The Public Acceptance of Power-to-X Technologies—Results from Environmental–Psychological Research Using a Representative German Sample
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article covers a very important and timely topic. Power-to-X (PtX) technologies are an essential part of the energy transition, and studying how the public accepts these technologies is useful and relevant. The paper is based on a solid research design and includes a large and representative sample, which adds value. However, the manuscript needs several improvements before it can be published.
The paper requires extensive language editing by a native English speaker. There are grammar issues and some unclear sentences. For example, in line 491, “climate change climate change” is repeated by mistake. Also, the authors use different forms like “Power-to-X,” “power-to-x,” and “ptx,” which should be made consistent.
The methods are described well, but the authors should better explain why they chose certain variables for their regression models and not others. It is also not clear how they dealt with possible statistical problems like overlapping variables.
Some of the results are interesting but need better explanation. For example, the paper says that more knowledge leads to lower acceptance of PtX, but the reason for this is not clear. The explanation is too short and needs more detail or references.
The introduction and background sections are too long and repeat some ideas. The results section is hard to follow, and the discussion jumps from one topic to another without clear structure. The authors should organize these sections better, using short paragraphs and clear headings.
Tables 3 and 4 should be improved. They are not easy to read and should be better aligned. Since these tables show the main results, it is important that they are clear and well presented.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you very much for taking the time to review our paper. We have received many valuable comments as a result.
Below you will find our responses to your comments.
Thank you,
the team of authors
Comments (1): The paper requires extensive language editing by a native English speaker. There are grammar issues and some unclear sentences. For example, in line 491, “climate change climate change” is repeated by mistake. Also, the authors use different forms like “Power-to-X,” “power-to-x,” and “ptx,” which should be made consistent.
Response (1): Thank you very much for your comment. We have revised the paper accordingly and improved the English quality as well as correcting linguistic ambiguities. In this context, we have also standardized the use of the term “ptx”.
Comments (2): The methods are described well, but the authors should better explain why they chose certain variables for their regression models and not others. It is also not clear how they dealt with possible statistical problems like overlapping variables.
Response (2): Thank you, these are certainly relevant points. We used the acceptance factors from the described models, we have added an explanatory paragraph in section “2.3. questionnaire”.
With regard to the issue of overlaps, an eight-factor model (i.e., the factors general acceptance of power-to-x technologies, ecological impact of ptx technologies, fair value creation, environmental awareness, personal Innovativeness, social norm, personal norm, and perceived behavioral control) was calculated in which each item was an indicator of the assumed factor. The CFA results support the assumed eight-factor model (Χ² = 2292.62, df = 377, p < .001, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .06). The separability and validity of the scales used can therefore be considered confirmed. We have included and sharpened a corresponding paragraph in 2.4.
Comments (3): Some of the results are interesting but need better explanation. For example, the paper says that more knowledge leads to lower acceptance of PtX, but the reason for this is not clear. The explanation is too short and needs more detail or references.
Response (3): Thank you, we have added an explanatory paragraph in section “4.1.3. Differences between youth and adult sample”. We assume that the perceived opportunities and potential of these new technologies—along with the associated hope that they may contribute to solving current energy supply challenges—can lead to a certain degree of overestimation, which is reflected in very high levels of acceptance. Accordingly, it is plausible to assume that acceptance may decrease or become more differentiated as knowledge increases.
Comments (4): The introduction and background sections are too long and repeat some ideas. The results section is hard to follow, and the discussion jumps from one topic to another without clear structure. The authors should organize these sections better, using short paragraphs and clear headings.
Response (4): Thank you for this comment. We have restructured the sections, especially streamlined the introduction and adjusted the discussion to the order of the research questions.
Comments (5): Tables 3 and 4 should be improved. They are not easy to read and should be better aligned. Since these tables show the main results, it is important that they are clear and well presented.
Response (5): Thank you very much for pointing this out. We have made a color gradation between the result categories in the tables so that the results are easier to read.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSocial acceptance, in general, as well as the acceptance of energy conversion technologies such as power-to-x, like others, is relevant at a time when the world is seeking to move towards more sustainable energy production models. The technical variables in this type of proposal are relevant, but even more so are the social variables in the acceptance and implementation of this type of project in specific territorial contexts. Therefore, first, the article provides necessary knowledge in an area that is also necessary in this field, and, second, it is clear and contributes to the production of knowledge in the area of study.
However, firstly, the writing could be improved if the problem or knowledge gap were more precisely delimited, beyond the description and the importance of acceptance in the topic raised.
Secondly, the text could also be improved if the authors presented more precisely the model to be used in the study, clearly and coherently setting out the variables to be explored. This second point is important for this evaluator because, given the objective of the article, if the model is not clearly presented, one might wonder where or why distributive justice (benefits and costs) and equitable justice or process equity (participation, decision-making, etc.) are not taken into account in the development of the text, even though they are mentioned in the approaches described.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you very much for taking the time to review our paper. We have received many valuable comments as a result.
Below you will find our responses to your comments.
Thank you,
the team of authors
Comments (1): However, firstly, the writing could be improved if the problem or knowledge gap were more precisely delimited, beyond the description and the importance of acceptance in the topic raised.
Response (1): Thank you. We have revised the introduction in order to direct you more stringently to the question and the knowledge gaps to be answered.
Comments (2): Secondly, the text could also be improved if the authors presented more precisely the model to be used in the study, clearly and coherently setting out the variables to be explored. This second point is important for this evaluator because, given the objective of the article, if the model is not clearly presented, one might wonder where or why distributive justice (benefits and costs) and equitable justice or process equity (participation, decision-making, etc.) are not taken into account in the development of the text, even though they are mentioned in the approaches described.
Response (2): Thank you for pointing this out. The study addresses the level of general acceptance (Upham et al 2015) or socio-political acceptance (Wüstenhagen et al 2007), i.e. the question of how the topic of ptx is perceived by the population. We have therefore also chosen the methodological approach of a representative survey. We used the acceptance factors from the described models, the distributional justice is integrated the scale fair value creation with the four items
- The use of power-to-x will have a positive impact on Germany as a business location.
- The use of power-to-x will make a positive contribution to the development of my region.
- In the end, everyone will benefit from the realization of power-to-x.
- The cost-benefit ratio for power-to-x will be fairly distributed in Germany.
The procedural justice/process equity is also an important factor, but especially for local acceptance or specific projects, so we have not included it in this study, but we always include it in our research on specific ptx projects or decisions. We have added an explanatory paragraph in section “2.3. questionnaire”.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript deals with relevant and important topic - public acceptance of promising set of PtX technologies. I am sure that this study could be of interest to the readers.
1.Introduction seems fine. It provides a detailed description of the background of this study. But i don't understand, why research approach is placed here, instead of materials and methods section.
2.Other parts of Materials and methods are ok. No critical comments.
3.Section 3.3. It is a bit difficult to read such parts of the text. Is it possible to use tables for such data?
4.Discussion and Conclusions are also fine.
5.It would be better to add a bit more specifics in the Abstract.
To sum it up. This manuscript is well-organized and provides an interesting insight in public perception of PtX. Such studies are necessary to support a transition to innovative technologies and i can recommend it for publication.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you very much for taking the time to review our paper. We have received many valuable comments as a result.
Below you will find our responses to your comments.
Thank you,
the team of authors
Comments (1). Introduction seems fine. It provides a detailed description of the background of this study. But i don't understand, why research approach is placed here, instead of materials and methods section.
Response (1): Thank you. We have streamlined the introduction to make it more readable. We have placed the research approach here as we thought it would form well the synthesis of the introduction - but would leave the decision about moving it to the materials and methods section to the editors.
Comments (2). Other parts of Materials and methods are ok. No critical comments.
Response (2): Thank you.
Comments (3). Section 3.3. It is a bit difficult to read such parts of the text. Is it possible to use tables for such data?
Response (3): Thank you. We have reworked the paragraph and made it more legible using bullet-point gradation.
Comments (4). Discussion and Conclusions are also fine.
Response (4): Thank you.
Comments (5). It would be better to add a bit more specifics in the Abstract.
Response (5): Thank you. We refined the abstract and added quantitative conclusions.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMinor comments:
This study is interesting because it reveals the public acceptance of Power-to-x Technologies and their influencing mechanisms from an environmental psychology perspective, with policy implications for promoting sustainable development technologies. In addition, the manuscript is well-written, with clear logic, which suits the Sustainability journal's readership. However, there are still some details that need improvement.
(1) The authors should further refine the abstract and preferably provide some quantitative conclusions.
(2) In the "2. Materials and Methods" section, the authors should explain their rationale for choosing a 5-point scale over a 7-point scale. Although using a 5-point scale is perfectly acceptable, providing a rationale for this decision would offer valuable methodological insights for future researchers.
(3) The authors should propose policy implications from both German and global perspectives in the conclusion section of the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you very much for taking the time to review our paper. We have received many valuable comments as a result.
Below you will find our responses to your comments.
Thank you,
the team of authors
Comments (1): The authors should further refine the abstract and preferably provide some quantitative conclusions.
Response (1): Thank you. We refined the abstract and added quantitative conclusions.
Comments (2) In the "2. Materials and Methods" section, the authors should explain their rationale for choosing a 5-point scale over a 7-point scale. Although using a 5-point scale is perfectly acceptable, providing a rationale for this decision would offer valuable methodological insights for future researchers.
Response (2): Thank you for your comment. We are aware of the discussion between 5-point and 7-point Likert scales, the potential advantage that the variance is increased with 7-point scales, but also the complexity increases, while 5-point scales are simpler and easier to understand. We opted for the 5-point scale because the criteria of simplicity with regard to the high number of items in our questionnaire and familiarity with the 5-point rating in German society were important to us. In addition, many of the scales used are already in 5-point format. We have included a corresponding note in the methods section.
Comments (3): The authors should propose policy implications from both German and global perspectives in the conclusion section of the manuscript.
Response (3): Thank you for your comment. We have extended they implications for both German and global perspectives in the conclusion section.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed the revised manuscript, and I recommend its acceptance in its current form.
