Are Well Owners Unique Environmentalists? An Exploration of Rural Water Supply Infrastructure, Conservation Routines, and Moderation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a well-elaborated study on the role of well ownership regarding the relation between demographic factors and environmental behaviour. I only have some minor comments:
Introduction: In the introduction, the practical problem is very well introduced. However, I have missed here links to the research state of the art and related goals as a starting point for developing your research question. One option could be to simply combine section 1 and 2, and to additionally summarize in a couple of sentences the main research lack in the introductory chapter. The literature review section can then go into detail. Concept: I understood that groundwater depletion is the main area of concern. Then why is frequency of recycling, frequency of reusable grocery bags, or frequency of composting a dependent variable? I suggest explaining better why this is of relevance in the context of water management. Methodology: I suggest adding the survey questions to the paper (either as a link or annex), so that the reader gets a better understanding of the type of questions and answer scales. The methods section should also give some examples. There are some small format issues which should be addressed before publication. For instance, I find the numbering in Table 1 confusing.Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The subject of this paper is interesting for people interested in water conservation, namely in environmental behaviours and attitudes related to water use.
This paper presents a study showing the different behaviours and attitudes related to environmental protection between Kansans (Kansas citizens) well owners and non-well owners, particularly in what concerns to water conservation. The results from the survey conducted in this research show that well owners are much more aware and concerned with water scarcity than non-well owners.
The paper is well structured, the text is well written and presents a good number of recent references.
My opinion is that the paper should be accepted for publication after taking into consideration the “Specific comments” presented below.
Specific comments
Writing in the first person is not common in scientific writing: Line 57 “I study Kansans’ propensity”; Line 64 “my research explores”; Line 65 “I ask:”; Line 66 “I hypothesize that”; Line 69 “My project seeks”; Line 81 “I show how”; Line 172 “I assess”; Line 179 “I collected”; Line 183 “I mailed”; Line 190 “I collected”; Line 195 “my sample”; Line 196 “I received”;Line 198 “My sample”; Line 210 “my data, I run”; Line 219 “I employ”; Line 227 “I hypothesize”; Line 229 “I hypothesize”; Line 241 “I correlate”; Line 291 “I controlled”; Line 310 “my central argument, I will focus”; Line 354 “my larger argument”; Line 379 “My study”; Line 384 “I analyse”; Line 385 “My study”. I suggest changing the writing to the more common third person.
Line 119: I think there is a “[“ missing before “28]”.
Line 177: suggest changing “pro-environmental behaviors” to “PEBs”.
Line 178: I think it should be “Kansas” instead of “Kanas”.
Line 185: suggest changing “pro-environmental behaviors” to “PEBs”.
Line 218: suggest changing “pro-environmental behaviors” to “PEBs”.
Line 267: suggest changing “Pro-Environmental Behaviors” to “PEBs”.
Lines 274-275: I guess the paragraph separating these two lines shouldn’t exist.
Line 294: suggest changing to “. For”.
Line 333: is it really a “:” at the end of this sentence?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
