Average rating: | Rated 2 of 5. |
Level of importance: | Rated 4 of 5. |
Level of validity: | Rated 1 of 5. |
Level of completeness: | Rated 1 of 5. |
Level of comprehensibility: | Rated 2 of 5. |
Competing interests: | None |
The topic is up to date but, in my opinion, the way the paper is written is not adequate for a scientific publication.
Interesting premises, and introduction. The literature presented and the framework could be really interesting to analyze pro-environmental behavior but not as it is presented.
I strongly suggest following a classic structure:
1) Introduction: frame of the general problem, literature gap, research question, and novelty
1.1) Literature review
2) Methodology: design, method, case study description.
3) Results and discussion
4) Conclusion
The wrong structure generates a lack of clarity in the presentation and in the general reading.
At the actual stage, the authors attempted to present a methodology instead of results, but without really adding novelty since the questions of the survey are quite trivial and partially bias in the actual form. Moreover, the framework presented in the first part is hard to connect with the survey. I suggest mapping some aspects presented in the framework with the current proposed survey. Finally, within the paper, it is not necessary to repeat several times that the survey was interrupted by the COVID-19, since the aim should be to present a method rather than results and for this purpose the COVID-19 has no impact.
Some minor comments:
1) pg. 2: "Life cycle assessments have shown reusable cups to be a more sustainable alternative to single-use cups, if used over 72 times (6)." It is not always true. It depends on which impact category is considered.
2) pg. 6: Aims section. I suggest to move in the introduction before the literature review
3) pg. 6: "Data collection ...." move it into methodology section
4) pg.7: "This will be a mixed-methods study". Citation needed