The Gap between Willingness and Behavior: The Use of Recycled Water for Toilet Flushing in Beijing, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript “The Gap Between Willingness and Behavior: The Use of Recycled Water for Toilet Flushing in Beijing, China” is interesting, but it needs major corrections in order to be considered for publication. The main corrections are as follows:
The abstract has to be improved. It has to contain also the objective of the study and the main conclusion.
References are not according to Water guidelines. They have to be numbered and shown in brackets (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water/instructions).
In line 67, “10 billion cubic meters of sewerage” should be replaced with “10 billion cubic meters of sewage”.
In section 1.1, is it “Ajzen” or “Azjen”? Please check and correct the spelling.
The objective of the study has to be clearly stated at the end of section 1.2. In lines 207-209 there is this objective “This study therefore compares the influence of recycled water produced by large centralized water treatment plants and community production on the acceptance of recycled water.”. I do not think that is the main objective of the study.
In lines 139-140, it is not clear why “questionnaires from participants who were obliged by the community or landlord to use recycled water for flushing” were not included in the analysis. Please explain this in the manuscript.
I do not think 1,195 valid questionnaires statistically represent a population of 21.54 million people. Please discuss this issue in the manuscript.
Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics for the sample. Please include in Table 1 also the demographic characteristics for the whole population, and compare demographics of the sample with the demographics of the population. This will show if the sample is similar to the population.
Show the meaning of RMB in Table 1. There are other acronyms with no meaning all over the manuscript.
There is unnecessary literature review in section 2. Please show only method in section 2.
In line 170 we learned that there are some authorities that operate and manage the recycled water, but more information on this issue has to be shown in the manuscript. For example, who are such “authorities”? Where is the recycled water treated? What is the source of recycled water (is it only greywater)? What are the fares for potable water and recycled water? More information about the recycled water system in Beijing has to be shown.
This is a major problem: the method is neither clear nor complete. All details on how the work was carried out, on how the objectives were accomplished have to be shown in section 2.
Please explain the results shown in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 4 shows “Cox & Snell R2”, “Nagelkerke’s R2”, “Hosmer & Lemeshow”, but there is nothing about these in the method section. So, I insist that the method is neither clear nor complete.
Are those 35.2% of people who use recycled water happy? Do they have any complaints? Do they enjoy paying less? These and other issues should be addressed in the manuscript.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The abstract has to be improved. It has to contain also the objective of the study and the main conclusion.
Response 1: Modifications were made in the Abstract section. We have added the objective and the main conclusion of the study.
Point 2: References are not according to Water guidelines. They have to be numbered and shown in brackets (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water/instructions).
Response 2: Thanks for your advice, we have modified the format of the references.
Point 3: In line 67, “10 billion cubic meters of sewerage” should be replaced with “10 billion cubic meters of sewage”.
Response 3: “Sewerage” has been changed to “sewage”.
Point 4: In section 1.1, is it “Ajzen” or “Azjen”? Please check and correct the spelling.
Response 4: Thanks for pointing this mistake out. “Azjen” has been changed to “Ajzen”.
Point 5: The objective of the study has to be clearly stated at the end of section 1.2. In lines 207-209 there is this objective “This study therefore compares the influence of recycled water produced by large centralized water treatment plants and community production on the acceptance of recycled water.”. I do not think that is the main objective of the study.
Response 5: Thanks for your valuable suggestions. We have added the objective of the study in section 1.3. Whether the recycled water produced by large centralized water treatment plants or community production is not the focus of this study. We have removed this part.
Point 6: In lines 139-140, it is not clear why “questionnaires from participants who were obliged by the community or landlord to use recycled water for flushing” were not included in the analysis. Please explain this in the manuscript.
Response 6: Based on the theory of planned behavior, this study focuses on the transformation from intention to behavior, so there is no in-depth study of behavior without intention in this manuscript. Participants who are obliged to use recycled water means the behavior is not the result of the participants’ willingness. Therefore, we excluded these questionnaires.
Point 7: I do not think 1,195 valid questionnaires statistically represent a population of 21.54 million people. Please discuss this issue in the manuscript.
Response 7: These questionnaires are not representative of the entire population of a city. That’s because we only surveyed communities that provided recycled water for flushing, but not include self-built housing and dormitory building. The samples show a broad range of genders, ages, education levels and income levels. Detailed explanation has been added in section 2.
Point 8: Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics for the sample. Please include in Table 1 also the demographic characteristics for the whole population, and compare demographics of the sample with the demographics of the population. This will show if the sample is similar to the population.
Response 8: We have added the demographic characteristics for the whole population in Table 1. The gender, age, level of education, and monthly per capita income of the participants roughly accord with known characteristics of Beijing’s population, and which ensures the social-demographic diversity of the participants.
Point 9: Show the meaning of RMB in Table 1. There are other acronyms with no meaning all over the manuscript.
Response 9: The meaning of RMB has been added in Table 1. We have also added the explanation of other acronyms.
Point 10: There is unnecessary literature review in section 2. Please show only method in section 2.
Response 10: We have moved this part of literature review to Section 1.1. Currently, only method is shown in Section 2.
Point 11: In line 170 we learned that there are some authorities that operate and manage the recycled water, but more information on this issue has to be shown in the manuscript. For example, who are such “authorities”? Where is the recycled water treated? What is the source of recycled water (is it only greywater)? What are the fares for potable water and recycled water? More information about the recycled water system in Beijing has to be shown.
Response 11: We have added more information about who are authorities, where the recycled water is treated, the source of recycled water, and the fares for potable water and recycled water in Section 2.1.
Point 12: This is a major problem: the method is neither clear nor complete. All details on how the work was carried out, on how the objectives were accomplished have to be shown in section 2.
Response 12: We have added the research procedure and the content of survey at the beginning of Method section. In Section 2.1, we have added the basic information about recycled water in Beijing, the distinctiveness of the region, and the demographic characteristics for the whole population in Beijing. We have removed unnecessary literature review from Section 2.2. In Section 2.3, we have added the explanation of the logistic regression model and the goodness of fitting test.
Point 13: Please explain the results shown in Tables 3 and 4.
Response 13: We have added the explanation of Table 3 and Table 4 in the revised manuscript.
Point 14: Table 4 shows “Cox & Snell R2”, “Nagelkerke’s R2”, “Hosmer & Lemeshow”, but there is nothing about these in the method section. So, I insist that the method is neither clear nor complete.
Response 14: We feel really sorry about this mistake. The Cox and Snell R2 test and Nagelkerke’s R2 test were usually used in linear regression models, but made little sense in logistic regression analysis, so they are not used. We have deleted these two values, and kept only the result of Hosmer and Lemeshow test. The explanation of Hosmer and Lemeshow test has been added in the revised manuscript.
Point 15: Are those 35.2% of people who use recycled water happy? Do they have any complaints? Do they enjoy paying less? These and other issues should be addressed in the manuscript.
Response 15: The survey investigated participants’ attitude to using recycled water. The finding showed that 35.2% of participants were using recycled water, but only 14.0% of the users said they were satisfied with it. The discussion of the findings has been added at end of Section 4.1.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript concerns the important issue of the Gap Between Willingness and Behavior: The Use of Recycled Water for Toilet Flushing in Beijing. The study was based on questionnaire survey data from 1195 Beijing residents in communities where recycled water was available for toilet flushing. A binary logistic regression model was used to analyze the influential factors determining the differences between willingness and behavior to use recycled water for toilet flushing, and related suggestions were put forward to improve the utilization of recycled water. Remarks: How do the authors ensure the reliability of their results? Please, justify the value of the sample. The region in which the inquiry was conducted. What's distinctive about it? What's typical, as compared to the rest of the country? What lessons should authorities draw from this analysis? Are there concrete steps that can be recommended for the authorities?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: How do the authors ensure the reliability of their results? Please, justify the value of the sample.
Response 1: We have added the demographic characteristics for the whole population in Beijing in Table 1. The gender, age, level of education, and income of the participants roughly accord with known characteristics of Beijing’s population, and which ensures the social-demographic diversity of the participants. Detailed explanation has been added in section 2.
Point 2: The region in which the inquiry was conducted. What's distinctive about it? What's typical, as compared to the rest of the country?
Response 2: In Section 2.1, we have added the basic information about recycled water in Beijing, the distinctiveness of the region, and the demographic characteristics for the population in Beijing.
Point 3: What lessons should authorities draw from this analysis? Are there concrete steps that can be recommended for the authorities?
Response 3: We have added a detailed example of suggestions for improving the use of recycled water for toilet flushing, and the discussion were shown in Section 4.1.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript “The Gap Between Willingness and Behavior: The Use of Recycled Water for Toilet Flushing in Beijing, China” was corrected according to my suggestions. In my opinion, it can now be published.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
Thank you very much for your recommendation.
Reviewer 2 Report
Almost all my numerous remarks were included. The following remarks should be addressed to Line 564: add references, what studies have looked at what causes the huge gaps between the willingness to use recycled water and the actual behavior. Line 566: if different from the aforementioned, include other references. Add some details about the future incentives of using Recycled Water.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
Point 1: The following remarks should be addressed to Line 564: add references, what studies have looked at what causes the huge gaps between the willingness to use recycled water and the actual behavior. Line 566: if different from the aforementioned, include other references.
Response 1: Thanks for pointing this mistake out. No study has looked at what causes the huge gaps between the willingness to use recycled water and the actual behavior. But previous studies have explored the factors influencing willingness to use recycled water and the factors influencing behavior of using recycled water. We have added the references in Line 566.
Point 2: Add some details about the future incentives of using Recycled Water.
Response 2: We have added details about the future incentives at the end of Conclusions section. The short-term incentives included gifts and cash prizes, and the longer-term incentives included free service and discounted equipment.
