (analysis for existing literature and the novelty and originality brought by this paper should be highlighted) - please detail the gaps in the existing literature (partially done in different chapters, especially in sub-chapters 3.7 and 4.1) and state more clearly / more explicitly the manner in which the article addresses these gaps
- The hypothesis / hypotheses should be a little bit more specific (e.g. hypothesis1, 2, 3… - introduced perhaps at the end of Introduction chapter or at the beginning of Problem Formulation) and should reflect statement/s validated or invalidated by the research in Results (sub)chapter – with clear reference to hypothesis1, 2, 3…
- „The Materials and Methods should be described with sufficient details to allow others to replicate and build on the published results. Please note that the publication of your manuscript implicates that you must make all materials, data, information associated with the publication available to readers (reviewer's note - if you consider, you can make a statement about this – that could be available on request…and so on - in one or two sentences – at the end of the article in „Data Availability Statement”). Please disclose at the submission stage any restrictions on the availability of materials or information….” – please aligned with the requirements of the journal’s template
- „The results are in sections: 2.1 Study population; 2.2 Descriptive statistics; 2.3 Com-227 parisons of Questions #1 and #6; 2.4 Comparisons of Questions #1 and #6 by Gender; 2.5 228 Comparisons of Questions #1 and #6 by Age; 2.6 Comparisons of Questions #1 and #6 by 229 Income; and 2.7 Literature review to recharge at the new Green Book Black-owned busi-230 nesses.” (your article) – I think that you wanted to write 3.X (please fill it accordingly)
- Smooth prediction implementation and results are not clearly highlighted and compared with other results from other researches. I recommend that the "concrete" proposals with "practical" applicability and if possible... "measurable" be more clearly individualized (in a separate subsection at the end of the Results or Discussion chapter). Actually, it would be interesting if the study would present some aspects more clearly related to the practical application of the study (examples) and its results (where could be applied, how could be applied and so on). Thus, please detail further the interpretation of the data analysis performed and its implications by reference to the scope of the research.
- I understood the authors's opinion regarding the subjective and limited character of the study and therefore I consider that it would be useful to be expressed an (argued) opinion regarding future directions of research - to have a holistic view on the topic
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. Please check the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The Sample of the paper is not enough. Participants numbers must be raised. Statistical method is weak for this survey. And the findings may reflect wrong conclusion. So, I recommend the authors should use advance statistical methods such as Anova test and Corresponding analysis in term of Chi-Square Test. Literature review should follow the Introduction part. And They need to put Policy Implications and originality of the paper.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. Please check the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The reviewed study is interesting and concerns an important issue. In order to improve it, I present some suggestions for changes.
1. The title of the article is too long and poorly worded.
2. The purpose of the research is missing in the introduction. What research problem do the authors want to solve? A valuable supplement to the article would be to specify the research hypothesis or hypotheses or to formulate research questions.
3. The introduction should be followed by a literature review indicating the research gap the authors want to fill.
4. Section 2.3 should indicate which statistical methods were used in the data analysis and then describe their application.
5. Information regarding the division of content into sections of sections at the beginning of chapters 2 and 3 is redundant.
6. Why are the same results presented in tables and graphs: table 3 and figure 3, table 4 and figure 4, and table 6 and figure 6? One form is enough, either tabular or graphical.
7. Titles of subchapters 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6 should be more substantively defined and not as a comparison of questions. This remark also applies to tables and figures 3, 4, and 6.
8. In the discussion section, there is hardly any need to isolate such small subsections as 4.1, 4.2, or 4.3.
9. Conclusions should result from the research. In their current form, they are too general and do not refer to the results obtained. What do these studies show?
10. The list of references requires proper formatting by the sustainability journal editors' guidelines.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. Please check the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Add an image showing the steps of the method in your research.
In table 5, regarding Question#6, only a few respondents aged 36-45 (41.70%) will buy an EV in the next two years. Even though in the two surrounding age ranges, ie. 18-35 and 46-55 all above 70% will buy an EV in the next two years. Can you explain more deeply why this phenomenon occurs? why at that specific age the value is so low?
In Table 6, Question#1, explain and give a more in-depth interpretation of why only 76.50% of those with an income range of $75,000-$99,000 want to buy an EV, whereas the income range below that is quite large, reaching 90%, although the income is less.
The typo in Table 6, Question#6, should be $75,000-$99,000
In Table 6, Question#6 why do very few people with an income of $75,000-$99,000 (only 40%) will buy an EV in the next two years? Even though people with a much smaller income, that is $ 10,000- $ 24,999 quite a lot will buy EVs in the next two years (61.50%).
Also, need to be explained more why there are relatively few (only 60%) people with an income over $150,000 who will buy an EV in the next two years.
Add a more in-depth explanation of what your research contributions are to academic theory, and to the practical world.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. Please check the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Sprecify the source of first #1 Diagram, please
Specify more clearly the future research direction
Author Response
Reviewer #1 EV article (second review)
Specify the source of first #1 Diagram, please.
Because Reviewer #3 suggested that Diagram 1 be removed and, because the Diagram was requested by Reviewer #4, who did not submit further comments, the diagram was removed.
Specify more clearly the future research direction.
Climate change worsens so Reviewer #1’s suggestion to “more clearly specify the future research direction” was heeded. New text is at the end of the abstract Lines 27-30. Text was also added in the Introduction section Lines 184-196. Text was also added in Section #7 Lines 914-939. The title for Section 7 is now “Practical Application of the Study Findings and Future Direction.” Line 880. Also, the title for 4.2 was expanded and is now “Achievable solutions for adaptation.” Line 761. Some of the solutions in this section could also be considered in the future.
The Reviewer’s helpful comments are much appreciated.
Reviewer 2 Report
I see the authors have responsed all queries.
Author Response
The second reviewer wrote, "I see the authors have responded to all queries."
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been significantly improved. The Authors put a lot of effort into improving the article. Thank you for posting your responses to my comments.
1. However, it still lacks a clearly defined research aim. In my opinion, the purpose of the conducted research is to answer the question formulated in the title.
2. The second and fourth hypotheses in their present form are obvious. They do not require research.
3. There is no need to describe the χ² test in such detail on page nine. This test is widely known. In the case of methods, I meant to indicate which methods and for what purpose were used in the study.
4. I don't know why the Authors reviewed the literature regarding particular hypotheses. The review is good, but it was enough to relate it to the subject of the research.
5. I do not know why diagram 1 is included in the article. In my opinion, it is redundant.
Author Response
Reviewer #3 Second Review Comments and responses:
The manuscript has been significantly improved. The Authors put a lot of effort into improving the article. Thank you for posting your responses to my comments.
- However, it still lacks a clearly defined research aim. In my opinion, the purpose of the conducted research is to answer the question formulated in the title.
The research aim was clearly defined on Lines 122-124 and based on the paper’s title. This aim was placed after introductory literature and problems so the reader better understands the justifications for the study.
- The second and fourth hypotheses in their present form are obvious. They do not require research.
The second and fourth hypotheses were removed as hypotheses. The text and citations about these two topics remain.
- There is no need to describe the χ² test in such detail on page nine. This test is widely known. In the case of methods, I meant to indicate which methods and for what purpose were used in the study.
The text has been removed.
- I don't know why the Authors reviewed the literature regarding particular hypotheses. The review is good, but it was enough to relate it to the subject of the research.
The literature review no longer has the hypotheses Lines 199-262.
- I do not know why diagram 1 is included in the article. In my opinion, it is redundant.
The diagram was removed.
The reviewer’s helpful comments are much appreciated.
