What Affects Chinese Residents’ Perceptions of Climate Change?

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

The studies of bibliographic review constitute the base of the theoretical frame of all empirical study. However, research on updating of the climate change studies are need to compile and synthesize the amount of the bibliography information. In this sense, the research carried out has a clear and necessary study object for the updating of all the information on this subject.

 The review has a sufficient number of scientific contributions and, above all, the contribution of the authors is more interesting. Both the significant sample of works reviewed and the systematic method used make this research a significant contribution on the studies of the search terms in relation to climate change.

 That is, the need to confront climate change from an integrative and, if possible, transdisciplinary approach, that covers all social and economic policies and measures. In this sense, this work represents a significant contribution in the framework of climate change and opens new lines of research.

This paper is a contribution, not original, but necessary in the advancement of science. The authors synthesize a significant and relevant number of papers on planning and policies on climate change. That is the true and relevant contribution of a base-research.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

The studies of bibliographic review constitute the base of the theoretical frame of all empirical study. However, research on updating of the climate change studies are need to compile and synthesize the amount of the bibliography information. In this sense, the research carried out has a clear and necessary study object for the updating of all the information on this subject.

The review has a sufficient number of scientific contributions and, above all, the contribution of the authors is more interesting. Both the significant sample of works reviewed and the systematic method used make this research a significant contribution on the studies of the search terms in relation to climate change.

That is, the need to confront climate change from an integrative and, if possible, transdisciplinary approach, that covers all social and economic policies and measures. In this sense, this work represents a significant contribution in the framework of climate change and opens new lines of research.

This paper is a contribution, not original, but necessary in the advancement of science. The authors synthesize a significant and relevant number of papers on planning and policies on climate change. That is the true and relevant contribution of a base-research.

Response:

We thank the constructive comments and suggestions on the manuscript.

We have discussed your suggestion about improving our research. We add some discussion about social and economic policies and measures. Limited to the thesis and related data of this study, however, we only discussed briefly.

We would like to thank you again for your attention.

Best wishes for you. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The English is generally good, though could benefit from proof-reading throughout. For example, I was not clear what the term ‘affected factors’ meant (dependent variables?). Although the authors are clearly very proficient in the English language, there are many places where meaning is, unfortunately, unclear or ambiguous.

Lines 63-64 with reference to lack of understanding of perceptions of climate change, be clear this relates to China – there is a lot of research that has been done elsewhere in the world. Also, work has been done by the China Center For Climate Change Communication and others: https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/10831-Does-the-Chinese-public-care-about-climate-change-  

In the discussion of international perceptions, it would be good to consider some overview work, e.g. that by Brechin:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Medani_Bhandari2/publication/264492833_Perceptions_of_Climate_Change_Worldwide/links/59e60ab9a6fdcc1b1d970897/Perceptions-of-Climate-Change-Worldwide.pdf

I think that Figure 1 shows relative score for the ‘comprehension/incomprehension’ score – but this is not clear from the text. This needs to be clearer, and for the actual survey wording of this item to be provided. Also, what qualifies as ‘high’, ‘medium’ or ‘low’?

Suggest rephrasing the sentence “the perceptive level may be less affected by the level of economic development”. Previous sentence argues this may indeed be the case – and likely plays at least some role.

I was very puzzled by how the meteorological data was actually used in the analysis, especially Table 2. Did the authors use national data for temperature and precipitation anomaly, etc – to predict individuals’ perceptions? If so, then this should be clearly stated. If this was done by local level – which is surely a better analytic approach – then this should be clearly stated. Some further discussion is needed as to how individual-level factors (e.g. age) are treated differently or the same in analyses, as national or regional-level factors.

I was also puzzled why only education and household size were used in the regression models. Some of the other variables were more strongly correlated – so why not include them too? Gender for example is strongly related. There is some comment as to the unreliability of some variables, but the selection criteria for the regression needs to be explained more clearly.

Why use quadratic rather than linear regression?

I wasn’t clear on the explanation of why household size was considered relevant. Are the authors arguing that because larger households are more likely to have children, the perceptions of children are effectively represented in survey respondents’ views and this is why perceptions are different. This is a rather unusual – and not especially convincing – explanation! This is the interpretation I took anyway from this section:

“Children and other dependents have not experienced long periods of climate change, so they are out of discussion extent, however, all of them counted in household size statistics. Therefore, the perception of the whole family on climate change is represented by the research object, caused negative correlation between the household size and the perception.”

Overall, this paper has the potential to make a worthwhile contribution, but there is a need for some English-language proof-reading in order for points to be clear and unambiguous. I would also like further clarification on the analytic approach used, especially how local/national events were included in analyses, and why certain variables and not others were included in the regression model.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

The English is generally good, though could benefit from proof-reading throughout. For example, I was not clear what the term ‘affected factors’ meant (dependent variables?). Although the authors are clearly very proficient in the English language, there are many places where meaning is, unfortunately, unclear or ambiguous.

Response:

Thanks for your constructive comments and suggestions on the manuscript. We have modified manuscript by native English speaking. Please check the latest manuscript.

Lines 63-64 with reference to lack of understanding of perceptions of climate change, be clear this relates to China – there is a lot of research that has been done elsewhere in the world. Also, work has been done by the China Center For Climate Change Communication and others: https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/10831-Does-the-Chinese-public-care-about-climate-change-

In the discussion of international perceptions, it would be good to consider some overview work, e.g. that by Brechin:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Medani_Bhandari2/publication/264492833_Perceptions_of_Climate_Change_Worldwide/links/59e60ab9a6fdcc1b1d970897/Perceptions-of-Climate-Change-Worldwide.pdf   

Response:

Thanks for your recommended references related to our research, it is important to better our research. At this point, we have modified the relevant research, please review.

I think that Figure 1 shows relative score for the ‘comprehension/incomprehension’ score – but this is not clear from the text. This needs to be clearer, and for the actual survey wording of this item to be provided. Also, what qualifies as ‘high’, ‘medium’ or ‘low’?

Response:

According to your requirements, we have explained climate perception level clearer, please review. Thanks for the advice.

Suggest rephrasing the sentence “the perceptive level may be less affected by the level of economic development”. Previous sentence argues this may indeed be the case – and likely plays at least some role.

Response:

According to your requirements, we have modified relevant expression, please review.

I was very puzzled by how the meteorological data was actually used in the analysis, especially Table 2. Did the authors use national data for temperature and precipitation anomaly, etc – to predict individuals’ perceptions? If so, then this should be clearly stated. If this was done by local level – which is surely a better analytic approach – then this should be clearly stated. Some further discussion is needed as to how individual-level factors (e.g. age) are treated differently or the same in analyses, as national or regional-level factors.

Response:

Thanks for your criticism. Firstly, the meteorological data (data for temperature and precipitation anomaly) about survey cities are from China meteorological information center, this data was done by local level, we have corrected it. Secondly, we have further discussed individual-level factors. Please check the latest version.

I was also puzzled why only education and household size were used in the regression models. Some of the other variables were more strongly correlated – so why not include them too? Gender for example is strongly related. There is some comment as to the unreliability of some variables, but the selection criteria for the regression needs to be explained more clearly.

Why use quadratic rather than linear regression?

Response:

Thanks for your attention to this issue. In order to explore the influencing factors, we use spearman correlation analysis to investigate the main cause influencing factors of Chinese residents' perception of climate change. After by significance test factors, regression analysis was performed. Education level, gender, household size, affected people, and economic losses passed significance inspection at correlation analysis and used in the regression models. Not only education and household size were used in the regression models. But education and household size passed significance inspection at regression models.

Meanwhile, the iterative regression is a more ideal way for optimization of regression equation. This model after quadratic regression gives effective results. This method is a kind of linear regression. We have modified relevant expression, please review. 

I wasn’t clear on the explanation of why household size was considered relevant. Are the authors arguing that because larger households are more likely to have children, the perceptions of children are effectively represented in survey respondents’ views and this is why perceptions are different. This is a rather unusual – and not especially convincing – explanation! This is the interpretation I took anyway from this section:

“Children and other dependents have not experienced long periods of climate change, so they are out of discussion extent, however, all of them counted in household size statistics. Therefore, the perception of the whole family on climate change is represented by the research object, caused negative correlation between the household size and the perception.”

Response:

Thanks for your attention. Generally speaking, family with more members have more chance exchange of information from outside and optimize people's life style. In the case of climate change perception, family with more members may have more chance exchange of climate information from others, hence have high climate change perception level. China has already entered the low birth level country rank as a result the birth control policy. It displays as: the family scale keeps on contracting. This is leading to children and other dependents have increase. Indeed, as you have understood. 

      Overall, this paper has the potential to make a worthwhile contribution, but there is a need for some English-language proof-reading in order for points to be clear and unambiguous. I would also like further clarification on the analytic approach used, especially how local/national events were included in analyses, and why certain variables and not others were included in the regression model.

Response:

We thank the constructive comments and suggestions on the manuscript and have discussed your suggestions about improving our research.

Best wishes for you.