Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study highlights the numerous benefits of smart home technologies for Taiwanese consumers, including enhanced comfort, security, and energy efficiency. Survey data from 424 respondents revealed that comfort and energy efficiency are key drivers of adoption. Additionally, consumers dissatisfied with current home management methods showed a higher likelihood of adopting these technologies. The study offers valuable insights into consumer behavior and provides actionable guidance for the smart home industry to address adoption barriers. Based on the above comments, I recommend this paper for publication. 

Author Response

Please see attachments: 1. Revised manuscript_Sustainability-3495470. 2.Replies to Reviewer 1.

Thank you!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well done and has a clear structure, which makes it easier to follow and understand the key parts of the research.
I believe that the analysis of existing knowledge could be more detailed. I recommend including around 20 additional references that would enrich the overview of existing research and allow for a deeper understanding of the thematic framework. Particularly noticeable is the section between lines 51 and 91, where there are no citations, and this is the introduction to the paper. I recommend adding appropriate citations in this part to support the stated views and make the text more grounded.

To make the paper more concise, I suggest moving all statistical tables to the appendix, while the main text should focus on the key information they provide and their relevance in the context of the research.
The elaboration is satisfactory, but it would be useful to shorten it by reducing the level of detail so that the conclusion can become the focal point of the entire paper and clearly present the most important research findings.
In the conclusion, the hypotheses should be further elaborated, and the implications of their confirmed or refuted results for the research should be considered. This would enable a deeper understanding of the impact of these results on the theoretical framework and future research. Additionally, the key contributions of the paper should be clearly emphasized, highlighting its significance in the context of existing knowledge.
I believe that the section '10. Contributions, Limitations, and Suggestions' should be integrated into the conclusion, as it is natural for contributions, limitations, and suggestions to be discussed within the conclusion. Combining these sections would provide a clearer overview of the key findings, their implications, and directions for future research.

Author Response

Please see attachments: 1. Revised manuscript_Sustainability-3495470. 3.Replies 2-to Reviewer 2.

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

I have carefully reviewed your manuscript and appreciate the effort and depth of analysis you have put into exploring Factors Influencing Consumer Buying Behavior for Smart Home Technologies. Your study provides valuable insights into the role of perceived benefits and technical proficiency in shaping adoption decisions, contributing to both academic literature and industry applications.

That said, I believe that some areas require further refinement to enhance the clarity, depth, and overall impact of your paper:

1. Abstract:

* The phrase “perceived benefits of and likelihood of adopting” is slightly unclear—consider rewording for better readability.

* Ensure the abstract highlights the practical implications of the findings more clearly, particularly for industry stakeholders.

2. Introduction

 * The introduction provides a solid background on smart home technologies, but it could be more structured. Consider clearly separating market trends, benefits, and research gaps.

* The discussion of the Taiwan market is informative, but it may be too detailed for an introduction. Consider summarizing key figures while moving in-depth discussions to a later section.

* The research gap is well-identified, but the transition from discussing market growth to sociopsychological factors could be smoother. Explicitly state why these gaps are critical for understanding consumer behavior.

3. Literature Review

* The literature review provides a broad discussion of smart home technologies but lacks a clear structure. Consider categorizing the discussion into themes such as technological aspects, user adoption factors, and challenges to improve readability.

* The section references many studies, but it would be helpful to synthesize findings rather than listing them. Instead of summarizing each study separately, focus on identifying common themes and contrasting different viewpoints.

* Some parts of the discussion (e.g., smart home technologies for healthcare and energy management) seem tangential to the core research focus on consumer buying behavior. Consider emphasizing studies that directly relate to consumer motivations, perceptions, and decision-making.

* The review mentions the technology acceptance model and innovation diffusion theory but does not critically evaluate their applicability to smart home technology adoption. Consider discussing their strengths and limitations in this specific context.

* While challenges like security risks and ethical concerns are briefly mentioned, they could be explored further, especially in relation to their impact on consumer trust and adoption decisions.

* The final paragraph introduces the study’s contribution but could more explicitly highlight the research gap. Clearly state how this study extends or builds upon existing research.

4. Research Questions

 To improve the clarity and logical flow of the paper, the research questions should be moved to the end of the Introduction section. Placing them earlier in the paper will help establish the study’s objectives more effectively; allowing readers to grasp the research focus before engaging with the literature review. Consider presenting the research questions in paragraph form rather than as a list. This adjustment will provide a clearer connection between the identified research gaps and the study’s direction, ensuring that the hypotheses are introduced in a more structured and coherent manner. By presenting the research questions upfront, the paper will better guide readers through the investigation of factors influencing consumer adoption of smart home technologies.

5. Hypothesis

* Ensure that the hypotheses follow logically after the research questions to maintain a smooth narrative flow.

* It is preferable to precede each hypothesis with a brief paragraph that justifies its development. This will help provide a clearer logical progression from the literature review to the hypotheses. By explaining the rationale behind each hypothesis, the authors can strengthen the connection between previous research findings and their proposed study, making the hypotheses more grounded in the existing body of knowledge. This addition will enhance the overall coherence and readability of the paper.

6. Methodology

* The methodology section lacks details on the specific type of research design (e.g., cross-sectional, explanatory, descriptive ...etc.). The authors should specify this for better clarity.

* The description of the survey could be more structured. Instead of listing broad categories, the authors should briefly explain the types of questions used for each variable. The authors should cite the references that were relied upon to develop the items measuring the study variables in the questionnaire. Providing citations for established scales or previous studies that informed the survey design will enhance the study’s credibility and allow for comparisons with existing research. If the items were adapted or modified, the authors should clarify how they were adjusted to fit the context of this study.

* The authors should clarify whether a pilot study was conducted to test the reliability and validity of the questionnaire before full data collection. Additionally, they should mention if the questionnaire was reviewed by experts in the field to ensure content validity. It is also important to specify the language in which the survey was developed and whether any translation or back-translation procedures were applied if a non-English language was used.

* The authors are advised to include a copy of the questionnaire as an appendix to enhance transparency and allow readers to assess the measurement items used in the study. It is preferable to exclude statistics related to the distribution of respondents on the Likert scale in the appendix.

Please ask authors to include the most important descriptive statistics (such as mean and standard deviation) and summarize them in a table instead of citing statistics and percentages of respondents' responses.

7. Respondent Answers and Analysis

The authors are encouraged to present the most important descriptive statistics, such as the mean and standard deviation, in a summarized table instead of citing detailed percentages of respondents' responses. This approach will enhance readability and provide a clearer overall picture of the findings.

Please ask the author to include Cronbach's alpha coefficients, check for normal distribution and check for multicollinearity as it is harmful to run regression.

8. Hypothesis Testing and Interpretation

* The authors are encouraged to include Cronbach's alpha coefficients to assess the reliability of the study constructs. Additionally, it is essential to check for normal distribution and multicollinearity before conducting regression analysis, as multicollinearity can distort the results. Please verify variance inflation factors (VIF) to ensure that the independent variables are not highly correlated.

* The authors are encouraged to reduce or eliminate subheadings in the results section and instead focus on presenting the most critical findings concisely. Streamlining the structure will enhance readability and maintain a clear, logical flow of information.

* Please reorganize the tables to include only the most important information. Prioritize key findings and essential statistics while removing any redundant or less relevant details to improve clarity and conciseness.

* The authors may find the following paper useful while revising this section and the rest of the manuscript:

Erokhin et al. (2024). Investigating Farmers’ Intentions to Reduce Water Waste through Water-Smart Farming Technologies. Sustainability, 16(11), 4638. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114638

This study may provide valuable insights into methodological approaches, hypothesis formulation, and data analysis related to technology adoption.

9. Contributions, Limitations, and Suggestions

 * Clarify Theoretical Contributions

- Strengthen the discussion on how the study bridges the gap between technology acceptance models and practical implementation.

- Provide a clearer theoretical justification for why comfort and security are the most positively perceived aspects.

* Enhance Empirical Evidence

- Consider discussing whether findings align with or contradict previous studies on smart home adoption.

* Refine Practical Contributions

- Highlight specific recommendations for industry stakeholders in a more structured manner.

- Provide clear examples of how simplified device operation and enhanced security measures can translate into increased adoption.

* Strengthen Marketing and Policy Implications

- Elaborate on how marketing strategies should emphasize comfort, security, and ease of use.

- Discuss potential government incentives or policies that could increase smart home adoption.

* Improve Discussion on Sustainability

- Clearly link findings on environmental awareness to how smart home technology can promote sustainability.

- Provide more examples of smart home features that could appeal to environmentally conscious consumers.

* Address Study Limitations More Transparently

- Expand on how the urban sample might have influenced results and discuss potential differences in rural areas.

* Suggestions for Future Research

- Emphasize the importance of cross-cultural studies to determine whether smart home adoption patterns are similar across different regions.

- Suggest additional methodologies, such as experiments or longitudinal designs, to strengthen future research.

- Suggest alternative theories or models for future research. For example: Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT); The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT); and The Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) … etc.

- Expand the discussion on additional predictive factors. For example: financial factors, psychological and behavioral factors (e.g., trust in technology and resistance to change ...etc.), social and cultural influences (e.g., peer influence and societal norms ...etc.), data privacy and security, and environmental consciousness.

10. References

References are currently very few. Please add more recent references where needed, ensuring that the study is well-grounded in contemporary research.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally well-written and clear; however, there are areas where sentence structure, grammar, and word choice could be improved for better readability and precision. I recommend careful proofreading and, if possible, professional language editing to enhance clarity, coherence, and fluency. Additionally, simplifying complex or overly long sentences would improve readability.

Author Response

Please see attachments: 1.Revised manuscript_Sustainability-3495470. 4.Replies 3-to Reviewer 3,

 and 6.ATCH a, 7.ATCH b, 8.ATCH c, 9.ATCH d.

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I sincerely appreciate your efforts in addressing all my previous concerns regarding your manuscript titled "Factors Influencing Consumer Buying Behavior for Smart Home Technologies." The revisions you have made have significantly enhanced the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of your work.

Your thorough responses to the feedback provided and the improvements in methodology, discussion, and presentation have strengthened the manuscript. I am pleased to see how you have refined your arguments and incorporated the necessary adjustments to enhance the study's contribution to the field.

I commend your dedication to improving the manuscript, and I believe it is now in a stronger position for publication. Thank you once again for your hard work and for engaging constructively with the review process.