Barriers and Motivators of Household Water-Conservation Behavior: A Bibliometric and Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript of the authors from Spain and Argentina is concerned with " Barriers and motivators of household water conservation behavior: a bibliometric and systematic literature review ”.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to read such useful and actual review.

The manuscript presents the study conducts a systematic and bibliometric literature review aimed at identifying determinants underlying household water conservation behaviors. 

This submitted article could be with the aim and scope of the MDPI journal Water, https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water/sections/Water_Resources_Management_Policy_Governance

Hydro-Economic Models for Sustainable Water Resources Management

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water/special_issues/L8KYRJFYK2

• Abstract & introduction: These two parts are focused on the paper's main aim and the new contributions of authors to the state of the art. The abstract with keywords very effectively summarizes the manuscript. The key objective for the authors is to promote household sustainable water consumption behaviors and how it has become vital.

• Materials & methods: Based on the existing research, the authors give to the readers very systematic, bibliometric and interdisciplinary literature review aimed at identifying determinants underlying household water conservation behaviors.. It is clear how all of the data were obtained. This section gives readers enough information so that they can use the study for other purposes.  

 • Results & discussion: The data are well-controlled and robust and results are well-presented with relevant and current tables, figures, and references.

Results section were obtained and the methods used to analyze the data are progressive and scientific sound. With some adaptation, this described methodology could be used more generally. The authors offer valuable insights for designing effective household water conservation interventions through a social marketing lens.

 

I have no comments for improving of manuscript before publishing.

 

 

Author Response

REPLY TO REVIEWER 1

Comment 1.  I have no comments for improving of manuscript before publishing.

Reply to Comment 1:

Thank you very much for your words and for the analysis and summary you conducted of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
Under the environment and challenges of climate change, water conservation is an important issue. It would be nice to see scholars compile literature on relevant topics to discuss coping strategies. However, there are still some shortcomings, so I put forward some suggestions and hope that the author will reply or adjust.
1.Abstract
Please supplement the timeline of literature assembled in this literature discussion.
2. Introduction
Please elaborate on the problem of water shortage. In particular, climate change leads to abnormal weather, high temperatures, heavy rains, and water use for human industry.
3.Results
1). We can know from the analysis that the relevant literature has increased significantly since 2008, and will reach its peak in 2021. However, there will be a sharp decline in 2022, as shown in Figure 4.
2). From Figure 5, we know that there is a lack of literature in Africa, Tibet, Bhutan, Russia, Southeast Asia and other countries.
3). It can be seen from Figure 6 that the leaders of water conservation literature almost come from scholars from American countries.
4). From Figure 9, we know that the focus of water use is cognition and attitude.
Can the author explain the possible factors for this phenomenon during the discussion? Although the literature review is based on statistics, analysis and inferences based on existing literature, if this manuscript can put forward the inferences and opinions of the researcher after observation, and then combine the inference results to give answers and suggestions that are appropriate to the topic and purpose. That would improve the quality of this manuscript.
5). From Table 1, the author analyzed the research methods of relevant literature. But what is very confusing is how the author's statistical report data is deduced? The distribution statistics of various analysis methods for the total sample number of 165? Or is it based on "TOTAL QUALITATIVE EXPLORATORY; TOTAL LONGITUDINAL AND EXPERIMENTAL... and other levels of analysis?"
It is recommended that the author explain or remake this table.
6). Ask the author to check the clarity of each picture.
7). Can the author condense the manuscript further? This will allow for a more focused discussion of the issues the author wants to express.

Finally, this is a meaningful investigative report, but the analytical content of the manuscript and the intended purpose are vague. Therefore, I expect the author to submit a new manuscript after answering questions or making revisions based on suggestions.
Good luck,

Author Response

REPLY TO REVIEWER 2

Under the environment and challenges of climate change, water conservation is an important issue. It would be nice to see scholars compile literature on relevant topics to discuss coping strategies. However, there are still some shortcomings, so I put forward some suggestions and hope that the author will reply or adjust.

 

Comment 2.1. Abstract: Please supplement the timeline of literature assembled in this literature discussion.

Reply to Comment 2.1:

Thank you for your comment. In response to this recommendation, we have incorporated the timeline of the compiled literature from 1982 to early 2023 into the abstract. As outlined in the original manuscript (refer to "Step 3: Search and preliminary selection of articles," lines 146-147), we intentionally did not impose restrictions on publication dates, ensuring comprehensive coverage of all relevant research up to the specified date.

 

Comment 2.2. Introduction: Please elaborate on the problem of water shortage. In particular, climate change leads to abnormal weather, high temperatures, heavy rains, and water use for human industry.

Reply to Comment 2.2:

Thank you for your suggestion. We have introduced the following sentence at the beginning of the Introduction section:

Line 29: “Climate change intensifies water scarcity and associated hazards such as floods, rising sea levels, and droughts. Rising temperatures disrupt the water cycle, posing threats to sustainable development, biodiversity, and access to water (UN, 2023).” 

 

Comment 2.3. Results: 1). We can know from the analysis that the relevant literature has increased significantly since 2008, and will reach its peak in 2021. However, there will be a sharp decline in 2022, as shown in Figure 4.

Reply to Comment 2.3:

Thank you for your comment. In Figure 4, we analyze the scientific community's interest in psychosocial determinants of water conservation or consumption behavior. Overall, the trend has been upward since 2010, with occasional dips in research output during certain periods. The sharp decline in 2022 is not indicative of a reduction in studies but results from the incomplete inclusion of 2023 in this literature review. Only two months and eight days of 2023 (January, February, and the first eight days of March) were considered, as outlined in the article inclusion criteria (see lines 146 and 147 of the 'Step 3: Search and preliminary selection of articles' section). By not fully including all months of 2023 in the analysis, the graph shows a very steep drop in the number of articles registered. To make this issue clear, we have included a note below in Figure 4.

 

 

Comment 2.4. Results: From Figure 5, we know that there is a lack of literature in Africa, Tibet, Bhutan, Russia, Southeast Asia and other countries.

Reply to Comment 2.4:

Thank you for your acknowledgment. Figure 5 displays countries (grey on the map) with a lack of publications analyzing household water conservation behavior determinants, following the inclusion and exclusion criteria outlined in the methodology section. The analysis, based on these criteria, reveals a dearth of published works on this topic in some South American countries (e.g., Argentina, Venezuela, and Bolivia), in most African countries with the exception of South Africa, Egypt, and Tanzania, and in most Asian countries except some countries like Japan, China, India, and South Korea. However, in the text, we have chosen to explain the countries that have indeed conducted research on this topic.

Considering your suggestions, we have included the following text in the discussion when explaining the need for future studies:

Line 658: "Additionally, it is necessary to conduct studies in countries where this topic has not been previously investigated (e.g., in Russia and countries in Northern Africa)."

 

Comment 2.5. Results: It can be seen from Figure 6 that the leaders of water conservation literature almost come from scholars from American countries.

Reply to Comment 2.5:

We are unsure whether any action is required in the manuscript from Reviewer 2 regarding this comment. Some confusion between the information presented in Figures 5 and 6 can be happening. We acknowledge the dominance of American countries, particularly North America, in water conservation literature, as depicted in Figure 5. In contrast, Figure 6 illustrates collaboration networks between authors from different countries, identified by red lines. The graph indicates that authors from the United States and Australia lead international collaboration networks. For a detailed breakdown, Table A7 in the Appendix provides an in-depth view of the international collaboration network depicted in Figure 6.

We believe that the explanation provided in the text is adequate; however, if this is not the case, please let us know how we can improve the clarity of the explanation

 

Comment 2.6.  Results: From Figure 9, we know that the focus of water use is cognition and attitude. Can the author explain the possible factors for this phenomenon during the discussion? Although the literature review is based on statistics, analysis and inferences based on existing literature, if this manuscript can put forward the inferences and opinions of the researcher after observation, and then combine the inference results to give answers and suggestions that are appropriate to the topic and purpose. That would improve the quality of this manuscript.

Reply to Comment 2.6:

Thank you very much for your comment. We find this comment somewhat confusing, as in the discussion section, the authors already provide their opinions and suggestions on the direction the research on this topic should take based on the results obtained in the bibliometric analysis (quantitative phase).

As stated in the manuscript, the discussion initially provides a descriptive overview of the bibliometric analysis results, followed by a qualitative, in-depth examination through a systematic review of the primary outcomes observed in the bibliometric statistical analyses. For instance, concerning attitudes and cognitive aspects, details are presented in Line 734: “Focusing on the determinants of water conservation/consumption behavior, several key factors emerge in this review. Regarding personal-sphere (internal) factors, attitude is the most frequently examined variable. However, while attitude undeniably serves as an antecedent to intention, it offers a limited explanation for actual behavior, suggesting a myriad of other variables at play. For instance, contextual variables like drought experience or seasonal variation affect attitude toward water conservation ([70] and [65]). Also, internal variables such as values ([156]), lack of knowledge or information ([15]), and problem awareness or awareness of the consequences ([117]). Thus, it is essential for studies to look beyond attitudinal variables, and if they employ them, to do so in conjunction with other more explanatory variables.” The same holds for the remaining determinants used to explain household water conservation behavior.

In any case, to ensure clarity, we have introduced the following text into the discussion Line 662: “This valuable information, in turn, has facilitated a comprehensive response to the research inquiries articulated in the subsequent phase of the systematic literature review (qualitative thematic analysis). During this subsequent stage, a more profound examination of the observed statistical outcomes has been feasible, enabling the formulation of recommendations for future research directions. The main findings will be discussed further below”.

We have also included a paragraph (Line 815), following the recommendation of another reviewer, where we categorize all future research suggestions proposed in the discussion into three major areas and provide a roadmap for future studies.

 

Comment 2.7. Results: From Table 1, the author analyzed the research methods of relevant literature. But what is very confusing is how the author's statistical report data is deduced? The distribution statistics of various analysis methods for the total sample number of 165? Or is it based on "TOTAL QUALITATIVE EXPLORATORY; TOTAL LONGITUDINAL AND EXPERIMENTAL... and other levels of analysis?" It is recommended that the author explain or remake this table.

Reply to Comment 2.7:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have incorporated a clarification into Line 400 as follows:

"Firstly, it is important to note that several studies employed multiple research methods. Consequently, the sample size comprises 155 articles, with a total of 165 research methods utilized."

Furthermore, we have implemented three modifications in Table 1 to improve clarity:

1. We have included a note at the end, adjacent to the sample size, stating: "n=155. Some of the 155 papers employ more than one analysis technique."
2. The term "subtotal" has been appended to each methodological category to explicitly indicate that these are partial sums of the number of studies using each research method. Thus, the subtotals are presented as follows: "SUBTOTAL EXPLORATORY QUALITATIVE," "SUBTOTAL CORRELATIONAL QUANTITATIVE," "SUBTOTAL LONGITUDINAL AND EXPERIMENTAL," and "SUBTOTAL SIMULATION."
3. A new entry, "TOTAL ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES," has been introduced to denote the overall sum of techniques used across all articles.

 

Comment 2.8. Results: Ask the author to check the clarity of each picture. 7). Can the author condense the manuscript further? This will allow for a more focused discussion of the issues the author wants to express.

Reply to Comment 2.8:

Most of the figures introduced in the manuscript are directly generated from statistical programs, so we cannot enhance the image quality. In this revised manuscript, we have attempted to enlarge and format some of them to improve visibility.

Regarding the second question, we have reduced and condensed text in those parts where the content allowed us to do so, to be more concise in our ideas.

Comment 2.9. Finally, this is a meaningful investigative report, but the analytical content of the manuscript and the intended purpose are vague. Therefore, I expect the author to submit a new manuscript after answering questions or making revisions based on suggestions. Good luck.

Reply to Comment 2.9:

We are sorry to hear that our work has been perceived as vague. As we explained in different sections of the manuscript, this study does indeed provide theoretical contributions. It is the first study to employ a dual methodology, incorporating both quantitative (bibliometric) and qualitative (thematic analysis) approaches to analyze the barriers and motivators of water conservation behavior in households. Combining both approaches is a pioneering step, ensuring extensive and impartial analytical content, making it a significant study

In alignment with the research purpose, we have refined the study's objective, resulting in modifications to lines 126-130:

"The primary focus of this research is to understand both internal factors (encompassing psychosocial and socio-demographic dimensions) and external (contextual) variables influencing household water conservation behavior. Additionally, we aim to identify barriers hindering behavior change or adoption, along with its motivators."

With this clarification, the research objective is now more precisely defined. The objectives are explicitly stated in the "Introduction" section (lines 60-66) and in the “Methodological Approach” section, where research questions are elaborated (see lines 131-139).

Regarding analytical content, we have enhanced the manuscript by addressing reviewers' questions and suggestions (e.g., responses to comments 3, 4, 5, 6). The review provides valuable and specific insights into the literature. First, in the introduction section of the manuscript, one can find the contributions of the present research. Second, the "Conclusions" section offers a detailed depiction of major internal and external factors impacting water conservation behavior. This is achieved through quantitative (bibliometric analysis) and qualitative (thematic analysis) examinations of articles. The section explains why these variables are perceived as barriers or incentives to water conservation behavior. Empirical evidence on the theory-practice gap is systematically organized, leading to a comprehensive systematization and description of recommended research lines. The theoretical content analysis not only describes commonly used conceptual frameworks but also identifies theoretical frameworks that could make an innovative contribution to the field. This includes an examination of the Construal Level Theory or the Goal Frame Theory and an analysis of their motives and potential contributions to the field. Thus, the text emphasizes the significance of integrating theoretical frameworks in creating successful social marketing strategies, highlighting insights offered by theories related to perceived barriers and motivators. Furthermore, the differentiation between "efficiency" and "curtailment" behaviors is also addressed. This distinction is crucial due to the differing factors influencing each behavior, emphasizing the importance of segmenting the target behavior when designing a social marketing intervention. The need for augmented longitudinal studies is also recognized, especially concerning research methodologies and the impact of external variables on water consumption behavior, including climatic conditions, seasonality, and contextual factors such as drought or water stress. Finally, our study provides guidance on developing effective interventions using social marketing. Through a literature review with a social marketing approach, we integrate scientific knowledge to design strategic social marketing campaigns. Suggestions on using scientific findings to design social marketing interventions for behavioral change are outlined in the "Managerial Implications" section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscripts present a bibliometric (quantitative) and systematic (qualitative) review of household water conservation. I think that the reviewing and arrangement of the manuscript parts are well done and various aspects of the topic have been considered. Classification of future research could help readers draw a road map for future studies.  

Author Response

REPLY TO REVIEWER 3

 

Comment 3.1. The manuscripts present a bibliometric (quantitative) and systematic (qualitative) review of household water conservation. I think that the reviewing and arrangement of the manuscript parts are well done and various aspects of the topic have been considered. Classification of future research could help readers draw a road map for future studies.

Reply to Comment 3.1.:

Thank you very much for your kind words. Following your latest comment, we have included a paragraph in the revised manuscript (Line 815), where we categorize all future research suggestions proposed in the discussion into three major areas and provide a roadmap for future studies.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I'm glad the author responded to the question and suggested corrections based on it.
It is obvious that the author corrected the defects in the manuscript according to the suggestions, and the quality of this revised manuscript has been significantly improved. The editor is recommended for the next review process.