The Relationship between Climate Anxiety and Pro-Environment Behaviours

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see all comments in the attached file. Please note that I am not an expert for statistical methods, so I cannot judge whether they were applied correctly. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank the action editor and reviewers for their detailed and thoughtful comments on our manuscript. In this revision, we have carefully considered every review point and made the suggested changes for almost all of those. In the few cases where we have not made the suggested changes, we explain our reasoning in the point-by-point response below.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Thank you for allowing me to review this very interesting article on Climate anxiety and eco-anxiety and pro-environmental behaviour.

Overall-suggest consistency by authors with the capitalization of climate.  Other than starting a sentence I don’t believe climate should be capitalized.  Please check. 

Would suggest to authors that a table be added for section 3.2.2 to illustrate utility scores for climate anxiety. 

Would suggest to authors that specific subsections be created to make clear to the authors whether or not the four hypotheses were proven.  Also, it is currently not evident to me whether climate anxiety and general anxiety were correlated. 

Section comments

P166-169- Is there a specific research question that accompanies the examination of climate anxiety and general anxiety? 

Line 170-178 suggest that the authors create a theoretical section or hypothesis development section to state the  research hypothesis,

Suggest that authors end the Introduction section with the aim of the study as stated in the introduction section at end where usually the aim of the research is stated. 

Lines 181-182- suggest that the results be taken out and more broad general statements be used to describe participants, consider adding Recruitment to the 2.1  subtitle heading.   

Line 197-sugest introducing the use of transport as the consideration earlier in the manuscript.  There should be some mention of the use of transport in the introduction.  Would be interested in knowing why authors chose bike instead of mass transportation versus car. Bike versus car may represent extremes.  Some people might be willing to exhibit a pro-environmental behaviro such as taking a bus or train instead of a car. 

Line 289-292- suggest to authors that order effect discussion be build up a bit more since the experimental design has many parts.  State what it is and why important in the particular type of research or surveys being used, would also suggest and/or adding it to limitation discussion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

english language is fine some minor revisions around the word Climate and its capiatalization in the mansucript need to be addressed.  

Author Response

We thank the action editor and reviewers for their detailed and thoughtful comments on our manuscript. In this revision, we have carefully considered every review point and made the suggested changes for almost all of those. In the few cases where we have not made the suggested changes, we explain our reasoning in the point-by-point response below.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 181 - location where the survey was conducted need to be specified. 

Line 223 and Line 231 - the numberings of the headings are wrong. For these sections, both the reliability and validity consistency need to be proved.

Where is Figure 2?

Table 1 - participants were aged 18 to 84, however, the mean age is 27.82. how representative is the sample with respect to the local population? A low mean showed that most of the participants are young instead of across the entire age scale.

Line 317 - definite low, moderate and high CCAS scores.

statistical presentation (t, p, d etc) should be in italics.

The discussion is weak, more of the summary of the results. Little or no comparsion between other published research were made. Little or no discussion regarding the possible reasons for the results were attempted. 

Generally, an important and interesting article, with detailed methodology. When the results are tidied and discussion further deepen, this manuscript has the potential of being published. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor changes. 

Author Response

We thank the action editor and reviewers for their detailed and thoughtful comments on our manuscript. In this revision, we have carefully considered every review point and made the suggested changes for almost all of those. In the few cases where we have not made the suggested changes, we explain our reasoning in the point-by-point response below.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe the revisions are satisfactory and manuscript can be published. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no further comments. Congrats!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA