Beliefs about Climate Change and Their Relationship with Environmental Beliefs and Sustainable Behavior: A View from Rural Communities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

An interesting study of attitudes about climate change among rural residents of Colombia. But what is the conclusion? How do the results affect what the nation, or even that local region will do to combat climate change through implementing novel approaches to husbanding the environment? I'm afraid that the key questions are left unanswered. There are two directions to be explored before this paper can have broader value. 

1. Reference to pre-industrial beliefs that connect humankind with nature more strongly than nowadays. For example Christopher Alexander's work: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872620300666 https://www.oxbowbooks.com/dbbc/the-nature-of-order-book-four-the-luminous-ground.html
2. Organizing local populations to save their habitat from exploitative development by central government or other forces. There is a vast literature on this that ties into civic action.

In conclusion, the present study is valuable only if it gives ideas on how to improve the situation, otherwise it is an abstruse academic study. 

Author Response

Please check the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Sustainability-1166632-v1

BELIEFS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS RELATION WITH ENVI-RONMENTAL BELIEFS AND SUSTAINABLE BEHAVIOR: A VIEW FROM RURAL COMMUNITIES

 

This short paper reports a survey of people in southern Colombia to conclude that “the presence of environmental beliefs, along with information regarding a feeling of environmental deterioration, climate change and the consequences for the future, can predict the implementation of actions for sustainable development”. The conclusion relies on statistical analysis of a responses to a range of survey tools administered to “a group of inhabitants of southern Colombia”. The stated purpose of the paper seems to be to contribute to “the development of behavioral strategies that prevent environmental deterioration and mitigate the effects of climate change” (lines 18-20, p4/19). It tests two generalised hypotheses about the relationship between beliefs about climate change, environmental beliefs and behaviours.

 

I note that the file available for review did not include line numbers for all pages. I have tried to indicate where my comments apply. I predicate my comments with acknowledgement that my expertise in statistical analysis is limited. But my sense is that material published in Sustainability should be both reliable and meaningful and that the value of the analysis should be clear at first reading.

 

My expertise as a geographer working in Indigenous rights and sustainability brings me to my first concern in this paper, which is how the specific context is addressed. The population surveyed comes from a particular place with a particular history and there is no clear description of who the people involved are or what their experiences of historical and more recent environmental, social and economic change they have been. Instead, the extended introduction – which cites at least 50 references in just 3½ pages – ends with two hypotheses that are related to this general literature review, but virtually unrelated to any discussion of the people and places addressed in the research. Given the region’s complex history of ethnic, economic and environmental conflict (particular the violence experienced by Nasa peoples in recent decades), the absence of any discussion of the regional setting is a serious weakness in the paper. I think revision of the paper could reduce the literature review and increase the discussion of the place and its people.

 

The surveyed populations are characterised as ‘urban’, ‘rural’ and ‘indigenous’. This also needs some clearer explanation. Page 4/19 four lines from the bottom of the page says that 95.4% of the surveyed population belong to socioeconomic stratum 1 and 2 – but do not explain what these are (also Table 1 on page 5). There is no discussion of environmental values in relation to Indigenous knowledges and the significance of the urban/rural/Indigenous distinction is very unclear.

 

The section discussing scales and instruments is very densely written, but ultimately does not really tell the reader what I think might be needed – would it be appropriate to include the instruments as appendices or an online file?

 

The use of convenience sampling seems somewhat inconsistent with the implied characterisation of the survey population as somehow representative of the three populations that were sampled – and perhaps even as simply comparable to other reported populations elsewhere. Without some better discussion of the wider regional populations and their values and behaviours, it becomes rather a stretch to claim anything more that descriptive conclusions. As far as I can ascertain, the statistical procedures are sound, but the fundamental question of sampling should be better addressed in the text.

 

The conclusions do not return to the hypotheses being tested.

 

 

I note that some non-English text remains (eg heading Referencias), and that there is some poor expression in the paper that makes meaning difficult to ascertain. For example, at line 4 of page 4/19, the sentence “However, research conducted in urban contexts is documented” doesn’t really make sense. Is it meant to read that research in urban contexts is well documented compared to rural areas? Is it the aim of the paper to address that particular gap? The text would benefit from a further review of English language expression to improve its accessibility and significance.

Author Response

Please check the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for your response to the reviewer comments. While I would also look for a more engaged conclusion as does my fellow reviewer, I recognise and acknowledge the authors' response.