Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article lacks theoretical foundation and has a very limited significance. It describes the results of a survey with 6 questions (!) conducted with a sample of 96 respondents in Luxembourg. There is ample justification for the questions asked and  a description of how the sampling was done is lacking. The article claims that it describes the "public's viewpoint", which I very much doubt, as there is no section that justifies this. The article should be improved by describing the relevance of this study for Luxemburg, adding a literature research on "transition theory" to better contextualize the study and its questions, a justification for the questions asked in the survey, a description of the sampling method and a justification for generalization of the results to the wider public in Luxemburg (is this really the "public's  viewpoint"?) Conclusions should contain the most remarkable outcomes and how to respond to these.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, I enjoyed reading the paper and appraising the approach adopted therein. The contribution is original insofar as it provides a qualitative research on the public perceptions and preferences about key issues in the energy transition in a relatively small and peculiar context such as Luxembourg. The methodology applied as well as the results are clearly explained in the paper.

I have, however, a couple of comments as per below:

• It is not completely clear how the results of the survey are linked to the broader conceptual context of acceptability of policies. In general, I believe that a stronger connection should be made with the theoretical constructions about acceptability and the survey carried out in this research, also with a specific focus on the Luxembourg context given its local specificities (high GDP, small dimension, etc).
• With regard to the methodology for the survey, it would be useful to have a detailed breakdown of the interviewees (for example, as to their age, their income, their location, etc.). This would help distilling further some key findings of the same survey also to better inform policy-making.
• From a legal and policy perspective, it would be beneficial to draw some critical points from the results of the survey on its implications for the development of future energy transition policies in Luxembourg. What should the Luxembourg government expect should it develop new legislation or policies with regard to transport fuels, solar PV uptake or electric mobility? 
• Following on the point above, an additional benefit for the paper would come from putting a specific focus on the implications of the survey for public participation in decision-making in Luxembourg. The link between public participation, mutual trust between citizens and agents, and acceptance of governmental decisions in the field of the energy transition has been studied by both lawyers, sociologists and psychologists. In this respect I can suggest the following work: 

  Liu, Lu; Bouman, Thijs; Perlaviciute, Goda; Steg, Linda, Effects of trust and public participation on acceptability of renewable energy projects in the Netherlands and China, Energy Research and Social Science (2019) 53 137-144

• At page 4, the reference to the EU 2030 GHG emission reduction targets should be updated in light of the European Climate Law and the other recent policy developments
• Some grammar and readability issues must be addressed throughout the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for the additions to the article that improved it. Please check the English spelling one more time; this counts for the article as a whole, but specifically for the additions. Sometimes the sentences are not fluent.