Study on Household-Level Electricity Consumption of Domestic Consumers in Romania: The Need to Check the Electrical Installation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents the results of a certain survey carried out in Romania on the state of electrical installations in homes and the use of electrical appliances. The topic of electricity use is an important one for many reasons. Not only from the perspective of the energy transition, but also from the point of view of the safety of its use. In general, I have no major comments on the content presented, only I want to highlight a few elements.

The article has been submitted to the Sustainability journal, and as such the Authors are expected to refer more broadly to the theme of the journal. This reference is rather 'implicit'. The idea is to relate the topics of electricity use by sustainable households and to refer to the relevant literature. The reference to the main topic of the journal is rather default. It would be good to relate the issue of household electricity use to the issue of sustainability and to refer to relevant literature.

The Authors very often refer to numerical data (e.g. lines 32-33 and also further on). It is good practice to cite the source of these figures in the sentence where they are quoted.

Another issue is that in the introduction, the authors first provide information on the final energy consumption in the EU. Then, in the next paragraph, they limit this consumption to electricity and detail this by sector (residential, commercial and industrial), but only for Romania. It would be good to relate the information in these two paragraphs.

The Authors write (lies 45-48): According to a statistic conducted in 2020, it was established that in the period 1973 45 - 2018, electricity consumption in the residential sector increased by 16.45 %, in the com- 46 mercial sector and public services it increased by 40.52 %, while in the industrial sector it 47 decreased by 21.35 % (Figure 1). There is an inconsistency in this section. In the figure, the structure of consumption is given and in the first part of this sentence the authors refer to changes in the levels (not shares) of electricity consumption by sector. Therefore, the information given in this sentence is not inconsistent.

Information on the source of the data is missing below the figures.

The Authors report that the sample is not randomised (lines 188-190). This should be made clear in the summary of the article and in the abstract. The conclusions drawn from the analysis of the respondents' answers should be treated only as a signal - an indication of the existence of a certain problem. Due to the lack of randomness of the sample, the results of the survey cannot be treated as fully reliable.

When describing the results and in the conclusion, the Authors do not refer to other studies of this type. Household electricity consumption is a problem widely discussed in the literature, so it would be good to assess whether the results and conclusions obtained (although on a non-random sample) are consistent with those of other researchers.

 Certain phrases should be clarified. For example, Figures 6 to 8 show the electric devices used. While many of these terms are not objectionable, it is worth clarifying for the household what is a Power plant or Heating plant. A coffee filter does not have to be electric. Is this about a coffeemaker?

 

 After reading this article, I feel unsatisfied. Apart from the discussion of the respondents' answers to the questions, there is no other analysis in it, not even the relationship between the respondents' answers. There is a whole range of tools that can be used to analyse non-random data. Therefore, the article is more like a report than a scientific article. I therefore recommend that the empirical part be supplemented with some quantitative analysis (in addition to a discussion of the response rate to the various questions posed in the survey).

 

There are typos and minor linguistic errors in the text. It would be good to do a professional proofreading of this text.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review our article and we will try, below, to provide a point-by-point response to your comments. We hope that we have understood your comments and that the responses and changes made will allow our article to be published.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript is mainly discussed about case study on household energy consumption, electric load and operational safety. With the help of questionnaire answered by 678 individuals, the study discoved novel characteristics of load consumption, opinion on the state of the installation and energy costs, and, risk of fire outbreaks in the power supply. Although, it novelty of research included occuasionally checking the connection and supply columns, I have following comments for this manuscript.

Specific Comments:

1) Aging of the electric appliance is major factor for the electricity consumption, It is better to consider age factor while identifying the electricity consumptions.

2) EV and Roof top PV system are gradually installing in the household, it is better to add what are the impacts when EV and PV are becoming into the opeartion.

3) Net metering system are currently popular and it would impact the entire energy consumption of the household recording. It is better to add more research on replacing household electrical appliances and utilzing alternative source of electricity.

4) The summary is very short for this case study. It is better to add point wise summary in the summary section.

 

General Comments:

1) In Llne 48:"... industrial sector it decreased by 21.35% ".  According to the figure 1, the industrial sector doesnot have sharp decrease between 1973 and 2018.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review our article and we will try, below, to provide a point-by-point response to your comments. We hope that we have understood your comments and that the responses and changes made will allow our article to be published.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Study on household level electricity consumption of domestic consumers in Romania and the need to check the electrical installation

Manuscript ID sustainability-2950260

  

Thank you to the Authors for taking the comments into account. I have carefully reviewed the revised manuscript and would like to share a few more comments.

 (1) In the previous review I pointed out that in the Introduction section the Authors first presented the energy consumption situation in the EU area and then (lines 93-167) described selected aspects of electricity consumption in Romania. I wrote about the fact that a piece of text connecting these two descriptions is missing, so that the whole section forms a coherent whole. The Authors might also consider splitting this section into two smaller ones? In the current version it is very long.

(2) Data sources are not indicated in the tables and figures.

(3) Which area is covered by the data shown in Figure 1? (EU?)

(4) The title of Table 1 is not correct. (Table 1. The structure of average electricity consumption in households in Romania). The table does not show the structure but the value (quantity) of average monthly consumption. Is this average per household or per person?

(5) The purpose of the study stated in the Introduction section should be made clear that it is about Romania.

(6) In the Materials and Methods section, the Authors present the survey on which the results presented in this manuscript are based. Section 2.1 is a good place to cite other studies on this survey (working papers, reports, other articles, etc.).

(7) Dobrze by było się powołać na dokument, gdzie została zaprezentowana ankieta. Tak aby inni badacze moli prześledzić badanie w celu dokonania jego replikacji. A reference to the document presenting the survey in more detail would be useful. This is necessary to enable other researchers to follow and replicate the survey. If no such document exists with the completed questionnaire, it can be done in this manuscript, e.g. in the appendix. This will make Figure 2 more understandable.

(8) Lines 226: punctuation error. We end a sentence with a full stop. After a colon we usually list sth.

(9) In Figure 3, on the ordinate axis we have respondents (not persons)? Individual units of study are also called individuals.

(10) The Authors often use diagrams in the presentation of the results. Please consider whether it is better to replace diagrams with tables. This would be more readable and easier to understand. This applies to figures 9-12 in particular.

(11) Please note the presentation of the information in the figures. I have already mentioned the lack of sources. Two titles (above and below) have been provided for the drawings. The variables presented in the figures are described as 'currently' and '<2000'. Please consider how to replace this. There is a drastic brachylogy in this form. Currently refers to the study period, and "<2000" refers to the situation before 2000.  

(12) W podsumowaniu autorzy zapomnieli dodać, że prezentowane wyniki dotyczą prezentacji wyników niereprezentatywnego badania przeprowadzanego w Rumunii.

 

 

End comments:

I would like to request the Authors to read the manuscript carefully and catch linguistically incorrect descriptions, abbreviations/brachylogies, editing errors, etc.

Please also note that the submitted manuscript is not a research paper but mainly a survey report. Apart from describing the results of the surveys, no other analyses are presented. It is not research work as such, but simply a way of finding out what a non-representative group of people think. In a journal with IF it would be appropriate to present some kind of study (in-depth analysis) in addition to commenting on the number of responses obtained. This is, in my opinion, the main limitation of the text. I therefore type Reconsideration after major revision in the overall recommendation.

 

The topic, on the other hand, is very interesting. Here it is worth emphasising the aspect of safety and efficiency of electrical installations. In the frenzy to change the energy system, such "mundane" things as domestic electrical installations tend to be forgotten.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review our article and we will try, below, to provide a point-by-point response to your comments. It is very helpful to improve the paper's quality and understanding. Regarding your remarks, please find below our input, and we hope that we have understood your comments and that the responses and changes made will allow our article to be published. We are aware that the paper is not perfect but it can be considered as a starting point for further research. We hope that by benefiting from your suggestions, we can improve the article so that it will be considered much better than the first version submitted.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID sustainability-2950260

 

 Response (2) Data sources are not indicated in the tables and figures.

Methods of citing sources for tables and figures should be specified by editors, e.g. in the article template. If the editors do not require it, I take back the remark.

Normally, if the data were produced by the authors of the study then ‘own elaboration’ is stated in the source.

 

Response (7) If so, please write it in the text that the survey study is ‘under costruction’ or something similar.

 

Response (9) It would also be good to replace ‘persons’ with ‘respondents’ in other figures.

 

Representativeness of the sample

It is not a question of sample design, but of formulating conclusions reached from the analysis of such a sample. This is particularly important if the research is conducted using questionnaires.

A representative sample reflects the structure of the population, and only then can we draw conclusions based on the sample survey.

If the sample is not representative, the conclusions apply only to the group of people who completed the survey. See i.e. website:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/representative-sample.asp

  

 

I balance my own opinion with the fact that I do not consider the text in this version to be a scientific article, but only a survey report. If, on the other hand, the editors take a different view, I will not go into it.

In my opinion, a scientific study should include more than just data presentation and simple exploratory data analysis. Processing data using different analytical methods can lead to deeper conclusions and more interesting and important findings.

I understand that what the authors have presented is a part of a broader study. As a consequence, it is important to point out in the introduction what part of the broader study is presented in this article. On the other hand, in conclusion, it would be useful to indicate what the authors' intentions are for further research in this area.

 As far as the subject itself is concerned, I have mentioned in previous reviews that this topic is significant, and I am glad that the authors have taken up this issue.  The issue concerning the quality of installations is critical, regardless of the country, be it Romania, Sweden or Australia. I think that this topic is too little emphasised in the public and scientific debate on the energy transition. Therefore, on this point, I do not understand the authors' comments.

In the end, I am not claiming that the authors do not know English. Please note that some of the wording may be loan translations. This is difficult to avoid, particularly for authors whose English is not native. Moreover, please be aware that there is always a particular style and vocabulary in a given scientific field.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review our article and we will try, below, to provide a timely response to your comments, in the hope that this time we have answered all your queries. We believe that they have all helped improve the quality and understanding of the article. Regarding your comments, please find below our contribution and we hope that the changes made will allow our article to be published. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf