Generosity and Environmental Protection: How Strong Is the Relationship between Giving and Sustainability?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The main concerns with the article are its approach and the methodology.
Regarding the methodology, the Generosity Rating Scale used, despite well justified in previous literature, could be discussed in different ways.
First, it is built upon positive statements, somehow inducing responses towards the most morally acceptable options. Another scale development method avoiding this biass would seem more appropriate.
Secondly, and perhaps as a consequence of the latter, the real engagement of the surveyed youth in cultural, political or environmental organizations was actually very low. Correlation of generosity to civic engagement is well justified with the hierarchical linear regression method, but given the high results of the Generosity Scale used, any other outcome would have been very unexpected.
Furthermore, the excellent literature review provided, specifying concepts such as ecological generosity, frugality and self-sufficiency, is afterwards completely ignored in the methodological design and in the study, and reduced to membership or not to an environmental organization.
Finally, the idea of generosity itself and how it has been studied so far is surprisingly uncriticized. Existing research states that it is more present in children from higher socio-economic backgrounds and more educated families. How come is it not considered that in these environments generosity is a conscious act, to a certain extent driven from a "guilt compensating" moral? On the contrary, generosity in multiple forms -mutual help, solidarity, sharing, etc.- is an inherent and everyday practice by children and families and lesser favorued communities.
In conclusion, the article is interesting, well referenced, and addressing a topic with relevant academic soundness, but it lacks a more crytical approach, a stronger focus on sustainability itself, and a method which avoids certain biass in the answers.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your kind review. We have tried to respond punctually to each comment. It has been of real help in improving of our paper.
Please see the annex with our response.
Kind regards,
The authors.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The study is interesting, based on hypotheses that the article can answer.
First, however, there are some questions and suggestions to be made.
1. Why is the time frame used for 2018/2019? Why didn't the authors use more recent research?
2. Is there a socio-economic difference among the research participants? For example, was the average family income and education of the parents or guardians of the research participants considered? Would you please justify if yes or no?
3. I suggest that the data obtained should be explained in curves since tables are not representative of the analysis, especially showing statistical data such as standard deviation, variance, and mean.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your kind review. We have tried to respond punctually to each comment. It has been of real help in improving of our paper.
Please see the annex with our response.
Kind regards,
The authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised version of the article has been improved with new references and reflections that partially respond to the reviewer's comments.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please find our response and our revised manuscript.
Thank you for your suggestions.
With respect,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors limited themselves to answering the questions without altering or proposing changes in the article.
As I said before, the article is interesting, but it needs methodological revision.
The authors did not elaborate curves or more detailed statistical analysis to support discussions and conclusions from the data collected.
The justification for the old time frame is not consolidated. The research could have been done even with students in the remote education system since there was no environmental perception of the pandemic.
It was impossible to observe the authors' regression concerning socio-economic and educational levels.
I suggest the authors review the methodology, redo the study with updated data, and effectively give more statistical attention to data interpretation.
I am sorry.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your evaluation, but we feel there is a slight discrepancy between the way we thought of the paper and your suggestions.
Please find attached our responses to your suggestions. We hope that this time we have explained better what were our objectives.
Kind regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
I believe that the authors have justified their points and made the changes in the article, making it suitable for publication.
Congratulations.
