Determinants of Long-Term Water and Energy Conservation Behavior: An Integrated Review
, Rense Corten 2, Mattijs Lambooij 1, Monique van der Aa 1, Frenk van Harreveld 3 and Vincent Buskens 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see attached document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Needs considerable editing, phrasing does not always convey intended meaning.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The first section 1.1 of the preface is too abrupt. It is recommended to merge it with the research background to form an introduction part.
2. The title “Materials and Methods of Research” is missing. Furthermore, there is a lack of a clear separator between Scopus in line 94 and PsycINFO in line 95, which could lead to confusion when reading.
3. In Table 1, the search term “long-term” appears to be repeated three times, which may be a typographical error. This term should only appear once.
4. The search results in Table 1 (line 104) show results for two queries, but the text does not explain why one query has 152 results and the other only 92.
5. In line 105, the footnote mentions that the last date used for the search is “February 23, 2022,” which should be updated to a more recent date; otherwise, readers might think that this information is outdated.
6. Lastly, in Table 2 (lines 130 to 132), the summary figures of the PRISMA protocol selection process do not completely match the description given in the text above.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The main question addressed by the research is defining the factors affecting the decreased consumption of drinking water and electricity.
The topic is relevant to the field.
The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.
The references are appropriate.
My additional comments are as follows:
Lines 177-178: “but for rainfall [35] no significant correlation was found.” Please explain why there could have been a correlation between rainfall and water or rainfall and electricity.
Line 253: “Strong social norms can lead to a maintained decrease of drinking water consumption per household.” I understand that drinking water is a limited commodity, but where is the balance in its consumption, anticipating sufficient intake to cover the major existential needs of the human body?
Did you consider the cases of household welfare growth? Do the households start drinking more water, or do they consume the same amount but buy the more expensive brands?
Lines 369-385: Is there a positive correlation between the size of the dwelling and the drinking water intake per person? Please explain.
Sincerely,
the Reviewer
Comments on the Quality of English LanguagePlease check English: “There are two routes are identified towards conservation behavior: curtailment and 50 efficiency behaviors”, «Aside from these approach specific approaches there also more general avenues for future 504 research, mostly concerned with unresearched or promising determinants», «The sample size of these countries is remains small»
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFile attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
See general comments included in the Comments and Suggestions to Authors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors might want to complete one more check for typos and such.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNone.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe substance and accuracy of statements within the paper are much improved. I like the new Figure 2.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThis draft has typographical and formatting errors (tables, figures, and paragraph/section numbering), as well as some grammatical errors or awkward sentence structure. For instance, see the second Table 1 entry.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
