Connectedness to Nature and Pro-Environmental Behaviour from Early Adolescence to Adulthood: A Comparison of Urban and Rural Canada

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript assesses the role of living context, age, gender on emotional connectedness to nature (ECN) and pro-environmental behaviour (PEB) in Canada by using data from a sample survey on a total of 1,251 respondents. The Authors consider three more specific goals of their work, which are illustrated in sub-section 1.6. I believe the paper addresses important questions, but the framing, theory and empirics need to be strongly clarified and refined. I detail my points of criticism below.

 

• The Authors should discuss what is new about the paper beyond the study area (Canada). The Authors should argue what their new angle adds to the literature and why it is important.
• The Authors should embed their work in a consolidated theoretical framework. Although the Authors discussed the current literature on the topic, the arguments are often fragmented and lack a unitary vision. More precisely, I believe the Authors should not only contextualise the paper in literature in such a fragmented way as they have already done, but they have to do it coherently with a theoretical framework to which the Authors seem to make not refer. What is the use of illustrating the objectives of the paper in sub-section 1.6 without contextualising them in a clear theoretical framework? Some words have been spent for ECN, age, gender, but I find it strange to discuss them separately from a comprehensive theory which should help consistently interpret the results. In my opinion, the lack of a solid theoretical approach also undermines the relevance of the empirical results.
• Several scholars pointed out that values directly and/or indirectly affect PEBs. Values embodied by individuals and institutions are usually the main determinants of PEBs (Terpstra and David, 1987; Agirdag et al., 2016; Punzo et al., 2019). Taking this approach, the Authors should consider the possibility to broadening their perspective by also modelling ‘values’ (if anything, also from an external source), with an effort to exploring their relationship with the environmental behaviour.
• The same methodological choice is not justified enough. The absence of a valid theoretical framework makes it hard the choice of a coherent statistical method. Please, discuss your methodological choices (in particular, the hierarchical multiple regression) more in detail with its strengths and limitations. Alternatively, I suggest to the Authors to reconsider their methodological choice by performing more appropriate and advanced modelling. In this context, for example, structural equation modelling (SEM) – which allows testing complex hypotheses – should enable the Authors to explore the relationship among the different constructs in which the theories are expressed.
• Then, how were the moderating and control variables treated before being included in the model? The Authors say generically that each construct derives from the aggregation of different items measured on a Likert scale. What are these items specifically? I recommend to include a table with all the items (grouped by construct) and the main descriptive statistics. Then, the Authors assessed the internal consistency of PEB and ECN by using Cronbach’s alpha. Why did not they use the omega-based methodology (see, for example, Watkins, 2016)? I suggest also reporting the results of the other methods used to assess the internal consistency of the construct.
• In my opinion, the selection of variables sometimes lacks rationality. I suggest the Authors provide more details to explain why these variables were chosen. Why did the Author choose not to control for other variables than those used? For example, some studies also demonstrated the role of political identity in affecting PEBs. I guess the Authors selected the socio-demographic variables according to the prominent literature in the field. Did they run simulations in which they took a wider set of control variables into account? And then, did they decide to exclude from the model those variables that never demonstrated significance in the data? More explanations of the reasons for variables’ selection are expected. Moreover, concerns also regard the variables considered, such as age. Why was not its quadratic version considered?
• I find Table 1 meaningless. What is the use of reporting absolute frequencies? I assume the percentage distribution can be much more informative.
• In my opinion, the results are likely not generalizable worldwide, being valid in the context of each country because different country structures may lead to different behaviours. I suggest the Authors spend time to discuss this in their conclusions. Indeed, I find it strange that conclusions are not reported and some concluding remarks are shown in discussions. I suggest separating discussions from the conclusions in which the main contributions (and limitations) of the paper should be argued.
• However, in the current state, I find the discussions not very informative as they do nothing but retrace the main empirical results that perhaps should be better valued in the results section. Discussions should recall the most important findings which should be argued in the light of the current literature, but above all should provide suggestions for policy implications that may arise. In my opinion, the results are meaningless if nothing is added in terms of policy implications.
• More precisely, the Authors made no efforts to discuss the role of government institutions, while the empirical results should be interpreted in light of the ongoing institutional settings. In other words, the results imply policies and measures of which no suggestions are given in the paper. I believe the Authors should rationalize the discussion section by moving all the properly statistical results in Section 3 (Results), and expand Section 4 with the policy implications being careful not to limit themselves to compare with those of previous studies. Which strategies for Governments? Do best practices already exist? Discussing best practices in some specific environmental issues, as well as further practical policy proposals aimed at enhancing certain environmental behaviours, should allow the paper to gain in originality.
• Figure 2 is not clear. If I understand correctly, the goal was to investigate if there is a relationship between age and PEB through ECN, that is, if ECN plays a mediating role between the first two. The Authors talk about predictions (see, for example, line 437, where they say “the mediation model revealed that age significantly predicted ECN…”). Therefore, I imagine that causality relationships are also being studied (if so, why are not vectors used in the figure?). I understand that the Authors place as a limitation of their study the lack of possibility of studying causal relationships, but then what is the sense of talking about predictions?

Additional references:

Steg, L., de Groot, J.I.M. (2012). Environmental values. In the Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology. S. Clayton (Eds.), 81-92. Oxford University Press, New York.

Agirdag, O., Phalet, K., Van Houtte, M. (2016). European identity as a unifying category:  National vs. European identification among native and immigrant pupils. Eur. Union Politics 17(2), 285–302.

Terpstra, V.,David, K. (1987).The Cultural Environment of International Business. South Western Publishing Company. Dallas.

Punzo, G., Panarello, D., Pagliuca, M. M., Castellano, R., & Aprile, M. C. (2019). Assessing the role of perceived values and felt responsibility on pro-environmental behaviours: A comparison across four EU countries. Environmental Science & Policy, 101, 311-322.

Watkins, M. W. (2017). The reliability of multidimensional neuropsychological measures: From alpha to omega. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 31(6-7), 1113-1126.

Author Response

Hello,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. Please find our response to your comments in the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

My main problem with the paper is the mismatch between the research question and the methodology employed by the paper. Questions put to front in the introduction, most importantly: "is the adolescent decline in ECN permanent or does it rebound moving into adulthood?", But also: "Is this decline consistent between urban and rural youth? Is the decline consistent for both males and females?" Cannot be addressed by a one-shot survey methodology. Answering such questions requires longitudinal study design.

A rather minor (and unlike above mentioned point, a fixable) shortcoming is a non-sufficient diversity in surveyed literature. I understand that authors are embedded into the personal development literature, but given that Sustainability aims at a wider audience an overview of related fields is important.

For example, when authors discuss pro-environmental behavior, several studies in a similar context but by researchers in social psychology come to mind. Most recent of which is: Bradley et al. (2020) The Role of Climate Change Risk Perception, Response Efficacy, and Psychological Adaptation in Pro-environmental Behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology.

When authors refer to judgement-action gap, which is also referred to the value-action gap or value-action wedge, a study in similar (commonwealth) context also using survey methodology and focusing on rural-urban difference comes to mind: Babutsidze and Chai (2018) Look at me saving the planet! Ecological Economics.

It is particularly surprising not to refer to Glenn Albrecht's work when discussing connectedness to nature.

Author Response

Hello,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. Please see our response to your comments in the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Please find attached some of my feedback for your consideration when revising the manuscript.

Kind regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Hello,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. You can find our response to your comments in the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I read the new version of the paper. I find it slightly improved, but I still have several concerns. However, I have learned that many suggestions have not been implemented.

First, I find that the lack of a solid theoretical framework detracts from the sense of practical application. I suggest that the Authors try to link their contribution within a specific theory of pro-environmental behaviour among the many that literature has proposed in recent decades.

Second, I find it strange that the Authors do not contextualise their findings in light of the policies that might ensue. What is the real value of a study if it does not discuss how the results can be useful to policymakers or to society at large?

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attached response. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is now better references (although this could have been improved way beyond a few suggestions I have made in the first revision round). Claims of contribution are also well moderated.

On the other hand, I would insist on changing term "gender" for "sex". There is a significant difference across the two and what you observe/study in the latter, not the former. I know there is no global consensus around this, but I think researchers need to collectively move toward differentiating the two concepts.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attached response. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors have implemented some of my comments.

Author Response

At the lead journal editor's request, we have made minor amendments to the discussion section that was added. We would once again like to thank you for your thorough read-through and review of our manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf