This study tries to reveal citizens' intention to environmentally sustainable behave making cities sustainable. This study, which deals with sustainable cities within the scope of environmentally sustainable behavior, reveals interesting results. Recommendations for the study are presented below.

In the introduction cection, an adequate framework has not been created for the purpose of the study, especially for the research question. In addition, the literature on the subject should be handled in a wider context. Apart from the TRA model, other models should be mentioned and why the TRA model is used should be explained in a wider way.

In the research model section, the rationale for H2 and H3 should be expanded with more research and theories.

In the Method section; In which days and months of 2022, where and how the study was carried out should be explained. How the scales were chosen should be explained

The results for each finding obtained in the discussion section should be compared and discussed with previous research.

In the conclusion section, the theoretical implications of the research should be improved.

Author Response

We thank the referee for the valuable comments on our manuscript. His/her comments will surely help to improve the paper. We will address the reviewer’s comments below, answering after each paragraph. Based on these comments, we have changed or clarified the manuscript.

Reviewer 1

In the introduction section, an adequate framework has not been created for the purpose of the study, especially for the research question. In addition, the literature on the subject should be handled in a wider context. Apart from the TRA model, other models should be mentioned and why the TRA model is used should be explained in a wider way.

We modified and supplemented the Introduction section and expanded the literature to support the research question.

In the research model section, the rationale for H2 and H3 should be expanded with more research and theories.

We tried to improve the Research Model section.

In the Method section: in which days and months of 2022, where and how the study was carried out should be explained.

The data of this study were collected by a survey carried out from 1 January to 30 April 2022.

The data was collected using a structured questionnaire, built online on google. The participants were University students aged 19 to 25 who were asked to participate by communicating the link to the questionnaire. We have added these information in Materials and Methods section.

How the scales were chosen should be explained

The scales were chosen from specific research on the topic of sustainable behavior, as demonstrated by the source for each scale indicated in the methodology. In addition, we have also included an example of item for each scale.

The results for each finding obtained in the discussion section should be compared and discussed with previous research.

As you suggested, we went through the Discussion section and made our best to improve it following your comments. Indeed, we tried to better explain our results, especially regarding the hypothesis H1, H2 and H3, comparing them with previous research. You can find all the changes made highlighted in yellow color and in track version mode.

In the conclusion section, the theoretical implications of the research should be improved.

We tried to improve the theoretical implications making them clearer. Hoping that our change can satisfy your expectations. You can find all the changes made highlighted in yellow color and in track version mode.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript, Exploring the Citizens’ Behavior to Promote Environmental Sustainability: The Role of Information Overload and Urban Sustainable Policies”

I must commend the authors, the study is well written, i have the following observations

The manuscript needs a little English check here and there for instance the first sentence in the abstract ........more comprehensive framework for understanding citizens’ intention to environmentally sustainable behave making cities sustainable” is incorrect and look for others that the sentence needs to be rearranged.

We submitted our paper to English Professional Service.

Include were the questionnaire was taken form because am sure it is not from the whole country, also identify how many were distributed and how many were finally discarded.

We have added this information in Materials and Methods section. Moreover, All the questionnaires collected were used because they are valid.

From your model, I can see a mediating variable (Intention Towards Sustainable Development), but from the hypothesis raised, that mediating relationship was not presented, I believe that will add more significance to your study. Why did the authors decide to go in that direction?, if there is no satisfying reason, you can add the relationship.

The hypothesis of mediation has not been made explicit in a direct way and with a specific hypothesis. However, it is implicit in the research model. This choice derives from the desire to stick as closely as possible to the original TRA framework, in which the hypothesis that the intention to perform a behavior mediates the relationships between behavioral determinants, subjective norms and attitude, and behavior is not directly made explicit. So, we preferred to break down the mediating effects through several hypotheses. Many studies consider only the intention to perform a behavior, without inserting the behavior as a dependent variable into the model and considering almost obvious the relationship between behavioral intention and behavior. Moreover, attitude and subjective norms had an indirect effect on behavior through intention, but these effects were not significant.

There is a moderation analysis performed but the diagram has been omitted both in the manuscript and as an appendix, the authors are advised to add it.

Thanks for the advice, but we have a problem of space and number of pages, which we have already exceeded.

In section 3, you cannot interview respondents using a non-probability method and also claiming that you use questionnaire, correct the statement.

We thank you and we wrote the sentence correctly.

Based on a power 267 of 0.90 and a significance level of 0.05, the minimum required sample size is 205 for model 268 testing. Please put the citation

We inserted the citations.

The study presents some findings for practitioners and policy makers, I recommend that section should be separated from the conclusion

We have separated from the conclusions implications for practitioners and policy makers.

The main thing to look into in this paper is that the author(s) have not really considered the implication of their results both the theoretical and managerial implications are to be presented separately for easy access This needs to be addressed in two ways:
a) There needs to be a consideration of what this study means for businesses in this sector – perhaps even some recommendations.
b) There needs to be more generalization beyond the industry, although I could not pinpoint the industry or sector been used and geographical context. What are the broader lessons for businesses given the results of this research – this would help alignment with the aims of the journal.

We have created the Theoretical Implications section and the Practical Implications section highlighting that the public administration sector is the context to which the practical implications of our study are addressed. in fact, we have suggested some recommendations for policymakers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper entitled ‘Exploring the Citizens’ Behavior to Promote Environmental 2 Sustainability: The Role of Information Overload and Urban 3 Sustainable Policies’. In general, I have found some merit within the present study. However, I have some concerns with the proposal in its present form. May concerns are due to the style of writing and the abstractness of some sections. The style of writing is characterized by very long and complicated sentences. I suggest a revision by a native speaker. My second wish is to display your study more concrete. For instance, you use many items of different subscales. They represent different psychological concepts. It might be good to give examples of these items to make the psychological constructs more visible and easier to grasp.

Pg 1, ln 27 – pg 2, ln 92

The theoretical framework is suitable. However, the sentences are difficult to read. I recommend to ask some native speaker for revision.

Pg 3, ln 123 – ln 125

It should be more clarified why information overload is part of the research question. I feel this not pretty sure right now.

Pg 3, ln 138 – ln 139

Here we have the explanation of overload. However, this should come earlier in order to understand the research aim that comes before.

Pg 3, ln 144

The remarks on SDG 11 should be made earlier.

Pg 4, ln 203 – pg 5, ln 224

I feel we have here a mixture between the introduction section and the hypothesis section. Don’t le me be misunderstood: Your hypotheses are suitable. However, I find a lot of information about the theoretical background here. Sure, you have to strengthen your arguments, however, I think you should be more precise in the introduction and shorter here.

Pg 6, ln 264 – ln 291

This chapter should be more detailed. How did you approach your participants? Could you please give an example of your items? In your introduction you argue with actions in accordance with the SDGs. Is your measuring instrument able to measure actions in line with the 17 SDGs? Could you give me please some arguments? Maybe it’s a difference if you act to reduce poverty or to stop biodiversity loss?

Pg 6, ln 294 – pg 7, ln 301

This should be part of the methods section.

Pg 6, ln 294

The term ‘theoretical hypothesis‘ appears quite unusual.

Pg 10, ln 359

This sentence seems to be wrong.

Pg 11, ln 374 – pg 11, ln 378

This section is hard to understand. Please reword again, especially the second sentence. Again: Could you please connect your research project a little more to the SDGs? This might get easier if you would introduce some items in your methods section.

Pg 11, ln 382 – pg 11, 408

You formulate very long and complicated sentences what makes it difficult to follow you. I recommend to shorten the sentences.

Pg 12, ln 436 – pg 12, ln 445

This section contains one short and one really large sentence. The latter one is really hard to understand. Is your research new for developed countries? Is it not new? Some parts of this sentence seem to be contradictory.

Pg 13, ln 473 – pg 13, ln 477

Could you speculate how could this be done?

Pg 13, ln 488 – pg 13, ln 489

Why pressure?

Author Response

Reviewer 3

May concerns are due to the style of writing and the abstractness of some sections. The style of writing is characterized by very long and complicated sentences. I suggest a revision by a native speaker.

We submitted our paper to English Professional Service for improving the style of writing.

My second wish is to display your study more concrete. For instance, you use many items of different subscales. They represent different psychological concepts. It might be good to give examples of these items to make the psychological constructs more visible and easier to grasp.

We have included an example of item for each psychological construct.

Pg 1, ln 27 – pg 2, ln 92

The theoretical framework is suitable. However, the sentences are difficult to read. I recommend to ask some native speaker for revision.

We submitted our paper to English Professional Service for improving the style of writing.

Pg 3, ln 123 – ln 125

It should be more clarified why information overload is part of the research question. I feel this not pretty sure right now.

In Introduction section, we have added the theoretical explanation about information overload to better support the research question.

Pg 3, ln 138 – ln 139

Here we have the explanation of overload. However, this should come earlier in order to understand the research aim that comes before.

We moved this piece earlier.

Pg 3, ln 144

The remarks on SDG 11 should be made earlier.

We moved this piece earlier.

Pg 4, ln 203 – pg 5, ln 224

We have reduced the hypotheses section and moved information about the theoretical background in the Introduction section.

Pg 6, ln 264 – ln 291

This chapter should be more detailed. How did you approach your participants?

We have added more information in Materials and Methods section.

Could you please give an example of your items?

We have included an example of item for each scale.

In your introduction you argue with actions in accordance with the SDGs. Is your measuring instrument able to measure actions in line with the 17 SDGs? Could you give me please some arguments? Maybe it’s a difference if you act to reduce poverty or to stop biodiversity loss?

Yes, this measuring instrument could do that. The measuring tool makes it possible to analyze the determinants of individual behaviour. Therefore, through an adaptation of the items of the measurement scales it is possible to analyze individual behaviors in the different topic and contexts. For example, this tool has been used in relation to biodiversity (e.g., Johansson, M., & Henningsson, M. (2011). Social-psychological factors in public support for local biodiversity conservation. Society & Natural Resources, 24(7), 717 -733).

Pg 6, ln 294 – pg 7, ln 301

This should be part of the methods section.

This part has been moved to Materials and Methods section.

Pg 6, ln 294

The term ‘theoretical hypothesis’ appears quite unusual.

We have replaced it with "our model".

Pg 10, ln 359

This sentence seems to be wrong.

We have corrected.

Pg 11, ln 374 – pg 11, ln 378

This section is hard to understand. Please reword again, especially the second sentence.

We submitted our paper to English Professional Service to improve understanding of the text.

Again: Could you please connect your research project a little more to the SDGs? This might get easier if you would introduce some items in your methods section.

We made some changes.

Pg 11, ln 382 – pg 11, 408

You formulate very long and complicated sentences what makes it difficult to follow you. I recommend to shorten the sentences.

We submitted our paper to English Professional Service for improving the language style especially trying to use much more shorter sentences.

Pg 12, ln 436 – pg 12, ln 445

We made some changes in the sentences not clear. Hoping that the changes can make this part clearer.

Pg 13, ln 473 – pg 13, ln 477

Could you speculate how could this be done?

We went through this part in the conclusion section and gave some specific practical examples.

Pg 13, ln 488 – pg 13, ln 489

Why pressure?

We completely agree woth you the term “pressure” was not clear, so we changed it using the term “spontaneous and mutual social influence”.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In the study which tries to reveal citizens' intention to environmentally sustainable behavior making cities sustainable, the authors have made the specified revisions at a reasonable level.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised copy looks good and can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

I see the authors addressed my recommendations. The paper's quality improved significantly. Thus, I suggest to publish the study in its present form.

Article Menu

Exploring Citizens’ Behavior to Promote Environmental Sustainability: The Role of Information Overload and Urban Sustainable Policies

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI