Ecological Footprint Reduction Behaviors of Individuals in Turkey in the Context of Ecological Sustainability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1- Please create a table to present the demographic properties of the study group (that is please summarize lines 161-170 in the table).
2- By using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the authors conclude that research data is not distributed as normal. Besides, they also present the p-value of the Shapiro-Wilk test statistic; however, they do not interpret or mention this statistic. Therefore, please clarify why you use the Shapiro-Wilk test.
3- It is not clear the reason for the usage of the Mann Whitney-U test, Kruskal Wallis H-Test, and Spearman Rank Differences.
4- Line 290: The authors employ the Chi-square test to examine the relationship between gender and carbon footprint level. Please explain whether normality is a requirement for the chi-square or not.
5- Line 318: The authors present the chi-square test statistics and the p values of these statistics, so I think it is unnecessary to present the values that “p<.05”.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Please create a table to present the demographic properties of the study group (that is please summarize lines 161-170 in the table).
Response 1: The demographic properties of the study group are given in the table (Line: 161). (in red)
Point 2: By using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the authors conclude that research data is not distributed as normal. Besides, they also present the p-value of the Shapiro-Wilk test statistic; however, they do not interpret or mention this statistic. Therefore, please clarify why you use the Shapiro-Wilk test.
Response 2: The Shapiro-Wilk test was deleted because it is not mandatory (Line: 237). (in red)
Point 3: It is not clear the reason for the usage of the Mann Whitney-U test, Kruskal Wallis H-Test, and Spearman Rank Differences.
Response 3: Necessary explanations have been added to the data analysis section (Line: 241-243). (in red)
Point 4: Line 290: The authors employ the Chi-square test to examine the relationship between gender and carbon footprint level. Please explain whether normality is a requirement for the chi-square or not.
Response 4: Necessary explanations have been added to the data analysis section (Line: 247-248). (in red)
Point 5: Line 318: The authors present the chi-square test statistics and the p values of these statistics, so I think it is unnecessary to present the values that “p<.05”.
Response 5: If deemed appropriate, it is recommended that all findings remain.
NOTE: English language and style is fine/small spell-checked.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper.
Let me start with the positive aspects:
The abstract is well written – short and shows the essence of the text.
The introduction is well written and introduces the reader to the subject matter. The results and discussion are presented clearly and correctly. The recommendations are also interesting.
I only suggest that you:
1. line 31-34 [cited: Economic sustainability consists of proper use of resources, income-expenditure balance, elimination of income distribution inequality, sustainable production, cost and investments, and research and development [3]] -> The element of consumption (food and non-food goods) is missed. The importance of this issue is presented, among others, in the paper by Gazdecki et al. (2021). Segmentation of Food Consumers Based on Their Sustainable Attitude. Energies 2021, 14, 3179. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14113179.
2. The methodology is correctly written, and I know exactly how the study was conducted. Unfortunately, the authors have to complete the information about the research tool - a survey questionnaire form (in the form of an appendix). In this way, the Authors will clearly present to the readers the statements they used to calculate the carbon and ecological footprint and measure consumer awareness on how to reduce the ecological footprint.
3. The description of the tables should be completed => no sources at present
4. A conclusion was missed underlining the importance of recommendations. I suggest the Authors rethink the conclusion of their article.
I was very glad to learn about your achievements.
Good luck with your next research
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: line 31-34 [cited: Economic sustainability consists of proper use of resources, income-expenditure balance, elimination of income distribution inequality, sustainable production, cost and investments, and research and development [3]] -> The element of consumption (food and non-food goods) is missed. The importance of this issue is presented, among others, in the paper by Gazdecki et al. (2021). Segmentation of Food Consumers Based on Their Sustainable Attitude. Energies 2021, 14, 3179. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14113179.
Response 1: The article was used and cited. It will also contribute to our ongoing work. Thank you very much for reporting. (Line: 606-611 and 819-820). (in red)
Point 2: The methodology is correctly written, and I know exactly how the study was conducted. Unfortunately, the authors have to complete the information about the research tool - a survey questionnaire form (in the form of an appendix). In this way, the Authors will clearly present to the readers the statements they used to calculate the carbon and ecological footprint and measure consumer awareness on how to reduce the ecological footprint.
Response 2: Added to Appendix A. It also includes a bibliography. (Line: 660-665). (in red)
Line 660-665:
[Carbon Footprint and Ecological Footprint Calculations have been made with the calculation tools and items used within the scope of the Climate Crisis Project [57]. Regarding the living conditions in Turkey, adaptations have been made based on the items in the Global Footprint Network [52]. Ecological footprint indicators have also taken into account in the study [58]. Calculation tool and survey items can be accessed from the link below: http://istanbulkadinmuzesi.org/banabirakacaginizgelecek/ekoloji-ayak-izi/]
Point 3: The description of the tables should be completed => no sources at present
Response 3: The description of the tables are complete (in red)
Point 4: A conclusion was missed underlining the importance of recommendations. I suggest the Authors rethink the conclusion of their article.
Response 4: Recommendations have been added (Line: 640-643). (in red)
NOTE: English language and style is fine/small spell-checked.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
