Insights into End Users’ Acceptance and Participation in Energy Flexibility Strategies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work presents interesting results of the acceptance towards topics such as smart home technologies, change of habits and patterns of energy use, and Demand Response (DR) programs, based on the survey. The results can be a good supplement to the current data and literature related to customer behavior and acceptance. I would like to suggest the authors to consider following recommendations before being considered for a publication.

1.      The literature review part needs to be strengthened in presenting the current knowledge and revealing the gap.

2.      For the questionnaire distribution, will this way automatically screen out the people with less frequency in using email or internet, or say narrow down the age distribution?

3.      For the sampling size, 50 is probably relatively small for the audience. Is possible to expand the sampling size since the form is questionnaire not in-person interview?

4.      It would be better if authors can deepen the discussion related to how to increase the policy or program effectiveness based on the results presented by this work. I think this can make this work more meaningful.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper analyzes the end-users acceptance and participation in energy flexibility strategies through a questionnaire survey. It is an interesting work. However, several issues should be addressed before accepting for publication:

1.      Introduction needs to be revised. The novelty and aims of this paper should be highlighted. What are the innovations in designing the questionnaire? What problems do the authors want to solve in this paper? These issues should be clearly stated.

2.      “Among the 50 filled questionnaires received”, the number of effective samples is too small, which is prone to large deviation. Could you add some more samples?

3.      How to ensure the questionnaire is authentic and valid, and not just randomly filled out by users?

4.      “a small insight about incomes: 52% considered that their incomes are slightly above the average of their country, 32% slightly below, 14% much below the average”. How is this judged? Did the user fill it in? Please explain this issue.

5.      Is it convenient to upload 50 questionnaire survey samples as attachment materials?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Following changes should be done before the consideration of this paper:

1- The abstract is written poorly, need to improve it (Key aim-Study methods-Outcomes-Policy implications).

2- In the introduction section, need to clearly mention that whats novel in this study and how it is going to contribute in the existing literature.

3- Literature review part is missing, i suggest authors to add it.

4- Why authors used the Multivariate analysis of variance technique, why not authors? need to justify.

5- In the line 318, what 60 show? need to correct.

6- Figures quality is poor, need to improve and further explanation is needed.

7- Whats the econometric background of this study? As authors employed the MANOVA technique.

8- Discussion should be in accordance the main findings.

9- Conclusion is not presented good, should be constructive. This section should be Conclusion and Policy Recommendations. Further, need to add the limitations and future research directions.

10- The language quality should be improved by taking help from the professional language editor.  

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No more questions.

Author Response

Thank you!

Reviewer 3 Report

-

 

Author Response

I do not see any comment. Thank you.