Perceived Value and Customer Adoption of Electric and Hybrid Vehicles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

This paper deals with the antecedents of customers’ intentions to adopt electro mobility options, which is a timely and interesting topic. The paper is well-written and I was very pleased to read it. I think that it is interesting to the readership of Sustainability because it has the potential to make a good contribution to sustainable behaviour theory as well as industry practice related to electric vehicle adoption by customers. 

However, I noticed some minor issues that the author(s) could address to make the paper better.

 

I illustrate these points below:

 

Theoretical background: the manuscript demonstrates an adequate understanding of relevant literature in its field and cites an appropriate range of key authors and relevant academic sources.

 

Methodology: Data collection, sample and data analysis are described in detail. However, I would advise the authors to outline clearly in the last section related to limitations of this study that the sampling strategy of participants was not random and that the survey was done online, which will have implications with regards to how representative the sample is of the wider population.  

 

Results: I would urge the manuscript’s authors to include in Table 4 the discriminant validity values related to the attitude and intention by customers to adopt EM options. Moreover, in the limitations and future research section, towards the end of the manuscript, it is suggested that “Further research on this topic should also evaluate the impact of other factors on the model developed here.” Perhaps, the authors could be more specific here by suggesting one or two antecedents of perceived value for further research studies to explore?

 

Communication quality: The authors should avoid unnecessary repetitions of expressions in adjacent sentences. For example, in the Introduction section, expressions such as “On the other hand” and “For instance” are used a tad too frequently. In addition to this, authors should check the formatting of the Discussion and Conclusions section of this manuscript, particularly with regards to including a blank space between the last numbered contribution and the following paragraph.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors:

Thank you for your good work for Sustainability scholarship.
Your work is a crucial contribution to the body of knowledge.
My only concerns are the:
Presentation of the results. Please follow the format of sustainability and have clear labeling of the figures, graphs, and tables.
For the discussion section I would recommend to break down into four parts:
1- Theoretical implications
2-Practical Implications
3-Future research and limitations or delimitations
4-conclusions

Finally, please rephrase the 'REFERENCES' to 'References'. No need for capitalization.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors:

 

Thank you for your kind response. You manuscript has been improved significantly. Thank you for your changes and for following my reccomendations.

The only comments I have for the final manuscript are:

Provide ALL the necessary references in the discussion section. For example, in the theoretical implication you may refer what the literature says, what the literature does mention and then mention your findings. Finally, you can mention how you progress the current body of knowledge and which body of knowledge is this (the references). You can refer some examples of existed practices in the Practical Implication section. You do not have to mention emotional values etc. at the practical portion.

Hope these comments help to improve your manuscript and publish it.

 

Thank you.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf