Who Shapes What We Should Do in Urban Green Spaces? An Investigation of Subjective Norms in Pro-Environmental Behavior in Tehran

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article addresses a relevant topic with the potential for broad public resonance. Nevertheless, some ambiguities require clarification and elaboration. My comments are as follows:
1.    Since this study aims to investigate subjective norms in pro-environmental behaviors and interprets them through the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), it should elucidate the relationships between these concepts. Furthermore, distinctions must be made between: 
1)    The differences in meaning between subjective norms and personal norms, 
2)    The distinctions between social norms and subjective norms,
3)    The interconnections among these concepts.
 These points require thorough clarification to ensure theoretical coherence.
2.    The Likert scale assessment method can only determine respondents' attitudes but cannot uncover the underlying reasons behind them. How would you address this limitation?
3.    LL569-571, you mentioned that “The mechanism bridges the TPB with the NAM and VBN theory, which emphasize moral obligation as a key predictor of environmentally responsible behavior.” However, there is no indication referring to NAM and VBN theory. Please interpret the NAM and VBN theory, and explain how this study can effectively bridge the mechanism of TPB with the NAM and VBN theory.
4.    Line 343, the AVE score 0.546 is not for personal norms, but for Interpersonal influence.
5.    Under the 'Intention' section in Table 2, there are two instances of 'IN3'. Please clarify and correct the statement/description content.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

   

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

Comment: This article addresses a relevant topic with the potential for broad public resonance. Nevertheless, some ambiguities require clarification and elaboration. My comments are as follows:

Answer: We sincerely appreciate your positive feedback on the manuscript and are grateful for the time and valuable comments you provided. We have carefully considered and addressed all of the reviewers’ suggestions throughout the revised version of the paper. Below, we present the modifications made in response to each of your comments.

 

Comment 1.    Since this study aims to investigate subjective norms in pro-environmental behaviors and interprets them through the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), it should elucidate the relationships between these concepts. Furthermore, distinctions must be made between:

1)    The differences in meaning between subjective norms and personal norms,

2)    The distinctions between social norms and subjective norms,

3)    The interconnections among these concepts.

 These points require thorough clarification to ensure theoretical coherence.

Answer: We fully agree with your observations regarding the conceptual distinctions, and we thank you for your careful attention to detail. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified the differences between the three constructs in question to resolve potential ambiguities and enhance the reader’s understanding. The following explanations were added to the manuscript accordingly in lines 143-158:

Within the TPB, subjective norms are defined as an individual’s perception of social pressure from important others to perform or not perform a given behavior [56]. They reflect how much a person believes that key referents expect them to act in a certain way. In contrast, personal norms a concept often drawn from the NAM refer to an individual’s internalized moral obligations or feelings of responsibility to engage in a behavior, independent of external social expectations [19]. Social norms are a broader term that encompasses both descriptive norms (perceptions of what others typically do) and injunctive norms (perceptions of what others think one should do), and they may influence behavior through both interpersonal and societal-level processes [57,58]. In the context of TPB, subjective norms represent a specific operationalization of social norms, limited to perceived expectations from salient referents. While social norms form the structural context of behavioral influence, subjective norms capture how individuals internalize these influences, and personal norms reflect the internal moral transformation of such social cues. Understanding the conceptual boundaries and interconnections among these constructs is critical for accurately modeling the motivational pathways underlying pro-environmental behaviors.

Comment 2.    The Likert scale assessment method can only determine respondents' attitudes but cannot uncover the underlying reasons behind them. How would you address this limitation?

Answer: As you are aware, the Likert scale is a widely used method for collecting responses in social science research. To clarify its application in this study, we added a detailed explanation to the relevant section of the manuscript in lines 308-311:

The Likert scale is widely accepted in social science research for its ability to capture the degree of agreement or disagreement with various statements, making it especially useful for modeling latent psychological constructs within structured frameworks [90–92] such as the model of this study.

Comment 3.    LL569-571, you mentioned that “The mechanism bridges the TPB with the NAM and VBN theory, which emphasize moral obligation as a key predictor of environmentally responsible behavior.” However, there is no indication referring to NAM and VBN theory. Please interpret the NAM and VBN theory, and explain how this study can effectively bridge the mechanism of TPB with the NAM and VBN theory.

Answer: We agree that the original description was insufficient and required further elaboration. Therefore, we have included the following revisions to eliminate any confusion in lines 678-692:

 The proposed mechanism bridges the TPB with the NAM and the VBN theory, both of which emphasize the role of internalized moral obligation in driving environmentally responsible behavior. According to NAM, personal norms, feelings of moral responsibility are activated when individuals are aware of the consequences of their actions and feel responsible for those consequences. The VBN theory extends this by linking environmental values, beliefs, and personal norms in a causal chain leading to pro-environmental action. While TPB focuses on rational, intention-based predictors of behavior such as attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms, it often underrepresents internal moral motivations. By proposing that subjective norms can be internalized and transformed into personal norms, this study highlights a key psychological process where perceived social pressure (a TPB component) may activate personal norms (as conceptualized in NAM and VBN). Thus, the study offers a theoretical bridge that connects external social influences with internal moral drivers of behavior, enriching our understanding of the motivational underpinnings of pro-environmental actions.

Comment 4.    Line 343, the AVE score 0.546 is not for personal norms, but for Interpersonal influence.

Answer: Thank you again for your attention to detail. This point has been corrected in the revised manuscript in line 428.

Comment 5.    Under the 'Intention' section in Table 2, there are two instances of 'IN3'. Please clarify and correct the statement/description content.

Answer: We appreciate your close reading of the paper once more. The issue was due to an oversight, which has now been resolved in table 2.

 Once again, we thank you for your thorough review and sharp observations, which have contributed significantly to enhancing the quality of the paper. We hope these revisions meet your expectations. Nevertheless, we remain fully prepared to implement any additional changes you may find necessary.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the manuscript, and I appreciate the effort the authors made, especially in managing survey process with so many indoividuals. The subject of presnted experimental study is interesting, and the aim of the contribution is clear.  The paper is well-written and well-structured. Overall, the paper has enough merits for the broader scientific community interested in the topic and its elaboration.

 

The manuscript presents a study aimed at exploring how social expectations shape perceived subjective norms among visitors to urban forests. The authors applied structural equation modeling while data were collected from a sample of urban forest visitors and analyzed to examine the impact of social identity, media influence, interpersonal influence, and partly institutional trust on subjective norms. The theoretical framework of research is given by stating seven reasonable hypotheses to enable deeper insight into the social dimension of human behavior, that is, how humans perceive societal expectations from using urban green spaces, aimed ultimately for undertaking appropriate mobilizing actions to improve existing situations, primarily from an environmental point of view.

 

The research provided a model (mainly statistically inspired) for getting comprehensive insight into the social roots of subjective norms, important in further designing effective socially grounded interventions towards sustainable changes. Based on Krejcie's determination table for sample sizes (as defined in 1970), the authors started with a minimum of 384 participants and, to enhance the precision and coverage of the study for Tehran city, used a slightly larger sample of 421 participants. Questionnaires are distributed and data collected for, firstly, all 22 municipal districts of Tehran, from which 10 districts were selected to ensure geographic diversity across the city. After that, within each selected district, two to three urban forests or green spaces were identified. At these locations, participants were selected randomly for data collection. They filled out appropriate questionnaires, the answers were collected and partly statistically analysed, followed by the correct discussion of the results obtained and the conclusions derived.

 

I suggest the following corrections that may improve the submission:

 

1. Parts of the discussion can be rewritten and added to the conclusions.
2. In Conclusions, provide comments on limitations and possible drawbacks of the study performed, and its applicability in broader contexts (cities). Add a future research agenda.
3. In subsection 3.2, briefly explain the meaning of ‘Cronbach’s Alpha values’.The same for ’Fornell and Larcker criterion and the Hetero-290 trait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT)’ in 2.4.1.
4. Correct typos and remove grammar errors (additional proofreading recommended)
5. Correct Fig. 1 (Top left ellipse - should be Interpersonal influence).
6. Enlarge Figure 2
7. Line 318 ‘ Table X’ should be ‘Table 1’.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Comment: I have reviewed the manuscript, and I appreciate the effort the authors made, especially in managing survey process with so many indoividuals. The subject of presnted experimental study is interesting, and the aim of the contribution is clear.  The paper is well-written and well-structured. Overall, the paper has enough merits for the broader scientific community interested in the topic and its elaboration.

The manuscript presents a study aimed at exploring how social expectations shape perceived subjective norms among visitors to urban forests. The authors applied structural equation modeling while data were collected from a sample of urban forest visitors and analyzed to examine the impact of social identity, media influence, interpersonal influence, and partly institutional trust on subjective norms. The theoretical framework of research is given by stating seven reasonable hypotheses to enable deeper insight into the social dimension of human behavior, that is, how humans perceive societal expectations from using urban green spaces, aimed ultimately for undertaking appropriate mobilizing actions to improve existing situations, primarily from an environmental point of view.

The research provided a model (mainly statistically inspired) for getting comprehensive insight into the social roots of subjective norms, important in further designing effective socially grounded interventions towards sustainable changes. Based on Krejcie's determination table for sample sizes (as defined in 1970), the authors started with a minimum of 384 participants and, to enhance the precision and coverage of the study for Tehran city, used a slightly larger sample of 421 participants. Questionnaires are distributed and data collected for, firstly, all 22 municipal districts of Tehran, from which 10 districts were selected to ensure geographic diversity across the city. After that, within each selected district, two to three urban forests or green spaces were identified. At these locations, participants were selected randomly for data collection. They filled out appropriate questionnaires, the answers were collected and partly statistically analysed, followed by the correct discussion of the results obtained and the conclusions derived.

Answer: We sincerely appreciate your valuable time and thoughtful comments. We were very pleased and grateful for your positive evaluation of the manuscript. We have made every effort to address all of your suggestions, and below we provide a point-by-point explanation of the changes made in response to each comment.

  Comment:  Parts of the discussion can be rewritten and added to the conclusions.

Answer: Several sections of the discussion have been revised, and the conclusion has been rewritten accordingly. However, since these revisions were dispersed across different parts of the manuscript, we did not highlight them individually. In fact, we also removed some redundant content to improve clarity and focus.

    Comment: In Conclusions, provide comments on limitations and possible drawbacks of the study performed, and its applicability in broader contexts (cities). Add a future research agenda.

Answer: As highlighted in the revised manuscript, we have included a separate section that outlines the study’s limitations and offers recommendations for future research directions. We also mentioned limitations in conclusion in brief.

Lines 754-784

4.2. Limitations and Future Research Trend

While the present study offers valuable insights into the normative and social predictors of pro-environmental intention, several limitations should be acknowledged to inform the interpretation of the results and guide future research efforts. One of the primary limitations of this study lies in its cross-sectional design, which restricts the ability to infer causal relationships between constructs. Future research should employ longitudinal or experimental designs to examine the stability and causality of the observed relationships and to capture potential shifts in norms and intentions across different time frames or in response to specific interventions. The study was conducted in a single metropolitan context, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other regions or cultural settings. Social identity, media influence, and trust in institutions may function differently across countries, cultures, and governance systems. Comparative studies across diverse urban and rural contexts, or cross-cultural analyses, would offer a broader understanding of how contextual variables shape the formation of environmental norms and intentions.

All constructs in this study were measured using self-reported survey items, which are subject to common method bias, social desirability bias, and recall errors. Although efforts were made to ensure anonymity and reduce response bias, future studies could incorporate behavioral measures, observational data, or multi-informant approaches to triangulate findings and enhance the robustness of the results. While the model included key constructs, other potentially relevant factors were not examined. These may include emotional drivers contextual constraints, economic variables, and digital engagement. Expanding the model to include such factors could provide a more holistic view of the mechanisms driving pro-environmental behavior. In light of the study’s findings and limitations, several future research directions are suggested. Scholars should explore how emerging forms of media impact normative perceptions and environmental behavior. Additionally, given the increasing urgency of climate change, future studies could investigate how crisis framing, risk perception, and ecological emotions interact with social and personal norms to shape behavior. There is also growing interest in integrating behavioral science with digital technologies to promote sustainable lifestyles. Finally, interdisciplinary approaches that combine insights from psychology, communication, urban planning, and environmental policy are essential to developing more effective and scalable interventions for environmental behavior change.

Lines 804-809:

 

Despite its contributions, this study has limitations, including its cross-sectional design, single-city focus, and reliance on self-reported data. These limitations suggest the need for longitudinal, cross-cultural, and mixed-method research to validate and extend the model. Future studies could also further examine the mediating role of personal norms and explore additional factors such as emotions or digital engagement.

 

 

   Comment:  In subsection 3.2, briefly explain the meaning of ‘Cronbach’s Alpha values’.The same for ’Fornell and Larcker criterion and the Hetero-290 trait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT)’ in 2.4.1.

Answer: Based on your comment, we provided further clarification regarding the metrics and scales used in the study.

Lines 347-351

Cronbach’s alpha is a measure of internal consistency reliability, which assesses how closely related a set of items are as a group. It indicates the extent to which the items of a construct measure the same underlying concept. A Cronbach’s alpha value above 0.70 is generally considered acceptable, indicating satisfactory reliability of the construct [94].

Lines 360-373:

The Fornell and Larcker criterion is a widely used method for assessing discriminant validity in structural equation modeling. It works by comparing the square root of the AVE for each construct with the correlations between that construct and all others in the model [96]. If the square root of a construct’s AVE is higher than its correlation with any other construct, it suggests that the construct shares more variance with its own indicators than with other constructs. This provides evidence that the construct is empirically distinct, supporting discriminant validity. The HTMT ratio is a modern technique used to evaluate discriminant validity in structural equation modeling. It assesses whether two constructs that are supposed to be distinct are actually different in practice. The HTMT value is calculated by comparing the average correlations across different constructs (heterotrait) with the average correlations within the same construct (monotrait). If the HTMT value is too high, it suggests that the constructs may not be truly separate. As a general rule, an HTMT value below 0.85 indicates good discriminant validity, meaning the constructs are likely measuring different concepts [97].

   Comment: Correct typos and remove grammar errors (additional proofreading recommended)

Answer: We also carefully reviewed the manuscript for spelling and grammatical errors and improved the overall clarity and flow of the writing.

    Comment: Correct Fig. 1 (Top left ellipse - should be Interpersonal influence).

Answer: We are very grateful for your attention to detail; the relevant sections of the manuscript have been revised accordingly in line 278.

    Comment: Enlarge Figure 2

Answer: We did it in revised version.

   Comment:  Line 318 ‘ Table X’ should be ‘Table 1’.

Answer: Thank you for your sharp review. We revised this in paper.

Once again, we thank you for your thorough review and sharp observations, which have contributed significantly to enhancing the quality of the paper. We hope these revisions meet your expectations. Nevertheless, we remain fully prepared to implement any additional changes you may find necessary.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Please include the theoretical framework utilized in the study within the abstract to provide clearer context for readers.
2. The abstract does not specify the location where data was collected. Kindly add this information for completeness.
3. Lines 68–70 require further elaboration. It is recommended to support this section with more recent literature to strengthen the theoretical grounding.
4. The introduction section lacks details about the data collection setting. Please consider adding this information for clarity.
5. The theoretical framework section transitions abruptly into hypothesis development without a clear separation. It is recommended that the authors separate these two sections, first elaborating on the theoretical background and then developing the hypotheses in a distinct section.
6. The data collection procedures are not sufficiently described. Please clarify who the participants were, how they were approached, and how the questionnaire was distributed.
7. Was back-translation used in the process of questionnaire translation? If so, please describe the procedure.
8. To address common method variance (CMV), consider conducting Harman’s single factor test or using a marker variable technique and reporting the results.
9. The mediating role of personal norms may offer further insights into the model. Consider evaluating and discussing this potential mediation effect.
10. Please expand on the practical implications of your findings, especially those relevant to the specific context under study.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

 

We would like to begin by sincerely thanking you for the time you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript and for your valuable comments. We carefully revised the paper based on your suggestions, and we hope that these improvements address your concerns.

Answer: We would like to begin by sincerely thanking you for the time you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript and for your valuable comments. We carefully revised the paper based on your suggestions, and we hope that these improvements address your concerns.

Comment: Please include the theoretical framework utilized in the study within the abstract to provide clearer context for readers. The abstract does not specify the location where data was collected. Kindly add this information for completeness.

Answer:  Thank you for your sharp review and helpful comment. We have added explanations regarding the theoretical framework in the abstract.

Lines 19-22

A theoretical model was developed with subjective norms at its center, incorporating their predictors including social identity, media influence, interpersonal influence, institutional trust, personal norms as a mediator, and behavioral intention as the outcome variable.

We also mentioned the study setting in line 24.

Comment: Lines 68–70 require further elaboration. It is recommended to support this section with more recent literature to strengthen the theoretical grounding.

Answer: New references were incorporated to strengthen the scientific grounding of the arguments, and the text was expanded to provide a more detailed discussion of the mixed findings related to subjective norms

Lines 74-81

Despite its theoretical importance, the empirical findings on the effect of subjective norms have been mixed. In some studies, subjective norms significantly influence behavioral intentions [29,37–39], while in others, their effects on behaviors such as consumption-related actions, participation in environmental conservation, workplace-related environmental behaviors, and broader sustainable environmental practices were marginal or statistically insignificant [35,40–45]. These inconsistencies suggest that the functioning of subjective norms may be contingent upon deeper, context-specific, or unmeasured factors that influence how people perceive and internalize social expectations.

Comment: The introduction section lacks details about the data collection setting. Please consider adding this information for clarity.

Answer: We added details about Tehran as study setting in line 94-107:

in Tehran, the capital city of Iran. Tehran serves as an appropriate case study for examining cities with similar environmental and socio-cultural characteristics. Situated in a semi-arid region and frequently exposed to heatwaves, air pollution from traffic and industry, and dust storms, the city relies heavily on its urban forests and green spaces to mitigate environmental stressors and promote a healthier urban environment [48–50]. However, the city’s vast scale and widespread distribution of green spaces present significant challenges for the management and conservation of these resources, challenges that cannot be addressed without environmentally responsible behavior and active public participation. Moreover, Tehran’s socio-cultural context, characterized by a strong orientation toward collective behavior and responsiveness to social expectations, makes it a suitable setting for investigating the role of subjective norms [51]. Insights gained from this study in Tehran can offer important implications for similar urban contexts, contributing to a deeper understanding of the determinants of subjective norms as key drivers of pro-environmental behavioral intention.

Comment: The theoretical framework section transitions abruptly into hypothesis development without a clear separation. It is recommended that the authors separate these two sections, first elaborating on the theoretical background and then developing the hypotheses in a distinct section.

Answer: To improve the clarity and structure of the paper, we separated the theoretical framework from the hypothesis development section and introduced a new introductory paragraph to clarify how the hypotheses relate to the theoretical model in lines 245-267.

1.2. Hypotheses Defining

Drawing on the theoretical foundations presented in the previous section such as the TPB, the NAM, and the VBN theory, this study formulates a series of hypotheses to empirically test the pathways through which normative influences shape pro-environmental behavioral intention. The proposed conceptual model integrates both social and personal normative constructs to explain the formation of behavioral intentions in the environmental context. At the core of the model lies the construct of subjective norms. These subjective norms are hypothesized to be influenced by key antecedents including interpersonal influence, media influence, institutional trust, and social identity, reflecting a combination of personal and interpersonal motivational sources. The model further posits that subjective norms do not operate in isolation but may lead to the activation of personal norms, which represent individuals’ internalized moral obligations to act in environmentally responsible ways. This assumption draws from NAM and VBN theory, which emphasize that moral norms are central predictors of behavior [19,87],.Finally, the model proposes that personal norms serve as a proximal predictor of behavioral intention, reflecting the internal motivational force that transforms social influence into deliberate commitment. In this framework, subjective norms function as both a direct antecedent to behavioral intention and an indirect one through personal norms, thereby bridging external social pressures and internal moral drivers. The following hypotheses are developed to examine these proposed relationships and validate the integrative theoretical framework guiding this research. These hypotheses are also illustrated in the graphical model of the research, presented in Figure 1.

Comment: The data collection procedures are not sufficiently described. Please clarify who the participants were, how they were approached, and how the questionnaire was distributed.

Answer: The data collection process is now described in greater detail, including the sampling procedure, participant recruitment, and the administration of the questionnaire. The additional description is in lines 316-325:

As described in the previous section, the target population of this study consisted of visitors to urban forests, and respondents were selected from among these individuals. At each sampling location, participants were chosen using a random sampling approach. Initially, participants were informed about the purpose of the study and the data collection procedure. They were then asked whether they were willing to participate. Those who agreed were provided with a questionnaire, along with instructions on how to complete it. Participants were then given the opportunity to complete the questionnaire in a private setting. As noted earlier, all questionnaires were administered and completed in person through face-to-face interviews. All participants provided informed written consent before participating in the study. They were also assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses.Data were collected during March and April 2025.

Comment: Was back-translation used in the process of questionnaire translation? If so, please describe the procedure.

Answer: the questionnaire was originally administered in Persian, and the items were translated into English for the purpose of manuscript preparation.

Comment: To address common method variance (CMV), consider conducting Harman’s single factor test or using a marker variable technique and reporting the results.

Answer: To address concerns about common method variance (CMV), we added explanations to both the Methods and Results sections. We also discussed the findings of the CMV assessment in the results. Furthermore, the mediating role of personal norms was more thoroughly examined to highlight their importance both as a determinant of behavioral intention and as a mediator between subjective norms and intention.

Lines 381-386:

In addition to evaluating the reliability and validity of the measurement model, the potential for common method bias was examined using Harman’s single-factor test [98]. This approach involves conducting an exploratory factor analysis on all items in the dataset using principal component analysis without rotation. The rationale behind this test is that if a substantial portion of the variance is explained by a single factor, common method variance (CMV) may be a concern.

Lines 447-450:

The results of Harman’s single-factor test indicated that the first unrotated factor accounted for 24.9% of the total variance, which is below the commonly accepted threshold of 50%. Therefore, CMV does not appear to pose a significant threat to the validity of the findings in this study [98].

Comment: The mediating role of personal norms may offer further insights into the model. Consider evaluating and discussing this potential mediation effect.

Answer: The mediating role of personal norms was more thoroughly examined to highlight their importance both as a determinant of behavioral intention and as a mediator between subjective norms and intention.

Lines 644-658

Beyond their direct influence, the findings of this study also highlight the important mediating role of personal norms in the relationship between subjective norms and behavioral intention. The structural model confirmed that subjective norms significantly predict personal norms, which in turn exert a direct effect on pro-environmental intention. This suggests a partial mediation effect, wherein perceived social expectations do not only influence behavior directly but also indirectly through the internalization of these expectations as personal moral obligations. This mediating pathway offers a more nuanced understanding of how social influence is transformed into enduring behavioral commitment. In practical terms, it implies that efforts to strengthen subjective norms may have amplified effects when they succeed in fostering moral reflection and personal ethical endorsement of pro-environmental actions. This internalization process may also explain the long-term persistence of behavior, even in the absence of external pressures. Thus, personal norms serve as a critical psychological mechanism that bridges external social cues and internal motivation, reinforcing the integrative power of the model and supporting its alignment with both the TPB and the NAM.

Comment: Please expand on the practical implications of your findings, especially those relevant to the specific context under study.

Answer: the section on policy and managerial implications was rewritten to better align with the study’s findings and the urban context of Tehran. Your comment was particularly helpful in guiding us to refine this section and tailor it more appropriately to the characteristics of the study region.

Lines 714-753

4.1.2. Policy and Managerial Implications

The findings of this study offer actionable insights for policymakers, urban planners, and managers of green infrastructure, especially within densely populated and environmentally stressed urban contexts such as Tehran. First, the strong influence of social identity on media influence suggests that interventions should go beyond information provision and foster community-level environmental identities by helping from media. This can be achieved through initiatives such as neighborhood-based greening projects, co-managed community gardens, or local green citizen campaigns. These programs should be framed to emphasize collective belonging and shared environmental values, reinforcing pro-environmental behavior as a marker of local identity. In Tehran. where collectivist values and group affiliation are culturally salient, such efforts are likely to be particularly effective in mobilizing behavioral change. Second, the significant role of media influence indicates that communication strategies should leverage both mainstream and social media platforms to amplify environmental norms. Targeted media campaigns could use local influencers, neighborhood stories, and culturally relevant narratives to frame sustainable behaviors as both socially desirable and normative. This is especially important in Tehran, where access to green spaces varies by neighborhood, and digital communication plays an increasingly central role in shaping public discourse.

Third, interpersonal influence, including family, peers, and community members, remains a crucial channel for norm transmission. Urban managers and environmental NGOs should design peer-to-peer environmental education programs, youth ambassador networks, and family-inclusive events (such as eco-picnics or green competitions) in parks and forests. Such relational strategies may prove more impactful than impersonal institutional messaging, particularly in Tehran where informal networks often carry greater trust and immediacy. Fourth, the study found that institutional trust did not significantly shape subjective norms. This calls into question the reliance on top-down public messaging as a standalone strategy. For addressing this issue, public authorities should build credibility by partnering with trusted intermediaries such as community leaders, local NGOs, or mosque networks to co-deliver environmental messages. Transparent, consistent engagement with local communities is needed to enhance the legitimacy of environmental governance and bridge the gap between policy and public perception. Finally, the demonstrated pathway from subjective norms to personal norms and behavioral intention highlights the importance of cultivating long-term internalization of pro-environmental values. Policymakers and educators should move beyond temporary awareness campaigns and invest in sustainability education embedded within formal school curricula, mosque-based environmental teachings, and public storytelling initiatives that evoke ethical responsibility. By combining external reinforcement (media, peer, group identity) with internal motivation (personal moral obligation), environmental policies in Tehran can generate deeper, more resilient behavioral change among urban residents. In sum, a one-size-fits-all or institution-centered approach is unlikely to succeed.

 

Once again, we thank you for your thorough review and sharp observations, which have contributed significantly to enhancing the quality of the paper. We hope these revisions meet your expectations. Nevertheless, we remain fully prepared to implement any additional changes you may find necessary.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Is the NAM in line 146 referring to the Norm Activation Model? And is VBN referring to the Value-Belief-Norm? If so, please list the full terminology with acronyms and briefly explain the relationship between TPB, NAM, and VBN theories in section 1.1. Theoretical Framework of Research, to facilitate the reading of the article.
2. Since the case study in this article is conducted in Tehran, please consider changing the article title to "Who shapes what we should do in urban green spaces? An investigation of subjective norms in pro-environmental behavior in Tehran."

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 

We sincerely appreciate your meticulous and thoughtful review of our manuscript. We revised the manuscript based on your comments. Below, we provide a point-by-point explanation of your comments and the corresponding changes made.

Comment: Is the NAM in line 146 referring to the Norm Activation Model? And is VBN referring to the Value-Belief-Norm? If so, please list the full terminology with acronyms and briefly explain the relationship between TPB, NAM, and VBN theories in section 1.1. Theoretical Framework of Research, to facilitate the reading of the article.

Answer: We have reviewed the text to ensure that all acronyms are properly introduced. For each term appearing for the first time, we wrote out the full name in capitalized form, followed by the acronym in parentheses. These changes can be observed in lines 56–57 and line 124.

We have also added further explanations about the relationships among the variables of our study and the three theoretical frameworks—NAM, VBN, and TPB. While the previous version (lines 152–173) included some discussion of these models, we have now provided more comprehensive explanations in lines 134–150.

The NAM and VBN theory are both foundational models in the environmental psychology literature that emphasize the role of internal moral obligations in shaping behavior. NAM posits that individuals act pro-socially when they are aware of the consequences of their actions and feel a personal responsibility to act [20,57]. This leads to the activation of personal norms, which are internalized feelings of moral obligation. VBN theory, developed by [56], expands NAM by linking values, ecological worldviews, awareness of consequences, ascription of responsibility, and personal norms into a causal chain that predicts pro-environmental behavior. While NAM and VBN focus on internalized moral motivation, the TPB [58] provides a broader social-psychological framework by identifying three primary antecedents of intention including subjective norms. In this study, we draw on all three theories. TPB is used as the primary framework to explain behavioral intention, with subjective norms positioned as a central variable. However, acknowledging the influence of deeper moral values and obligations, we integrate concepts from NAM and VBN to examine how subjective norms may give rise to personal norms, which then influence pro-environmental intentions. Thus, our model bridges external social influence (TPB) with internal moral motivation (NAM and VBN), offering a more comprehensive account of how both societal expectations and moral beliefs shape environmentally responsible behavior.

Comment: Since the case study in this article is conducted in Tehran, please consider changing the article title to "Who shapes what we should do in urban green spaces? An investigation of subjective norms in pro-environmental behavior in Tehran."

Answer:  we have added "Tehran" as the study area to the title of the paper. The revised title is now as follow:

Who shapes what we should do in urban green spaces? An investigation of subjective norms in pro-environmental behavior in Tehran

Regarding the language of the manuscript, we have made efforts to improve readability and clarity. In the abstract and introduction, for example, we highlighted several changes to allow you to easily notice the revisions. We have removed redundant words, selected more appropriate terms, and restructured some sentences to ensure smoother comprehension. Similar improvements were made in other sections as well.

We hope that, if minor language adjustments are still necessary, the journal’s editorial team can address them during the final editing process after acceptance.

Once again, we thank you for your valuable feedback and hope that these revisions meet your expectations. Should you have any additional suggestions, we would be more than happy to incorporate them.

 

Sincerely,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have provided satisfactory responses to my concerns.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

We sincerely thank you for reviewing our manuscript in two rounds. We are especially grateful for your comments in the first round, which were instrumental in helping us improve the quality of the paper. We are pleased to hear that the revisions met your expectations, and we truly appreciate your positive evaluation of the changes made.

 

Sincerely,

Authors