Values and Environmental Knowledge of Student Participants of Climate Strikes: A Comparative Perspective between Brazil and Germany

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: The ideas that are extracted from the title are lost throughout the article.

Use of Acronyms: In the development of the article there appear acronyms whose meaning is not properly specified.

Citations, literature and theoretical-scientific foundation: The way of citing and unifying criteria should be reviewed. On the other hand, assertions without scientific support or related literature are shown both in the introduction and in the subsequent points, especially in the discussion and conclusions.

Sample: The selection of the sample is a bit diffuse in relation to the study. That is, people of different age groups have been taken who are supposed to be students and who also participate in movements, in some cases contacting through social networks and in others in events and strikes in the street. This could be one of the difficulties when developing the research and being included in the article, since such a choice can be a cause of bias in the collection of information.

Consistency and misprints: The title and the development of the article at different points should be consistent so that the person who reads it can extract the main ideas and know the findings clearly. On the other hand, they should review errors of form, some misprints, use of signs and reference according to the norm of the journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Title: It must be review the consistency between the title and the development of the article.

Summary: The meaning of the acronyms UTL and PRE must be indicated, as well as the subsequent ones must be reviewed throughout the document.

Introduction: it must be reviewed, I consider that citations and scientific theoretical foundations are lacking.

Sample: I think there may be bias, due to the selection of the target audience.

Discussion and conclusions: There is a lack of references, which support the content

References should be reviewed, sometimes they are years old and sometimes not. Example: Randler et al. (2020) [15] investigated German and Slovenian students and demonstrated the relationship between high levels of knowledge and preservationist attitudes. They also indicate a connection with an interest in learning in the context of attitudes towards wolves [15].

Review the entire document, mis-referenced numberings are found, or not following the style of the journal. Example:   hat seek social change ([19, 23-25]. With robust theoretical grounding, the 2-MEV scale has been tested and applied over the past decades in different countries, e.g., in Germany, Ivory Coast, the United States, Greece, Ireland, and Mexico, among others ([13, 26-30].

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

introduction.

More attention should be given to world literature. For example, I propose to add two interesting reading items.

 

Osuch, E.; Osuch, A.; Rybacki, P.; Przybylak, A.; Buchwald, T. Analysis of the factors influencing the decision about segregation by people not segregating the municipal waste with using the AHP method. J. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 17, 255–263.

Hategan, V.-P. Promoting the Eco-Dialogue through Eco-Philosophy for Community. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4291. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084291

 

Materials and methods.

The section should be better described. More information about the respondents should be provided. Explain why the age of the respondents varies between 16 and 65 (were all of the survey participants really students)? How did the authors defend themselves against incorrectly completed questionnaires? Were measurement errors taken into account, possibly how were they determined? The questionnaire should be attached to the manuscript as additional material.

Results.
There is a lot of information in the resulting part. Less important information can be deleted.

Discussion.

Some of the information contained in the discussion is not a discussion. Part of the text should be transferred to the introduction.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Although the article is well reformulated and revised, for subsequent occasions it should be something newer for the general population.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The changes made to the manuscript are sufficient. Review the manuscript and prepare the final version according to the MDPI template.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx