Research on Capital Endowment, Energy Cognition and Willingness to Pay for Green Energy Consumption of Urban and Rural Residents in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper warrants rejection primarily due to its lack of a coherent theoretical framework and a weak foundation in theoretical scholarship. While the authors claim to adopt Bourdieu’s theory of social practice, the treatment of this framework is superficial and largely instrumental. The paper does not engage meaningfully with the core tenets of Bourdieu’s work, nor does it situate the analysis within the broader sociological discourse that underpins the concepts of capital endowment or social practice. Instead, Bourdieu is invoked primarily as a rhetorical device to justify the selection of a few independent variables, with minimal conceptual elaboration or theoretical development. The purported theoretical framework functions more as a loosely connected collection of assumptions and hypotheses than a rigorous analytical lens. The authors reduce complex theoretical constructs such as “capital endowment” and “energy cognition” to simplistic variables in a regression model without demonstrating a clear line of argument connecting these operationalizations to Bourdieu’s theory—or to any other substantial body of theory. The paper fails to establish how the theoretical model informs the research design or how it provides explanatory power beyond what a descriptive statistical analysis might offer. As such, the theoretical scaffolding appears as an afterthought rather than a guiding structure for the study. Moreover, the paper conflates empirical observation with theory-building. Rather than using theory to illuminate mechanisms behind observed phenomena, it takes for granted the existence of urban-rural divides and simply documents them with survey data. The hypotheses are not derived from a process of theoretical reasoning but are instead post hoc speculations, presented with little critical reflection or grounding in prior empirical or theoretical literature. The discussion of the “dualistic social structure,” for instance, lacks analytical depth and is not effectively integrated with the rest of the theoretical argument. In sum, despite the paper’s empirical aspirations and use of a large dataset, its fundamental shortcoming lies in the absence of a robust theoretical framework that would give intellectual coherence and explanatory depth to its findings. Without a clear and rigorous theoretical foundation, the paper does not advance scholarly understanding and therefore does not meet the standards required for publication.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This paper warrants rejection primarily due to its lack of a coherent theoretical framework and a weak foundation in theoretical scholarship. While the authors claim to adopt Bourdieu’s theory of social practice, the treatment of this framework is superficial and largely instrumental. The paper does not engage meaningfully with the core tenets of Bourdieu’s work, nor does it situate the analysis within the broader sociological discourse that underpins the concepts of capital endowment or social practice. Instead, Bourdieu is invoked primarily as a rhetorical device to justify the selection of a few independent variables, with minimal conceptual elaboration or theoretical development. The purported theoretical framework functions more as a loosely connected collection of assumptions and hypotheses than a rigorous analytical lens. The authors reduce complex theoretical constructs such as “capital endowment” and “energy cognition” to simplistic variables in a regression model without demonstrating a clear line of argument connecting these operationalizations to Bourdieu’s theory—or to any other substantial body of theory. The paper fails to establish how the theoretical model informs the research design or how it provides explanatory power beyond what a descriptive statistical analysis might offer. As such, the theoretical scaffolding appears as an afterthought rather than a guiding structure for the study. Moreover, the paper conflates empirical observation with theory-building. Rather than using theory to illuminate mechanisms behind observed phenomena, it takes for granted the existence of urban-rural divides and simply documents them with survey data. The hypotheses are not derived from a process of theoretical reasoning but are instead post hoc speculations, presented with little critical reflection or grounding in prior empirical or theoretical literature. The discussion of the “dualistic social structure,” for instance, lacks analytical depth and is not effectively integrated with the rest of the theoretical argument. In sum, despite the paper’s empirical aspirations and use of a large dataset, its fundamental shortcoming lies in the absence of a robust theoretical framework that would give intellectual coherence and explanatory depth to its findings. Without a clear and rigorous theoretical foundation, the paper does not advance scholarly understanding and therefore does not meet the standards required for publication.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for taking your valuable time to review our paper. We very much agree with your suggestions, which are very constructive to enhance the paper. We have made careful revisions after reading your comments, and revisions are highlighted in the revised manuscript.

Comment 1: “This paper warrants rejection primarily due to its lack of a coherent theoretical framework and a weak foundation in theoretical scholarship. While the authors claim to adopt Bourdieu’s theory of social practice, the treatment of this framework is superficial and largely instrumental. The paper does not engage meaningfully with the core tenets of Bourdieu’s work, nor does it situate the analysis within the broader sociological discourse that underpins the concepts of capital endowment or social practice. Instead, Bourdieu is invoked primarily as a rhetorical device to justify the selection of a few independent variables, with minimal conceptual elaboration or theoretical development. The purported theoretical framework functions more as a loosely connected collection of assumptions and hypotheses than a rigorous analytical lens.” 

Response 1: Thank you for your comments and we fully agree. We were not too specific about Bourdieu's theory of social practice and its relevance to this study. Therefore, we have added “section 3: Theoretical analysis and research hypothesis”.On the one hand, Bourdieu's social practice theory is introduced on the basis of summarizing and reviewing existing theoretical perspectives on willingness to pay for green energy consumption, and the theory is introduced in detail. On the other hand, we combine the social practice theory to view the public's willingness to pay for green energy consumption as a product of the interaction between capital endowment, energy cognition of individual habitus and urban-rural fields, and put forward the corresponding research hypotheses, and closely the theoretical framework and research hypothesis.

Comment 2: “The authors reduce complex theoretical constructs such as “capital endowment” and “energy cognition” to simplistic variables in a regression model without demonstrating a clear line of argument connecting these operationalizations to Bourdieu’s theory—or to any other substantial body of theory. The paper fails to establish how the theoretical model informs the research design or how it provides explanatory power beyond what a descriptive statistical analysis might offer. As such, the theoretical scaffolding appears as an afterthought rather than a guiding structure for the study.”

   Response 2: Thank you for your comments and we fully agree. In addition to describing how the concepts of capital endowment, energy perceptions, and field characteristics (urban-rural identities) relate to Bourdieu's social practice theory in the Theoretical Framework and Research Hypotheses section of Section 3, we also describe the roles of these concepts and their relationship to the social practice theory in the Measurements of Section 4's Research Design.

Comment 3: “Moreover, the paper conflates empirical observation with theory-building. Rather than using theory to illuminate mechanisms behind observed phenomena, it takes for granted the existence of urban-rural divides and simply documents them with survey data. The hypotheses are not derived from a process of theoretical reasoning but are instead post hoc speculations, presented with little critical reflection or grounding in prior empirical or theoretical literature. The discussion of the “dualistic social structure,” for instance, lacks analytical depth and is not effectively integrated with the rest of the theoretical argument.”

Response 3: Thank you for your comments and we fully agree. Our research hypothesis 1 in section 3 (i.e., Field Characteristics and Urban-Rural Differences in WTP for Green Energy Consumption) provides an in-depth introduction to China's dualistic social structure and its relationship to Bourdieu's theory of social practice, and the hypotheses of this study. Meanwhile, in section 5 and section 6, the linkage between theory and empirical evidence is also enriched.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-structured and comprehensive study. The authors have done thorough work in examining public willingness to pay for green energy under China's dual carbon goals. The analysis is clear, with distinct sections that are easy to follow. The results are presented effectively, and the conclusions are straightforward to evaluate. Most importantly, the findings align well with and directly address the research questions.

 

However, I have some suggestions for improving this work that I think will help.

 

1. Typically, the introduction should outline the contents of each textual segment.

 

2. Could the authors either add a literature review section or provide an explanation for the absence of one in the paper?

 

3. Theoretical analysis and research hypothesis should be described separately in Materials and Methods, which should also include research strategy, statistical modeling, and data sources, variables, and measurements.

 

4. Section 4. Discussion often compares the study's findings with those of other research and explains whether the findings are similar or what caused the differences.

 

5. It would be more appropriate to rename section 5 as conclusions and recommendations since it contains both policy proposals and findings.

 

Author Response

Point-by-Point Response to Reviewers' Comments

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for taking your valuable time to review our paper. We very much agree with your suggestions, which are very constructive to enhance the paper. We have made careful revisions after reading your comments, and revisions are highlighted in the revised manuscript.

Comment 1: Typically, the introduction should outline the contents of each textual segment.

 Response 1:Thank you for your comments and we fully agree. We added "Explanations of the contents of each part of the paper" in the last part of the introduction.

Comment 2: Could the authors either add a literature review section or provide an explanation for the absence of one in the paper?

 Response 2:Thank you for your comments and we fully agree.We have added Section 2. Section 2 is the literature review, which sorts out the definition, measurement and current state of research on WTP for green energy consumption.

Comment 3: Theoretical analysis and research hypothesis should be described separately in Materials and Methods, which should also include research strategy, statistical modeling, and data sources, variables, and measurements.

 Response 3: Thank you for your comments and we fully agree. We have separated the two. In the paper, sections 3 and section 4 have been added. Among them, Section 3 is the theoretical analysis and research hypothesis, which introduces Bourdieu's social practice theory as a theoretical framework and puts forward the research hypothesis in the context of China's dual structure. Section 4 is the research design, which includes the data sources and participants, measurements, and the choice of research strategies and modeling methods.

 Comment 4: Section 4. Discussion often compares the study's findings with those of other research and explains whether the findings are similar or what caused the differences.

 Response 4: Thank you for your comments and we fully agree. Based on your comments, we have enriched and improved section 6. Section 6 is the discussion, which compares the similarities and differences between this study and related studies.

Comment 5: It would be more appropriate to rename section 5 as conclusions and recommendations since it contains both policy proposals and findings.

Response 5: Thank you for your comments and we fully agree.We have changed the name of Section 7 and, based on your suggestions, have revised and refined this section. Section 7 is the conclusion and recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The research is an important field of the energy consumption. The authors explore the impact of capital endowment and energy cognition on the willingness to pay for energy consumption, which contributes to a better understanding of energy market issues. However, it is suggested that the authors can supplement more research background to understand the relationship between energy markets and human behavior. The relationship between energy and the environment should also be added. 2. “Dualistic social structure” is a characteristic of Chinese society in a specific period, which the authors make an assumption(Hypothesis 1) based on. However, it is important to note that population mobility in China is currently so extensive that the dual structure is mainly reflected in the economy but not significant in terms of demographic characteristics. Higher rate of urbanization is also an important feature. Therefore, it is recommended that authors give full consideration to this context and be able to provide additional supporting material. 3. The manuscript is inadequate in its elaboration of the research methodology. It is recommended that the authors should give more elaboration on the choice of research method. The steps of the study are reasonable. 4. The conclusions of the research make sense. However, the explanation as an exploratory causes analysis are not clear. It is suggested that the comparative studies should be given.

Author Response

Point-by-Point Response to Reviewers' Comments

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for taking your valuable time to review our paper. We very much agree with your suggestions, which are very constructive to enhance the paper. We have made careful revisions after reading your comments, and revisions are highlighted in the revised manuscript.

Comment 1: The research is an important field of the energy consumption. The authors explore the impact of capital endowment and energy cognition on the willingness to pay for energy consumption, which contributes to a better understanding of energy market issues. However, it is suggested that the authors can supplement more research background to understand the relationship between energy markets and human behavior. The relationship between energy and the environment should also be added.

Response 1: Thank you for your comments and we fully agree. we have added a statement of the relationship between energy markets, economic development, and the environment in the first four paragraphs of section 1（Introduction）, thus enriching the context of this study.

Comment 2: “Dualistic social structure” is a characteristic of Chinese society in a specific period, which the authors make an assumption(Hypothesis 1) based on. However, it is important to note that population mobility in China is currently so extensive that the dual structure is mainly reflected in the economy but not significant in terms of demographic characteristics. Higher rate of urbanization is also an important feature. Therefore, it is recommended that authors give full consideration to this context and be able to provide additional supporting material.

Response 2: Thank you for your comments and we fully agree. In section 3 (3. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypotheses) of Field Characteristics and Urban-Rural Differences in WTP for Green Energy Consumption, we describe China's dualistic structure and the impacts of population mobility and urbanization on it.

Comment 3: The manuscript is inadequate in its elaboration of the research methodology. It is recommended that the authors should give more elaboration on the choice of research method. The steps of the study are reasonable.

Response 3: Thank you for your comments and we fully agree. We revamped and refined section 4 Research Design, including data sources and participants, variable measurements, and the rationale for research steps and model selection.

Comment 4: The conclusions of the research make sense. However, the explanation as an exploratory causes analysis are not clear. It is suggested that the comparative studies should be given.

Response 4: Thank you for your comments and we fully agree. In addition to presenting the findings of this paper in section 7 (7. Conclusions and Recommendations), we also explain the innovations and differences of this paper in comparison with previous studies. Also in section 6 (6. Discussion), an in-depth comparison of this study's findings with other studies is presented.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments: 

The concept is interesting and falls within the journal's scope and readers' expectations, scrutinising the capital endowment, energy cognition and willingness to pay for green energy consumption of urban and rural residents in China

Proof reading and language check are required 

Please revise the structure and organisation of the paper. 

Please make sure that all references are properly and correctly added. Some text lacks references, and in other locations the reference appears without a date. 

Specific comments

avoid long keyword terms

avoid '' in keywords

please avoid mentioning specific names or positions, just mention 'political structural reforms'

page 2 line 46 please revise the position of the reference

please leave a space before the reference

page 6 line 63 convert to superscript

section 2.1.1. move to the literature review section

page 3 line 115 grammar check

page 3, 4,  please add references (see the file attached)

section 2.2 This section represents the research method, so please revise the structure and organization of the paper

page 6 line 245 please describe the method and site previous papers which have used it describing how and why previous studies have used this method and what were the benefits

page 8, the methods mentioned need further elaboration surpported with references (please see the attached file)

the result section should pinpoint the research outcome, while comparing it to previous studies should be moved to the discussion section.

in the discussion section, please discuss the replicability and reproducibility of this research to other contexts, and maybe the variation between the urban and rural backgrounds maybe due to the social level and economic status

conclusion not conclusions

Please see the attached annotated file for authors' guidance,

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate revision required 

Author Response

Point-by-Point Response to Reviewers' Comments

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for taking your valuable time to review our paper. We very much agree with your suggestions, which are very constructive to enhance the paper. We have made careful revisions after reading your comments, and revisions are highlighted in the revised manuscript.

Comment 1: Proof reading and language check are required

Response 1: Thank you for your comments and we fully agree. We have revised the expression and language of the paper.

Comment 2: Please revise the structure and organisation of the paper.

Response 2: Thank you for your comments and we fully agree.We have reorganized the structure of the paper, which is now divided into seven sections. Section 1 is the introduction. Section 2 is the literature review, which sorts out the definition, measurement and current state of research on WTP for green energy consumption. Section 3 is the theoretical analysis and research hypothesis, which introduces Bourdieu's social practice theory as a theoretical framework and puts forward the research hypothesis in the context of China's dual structure. Section 4 is the research design, which includes the data sources and participants, measurements, and the choice of research strategies and modeling methods. Section 5 is the results, which describes the urban-rural differences in Chinese residents' WTP for green energy consumption and their influencing factors. Section 6 is the discussion, which compares the similarities and differences between this study and related studies. Section 7 is the conclusion and recommendations.

Comment 3:Please make sure that all references are properly and correctly added. Some text lacks references, and in other locations the reference appears without a date.

Response 3: Thank you for your comments and we fully agree. Based on the revisions, we have added, adjusted and updated the references throughout the text and checked to ensure that the references are correct.

Comment 4: Specific comments

avoid long keyword terms

avoid '' in keywords

please avoid mentioning specific names or positions, just mention 'political structural reforms'

page 2 line 46 please revise the position of the reference

please leave a space before the reference

page 6 line 63 convert to superscript

section 2.1.1. move to the literature review section

page 3 line 115 grammar check

page 3, 4,  please add references (see the file attached)

section 2.2 This section represents the research method, so please revise the structure and organization of the paper

page 6 line 245 please describe the method and site previous papers which have used it describing how and why previous studies have used this method and what were the benefits

page 8, the methods mentioned need further elaboration surpported with references (please see the attached file)

the result section should pinpoint the research outcome, while comparing it to previous studies should be moved to the discussion section.

in the discussion section, please discuss the replicability and reproducibility of this research to other contexts, and maybe the variation between the urban and rural backgrounds maybe due to the social level and economic status

conclusion not conclusions

Response 4: Thank you for your comments and we fully agree.Based on the Specific comments, we revised the abstract, keywords, body (grammar check, statements, discussion), and references, one by one. Please see the revised version of the paper for details.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version looks good. Thank you!

Author Response

Dear reviewers: 
      Thank you very much for your previous revisions, which pointed out the direction of the paper revision and helped to improve the quality of our paper. At the same time, thank you very much for recognizing and accepting the revised version of the thesis. We have also further improved the thesis in terms of point of view statement, language expression, references and so on. Thank you!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The detailed response to my last report is satisfactory. I thus recommend acceptance of the revised manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewers: 
      Thank you very much for your previous revisions, which pointed out the direction of the paper revision and helped to improve the quality of our paper. At the same time, thank you very much for recognizing and accepting the revised version of the thesis. We have also further improved the thesis in terms of point of view statement, language expression, references and so on. Thank you!

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Research on capital endowment, energy cognition and
 willingness to pay for green energy consumption of urban and
 rural residents in China

This is an interesting paper exploring the different patterns among urban and rural areas in willingness to pay for green materials/products, and the factors behind them.

 

General comments:

The paper has much improved following the previous comments, nevertheless, I highly recommend language check and proof reading.

avoid long sentences and break into smaller ones

leave a space before the reference number, this is repeated across the entire manuscipt, so please revise

 

Specific comments:

Abstract 

line 11 CGSS full term?

line 18 7.50 delete the zero

line 24 29% Approximate to 2 decimal places

line 25 8.34 % Approximate to 2 decimal places

37 GDP.. state the full term once introduced, then the abbreviation in bracket

57 CO2, SO2, NOx..note the superscript of the molecular number at the end

61 'occupies an absolute position' ..language check

63 will..replace with (was), it is 2023, or refer to future projection year

83-86 this breaks the temporal pattern, hence, authors can move this paragraph discussing 2006, then follow with further discussions in the year 2020, 2023 and 2024

148-150add a reference

155-159 add a reference

161-165 add references

201-206 long sentence, consider breaking it for better readability

220 start a new paragraph, and 'Psychological' do not capitalize

264 Do not start a sentence with (And)

276 'with what' separate with a comma

306-310 avoid long sentences

420-421 Missing reference

419 'Nie' Incomplete reference

435 PPS missing full term?

452, 457  'the Conditional Value Method (CVM)' use the abbreviation only

461 'to Huang et al' Incomplete reference (add year)

472 'From social practice theory, it is clear that field'.. the term field has been repeated but it requires further explanation

476 hukou the term has been repeated but it requires further explanation

489-490 irrelevant survey question

514-518 different font, please check

515 'Student test' , not clear, please revise

551 'the equation is explained by the others' ? explain

737-740 break long sentences for clarity

742 'Urban-rural' do not capitalize

 

Please find attached an annotated file for authors' guidance 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Break long sentences

Author Response

Point-by-Point Response to Reviewers' Comments

Dear reviewer:

Thank you very much for your detailed and specific revisions. We very much agree with your suggestions, which are very constructive to enhance the paper. We have made careful revisions after reading your comments, and revisions are highlighted in the revised manuscript.

Comment 1:“avoid long sentences and break into smaller ones；

leave a space before the reference number, this is repeated across the entire manuscipt, so please revise”

Response 1: Thank you for your comments and we fully agree. We have changed the relevant long sentences into shorter ones to make them easier for readers to understand. Moreover, we have left a space before the reference number in the whole text.

 

Comment 2: Specific comments

Abstract

line 11 CGSS full term?

line 18 7.50 delete the zero

line 24 29% Approximate to 2 decimal places

line 25 8.34 % Approximate to 2 decimal places

37 GDP.. state the full term once introduced, then the abbreviation in bracket

57 CO2, SO2, NOx..note the superscript of the molecular number at the end

61 'occupies an absolute position' ..language check

63 will..replace with (was), it is 2023, or refer to future projection year

83-86 this breaks the temporal pattern, hence, authors can move this paragraph discussing 2006, then follow with further discussions in the year 2020, 2023 and 2024

148-150add a reference

155-159 add a reference

161-165 add references

201-206 long sentence, consider breaking it for better readability

220 start a new paragraph, and 'Psychological' do not capitalize

264 Do not start a sentence with (And)

276 'with what' separate with a comma

306-310 avoid long sentences

420-421 Missing reference

419 'Nie' Incomplete reference

435 PPS missing full term?

452, 457  'the Conditional Value Method (CVM)' use the abbreviation only

461 'to Huang et al' Incomplete reference (add year)

472 'From social practice theory, it is clear that field'.. the term field has been repeated but it requires further explanation

476 hukou the term has been repeated but it requires further explanation

489-490 irrelevant survey question

514-518 different font, please check

515 'Student test' , not clear, please revise

551 'the equation is explained by the others' ? explain

737-740 break long sentences for clarity

742 'Urban-rural' do not capitalize

Response 2: Thank you for your comments and we fully agree.Based on the Specific comments, we revised the abstract, body (such as grammar check, avoid long sentences and break into smaller ones), and references, one by one. Please see the revised version of the paper for details.

Finally, we would like to thank you again for your revisions, which have pointed out the direction of the paper revision and helped to improve the quality of our paper. At the same time, we are very much looking forward to your approval and acceptance of the revised thesis. Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx