Individual Energy Consumption Behavior Leads to Energy Sustainability in Malaysia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research problem is clearly articulated. The objective and aim of the study is also clearly defined.

The article emphasizes that the results of the study will provide methods to decision makers to prioritise main factors influencing individual energy consumption.

However, the scientific formulation of the problem is not sufficient. Therefore, the scientific problem addressed in the article should be clarified.

The article lacks in-depth scientific discussion and disclosure of the novelty of the research.

It is recommended to demonstrate research significance more clearly.  The identification of potential factors and sub factors should be more clearly disclosed by reference to the empirical literature used (133).

At the end of the article it is recommended to present the conclusions that would reveal the significance and novelty of the performed research in more detail.

The summary AGH is presented twice (105, 106).  It is suggested not to repeat on lines 106, 120, 121, 269, 340

Incorrect citation (262, 382)

 The table presented on page 5 should be given with the title and number.

The citation of sources 47-53 in the article should be checked.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 Report

The article very much focuses on the methodology, and not as much on the economic issue it is investigating (energy consumption behaviour). Here's my main comments and concerns about the paper in its current version.

-It does not include a well-structure literature review on energy consumption behavior that helps to frame the issue under investigation. This is a major flaw of the paper in my opinion. What are the theories explaining consumer behavior? Is the paper using any of these theories as a conceptual pillar?

-It does not propose a specific research question nor does it specify what is the contribution of the research authors' research.

-Section 2 should specify why the proposed methodology is good or interesting for studying the subject at hand. Also how it may be better or worse than alternative methodologies.

-Section 2.1 is too focused on the methodology would benefit from a graph/figure explaining how the methodology is applied (perhaps with a numerical example related to the issue under discussion -- energy consumption behaviour).

-Section 3.1 should explain, with explicit reference to the literature it mentions, how these factors and subfactors were chosen. This is key in my opinion.

-Section 3 would benefit from a summary table in the main text, not only with reference to the Annex.

-Section 4 presents a poor discussion, in my opinion. It would be more valuable, imo, if the results were discussed with reference to literature results, to try to understand why the Malaysia results may or may not be aligned with results in other countries.

-Section 4.2 indicates that "...The literature was critically analysed in order to generate a strong foundation on which to develop a theoretical framework for the study and proceed to the empirical phase. The theoretical framework was developed after a thorough review of the literature and consultation with the study's stakeholders...". What theoretical framework is it referring to? It appears like it is talking about the methodology, but not a theoretical framework on energy consumption behavior.

-Section 4.2: the implications of the shortcoming identified in the last paragraph should be discussed.

-The final section of the paper (Conclusions) does not include any policy recommendations (a potential way to extract value from this research) nor does it mention what specific uses the "model" (what model?) may have or any avenues for further research.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Introduction

Perhaps it is worthwhile to better emphasize research goals and research hypotheses (?)

2. Materials and Methods

„In this step the factors and sub factors of individual energy consumption behaviour are  identified through comparing the weight of each factor and sub-factors with the threshold value ’ã‘. The value of ã is calculated by the average of all factors’ weight [ãj]. In general, 146 if ãj ≥ ã then factor j is selected, whereas if ãj < ã then factor j is rejected”  Line 144-147 the abbreviations used should be explained 'ã', [ãj]

2.2 Calculation of consistency ratio follows the below three steps

No explanation of abbreviations for the formula - line 194, and also in line 196 and the table (below).

3. Results

How many potential experts have received the invitation?

3.1 Identifying factors and Sub-factors.

„Identifying factors and Sub-factors from a review of literature on individual energy consumption behaviour, numerous factors and sub-factors were identified” The literature used should be reported ((rows 216-218).

4. Discussion

The description of The AHP technique's (lines 348-399) should not be found in section but in section 2. Materials and Methods.

Section 4.1. and 4.2. should be before section 4. Discussion.

Line 620-622 list in the text 3 main goals of the research the authors write about.

 The reviewed article lacked an analysis of statistical data on the emission intensity of the Malaysian economy, except for the opinion that "Malaysia ranked third in the world in terms of carbon emissions, with an average annual 7 rate of 4.7 percent". The statistics would be needed for other scientists outside the country and area of ​​Malaysia (Must be completed.)

Author Response

Reviewer 4 Report

In the chapter Materials and Methods must be introduced the analytical relations that underlie the Analytical Hierarchy Process methodology. To see exactly the mathematical relationships on which this study is based.

Also check for spelling mistakes.

Author Response

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the effort to answer my comments. Unfortunately, I do not think they have been properly addressed, especially regarding the theoretical framework, the literature review, phrasing a sound research question and linking it to the academic literature, interpreting the results with regards to the theoretical framework (on energy consumption).

Author Response

We appreciate your comment and thank you for taking the time to write it. However, first and foremost, please accept our apologies for the inappropriate handling of your previous comments. We agree very much on your concerns highlighted then and now. In response to your comments this round, we have included a section on the theoretical framework in Lines 114 till 158 to accentuate the framing of the conduct of the study specifically in terms how the theories guide in the investigation of behaviour elements for individual energy consumption.  To do justice further to your concerns on the connection of the findings to the theoretical framework, further elaboration was added in the 'Discussion' section from lines 400-410, 730–744 which also indicates the contribution of the findings to the theories adopted. Figure B1  (p. 22) was added to support this narrative of the findings as outcome of the theoretical framework. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

I do not have other observations.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you and we appreciate your feedback. Apologies for the inappropriate handling of previous comments. We included a section of the theoretical framework in Lines 114-158. We extended the discussion in lines 00-410, 713-737. Additionally, we included figures that complimented the framework. We hope that you can consider to approve this submission. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx