Exploring Community Perceptions of Climate Change Issues in Peninsular Malaysia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors could improve the manuscript by addressing important comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
By sending questionnaires to communities, this paper discusses the views of communities in Peninsular Malaysia on climate change. The article is generally interesting, but it lacks a certain depth of analysis, and a minor revision is needed.
The introduction seems to have little relevance to the article itself. The authors should consider readjusting the content of the introduction.
If the author only shows the average value of all options, he is likely to fall into the "statistical average trap", because people of different gender, age and educational level have different views on different issues. Therefore, it is suggested that the article conduct some simple econometric regression analysis, such as [10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112812].
Some tables can be displayed graphically, such as Table 4, which are supposed to be easier for readers to understand.
In part 4 (discussion), in addition to carbon tax, there are many policy instruments for climate change, such as resource tax on fossil energy, renewable energy subsidies, carbon trading, etc. these policies also have good effects. (for example: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.121179)
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comment
This work explores the urbanization process and its impact on nature and environmental conditions. Environmental awareness can be utilized as a tool for environmental policy-making and management. Despite the dataset collected from fewer respondents, this is interesting, and the collected dataset is important and will serve as key literature for future works regarding environmental research and making new environmental policies. The paper is generally well written and structured. Importantly, the respondent's suggestions hope to demonstrate the importance of considering urbanization policy-making and environmental awareness among the community where they are about to face urbanization's impact.
Below I have mentioned a few remarks after correcting that the manuscript is publishable.
1. I suggest making a quick check for minor grammatical throughout the manuscript.
2. In a few paragraphs, the word “respondents” or “respondent” seems to be repeated multiple times. Repetition can be avoided. For Eg – in lines 265 to 266, -“while 119 (34.0%) respondents were not sure, and 29 (8.3%) respondents disagreed.” this line could be changed to “while 119 (34.0%) respondents were unsure, and 29 (8.3%) disagreed. ”
Suggestion
I wonder if the author could provide the Peninsular Malaysia’s map as a figure. So, they can mark the states and respondent numbers (n=) within the map so that it could be informative for readers. This is simply a suggestion that authors can consider or reject.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper lacks novelty and provide no significant addition in the existing knowledge with regards to climate change i.e. nothing new in terms of science, policy and/or management of climate change has been presented/reported in this study. Therefore, this article is not fit for publication in this journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper investigates various perceptions of climate change issues by applying an online quantitative survey questionnaire for 50 community members from different states in Peninsular Malaysia. The research is rather interesting but needs some clarifications. The main concern I have is that I failed to understand the contribution of this study. The authors need to clearly mention what scientific question they want to answer and why this question is important to the community. Additionally, they need to highlight how these questions are previously investigated and what gaps are still left. Last but not least, the authors should add several references for their statements in the manuscript (particularly, the Introduction section). I’ve provided an example below. In general, I suggest authors improve and rewrite the manuscript with a more specific focus on the applicability of their outcomes.
For example, here are some detailed comments:
L 30-53, L 55-65: The authors need to provide more references for their statements.
L 67-81: It seems that a concept and statement are repeated several times. The authors need to remove redundancy in the manuscript and mostly focus on their main goal.
L 235: The authors should indicate the community perception regarding the different natural hazards and their changes in response to climate change. The authors are recommended to provide the results in a table.
L 382: The authors are recommended to discuss the effects of the urban heat island (UHI).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
With 50 online questionnaires filled from general public about climate change do not qualify the standards of this journal (IF > 3.2). The decision is unfortunately against publishing of this paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept in present form
