Exploring the Acceptability of an Environmental Education Program for Youth in Rural Areas: ECOCIDADANIA Project
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you to consider me as reviewer.
The Program is relevant and deals with a very important topic.
A strong point is that it makes possible to learn by doing, the participants make an experience and through it they learn
Furthermore, having used a mobile App was an appropriate strategy given that technologies represent familiar tools for young people.
At line 56 you cite the Greta Turnberg Intervention. I personally consider a non scientific approach to cite VIP's contribution in these relevant topic so I suggest to remove the name of Turnberg, citing just the UN Climate Summit.
Between line 128 and 133 you underline how much young people are often excluded by management. It is a right statement and shareable, but not very pertinent.
The paper uses properly semei-structured interviews to evaluate the quality. I suggest to involve some other specific questionnaires for environmental awareness, self-efficacy or sensitivity.
We do not understand why some part of the text are have been left blank.
We suggest to include some important citation about entrepreneurial education and sustainable education, considering also the Educational sistem during COVID restrictions as:
Pascucci, T., Cardella, G. M., Hernández-Sánchez, B. R., & García, J. C. S. (2022). Environmental sensitivity to form a sustainable entrepreneurial intention. Sustainability, 14(16), 10398. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610398
Paciello, M., Corbelli, G., Di Pomponio, I., & Cerniglia, L. (2023). Protective Role of Self-Regulatory Efficacy: A Moderated Mediation Model on the Influence of Impulsivity on Cyberbullying through Moral Disengagement. Children (Basel), 10(2), 219. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10020219
The limit recognized by the authors is also correct
I recommend that this paper be accepted after some minor revisions
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you for the time spent considering our paper and for the valuable comments and suggestions. We have made an attempt to address the specific recommendations, to allow a final decision regarding the manuscript. Below, we present the list of adjustments that have been performed, following point-by-point the list of comments. All changes in the manuscript were marked.
We hope this new revised version is now suitable for publication and look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Isabel Silva
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for inviting me to review this manuscript. In general, this is an interesting paper but some major flaws remain. Please see my detailed comments below and revise them point by point.
1. Discuss which dimension of acceptability (at the social-political level or community and individual level, see Liu et al., 2021) you are talking about in the intro section.
2. The qualitative methods seem to be robust and transparent but I have never seen such short “results” for a qualitative study. Couldn’t you expand the results section, presenting some quotations? I couldn’t see through the results section the value of doing a qualitative study because it oversimplified everything that shouldn’t be simplified.
3. Also I think the rationale of using a qualitative approach for this objective is not clarified. Because normally people use quantitative models to study this issue (for example the previous one I recommended, see also Maestre-Andrés et al., 2019)
4. The satisfaction of a scheme cannot be measured qualitatively with less than 20 respondents. These mean values do not provide much information as they cannot be statistically analysed (see e.g., McColl-Kennedy & Schneider, 2000).
5. What are these annoying things? I can't past the figure here, check line 209 and some references that are overcast by large black bars.
Reference
Liu, Q., Lucas, K., & Marsden, G. (2021). Public acceptability of congestion charging in Beijing, China: How transferrable are Western ideas of public acceptability?. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 15(2), 97-110.
Maestre-Andrés, S., Drews, S., & van den Bergh, J. (2019). Perceived fairness and public acceptability of carbon pricing: a review of the literature. Climate policy, 19(9), 1186-1204.
McColl-Kennedy, J., & Schneider, U. (2000). Measuring customer satisfaction: why, what and how. Total quality management, 11(7), 883-896.
it can benefit from editing services.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you for the time spent considering our paper and for the valuable comments and suggestions. We have made an attempt to address the specific recommendations, to allow a final decision regarding the manuscript. Below, we present the list of adjustments that have been performed, following point-by-point the list of comments. All changes in the manuscript were marked.
We hope this new revised version is now suitable for publication and look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Isabel Silva
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
