Disparities in Environmental Behavior from Urban–Rural Perspectives: How Socioeconomic Status Structures Influence Residents’ Environmental Actions—Based on the 2021 China General Social Survey Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are repeated phrases in the text, page nine in the variable control, line 447 to 451. The literature review is very extensive and repetitive, the first abbreviation (SES) was not specified. The hypotheses seem consistent with the data collected in the study. 

Author Response

Comment 1：There are repeated phrases in the text, page nine in the variable control, line 447 to 451. The literature review is very extensive and repetitive, the first abbreviation (SES) was not specified. The hypotheses seem consistent with the data collected in the study.

Response 1：Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. Your suggestions are of great significance to improving the content of our paper and enhancing the quality of our research. SES stands for Socioeconomic Status. In Section 2.4 of the literature review, on page 6, line 291, the research team has already conducted a detailed review and analysis of the relevant literature. To further refine our study, we will make the corresponding revisions and additions to this section to ensure the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the literature review. Your feedback will have a positive impact on the final presentation of our paper. Once again, thank you for your valuable time and professional guidance.Article revisions are marked in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article explores the divergent environmental behaviours exhibited by urban and rural populations, grounded in a robust analysis of statistical data. It elucidates the distinct patterns of environmental behaviour between these two demographic groups, with the survey findings indicating a correlation between environmental awareness and the education and income levels of the population. The authors have demonstrated a commendable grasp of the theoretical framework and a solid understanding of the existing scholarly discourse on this subject. The text is presented in clear, accessible language, facilitating reader comprehension.

However, despite the article's scientific merit, certain areas require further refinement.

Firstly, the manuscript would benefit from a thorough review to eliminate redundancies, particularly regarding the repeated articulation of the study's objectives. For instance, the article frequently reiterates the purpose of the research, which is unnecessary after it has been clearly established at the outset. Sentences such as "In China, household registration is divided into agricultural (rural) and non-agricultural (urban), which to some extent determines residents' rights and benefits in education, healthcare, and social security" (p. 459-460) are also redundant and should be streamlined.

The literature review would be strengthened by incorporating seminal works such as "Environment and Behavior" by Donald M. Baer (1997) and "Human Behavior in the Social Environment: Perspectives on Development and the Life Course" by Anissa Rogers (2022), both of which offer critical insights pertinent to the study's focus.

Additionally, the role of age in environmental behaviour must be presented in the beginning and the abstract. Although age is included as an indicator later in the article, it is conspicuously absent from the initial hypotheses, despite its relevance in shaping individual behaviours. The authors are encouraged to explore the relationship between environmental behaviour and quality of life, which could provide a more nuanced explanation for the observed differences between urban and rural populations.

Furthermore, certain hypotheses require rephrasing to enhance their precision and clarity:

• Hypothesis 1.1: Urban residents demonstrate more environmentally responsible behavior than their rural counterparts (p. 308-309).
• Hypothesis 2.3: At equivalent educational levels, urban residents exhibit more environmentally responsible behavior than rural residents (p. 367).
• Hypothesis 3.3: At equivalent income levels, urban residents score higher in environmental responsibility than rural residents (p. 397).

The terms "good" and "bad" behaviour is subjective and lack the scientific rigor necessary for empirical research. The authors should clarify what they mean by these terms and provide a more objective framework for evaluating environmental behaviour.

The use of "social capital" on p. 7 (p. 320) also warrants clarification. If the term is used in the Bourdieusian sense, the sentence requires reformulation to accurately reflect this theoretical perspective. Moreover, the authors need to address the significant imbalance between the urban and rural populations in their study sample (70.8% urban vs. 29.2% rural) and justify their choice of survey locations. Including a map and providing a rationale for the selected survey areas would enhance the study's transparency and rigour.

The section "This study employs quantitative research methods, relying on the CGSSS2021 data released by the Chinese Social Survey Research Center. The sample covers 5 municipalities, 21 provinces, and 3 autonomous regions in China, including a wide range of urban and rural samples, ensuring the comprehensiveness, representativeness, and comparability of the data" (p. 279-281) should be integrated into section 4.1 (Data Sources) for better coherence. Additionally, the central research questions should be clearly articulated, as the current text only mentions participation in environmental protection organizations (p. 10, p. 482), leaving the reader uncertain about the full scope of the study.

Expressions such as "emotional responses" on p. 9 (p. 469) should be reconsidered to avoid undermining the objectivity of the research.

Similarly, section 4.2.3 (Control Variables) needs to be revised for greater clarity and flow. The interplay between income and education in the Chinese context also requires further elaboration to substantiate the study's findings.

There is also confusion in the numbering of sections, such as the reversal of 6.2.2 (Impact of Income on Environmental Scores of Urban and Rural Residents, p. 670) and 6.2.1 (Education Level and Differences in Environmental Behavior between Urban and Rural Residents, p. 713), which should be corrected. Additionally, the concept of "traditional gender roles" (p. 19, p. 824) needs to be explicitly defined and linked to the study's broader theme.

Moreover, the authors should consider examining whether traditional practices related to environmental protection exist and how these might influence the contemporary behaviour of rural residents. It would also be valuable to investigate how differing environmental behaviours are rooted in agricultural practices and the challenges these practices face in adapting to modern environmental standards.

In conclusion, the article holds significant scholarly potential, but it would benefit from revisions that clarify and deepen the analysis. Addressing the aforementioned issues will enhance the article's clarity, rigour, and contribution to the field. I recommend that the text be revised accordingly before publication.

Author Response

Comments 1:Firstly, the manuscript would benefit from a thorough review to eliminate redundancies, particularly regarding the repeated articulation of the study's objectives. For instance, the article frequently reiterates the purpose of the research, which is unnecessary after it has been clearly established at the outset. Sentences such as "In China, household registration is divided into agricultural (rural) and non-agricultural (urban), which to some extent determines residents' rights and benefits in education, healthcare, and social security" (p. 459-460) are also redundant and should be streamlined.

Response 1:Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. After careful consideration, we realized that this section did indeed contain some redundancy and unnecessary repetition. Therefore, we have revised and streamlined it to ensure that the expression is more concise and clear. We greatly appreciate your thorough review and the valuable feedback you provided.

Comments 2:The literature review would be strengthened by incorporating seminal works such as "Environment and Behavior" by Donald M. Baer (1997) and "Human Behavior in the Social Environment: Perspectives on Development and the Life Course" by Anissa Rogers (2022), both of which offer critical insights pertinent to the study's focus.

Response 2:Thank you for your feedback. We have incorporated the two references recommended by the reviewer: "Environment and Behavior" by Donald M. Baer (1997 edition) and "Human Behavior in the Social Environment: A Developmental and Life-Course Perspective" by Anissa Rogers (2022 edition). Please refer to pages 4, lines 158 to 168 for details.

Comments 3:Additionally, the role of age in environmental behaviour must be presented in the beginning and the abstract. Although age is included as an indicator later in the article, it is conspicuously absent from the initial hypotheses, despite its relevance in shaping individual behaviours.

Response 3:Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and suggestions. In this study, we consider age as an important mediating variable to explore its role in environmental behavior. Through an in-depth analysis of the entire sample, we found that the regression coefficient of age is -0.001. This result indicates that the negative impact of age on environmental behavior is not significant, meaning that individuals of different age groups do not exhibit substantial differences in their environmental behavior. Furthermore, in the later sections of the paper, we further explore the impact of age on residents' environmental behavior. The findings suggest that although age is considered a mediating variable, the results seem to contradict the common assumption that younger individuals tend to score higher in environmental behavior. This finding adds an additional dimension to our research and provides a new perspective on the complex relationship between age and environmental behavior.

Comments 4:The authors are encouraged to explore the relationship between environmental behaviour and quality of life, which could provide a more nuanced explanation for the observed differences between urban and rural populations.

Response 4:Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. Your suggestions are crucial for improving the content of our paper and enhancing the quality of our research. When exploring the relationship between quality of life and environmental behavior, we observe a positive correlation between the two. In other words, as the quality of life improves, individuals often become more proactive and responsible in their environmental behavior. However, in my view, the level of quality of life is fundamentally determined by socioeconomic status. Specifically, socioeconomic status can be measured through two important dimensions: economic level and educational attainment. Generally, individuals or households with higher socioeconomic status also experience a higher quality of life, which is reflected not only in material wealth but also in their attention to and involvement in environmental issues.

Thus, the core focus of this paper is on how socioeconomic status affects residents' environmental behavior, and it also reveals the intrinsic connection between quality of life and environmental behavior. Although the presentation in this paper may differ from the reviewer's perspective, our ultimate goal is the same: to explore how socioeconomic status influences environmental behavior and to understand the relationship between quality of life and environmental behavior. Through in-depth analysis, we aim to better understand that socioeconomic status not only determines individuals' quality of life but also influences their attitudes and behaviors toward environmental issues, thereby advancing environmental protection and social sustainability on a broader scale.

Comments 5:Furthermore, certain hypotheses require rephrasing to enhance their precision and clarity:

• Hypothesis 1.1: Urban residents demonstrate more environmentally responsible behavior than their rural counterparts (p. 308-309).
• Hypothesis 2.3: At equivalent educational levels, urban residents exhibit more environmentally responsible behavior than rural residents (p. 367).
• Hypothesis 3.3: At equivalent income levels, urban residents score higher in environmental responsibility than rural residents (p. 397).

Response 5:Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We have made revisions to the relevant content based on your suggestions to further enhance its accuracy and clarity. Specifically, we have thoroughly revised Hypothesis 1.1 to ensure that its presentation on pages 339 to 309 is more precise and understandable.

Additionally, we have conducted an in-depth analysis and improvement of Hypothesis 2.3, making the discussion on pages 405 to 406 clearer and more persuasive.

Finally, we have meticulously refined Hypothesis 3.3 to ensure that the content on pages 437 to 438 is more accurate and logically coherent.

We believe these revisions will contribute to the overall quality and credibility of the paper.

Comments 6:The terms "good" and "bad" behaviour is subjective and lack the scientific rigor necessary for empirical research. The authors should clarify what they mean by these terms and provide a more objective framework for evaluating environmental behaviour.

Response 6:Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. In response to your suggestions, we have made corresponding revisions and adjustments to Hypothesis 1.1, Hypothesis 2.3, and Hypothesis 3.3. During this process, we realized that the original wording might have led to some misunderstandings, making it seem as though we aimed to distinguish between "good" and "bad" environmental behavior. In fact, our intention was not to make such a distinction but rather to compare the environmental behavior of urban and rural residents using the environmental score as a quantitative indicator. Specifically, we aim to illustrate the variations in environmental scores to more clearly reflect the performance of residents in different regions regarding environmental protection. Through this approach, we hope to more accurately convey our research intentions and deepen the understanding of the differences in environmental behavior.

Comments 7:The use of "social capital" on p. 7 (p. 320) also warrants clarification. If the term is used in the Bourdieusian sense, the sentence requires reformulation to accurately reflect this theoretical perspective.

Response 7:Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. I will provide detailed responses and explanations for each of your suggestions.

Firstly, regarding the definition of "social capital," I will reference Bourdieu's definition to clarify what is meant by social capital in this paper. Social capital can be understood as a collection of resources, including social relationships, networks, and the resulting trust and reciprocity. As Bourdieu pointed out, social capital is not only a resource possessed by individuals but also an integral part of the entire social structure. The definition of social capital is elaborated on pages 7, lines 351-361.

Secondly, regarding the rationale for selecting survey locations, I will provide a detailed explanation on pages 9, lines 448-456. In this section, I will outline the reasons and basis for choosing specific survey locations, explaining how these locations represent the typical characteristics of the study subjects and why they provide valuable data and insights for the research.

Finally, concerning the issue of severe imbalance between urban and rural populations in the sample, I will address this on pages 9, lines 457-468. In this section, I will explore the causes of this imbalance, including factors related to the survey methods, sample selection, and data collection. Through these detailed explanations and responses, I hope to fully address the reviewer's valuable comments and further improve the content and methodology of the paper. Thank you again for your suggestions, which will help enhance the research quality and academic value of the paper.

Comments 8:Moreover, the authors need to address the significant imbalance between the urban and rural populations in their study sample (70.8% urban vs. 29.2% rural) and justify their choice of survey locations. Including a map and providing a rationale for the selected survey areas would enhance the study's transparency and rigour.

Response 8:Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. I will provide detailed responses and explanations for each of your suggestions.

Firstly, regarding the definition of "social capital," I will reference Bourdieu's definition to clarify what is meant by social capital in this paper. Social capital can be understood as a collection of resources, including social relationships, networks, and the resulting trust and reciprocity. As Bourdieu pointed out, social capital is not only a resource possessed by individuals but also an integral part of the entire social structure. The definition of social capital is elaborated on pages 7, lines 351-361.

Secondly, regarding the rationale for selecting survey locations, I will provide a detailed explanation on pages 9, lines 448-456. In this section, I will outline the reasons and basis for choosing specific survey locations, explaining how these locations represent the typical characteristics of the study subjects and why they provide valuable data and insights for the research.

Moreover, concerning the issue of severe imbalance between urban and rural populations in the sample, I will address this on pages 9, lines 457-468. In this section, I will explore the causes of this imbalance, including factors related to the survey methods, sample selection, and data collection. Through these detailed explanations and responses, I hope to fully address the reviewer's valuable comments and further improve the content and methodology of the paper. Thank you again for your suggestions, which will help enhance the research quality and academic value of the paper.

Finally,In response to your suggestions, I have added a map of the research area to the paper, with detailed annotations of the key locations.

Comments 9:The section "This study employs quantitative research methods, relying on the CGSSS2021 data released by the Chinese Social Survey Research Center. The sample covers 5 municipalities, 21 provinces, and 3 autonomous regions in China, including a wide range of urban and rural samples, ensuring the comprehensiveness, representativeness, and comparability of the data" (p. 279-281) should be integrated into section 4.1 (Data Sources) for better coherence. Additionally, the central research questions should be clearly articulated, as the current text only mentions participation in environmental protection organizations (p. 10, p. 482), leaving the reader uncertain about the full scope of the study.

Response 9:Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. I sincerely accept the reviewer's suggestion and have carefully adjusted the content from lines 279-281 to lines 452-455 on page 9, completing the necessary rearrangement.

Moreover, I sincerely accept the reviewer's suggestions. Regarding the core research issue, I have clarified and deepened the definition. Environmental behavior is not limited to participation in environmental protection organizations, making environmental donations, or directly engaging in environmental activities. It also includes traditional environmental activities, such as tree planting and litter clean-up, as well as daily low-carbon behaviors, such as reducing the use of single-use plastics and opting for public transportation. Additionally, environmental behavior encompasses support for and advocacy of environmental policies, such as promoting environmental ideas on social media and participating in the formulation and discussion of environmental policies. Through these multidimensional forms of participation, individuals can contribute to environmental protection to varying extents. Therefore, I will take a more comprehensive approach to examine and analyze these environmental behaviors, aiming to more accurately reflect and understand people's actual actions and attitudes toward environmental protection in the study.

Comments 10:Expressions such as "emotional responses" on p. 9 (p. 469) should be reconsidered to avoid undermining the objectivity of the research.

Response 10:Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. I sincerely accept the reviewer's suggestions. During the research process, we found that the term "emotional response" might lead to some misunderstandings, as it originally refers to changes in the way individuals express emotions with age. To ensure the objectivity and accuracy of the study, we have decided to remove the term "emotional response" from the research. We have also made the corresponding deletion in the English version of the paper to maintain consistency between the Chinese and English versions. Thank you again for the detailed review and valuable suggestions, which are crucial for further improving our research.

Comments 11:Similarly, section 4.2.3 (Control Variables) needs to be revised for greater clarity and flow. The interplay between income and education in the Chinese context also requires further elaboration to substantiate the study's findings.

Response 11:Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. I sincerely accept the reviewer's suggestions. In this research paper, the research team used analysis of variance to explore the impact of independent variables such as education level and income on residents' environmental behavior. The results indicate that neither education nor income significantly influences residents' environmental behavior. This conclusion is based on detailed data analysis and statistical testing, with specific results and data support described on pages 14 to 15 and lines 631 to 655 of the paper. We believe these findings are valuable for understanding the driving factors behind residents' environmental behavior, and we appreciate the reviewer's thorough examination and valuable suggestions, which will help us further refine and improve the research.

Comments12:There is also confusion in the numbering of sections, such as the reversal of 6.2.2 (Impact of Income on Environmental Scores of Urban and Rural Residents, p. 670) and 6.2.1 (Education Level and Differences in Environmental Behavior between Urban and Rural Residents, p. 713), which should be corrected. Additionally, the concept of "traditional gender roles" (p. 19, p. 824) needs to be explicitly defined and linked to the study's broader theme.

Response 12:Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. I sincerely accept the reviewer's suggestions. The section numbering has been corrected; additionally, the term "traditional gender role views" has been revised to "patriarchal views" to more accurately reflect the persistence of feudal beliefs in rural areas of China. These views have not been completely eradicated, particularly in some remote areas where men still hold a higher status in the family and society compared to women. Detailed content and relevant data can be found on page 22, lines 989 to 990 of the paper.

Comments 13:Moreover, the authors should consider examining whether traditional practices related to environmental protection exist and how these might influence the contemporary behaviour of rural residents. It would also be valuable to investigate how differing environmental behaviours are rooted in agricultural practices and the challenges these practices face in adapting to modern environmental standards.

Response 13:Thank you for raising this valuable point. We fully agree that traditional practices and agricultural methods have a profound impact in rural areas, including on environmental behaviors (P24, lines 1090-1995). However, due to the current research design and data limitations, we were unable to conduct more in-depth quantitative analysis to directly measure these factors' effects. Nonetheless, we have acknowledged these factors' presence during the research process and discussed them in the suggestions section. While we did not conduct specific qualitative interviews or new data analysis, we have made every effort to illustrate the impact of traditional practices and agricultural methods on rural residents' environmental behavior based on existing research. We hope readers will recognize the importance of these factors and encourage future research to explore them in greater detail and systematically. Thank you again for your suggestions; we will emphasize these aspects more prominently in the revised version to ensure readers fully understand their significance within our research context.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores how the socio-economic structure affects residents' environmental behavior, and also discusses the difference between urban and rural residents. The research conclusion plays an important role in narrowing the gap between urban and rural areas and realizing regional balanced development. The research content of the article is rich, and the conclusion has certain practical value. However, there are still some problems in the article, and the following suggestions are for your reference.

1. Abstract part: In the mentioned outlook, only the impact on China's sustainable development is mentioned, but the outlook and policy suggestions from an international perspective are lacking. In other words, are the findings of this manuscript of any reference significance for other developing countries? It is recommended to include policy recommendations based on an international perspective in the summary.

2. Introduction: The main problems of this paper are expounded, but the innovation of this paper is not highlighted, that is, what research gaps are made up compared with previous studies. It is suggested to highlight the innovation of the article in the introduction.

3. Literature review: The relationship between residents' status and environmental behavior has been elaborated in detail, but there is no review part in the literature review, that is, the evaluation of the existing literature and the research gaps in the current literature are still unknown. In the last part of the literature review, a review of the existing literature is proposed to highlight the innovation of this paper by comparing with previous studies.

4. The research hypothesis section is recommended to be divided into three different sections with subheadings to help people get to the point. For example, 4.1 Difference between urban and rural residents' environmental behaviors, 4.2 Education level and difference between urban and rural residents' environmental behaviors, 4.3 Income level and difference between urban and rural residents' environmental behaviors.

5. Empirical analysis:

(1) Only the influence of education level and income level on residents' environmental behavior is considered. There are also some regional factors, such as policy factors, which have an impact on both urban and rural residents' environmental behavior. Should fixed regional factors be considered? Is the effect different in different regions?

(2) T test is used to analyze the differences in environmental behaviors of urban and rural residents, and other robustness tests are suggested to ensure the credibility of the results of the paper. Or explain the advantages of the T test over other tests and why the T test was used to analyze the difference between the two groups.

(3) The data of 2021CGSS is used for analysis in this paper. Why not use the data of other years as panel data for analysis? In addition, why use CGSS data for analysis? What are the advantages of this data compared to other databases?

6.Discussion and Recommendations:

(1) Conclusions are missing in the article. The last part of the recommendation is Conclusions and Recommendations.

(2) It is suggested that the Discussion part can discuss the similarities and differences found in this paper and other literature studies. If there are any differences, you can try to explain the reasons for the differences found in this study.

(3) The Recommendations section can consider to explain the reference significance of the research findings in this paper for other countries.

7. Format issues:

(1) No legend is shown in the Figure. For example, the units of 34.03, 34.22 and 34.67 in Figure 1 are not marked clearly. The ordinate units in Figure 4 are not clearly marked.

(2) The first letter of the title in Table 5 is not capitalized.

(3) The brackets in the table are full Angle, which should be half Angle.

(4) The arrangement of references is suggested to be adjusted according to the format of the journal. In addition, Chinese references need to be clearly marked at the back.

(5) The subheading, 6.1.1 is directly followed by 6.2.2. Is there a labeling error?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: Abstract part: In the mentioned outlook, only the impact on China's sustainable development is mentioned, but the outlook and policy suggestions from an international perspective are lacking. In other words, are the findings of this manuscript of any reference significance for other developing countries? It is recommended to include policy recommendations based on an international perspective in the summary.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. The research team has carefully considered and incorporated your suggestions. In the abstract, we have specifically added a discussion on the international perspective and targeted recommendations for policymakers. These additions are primarily located between lines 16 and 24 on page 1 and include practical, targeted policy suggestions to provide policymakers with more comprehensive and in-depth reference material.

Comments 2: Introduction: The main problems of this paper are expounded, but the innovation of this paper is not highlighted, that is, what research gaps are made up compared with previous studies. It is suggested to highlight the innovation of the article in the introduction.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions during the review process. Your feedback is crucial for further improving and enhancing the quality of our paper. In the introduction section of the paper, our research team has conducted a thorough review and comparison of existing studies, exploring their limitations in depth. By identifying the shortcomings of previous research, we have highlighted the significance and necessity of our study.

Based on this analysis, we have elaborated on the innovations of our paper, explaining how our research addresses gaps and shortcomings in the existing literature. Specifically, these modifications and additions will be detailed on pages 2, lines 86-90, to provide readers with a clearer understanding of the research value and contribution of our work.

Thank you again for your insightful comments and for helping us improve our manuscript.

Comments 3: Literature review: The relationship between residents' status and environmental behavior has been elaborated in detail, but there is no review part in the literature review, that is, the evaluation of the existing literature and the research gaps in the current literature are still unknown. In the last part of the literature review, a review of the existing literature is proposed to highlight the innovation of this paper by comparing with previous studies.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our manuscript and providing insightful comments and suggestions. In response to your recommendations, we have added a comprehensive literature review between lines 290 and 310 on page 6. This addition not only enriches the background information of our paper but also further highlights the innovative aspects of our research.We hope that this improvement will help readers better understand the research context and innovations of our study, thereby enhancing the academic value and practical significance of the paper.Thank you again for your constructive feedback.

Comments 4: The research hypothesis section is recommended to be divided into three different sections with subheadings to help people get to the point. For example, 4.1 Difference between urban and rural residents' environmental behaviors, 4.2 Education level and difference between urban and rural residents' environmental behaviors, 4.3 Income level and difference between urban and rural residents' environmental behaviors.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. Based on your recommendations, the hypotheses section of this study will be reorganized into three main parts, each accompanied by a corresponding subheading to help readers better understand and engage with the topic. Specifically, the three sections and their subheadings are as follows: 3.1 Differences in Environmental Behavior between Urban and Rural Residents, 3.2 The Impact of Educational Level on the Environmental Behavior Differences between Urban and Rural Residents, and 3.3 The Impact of Income Level on the Environmental Behavior Differences between Urban and Rural Residents.

Comments 5:  Empirical analysis:

comments (1) Only the influence of education level and income level on residents' environmental behavior is considered. There are also some regional factors, such as policy factors, which have an impact on both urban and rural residents' environmental behavior. Should fixed regional factors be considered? Is the effect different in different regions?

response (1): Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. The reasons for not conducting an in-depth analysis of regional and policy factors in this study are as follows:

First, the limitations of the data are a key factor. Although the CGSS2021 dataset covers a wide range of information, it does not provide sufficiently detailed data to allow for an in-depth study of specific regional or policy effects. This means that within the current data framework, it is difficult to accurately quantify and analyze regional or policy factors.

Second, the insufficient sample size is also a significant constraint. When using the CGSS2021 dataset, we found that after excluding missing values, the sample size was significantly reduced, making it challenging to thoroughly analyze specific regional or policy factors. Particularly in cases where data from specific regions are sparse, the analysis results may be affected by the lack of sufficient samples, leading to results that are not robust enough to draw statistically significant conclusions.

Finally, the complexity of the model is another factor that needs to be considered. Introducing regional and policy factors could significantly increase the complexity of the model, making it overly complicated and difficult to interpret and understand. In the current study, our primary goal is to analyze the impact of socioeconomic status on residents' environmental behavior. To ensure the clarity and interpretability of the study, we have chosen not to consider regional and policy factors for the time being, so as to more accurately assess the direct impact of socioeconomic status on residents' environmental behavior.

In summary, due to data limitations, insufficient sample size, and considerations of model complexity, we have decided not to analyze regional and policy factors in the current study. Future research can expand on this by including these factors to provide a more comprehensive analysis.

comments (2) T test is used to analyze the differences in environmental behaviors of urban and rural residents, and other robustness tests are suggested to ensure the credibility of the results of the paper. Or explain the advantages of the T test over other tests and why the T test was used to analyze the difference between the two groups.

response (2): The research team sincerely appreciates the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewers. During the revision of the paper, the authors have provided a detailed explanation of the unique advantages of the T-test compared to other statistical testing methods. Specifically, the authors highlighted the superiority of the T-test in handling small sample data, especially in situations where the sample size is small and the population standard deviation is unknown. The T-test offers more reliable inferential results under these conditions. Additionally, the authors discussed the rationale behind choosing the T-test to analyze the differences between two groups. Relevant content and explanations have been added to the paper on page 20, lines 896 to 901. Through these additions, we aim to better demonstrate the importance and applicability of the T-test in statistical analysis, thereby enhancing the persuasiveness and rigor of the paper.

comments (3) The data of 2021CGSS is used for analysis in this paper. Why not use the data of other years as panel data for analysis? In addition, why use CGSS data for analysis? What are the advantages of this data compared to other databases?

response (3): We sincerely appreciate the valuable feedback provided by the reviewers. Regarding the choice of using 2021 data, the research team has thoroughly explained the reasons on page 9, lines 448 to 452 of the paper. We selected the 2021 data primarily because it better reflects the current research context and real-world conditions, ensuring the timeliness and accuracy of the study results. Additionally, on page 9, lines 442 to 447, we have elaborated on the reasons for choosing the CGSS database, highlighting its unique advantages. The CGSS database offers significant benefits in terms of data quality, coverage, and research applicability, enabling us to conduct more accurate analyses and draw more reliable conclusions.

Comments 6: Discussion and Recommendations:

comments (1) Conclusions are missing in the article. The last part of the recommendation is Conclusions and Recommendations.

response (1): We have adopted the reviewer’s suggestions. Regarding the absence of a conclusion section, the original manuscript titled this section as "Discussion and Recommendations," which already included elements of a conclusion. Therefore, we have decided to change the section title to "Conclusion."

comments (2) It is suggested that the Discussion part can discuss the similarities and differences found in this paper and other literature studies. If there are any differences, you can try to explain the reasons for the differences found in this study.

response (2): Thank you very much for the valuable comments from the reviewer. which the authors have read and carefully considered. In this paper, the authors have clearly marked the relevant parts in red font so that readers can clearly identify the exact location of the suggestions made by the reviewing experts.Thank you very much for the valuable comments from the reviewer. Your suggestions have been immensely helpful in improving the paper.For instance, in the text, it is mentioned: "As people age, environmental awareness seems to decline, reflecting generational shifts in perspectives and differences in how various age groups receive environmental information. However, the latest CGSS data suggests that gender and age no longer significantly influence residents' environmental behaviors." This statement demonstrates our comparison between the existing conclusions and the current literature. The discussion on age and gender within the conclusion section represents a new finding of this study. Previously, this content was placed on page 19, lines 850-867. After considering the reviewer's guidance, we recognized the need to optimize the paper’s logical structure, so the relevant content has now been adjusted to page 22, lines 980-1000.

comments (3) The Recommendations section can consider to explain the reference significance of the research findings in this paper for other countries.

response (3): Thank you very much for the valuable comments from the reviewer. Your suggestions have been immensely helpful in improving the paper. In response to the content mentioned in your suggestion 7.2, we have added a section on page 24, specifically between lines 1097 and 1107, discussing the implications and impact of our research findings for other countries. This addition aims to further clarify that our research results are not only valuable for our own country but also offer insights and guidance for the development in related fields in other countries. By including this, we hope to make the research findings more comprehensive and internationally relevant, providing reference and inspiration to a broader audience. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback, and we will continue to strive to enhance the paper to achieve a higher academic standard.

Comments 7: Format issues:

comments (1) No legend is shown in the Figure. For example, the units of 34.03, 34.22 and 34.67 in Figure 1 are not marked clearly. The ordinate units in Figure 4 are not clearly marked.

response (1): Thank you very much for the valuable comments from the reviewer. We have made corresponding modifications and improvements to the paper based on these suggestions.

comments (2) The first letter of the title in Table 5 is not capitalized.

response (2): Thank you very much for the valuable comments from the reviewer. Based on these suggestions, I have capitalized the first letter of Table 5.

comments (3) The brackets in the table are full Angle, which should be half Angle.

response (3): Thank you very much for the valuable comments from the reviewer. Your suggestions are very important to us. We have made the necessary adjustments to the brackets according to your feedback to ensure the quality and accuracy of the article.

comments (4) The arrangement of references is suggested to be adjusted according to the format of the journal. In addition, Chinese references need to be clearly marked at the back.

response (4): Thank you very much for the valuable comments from the reviewer. I sincerely accept the suggestions provided. Under the reviewer’s guidance, I have carefully revised the journal’s format to ensure that all references, figures, and data comply with the journal’s requirements.

comments (5) The subheading, 6.1.1 is directly followed by 6.2.2. Is there a labeling error?

response (5): Thank you very much for the valuable comments from the reviewer. I sincerely accept the suggestions provided. The modifications to the subheadings 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 have been completed, ensuring the coherence and logical structure of the article. On this basis, I will continue to conduct in-depth research and improve other sections of the paper to meet higher academic standards and quality requirements. Thank you once again for your meticulous guidance; your feedback is extremely valuable and will help enhance the overall quality of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The references may be more up-to-date, but without disregarding the historical references that are important for the preparation of the article. In two paragraphs it seems to me that the expression "finally" became repetitive in lines 912/924." I didn't understand why in line 278, item 2.4 the literature review appears again.

Author Response

Comment 1:The references may be more up-to-date, but without disregarding the historical references that are important for the preparation of the article. In two paragraphs it seems to me that the expression "finally" became repetitive in lines 912/924." I didn't understand why in line 278, item 2.4 the literature review appears again.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate the valuable feedback provided by the reviewer. Regarding the first issue you highlighted, the repeated use of the term "Finally" was indeed an oversight on our part, and it has now been corrected. We have replaced "Finally" with "Moreover." Please refer to page 21, line 947, for the detailed changes. As for the second issue concerning the title of Section 2.4, the original intention was to critique existing literature. Therefore, we have revised the title of this section to "Literature Review Comments" to better convey our purpose. Please see page 6, line 292, for the updated content.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised and explained the questions sufficiently to be published, but the following two questions remain to be revised further.

1. The contribution in the Introduction part has been highlighted, but it is suggested that it could be further. It is suggested that we should evaluate the shortcomings of existing literature before emphasizing our own innovation points. What research gaps have not been fully discussed in existing literature? This paper will further supplement this research gap.

2. The evaluation of previous literatures has been added to the literature review, which further highlights the research innovation of the paper. However, the title of 2.4 Literature Review is the same as that of 2 Literature Review. It is suggested to modify 2.4 Literature Review, for example, to 2.4 Literature Review comments. Or 2.4 Discussion of literature review. These suggestions are for your reference.

Author Response

Comment 1:The contribution in the Introduction part has been highlighted, but it is suggested that it could be further. It is suggested that we should evaluate the shortcomings of existing literature before emphasizing our own innovation points. What research gaps have not been fully discussed in existing literature? This paper will further supplement this research gap.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate the valuable feedback provided by the reviewer. Our research team has carefully considered and thoroughly examined these suggestions. Based on this invaluable guidance, we have made the necessary revisions and additions to the paper. Detailed explanations of these changes can be found on page 2, lines 86 to 92. We believe that these adjustments will further enhance the quality and completeness of the paper.

Comment 2:The evaluation of previous literatures has been added to the literature review, which further highlights the research innovation of the paper. However, the title of 2.4 Literature Review is the same as that of 2 Literature Review. It is suggested to modify 2.4 Literature Review, for example, to 2.4 Literature Review comments. Or 2.4 Discussion of literature review. These suggestions are for your reference.

Response 2: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. Section 2.4 has been renamed to "Literature Review Comments." Please refer to page 6, line 292 for the details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx