An Assessment of the Multidimensional Drivers and Determinants of Public Risk Perception of and Behaviors Related to Exposure to Air Pollution in Serbia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A really interesting and valuable topic, especially for Serbia. The abstract is well-constructed and has the correct structure.

I have a few recommendations:

1 The Introduction is too long so the part with the references should be moved to a second section - Literature review and the Introduction should only introduce the reader to the topic. 

2. When presenting the sample structure, add something about limitations there but also reiterate them in Conclusions in the paragraph where you should talk about limitations. For example, having more women that responded to the survey.... how do you think this affects the accuracy of the results? Of course, in online surveys is more difficult to keep the balance and this is an important limitation. Elaborate a little on this aspect in relation to table 1. 

3. In the abstract, you mention a national survey was conducted giving the impression was conducted at a macro level by public authorities. You should explain better in the Methodology part through which channels have you distributed the survey and the limitations of the collection method (e-mail, social media, potential bias...)

4. Discussions are well presented in relation to other papers. Conclusions should be improved and structured in a way to include Theoretical and Practical Implications of your research, Limitations and Future research directions. You have something about the implications, but better highlight the limitations, future directions and also the novelty of your research. 

5. Add a few more references after 2021. The topic is well debated and you should have more new references. You can add them in the part with limitations and future directions (maybe other papers approached something better and you can include in future studies those too).

Congrats and great success with your research. 

Author Response

The authors appreciate the helpful recommendations provided to improve the manuscript. Thank you.

1. Now there are two section– Introduction and Literature review.
2. Explanations regarding limitations are added in the Methodology and Conclusion section.
3. Additional information has been added regarding the methodology, limitations, and potential biases of the survey. Also, to avoid confusion about the term “national” in the abstract, the correction was made.
4. Theoretical and practical implications including limitations and future research are added in the Conclusion.
5. The following recommendations for future elaboration of the topic, together with the citation of the most recent references, were added as a new paragraph at the end of the section Discussion, while certain statements are included in the Conclusion.

Corrected and newly added content is highlighted in yellow. The recommended changes significantly contributed to the quality of the manuscript, thanks again.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In section 1, Introduction, what is the country of B&H? Please explain

 

In section 2, materials and methods, the novelty of this study is poor, using only questionnaire is not sufficient for a scientific paper. More scientific and innovative methods must be used to conduct air quality studies.

 

In section 3, linear regression should be considered when the authors try to establish relationship between two or more variables.

 

In section 4, result and discussion should be in the same section, not separated. Please follow the guidelines of the journal.

 

In section 5, yes, it is important to increase the awareness of air pollution amongst the public. However, this research consists of only survey result is not sufficient for this article to be considered for publication in a scientific journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors should double check the spelling and grammar of the article.

Author Response

- B&H is an abbreviation for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Corrected.

- The manuscript now contained a Literature review section (lines 75–147). As stated at the beginning of this section “An increasing number of studies focus on how individuals perceive air pollution and ways to minimize exposure and enhance public health” and questionnaires are the basis for results in almost all studies, indicating their actuality. Due to the lack of previous research on this topic and the recent increase in air pollution levels in Serbia, there are numerous practical and theoretical implications of the results. Well-placed hypotheses and well-designed research can give good results and make a contribution to the field, even without the use of complex methodology. In the end, the most important thing is the result.

- Not necessary. Used statistical tests sufficiently indicate the importance of the analyzed characteristics of the population in risk awareness and behaviors on the observed sample. The introduction of linear regression as you mentioned (and just to note that it is not suitable for these types of data), would not bring new knowledge, but only redundancy.

- Authors followed Instructions, and Results and Discussion are separate sections.

– Raising public awareness of the harmful effects of air pollution on health is a complex issue, both for scientific research and practical implications. Many studies indicate that it is still an unexplored area. The way people perceive risk from polluted air is very important for communication strategies and the creation of measures to mitigate adverse effects. This study highlights the multi-dimensional drivers and determinants influencing public risk perception and exposure-related behaviors. However, this topic requires further research to reveal the mutual relationships between public behavior and air pollution, but at this moment, conducted research is the first and very important step for further research for Serbia. The manuscript has all the elements of scientific research, and we believe that it deserves to be published as such.

The English language has been checked by a professional service. Corrected and newly added manuscript content is highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully reviewed this work.

This is an interesting, relevant, and well-executed piece that addresses an important contemporary issue regarding the public's understanding of the impact of air pollution on health. It is worth noting that the article emphasizes the lack of attention and action from public organizations in addressing this issue of air pollution.

I do not see any obvious problems with this work. It is comprehensive and self-contained.

I believe it can be published in its current form.

I would like to add (I hope the authors will find this interesting) that the "global" complexity with the perception of the air pollution issue in modern society is not only a problem for the general public, but there are also significant challenges within the scientific community. For example, understanding the impact of air pollution on health and its connection to climatic parameters remains a major issue.

For instance, during the winter season in mid-latitudes, the heating period affects air pollution levels, which is evident. However, in addition to that, the cold air itself contributes to the increased deposition of inhaled pollutants inside the respiratory tract of humans due to intense condensation growth processes caused by physical heat and mass exchange processes within the upper respiratory pathways. This occurs when cold inhaled air interacts with the moist walls of the respiratory tract and the warm humid air inside the respiratory tract (that filling the airways before inhalation).

This knowledge gap was accidentally discovered and clearly has a significant impact on modern understanding. Currently, this phenomenon (the effect of cold air on sudden condensation growth within the respiratory tract) is not taken into account in the numerical models used to assess the impact of air pollution by public organizations worldwide - and this problem will need to be addressed in the near future.

It is evident that this aspect complements and expands the understanding of the problem that the same levels of air pollution have different health consequences in moderate latitudes and tropics.

"In understanding the factors that influence, it is important to consider not only the levels of air pollution, but also the weather conditions (temperature and humidity), as this can lead to enhanced deposition effects of inhaled pollutants within the respiratory tract and result in an increased dose of pollutants delivered to the lungs with each breath."

And unfortunately, it is evident that a limited understanding of all the processes occurring during respiration in a polluted environment is not only a problem for ordinary people and residents, but also a major problem for the scientific community and the modern understanding of the impact of air pollution that we are witnessing now.

And COVID-19 has raised this problem to an even higher level of importance than ever before.

And this is confirmed by hundreds and thousands of new studies on the link between air pollution and COVID-19

 The issue has been described and discussed in detail in:

Ishmatov, A., Influence of weather and seasonal variations in temperature and humidity on supersaturation and enhanced deposition of submicron aerosols in the human respiratory tract, Atmospheric Environment (2020), V. 223, 117226, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.117226.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the inspirational review comments. Some of the mentioned have already inspired us for future research. Based on your comments minor changes were made; the importance of scientists in communicating their results, and the overall importance of the air pollution effects on human health after the COVID-19 pandemic were emphasized.

Corrected and newly added manuscript content is highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigates factors contributing to public perception and behaviors related to air pollution in Serbia. This study suggests that there is a gap between understanding risk and taking action to reduce risk, and such research is considered valuable.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comment. Corrected and newly added manuscript content is highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors!

 

Thank you for submitting your manuscript “An assessment of multi-dimensional drivers and determinants of public risk perception and exposure-related behaviors to air pollution in Serbia” to the journal Sustainability.

 

Your research is relevant and certainly valuable to the scientific community.

 

The positive aspects of the work should be noted: 1) an interestingly designed and implemented socio-ecological experiment; 2) high-quality statistical processing of results; 3) It is clear that the work has already been revised and has increased its level, which reflects the high level of professionalism of the authors.

 

As a recommendation, I would like to advise you:

It is better to work through the literature review, focusing on the fact that the countryside can be polluted not only due to the activity of locally located sources (as agriculture is described), but also due to the transfer of polluted air masses from large industrial sources to remote, and seemingly clean, rural area. The transfer of polluted air masses causes a sharp and significant increase in pollutant concentrations in a remote area. Ultimately, constant remote exposure causes high loads on ecosystems, and accordingly cannot but affect human health. Please be kind enough to clarify this mechanism as well. Below is a selection of works that describe this phenomenon.

(Page 3)

 

* ZLai I. C. et al. Long-range transport of air pollutants to Taiwan during the COVID-19 lockdown in Hubei Province // Aerosol and Air Quality Research. – 2021. – V.. 21. – No. 2. – P. 200392.

 

* Molozhnikova Y. V. et al. Ecological Zoning of the Baikal Basin Based on the Results of Chemical Analysis of the Composition of Atmospheric Precipitation Accumulated in the Snow Cover //Applied Sciences. – 2023. – V.. 13. – No. 14. – P. 8171.

 

 

Check the chapter numbers. You have lost chapter No. 3. And, accordingly, the entire numbering has changed. (Page 5, line 216)

 

Check the table numbering. The manuscript does not contain Table 3. However, there is a link to it.

 

I understand that these comments may require additional effort on your part. However, addressing these issues will improve the quality and impact of your manuscript. I believe that, with necessary improvements, your work has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the scientific community. I look forward to seeing an improved version of your manuscript in the future.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Authors!

Thank you for submitting your manuscript “An assessment of multi-dimensional drivers and determinants of public risk perception and exposure-related behaviors to air pollution in Serbia” to the journal Sustainability.

Your research is relevant and certainly valuable to the scientific community.

Answer:

Thank you for your support and encouragement in publishing our manuscript. We are very grateful for all your comments and recommendations. We have made additional improvements based on your recommendations and increased the overall quality of the manuscript.

The positive aspects of the work should be noted: 1) an interestingly designed and implemented socio-ecological experiment; 2) high-quality statistical processing of results; 3) It is clear that the work has already been revised and has increased its level, which reflects the high level of professionalism of the authors.

Answer:

Thank you.

As a recommendation, I would like to advise you:

It is better to work through the literature review, focusing on the fact that the countryside can be polluted not only due to the activity of locally located sources (as agriculture is described), but also due to the transfer of polluted air masses from large industrial sources to remote, and seemingly clean, rural area. The transfer of polluted air masses causes a sharp and significant increase in pollutant concentrations in a remote area. Ultimately, constant remote exposure causes high loads on ecosystems, and accordingly cannot but affect human health. Please be kind enough to clarify this mechanism as well. Below is a selection of works that describe this phenomenon.

(Page 3)

* ZLai I. C. et al. Long-range transport of air pollutants to Taiwan during the COVID-19 lockdown in Hubei Province // Aerosol and Air Quality Research. – 2021. – V.. 21. – No. 2. – P. 200392.

* Molozhnikova Y. V. et al. Ecological Zoning of the Baikal Basin Based on the Results of Chemical Analysis of the Composition of Atmospheric Precipitation Accumulated in the Snow Cover //Applied Sciences. – 2023. – V.. 13. – No. 14. – P. 8171.

Answer:

We have adopted your recommendation and offered additional explanations, based also on the references you provided (changes are in lines 100–110).

Check the chapter numbers. You have lost chapter No. 3. And, accordingly, the entire numbering has changed. (Page 5, line 216)

Answer:

Thank you for the observation, we corrected it.

Check the table numbering. The manuscript does not contain Table 3. However, there is a link to it.

Answer:

Maybe there is some technical problem with track changes, but Table 3 is in the manuscript, right above Figure 2.

I understand that these comments may require additional effort on your part. However, addressing these issues will improve the quality and impact of your manuscript. I believe that, with necessary improvements, your work has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the scientific community. I look forward to seeing an improved version of your manuscript in the future.

Answer:

We very diligently approached the suggestions you advised. Thank you for your time and comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with the changes done by the authors. Congrats!

Author Response

Thank you for participating in the review process.

Again, thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Since the author did not make significant improvements from the previous version of the manuscript, the quality of the research result remained mediocre. Therefore, my opinion stayed the same.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Ok.

Author Response

We disagree with your statement that we did not make improvements from the previous version of the manuscript. In the first round, there were four review reports, and relevant suggestions were taken into consideration, and the paper was changed and improved according to them, which we explained point by point in the first round of the revision. However, it is not possible to answer your main remark that only survey results are insufficient for this article to be considered for publication in a scientific journal because you question the methodology on which the work is based. We strongly disagree with your personal opinion because hundreds of papers investigating public risk perception about many concerning questions based only on surveys were published in highly-ranked scientific journals, including Sustainability. We will not quote them right now because it is easily verified by searching the literature (and also, we provided a section Literature Review). Moreover, does this mean that you also deny that Sustainability publishes scientific papers (i.e., Articles)? Again, we answered, point by point each of your objections in the first round, and you did not replicate them. If we cannot discuss the problem, it is pointless to discuss it further. The editor should make the final decision.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for correcting the comments in your manuscript. I believe that the work can be published in its current form.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My opinion on this manuscript remain the same.