Modeling User Intentions for Electric Vehicle Adoption in Thailand: Incorporating Multilayer Preference Heterogeneity
, Chamroeun Se 2, Wimon Laphrom 2, Sajjakaj Jomnonkwao 2, Ampol Karoonsoontawong 3 and Vatanavongs Ratanavaraha 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis research is very useful in the field of electric vehicle adoption. However, some areas of the research could be revised. The choice of keywords for the selection is insufficient because electric vehicle and other significant words are missing. The following questions about every section and a brief description of the possible improvement, is presented.
Introduction:
How does the CMOPMHM method improve traditional econometrics in terms of analyzing EV adoption intentions?
To what point are the attitudinal factors from EPs and IDT are something to reduce compared to demographic variables?
The study suffers from selection bias since it is defined by the data specially collected from the passengers coming with their cars to gas stations with EV infrastructure.
Literature review:
This section is poorly presented because there are demographic and attitudinal attitudes to electric vehicle selection. There is a lack of depth, and there are no references to the existing most-cited and revolutionary works of the last five years. It is important to strengthen the chapter with criticism from the latest literature because it will significantly increase the reasonable framework of the work.
Questionnaire Design and Data Collection:
How have you validated the attitudinal EPs and IDT measures? Is there a pilot study, testing, or anything else to confirm them in the context of Thailand?
How to ensure there is no bias if you permit the tourists to fill in the form at the gas-yellow point?
What are some of the most challenging insights you have faced, and how has it affected the proper data collection because the station worker with 100-day filling time could have answered all the days?
My recommendations for enhancing transparency and validity feature two mandatory items: copy-paste of the questionnaire and the permission from the Ethical Review Board.
Method:
Can you explain how the mixed ordered Probit + heterogeneity in means increases the quality of the eating Due to many factors in X1, X13, X25 could affect the OHFMIT, and how do you calculate bicep without Lavalette and Denis?
Can you clarify the limitations of AIC and AICc to understand why there is no differentiation from a 6-cat echolitek?
Result:
Adjustment of the six-category alternative on the 3-categorical ordered Probit model can be suspicious if the AIC and ACU are equal, how have you checked?
Discussion and Conclusion:
How did you check the correlated nature of age with other demographic and occupational events in CMOPMHM? Did you put the occupation into subcategoricals like were you wondering?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of the English is okay; only minor changes are required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study investigates the demographic and attitudinal factors influencing the adoption of EVs in Thailand. While it is meaningful in exploring the state of EV adoption from a consumer perspective in Thailand, it lacks a comprehensive literature review, a clear rationale for using the new CMOPMHM model, and a discussion on how this model offers advantages over previous studies. Additionally, the presentation of research findings is insufficiently clear.
Regarding the research framework:
1. The literature review section on EV research could benefit from further elaboration. Expanding this section to include a more comprehensive overview of existing studies and key findings related to EV adoptions would provide a stronger foundation and better contextualize its contributions within the broader field of EV research.
2. A conceptual framework of the overall research model is needed to aid readers' understanding.
3. The references and explanations for the items used to measure the variables in Table 1 are not provided.
4. It might be more appropriate to use the terms "demographic factors and psychographic factors" or "demographic and belief" rather than "demographic factors and attitudinal factors."
5. The rationale for using the CMOPMHM model in this study is not sufficiently persuasive. Additionally, an introduction to previous studies that have employed this model to enhance the quality of research is needed.
Regarding the research findings:
1. A clear explanation of how the results of this study relate to the innovation diffusion theory is needed.
2. The conclusion section lacks specificity about the new insights revealed by this model. Precise descriptions of the key findings are necessary.
minors
[page 2, line 84] 2. Materials and methods are inserted in the wrong place.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagemoderate
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is interesting and relevant; however, it has several weaknesses that need addressing.
1. The main contribution of this study should be highlighted in both the abstract and conclusions.
2. Some references are relatively old. Including more recent studies would demonstrate the current relevance of the topic.
3. The authors are recommended to include a Table of factors influencing EV adoption in literature review section.
3. The justification for the chosen method should be clearly stated. Also, what is the criteria for selecting the model parameters.
4. The manuscript should discuss the practical implications of implementing these models in real-world settings, including any limitations and potential challenges.
5. Conclusions should be re-written based on the findings of the survey removing claims that are not supported by the data presented in the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for addressing my previous concerns. However, I still have significant issues that need to be resolved:
Comment 4: The section remains insufficiently detailed and lacks references to key recent literature. Although you have included studies from references 15-32, these were already present in the first version. It is crucial to incorporate critical analysis from the most cited and influential works of the past five years to strengthen the chapter's framework.
Comment 8: To enhance transparency and validity, please ensure the questionnaire is included verbatim.
These points need to be properly addressed before final acceptance.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor changes are required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed the revised manuscript titled "Modeling User Intentions for Electric Vehicle Adoption in Thailand: Incorporating Multilayer Preference Heterogeneity" and find the improvements generally satisfactory. However, I noticed that the most cited recent studies on factors influencing EV adoption were not included in Table 1 as previously requested. To enhance the manuscript further, please add the following studies to Table 1: (1) "A review and simple meta-analysis of factors influencing adoption of electric vehicles," Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 86, 102436, and (2) "Factors affecting adoption intention of electric vehicle: a cross-cultural study," Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-37. Including these studies will provide a more comprehensive overview of the current literature and strengthen the manuscript’s contributions.
Author Response
Comment: I have reviewed the revised manuscript titled "Modeling User Intentions for Electric Vehicle Adoption in Thailand: Incorporating Multilayer Preference Heterogeneity" and find the improvements generally satisfactory. However, I noticed that the most cited recent studies on factors influencing EV adoption were not included in Table 1 as previously requested. To enhance the manuscript further, please add the following studies to Table 1: (1) "A review and simple meta-analysis of factors influencing adoption of electric vehicles," Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 86, 102436, and (2) "Factors affecting adoption intention of electric vehicle: a cross-cultural study," Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-37. Including these studies will provide a more comprehensive overview of the current literature and strengthen the manuscript’s contributions.
Authors Response: We appreciate your thorough review of our revised manuscript and your constructive feedback. We are glad that you found our improvements generally satisfactory. We sincerely thank you for bringing to our attention the two important studies that were not included in Table 1 in our previous revision. We apologize for this oversight. The reason these papers were not included earlier was due to limitations in our initial search strategy, which did not capture these highly relevant studies. We have now incorporated both suggested papers into Table 1.
