Gender and Socioeconomic Influences on Ten Pro-Environmental Behavior Intentions: A German Comparative Study
, Samuel Tomczyk 2, Silke Schmidt 2, Philipp Franikowski 3 and Susanne Stoll-Kleemann 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors should check typos.
Similarity found should be reduced.
Tables 2,3,4 and figure 1 as well as relative text for the results analysis should describe better in results the investigated categories in terms of age.
The working study should be focused on different desires not only for social level but also for age level, relative social community interactive level in relation to expenses and their relative group needs to be covered.
References should be updated.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Authors should check typos.
Similarity found should be reduced.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your valuable comments and suggestions. Please see out response in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI praised the author for developing a timely study on the pro-environmental behaviour. The idea and approach are valuable. However, I would suggest addressing some managerial aspects of this study. Please address some managerial and regulatory implications of this study.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageminor editing is required
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your valuable comments and suggestions. Please see out response in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The research lacks research background, motivation, importance, and gaps (in other words, no value was found in this study)
2. Lack of research framework; How to prove the reliability and validity of the collected data?
3. This study lacks research value (academic and practical implications)
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are some grammar errors
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your valuable comments and suggestions. Please see out response in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic discussed in the work is interesting and current. However, in my opinion it requires corrections and additions.
Avoid 1-paragraph subsections.
The paper made little attempt to explain the results. What could have caused such results?
The Conclusions section is very limited, in my opinion (in the version presented it resembles a paper summary). It needs to be developed. The main conclusions can be bulleted. It is also worth adding recommendations for future research.
Detailed notes:
- two sentences at the beginning of part 1.4 are contradictory in my opinion. The first one indicates that: “Livestock farming contributes 1.85 Gt CO2, that is 5% of yearly human CO2 production [28]”. However, in the second sentence: "From 2005 to 2007 the yearly GHG emissions from red meat production amounted to 4 Gt CO2...". Please explain the difference, because it can be assumed that animal production is responsible for less CO2 production (1.85 Gt) than the production of red meat (4 Gt);
- please pay attention to precise units and indication of the years to which the presented statistical data relates.
To sum up, the paper is interesting, but requires corrections.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your valuable comments and suggestions. Please see out response in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsHighlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.
Consider comments in the entire text…
This title is quite wide in scope and it would need to focus:
“Differences in Pro-Environmental Behavior Intentions in Germany and their Socio-Demographic Correlates”
Compare to abstract and conclusions
If there is a survey, then informed consent and the specific ethics authorization need to be included.
I would suggest not to use We…
Abstracts need to contemplate gender balance as usually requested now.
I see the EXACT data, being used in another publication of the same authors.
This needs to be clarified beyond just the mention at the end of the sentence:
“resulting in a final sample of 979 participants (511 women, 468 men, age M = 50.4, SD = 17.2, range = 18 - 84 years) that remained representative of the German population [45].”
[45] Cited only twice in the text?
When the same data I used to produce more studies , this needs to be very clear through the text.
Revise international unite system as subscript:
“t CO2e”
Leave it very clear if the context is Germany alone, as in the title…
“1.6. Hypotheses We expect that PEB intentions will be higher for women than men (Hypothesis 1) and higher for participants with higher SES than for participants with lower SES (Hypoth- esis 2). Additionally, we expect a combined effect, namely, that PEB intentions will be higher for women with higher SES and lower for men with lower SES (Hypothesis 3). The effects of other sociodemographic variables on PEB intentions will be examined in an ex- ploratory approach.”
Table 1 is full so similarity, the corresponding reference needs to be there and justified…
Or
“Table 4. Significant Post-Hoc Test Comparisons of PEB Intentions.”
All abbreviations or statistical measures need to be defined under notes below tables…
Table 2 as example
Check italics use too…
Numbers in () need clarification: “Table 3. PEB intention means.”
Why should we have similarity in the results/discussion section:
“consumers aware of the meat impact on the planet, are willing to stop or significantly reduce their meat consumption for environmental reasons, but those who have already changed their meat intake for ecological concerns are a small minority [62].”
A conclusions sections needs to address:
Contextualization
Methods
Findings
Implications
Novelty and originality
Limitations
Prospects
This is not enough, the specific reference need to be here, this is general information:
“Institutional Review Board Statement: The survey was designed and conducted in accordance with the Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (“World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki”, 2013). All participants gave their informed consent to participate prior to the start of the survey. They were informed about the aim of the study and that they could terminate their participation at any time without negative consequences. Ethical review and approval were not re- quired for these studies in accordance with German legislation and institutional requirements. The study was not preregistered.”
I would like to see references from 2024, as more international too
Both conclusions as abstract are rather general.
Not sure why are authors not presenting the same supplementary materials here, or at least acknowledging them:
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https: //www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su14105742/s1
Clearing highting that the same survey is being used here…
Comments on the Quality of English Languagemoderate
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your valuable comments and suggestions. Please see out response in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy recommendations are the following:
Abstract – lines 16-18 recommend rewriting the phrase, it sounds like a conclusion and use PEB three times.
Line 19 I recommend to mention in parentheses, the number of subjects by sex and possibly the average age and standard deviation.
Table 1, I recommend that under the table you describe descriptively what m and f represent.
Lines 227-280 recommend deletion, this section presents the conclusions.
In conclusion, this article is very well organized, all sections are coherent and clear.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your valuable comments and suggestions. Please see out response in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 7 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe submitted manuscript investigates the relationship of pre-environmental behavior intentions (PEB) with demographic covariates. This is a well-designed study with clear research questions. I only have a few comments.
1. 38: Introduce the abbreviation “CO2e”.
2. Sect. 2.2.: Write “1: female, 2: male, …” and so on. Apply this style to all other reported variables in this section.
3. 177: It is good practice to also provide citations to all used R packages. I would only mention one reference for the whole tidyverse.
4. 178: I assume that it should read “dplyr”.
5. 201: “In order to accommodate for ordinal variables, we collapsed them into dichotomous variables and estimated point-biserial correlations.” This is an awkward statement. Just compute polychoric and polyserial correlations without arbitrary data transformations. There are dozens of R packages that can compute these correlations.
6. 237 and others: Write “Hypothesis 1” etc.
7. Table 4: Write “p” in italic font in the column heading.
8. 263: Do not use upper case writing for the mentioned variables.
9. Figure 1: Use the same number of digits after decimal (i.e., use “sprintf” in R). Also, display all correlations, not only the significant ones.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your valuable comments and suggestions. Please see out response in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors should check typos and minor spelling errors.
Tables 2, 3, and and 4 should be linked properly in text in terms of analysed results and conclusions. Based on Figure 1, should be presented properly in text and analyse policies for future trends, as well as should be demonstrated properly in text opportunities for developers, stakeholders.
Conclusions should present future perspectives for investors, stakeholders.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAuthors should check typos and minor spelling errors.
Author Response
Thank you for your time and your valuable comments. Please find our answers in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study still lacks research value (academic and practical significance)
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageRequires minor editing of English
Author Response
Thank you for your time and your valuable comments. Please find our answers in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsHighlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.
All variables in italics, please:
“Note: w = women, m = men. Relative frequencies in brackets”
Table 1 has similarity all over, you ned to include in the caption where content came from, again.
The same in other cases.
Rephrase, please:
“Low intentions to eat a vegetarian diet have also been shown in a systematic review: consumers aware of meat’s impact on the planet are willing to stop or significantly reduce their meat consump- tion for environmental reasons, but those who have already changed their meat intake for ecological concerns are a small minority [76].”
Comments on the Quality of English Languagemoderate
Author Response
Thank you for your time and your valuable comments. Please find our answers in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
