Exploring First-Time and Repeat Volunteer Scuba Divers’ Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Based on the C-A-B Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is excellent in all its dimensions: review of the bibliography, hypotheses, methodological design, fieldwork, analysis and conclusions.
In addition, the paper refers to a social group that has been very little studied: volunteers. Although this is also its main weakness, since the study of the environmental sensitivity of volunteers, and even more so of volunteers as special as scube divers, does not make relevant contributions to the academic literature.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Author,

Thank you for the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript based on their recommendations. Please review the content of the revised manuscript (the attached file). Once again, we sincerely appreciate the efforts of the reviewers. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for inviting me to read this manuscript.

The study that you present is well-organised research with theoretical background, methodology and analysis. The article is well documented by using relevant literature.

Overall the presentation is reasonably good, but it might still require some work.

1. The Abstract looks good but there is a lack purpose of for the paper.

2. The Conclusions paragraph is dry. It contains some statements that lack the conviction needed to demonstrate the importance and contribution of this research.

3. In addition, the authors should describe the study's limitations and make suggestions for future research.

 

In general, the paper fills a gap in the literature.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Author,

Thank you for the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript based on their recommendations. Please review the content of the revised manuscript (the attached file). Once again, we sincerely appreciate the efforts of the reviewers. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.      In general, this paper is well written and researched with new input into the current literature.

2.      Some minor issues need to be addressed before this paper is acceptable for publication. For example, in P.3, at the end of 1. Introduction, the overall structure of this paper needs to be introduced here.

3.      P. 7, “a total of 256 questionnaires were collected, and 18 invalid questionnaires were excluded, including those that were completely consistent and those that were extremely incomplete. There were 238 valid questionnaires, for a valid questionnaire rate of 92.9%.” This questionnaires survey was conducted overall how long? Time scale needs to be specified.

4. One major loophole for this paper is that 2. Literature teased out at least 6 hypotheses but at the end of this paper these hypotheses left unanswered. I would suggest you should in some way explicitly response to these hypotheses in 5. Discussion and Conclusion.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Author,

Thank you for the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript based on their recommendations. Please review the content of the revised manuscript (the attached file). Once again, we sincerely appreciate the efforts of the reviewers. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I am happy with the revision. Accept!