Green but Unpopular? Analysis on Purchase Intention of Heat Pump Water Heaters in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting to read and may have good read for the journal's readers. Here are some comments that authors should address: 

 

1. The sample size is required in Introduction section.
2. The authors should explain the Theory of Planned Behavior in more detail. 
3. More studies are required while developing the research hypotheses. 
4. Lastly, theoretical implications are missing. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. We added two paragraphs in the introduction to introduce the significance of my work and research. In the second part of the article, we added relevant introductions and references to the theory of planned behavior and added more research to make the article rigorous and rich in Section 4.4. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for conducting this research which may prove useful in reducing carbon emissions.  However, I found the paper rather confused and confusing with an inconsistent focus throughout the text. I suggest restructuring it to present a clear introduction to the paper to tell the reader what to expect, a specific section on previous literature, a methodology that details what you did within your research and how you did it, and then describe the findings in relation to the aims you set for your paper. 

I wish you luck with your revisions.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. We reorganized the research topics and adjusted the structure of the article. In the introduction, we introduced the source of the research question, what the previous research was like, how we conducted the research and what results we found.

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall Review: The research chosen and the application of technique makes the research interesting. Overall the research is well explained and presented and the work deserves appreciation. However there may be some improvements in this work for the betterment of study. English language needs a minor improvement making sentences, and paragraphs shorter in the complete research paper, which may enhance the quality of the work. The research requires to add some more research citations, wherever required as advised.  The work reflects the dedicated work from the research. However, suggested comments can help the researcher to improve the quality of research paper for the mass reader.

 

Title

• Title needs a correction on many points:
  • It is too long needs to get shorten and attractive.
  • Grammatical error, like ‘roles’.
• It may be specific to problem rather the complete scope of the study.
• It is better to reform the title with less words and more specific to be attractive.

Abstract and Keywords

• Abstract is well articulated which is representing a good snapshot of the research.
• Sentences need some improvement with vocabulary and grammar for English language.
• Keywords need to recheck for their presentation as many words for keyword.

 

Introduction

• A good presentation of the work with the requirements.
• It is lacking with citation at Sentence no. 52, 54, 60-68 for all years and referring.
• Sentence no. 131, it is not the literature review, it is introduction and background.
• Paragraph size is unevenly distributed. Some paragraphs are too short and some are too long.
• English grammar, and punctuation needs improvement.

Materials and Methods

• This segment is well explained with the clarity of explanations for sections and subsections.
• The research is using a good methodological approach.
• Still direct application of Structural Equation Model (SEM) is not a good choice, rather it should go after factor analysis.
• It is better to discuss other statistical methods required before the application of SEM.
• Sentence no. 216, it should be H6, though should be fixed on the reversing based on further comments.
• Proposed theoretical framework (Figure 1) can add the hypothesis nos.
• It is advised not necessary, to make hypothesis nos. from left to right rather right to left. The first hypothesis should be the last and all should get reversed.
• The measurement for official information and unofficial information construct should be elaborated.
• Sentence no. 267, and 268 should have the English for reader’s understanding.
• Results
• It is a well explained section with much clarity.
• Sub sections are too well organized.
• Figure nos. inside the text should not be bold.
• More statistical tests can make the study more robust.
• Not necessary to change the hypothesis sequence as advised above. If changed then here also everything should be changed accordingly.
• Citations for this section can add more value to study.
• The results are impressive with the presentation.

Discussion and Policy Implications

• The section heading should be the same as other headings “Each Word Capital”.
• Discussion is well presented with justifications, still some citations can make it better.
• Two separate sub headings as “Discussion”, and “Policy implications” is a better presentation.
• The section is well articulated based on the above sections of the research.
• The English grammar and punctuation may be improvised.

Conclusions

• It is a good discussion, but the presentation with bullet headings can make the conclusion more clear and attractive.
• It is better to present as several paragraphs to reduce the boredom.
• Result values can make it more effective to understand for readers.
• There is scope of improvement in English grammar and punctuation.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your detailed comments.

Title: We revised the title.

Abstract and Keywords: Revised.

Introduction: We reorganized the context of the article, adjusted the structure of the article, introduced our own work and research results in the introduction.

Materials and Methods: We added some references to government announcements. In the second part of the article, some references are added and the definitions of official information and unofficial information are given.

Results: In Section 4.4, the stability of the model is verified by changing the sample size.

Discussion and Policy Implications: The two parts are seperated and revised.

Conclusions: result values are stated in the first and last paragraphs.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review your paper. I appreciate the efforts you have gone to in developing your work. However, I believe that it can be improved further, particularly in your use of literature. It would be better to have a separate literature review rather than including a description of relevant literature in the introduction and the findings. You could then discuss your findings in relation to a clearly established body of literature. I also suggest you use only the third person in your text; currently you use the first person as well in places. 

I wish you luck with your changes. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your advice. 
The research topic of this article mainly discusses why heat pump water heaters are not as popular as expected in China. In the research of heat pump water heater, most scholars are concerned with the technical development and how to further improve the performance of heat pump water heater. Therefore, there is little research on consumer behavior of heat pump water heaters. We decided to briefly review the current research of heat pump water heater, and hope you can understand it.
We follow most scholars to to review the relevant literatures to proposal research hypotheses in Section 2. The total number of references reached 91, as other reviewers asked to add more literatures. However, references are too many at current.

In the sections of result and discussion, most paragraphs are organized to explain the  research results, which are closely related to hypotheses and literatures. Some papers are mentioned in the section of discussion. 
As you suggested, we revised to use only the third person in the text. 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Please refer to my previous suggested developments. 

I do not see any of the changes I suggested in my previous review. 

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestions. In this revision, we seperated the Literature Review and Hypotheses Development as a new section, and supplemented literatures. Besides, we revised the third person issues in the article.