Environmental Behavior of Youth and Sustainable Development
, Nikita Martyushev 3, Zhanna Nikonova 4, Irina Savchenko 5,6, Sofya Abramova 7, Vladlena Lubimova 8 and Anastasia Novgorodtseva 7Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion, the text presented for evaluation is an interesting supplementary study. While the theoretical context could be more extensive, it would undoubtedly require extensive study. However, theoretical and research assumptions have been presented sufficiently for the framework of the article. I evaluate the research and methodological assumptions presented in the same way. Precisely defined problems, adequately defined variables and indicators. The obtained data were presented reliably and legibly; and on their basis, methodologically valid conclusions were formulated. I used the term as a contribution study due to the fact that the research area is one of many cities in the Russian Federation. After all, one must take into account the territorial size of Russia, the size and, above all, the large social, economic, cultural and ethnic diversity, etc. In this sense, the study is like one of the fragmentary studies that can be a valuable seed for in-depth studies with regard to the whole of Russia. Due to the important issues raised, in my opinion the text is worth recommending not only to Russologists. Also to other social researchers, not only from within Europe.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate your support for our work. We hope that the revised text will not leave you indifferent. Improved sections such as Introduction, Methodology, Conclusion. The link between sustainable development and environmental behavior is more precise.
Reviewer 2 Report
It is really valuable for the paper to showcase that developing youth’s experiences by using attitude approach of an inquiry of an environmental value as a measurement tool for the participants of the youth in Ekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk region, Russia. The story is detailed and impressive with demonstrable suggestions that have broad implications for human behavior studies elsewhere. However, the paper can hardly be regarded as a formal science research paper due to a lack of substantial elements such as the description of scientific problem, methodology (only using survey based on interviewed on-line surveys) and results in the focal points, the paper actually looks like an execution report for a project with many implementation details.
Introduction
Your introduction is still rather descriptive, rather than a critical analysis of existing theories. A good introduction clearly sets out what is missing/wrong with the existing theories and why a modification is needed about the models of pro-environmental behaviors. Why not just use “knowledge, attitudes, and self-improvement activities” toward pro-environmental behaviors have already done? The categories the authors have proposed are confusing and unclear, and sometimes contradictory. They are also debatable. Please clarify that your factors (i.e., perception, attitude, moral) regarding to protection programs related to the theories beyond “government told, or teacher told”, just says by “close friends’ told me and media told me”.
Materials and Methods
- The authors should make all data underlying the findings in your manuscript fully available. Please define your based sources of your hypotheses since you have Founding hypothesis and consequence hypotheses (Lines 235 to 252). Do you have theorical bases for your hypotheses? Please cite from your references. If you try student’s on-line survey in young people, how to maintain your reliability from sampling approach in random selection if they did not have opportunity to access smartphones, tablets, or computers? How to relate to the habits, religions, smartphone games, and your programs. Please explain.
- In your question, what is your approach to detect if you have “social distancing quarantine” affected your studies since you detect during April 2021? How to confirm your on-line questions with construct validity?
- The methods are very unclear and not nearly enough detail is provided on the methods detected from your study groups in Russian young people. At a minimum, the following questions need to be explained: How were samples chosen? The discussion then needs to critically examine or evaluate the process of your research in improving upon the existing theories from that developing results of social theories. I do not detect that you actually do that for your survey in the theory of social psychology, such as hidden truth. How to expose the hidden world of secrets in youth’s mind during ruling and penalty beyond moral anger (Lines 409 to 427) in your study periods? Is the predictive power of your refined theory in your conclusion better that those cited in the introduction?
- How to measure attitude strength and attitude magnitude to increase
their reliability from self-reports (Lines 466-476)?
- I do not know why your conclusions were related to the theory of social sciences. Did you study better school programs to improve the youth's pro-environmental behaviors from your research, e.g., any school pedagogy programs from “government says, teachers say?” , “or just media say, and/or just close friends say (Lines 665-673 )?” What is their social norms? Any theory has been supported in Russia?
Specific Revision
- Please revise your title as a case study.
- Your citations are really rare and limited, since you said “State bodies in the Sverdlovsk region are aimed at developing environmental protection [42; 43] (Lines 187 to 188).” Please read the book, “Envisioning Environmental Literacy” (Fang, 2020), and please cite and criticize this book on the bridge the gap between two critical issues, environmental literacy and social norms from more than dozen cases toward pro-environmental behaviors with rigorous science given the ideas for your studies.
- Your manuscript should be presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English. I recommend that authors have your manuscripts checked by an English language native speaker before your re-submission. This will ensure that your re-submissions are judged at peer review exclusively on academic merit.
- Some minor typo should be revised, such as This The article (Line 304).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We express our great gratitude to you for your valuable comments. Revised sections such as Introduction, Methodology, Conclusion.
It should be noted that when writing the Introduction, we aimed at a descriptive introduction to the issue we are studying and problematization of the situation of the attitude of young people to environmental behavior issues.
The need to study environmental-oriented behavior patterns of young people is very acute today. The reason is the need to adjust the existing environmental education programs focused on sustainable development in connection with the analysis of circumstances. However, the discussion of this issue is a matter of further research.
In the section "Methodology," we have prescribed those theoretical studies that have become the theoretical basis for hypotheses, as well as some essential points that allow clarifying our methodological position.
The conclusions have been re-formulated and supplemented following research questions and hypotheses.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript presents a comprehensive study, aiming to analyze the environmental behavior, based on a survey addressed to young people from Russian metropolis. In the Materials and Methods section, hypotheses were formulated, and the survey analysis allowed the confirmation/ non-confirmation of formulated hypothesis.
I would like to address to authors several comments and suggestions.
General suggestion:
On my opinion, the manuscript does not demonstrate the relationship between the environmental behaviors of youth with the sustainable development. I would suggest, either to reconsider the title, or to comment, based on the authors’ research such a finding.
Detailed comments and suggestions:
Page 4, second paragraph, it is not clear:
- why the rating scale ends at 85?
- the meaning of 1st and 85th positions, respectively (even if it comes out in the following paragraphs), which is the most ecological?
Page 5, rows 213 and 216: please replace Yekaterinburg with Ekaterinburg.
Page 7, row 304: delete either “This” or “The”.
Page 7, row 330: “the ecological situation in Ekaterinburg is currently insufficient” - I would reconsider the “insufficient”, it is not explicit enough.
Page 8, row 342: include the reference to Fig. 3
Page 8, row 358: according to Figure 3, the % is 89, not 79.
Page 9, Table 1: I would delete line 10, as “Total answers” is not 100%, but 400 respondents; or reformulate; moreover, it is not relevant.
Page 9, row 394: the word “deforestation” is doubled; similar in Table 2 and at page 10, row 424.
Page 10, Table 2: I would delete lines 13 and 14, similar to Table 1.
Page 10, row 409: replace “because” with “from”.
Page 10, last paragraph: include the reference to Fig. 5.
Page 11, first paragraph (after Figure 5): please reconsider the comments, according to the information given in the figure.
Page 11, row 455: check the word “savvy”.
Page 12, first paragraph: how that conclusion is correlated with the results given in Figure 7?
Page 12, Table 3: line 8, include “are” between “that” and “not”.
Page 13, Table 13:
- I would delete line 18, similar to Table 1 and Table 2;
- delete “On average, when answering this question, respondents noted 12.9 480 answer options”, the information is doubled.
Page 13, row 504: include the reference to Fig. 8.
Page 14, Table 4: delete line 7, similar to Table 1 and the others.
Page 15, Table 5: delete line 9, similar to Table 1 and the others.
Page 15, rows 544 and 545: please reformulate.
Page 18, row 600: I did not find out that hypothesis, formulated at the Materials and Methods section, or anywhere else in the text; am I wrong?
Page 19, Table 10: delete lines 9 and 10, similar to Table 1 and the others.
Page 21, row 680:
- please explicit NAFI abbreviation
- first four paragraphs from “Discussion and Conclusion”: how are these examples related to the manuscript study? if there is a relationship, it should be more explicit. If they are not related, I would suggest moving the examples in the Introduction.
Page 22: several ideas are doubled, including complete paragraphs, like “From the point of view of the youth of Ekaterinburg, the city's ecological situation 712 is one of the most pressing problems. Despite minor improvements over the past 3-5 years, 713 this problem does not lose relevance, and regional authorities and city residents should 714 be responsible for its solution”. Please reconsider the entire page of conclusions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We express our great gratitude to you for your valuable comments. Revised sections such as Introduction, Methodology, Conclusion.
The relationship between sustainable development and environmental behavior is more clearly outlined in the Introduction.
In the section "Methodology," we have prescribed those theoretical studies that have become the theoretical basis for hypotheses, as well as some essential points that allow clarifying our methodological position.
The conclusions have been reformulated and supplemented following research questions and hypotheses.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised manuscript is easier to follow based on feedback from my comments. I recommend that the revised paper be accepted with very minor revisions.
