Effects of Social Capital on Pro-Environmental Behaviors in Chinese Residents
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic per se is very interesting and the authors have done a reasonable job of conducting the empirical work.
However, it has potential to become more interesting. My major concerns are listed below.
1. The authors need to present in a more clear way the contribution of this research, given the large body of existing literature on this topic. My question: what is novel? What is the contribution of this paper?
2. Research questions and hypotheses are not clearly stated.
3. Which are the advantages of employed methodology compared to other techniques?
4. This paper exhibits some tables, but lack the interpretation and economic meaning in the content.
5. I do not see any robustness tests.
Author Response
First of all, thank you for reviewing the manuscript, your comments have played a key role in improving the quality of the manuscript, and we have revised the article strictly in accordance with your comments. Next, we will respond point by point to each of the issues you raised and the corresponding changes we made.
For Question 1, as mentioned in the last part of the article, conclusions and con-tributions of this study can be summarized as follows. (1) Distinguish the effects of different types of social capital on different types of pro-environmental behaviour. Specifically, we theoretically sort out two dimensions of social capital, CSC and ISC, and two types of pro-environmental behaviour, private pro-environmental behaviour and public pro-environmental behaviour. (2) Female groups are more likely to perform private pro-environmental behaviour compared to male groups, and the level of par-ticipation in private pro-environmental behaviour is much higher than that in public pro-environmental behaviour for both men and women. (3) ISC positively influences private and public pro-environmental behaviour. Social networks both enable individ-uals to learn about environment issues and provide them with social support, thus promoting pro-environmental behaviour through increased social capital. (4) CSC also has a positive, albeit small, effects on private and public pro-environmental behaviour, which implies that CSC can be used to promote pro-environmental behaviour in China.
For Question 2, I have listed four research hypotheses in sections to make the research questions more clear. As shown in lines 184-194.
For Question 3, this study does not pursue a very advanced statistical model, but rather explores the effects of different dimensions of social capital on two environmental behaviors of Chinese residents through theoretical analysis. Therefore, we use multiple linear regression for analysis.
For Question 4, the specific explanation of the table content is mainly in the "Discussion" section in the original manuscript, and the "Results" section simply describes the results and significance of the table.
For Question 5, since this study adopts multiple linear regression, the possible robustness test is to replace the relevant variables and regress again, so the robustness test is not shown in the original manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author(s),
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. I agree that this is an important and pertinent topic. Although the idea is a good one, unfortunately, the way in which the study is operationalized holds back its potential contribution. There are a few areas where I would encourage the authors to give further thought, as follows:
INTRODUCTION
The introduction should clearly illustrate (1) what we know (the key theoretical perspectives and empirical findings) and what do we not know (major, unaddressed puzzle, controversy, or paradox does the study addresses, or why it needs to be addressed and why this matters). And, (2) what will we learn from the study and how does the study fundamentally change, challenge, or advance scholars’ understanding. Much sharper problematization is required so that the introduction draws the reader into the paper. The introduction therefore needs to do a better job in setting the stage for the articulation of the theoretical contributions of the study. At the end of the introduction, we should have a clear idea of what the paper is about (i.e. its motivation, the gap in understanding that the paper is trying to address and summary of theoretical contributions).With references of 2022- 2020-2021.
Paragraph 1, with no references, explaining the context of the research.
Paragraph 2, with references, explaining very generally what we know about the topic introduced in Paragraph 1.
Paragraph 3 explaining what we need to find out.
Paragraph 4 explaining briefly what this paper will do to find out, method etc.
Paragraph 5, with no references, explaining the structure of this paper.
LITERATURE REVIEW
- Theoretical literature has not been considered and reviewed. It’s better to observe the connection between the contents. Try to explain everything except the topics in order to establish the necessary coherence.
- Theoretical Development: The literature review must engage in the constructs of your analytical framing in a meaningful way. The literature review section could be improved by being more analytical. In other words, building on the existing literature to highlight what is missing and what is yet to be done and in so doing outline the theoretical puzzles or debates to which this work contributes. I have concerns related to theoretical development, and note the need for a more rigorous critique of the literature to help deepen the theoretical underpinnings of the study.
CONCLUSION
· What are the theoretical and practical implications of your study.
· The authors need to draw substantive conclusions from their results, and suggest, develop recommendations for further research.
· What are the limitations of this research and how can it be solved by other researchers?
Best of luck with the further development of the paper.
Result this paper: Major revision
Author Response
Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using blue highlight for additions, and strikethrough font for deletions. The responses to the reviewer's comments are marked in red and presented following.
First of all, we have restructured the article and added the section "Literature review and research hypothesis". Secondly, we explain factors other than the topic in the Introduction to establish the necessary coherence. Thirdly, conclusions and contributions of this study can be summarized as follows. (1) Distinguish the effects of different types of social capital on different types of pro-environmental behaviour. Specifically, we theoretically sort out two dimensions of social capital, CSC and ISC, and two types of pro-environmental behaviour, private pro-environmental behaviour and public pro-environmental behaviour. (2) Female groups are more likely to perform private pro-environmental behaviour compared to male groups, and the level of participation in private pro-environmental behaviour is much higher than that in public pro-environmental behaviour for both men and women. (3) ISC positively influences private and public pro-environmental behaviour. Social networks both enable individuals to learn about environment issues and provide them with social support, thus promoting pro-environmental behaviour through increased social capital. (4) CSC also has a positive, albeit small, effects on private and public pro-environmental behaviour, which implies that CSC can be used to promote pro-environmental behaviour in China. Finally, for the limitations that exist in the article, as shown in lines 417-425 in the original manuscript.
We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author(s),
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. I agree that this is an important and pertinent topic. Although the idea is a good one, unfortunately, the way in which the study is operationalized holds back its potential contribution. There are a few areas where I would encourage the authors to give further thought, as follows:
- Theoretical literature has not been considered and reviewed. It’s better to observe the connection between the contents. Try to explain everything except the topics in order to establish the necessary coherence.
- Theoretical Development: The literature review must engage in the constructs of your analytical framing in a meaningful way. The literature review section could be improved by being more analytical. In other words, building on the existing literature to highlight what is missing and what is yet to be done and in so doing outline the theoretical puzzles or debates to which this work contributes. I have concerns related to theoretical development, and note the need for a more rigorous critique of the literature to help deepen the theoretical underpinnings of the study.
· Theoretical Contributions: Addressing all the points mentioned above will lead to a more in-depth presentation of your data which has a clearer theoretical contribution. What is the theoretical contributions?
· The authors need to draw substantive conclusions from their results, and suggest, develop recommendations for further research.
· What are the theoretical and practical implications of your study and which limitations emerge from it?
Best of luck with the further development of the paper.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing the manuscript, your comments have played a key role in improving the quality of the manuscript. First, we made extensive English revisions to this manuscript, as evidenced by the revision marks in the manuscript. Second, we have revised the article strictly in accordance with your comments. Next, we will respond point by point to each of the issues you raised and the corresponding changes we made.
Question 1: Theoretical literature has not been considered and reviewed. It’s better to observe the connection between the contents. Try to explain everything except the topics in order to establish the necessary coherence.
Answer 1: we have restructured the article and added the section “Literature review and research hypothesis”, and we explain factors other than the topic in the Introduction to establish the necessary coherence. Specifically, in lines 73-74 of the manuscript, corresponding original text is “existing studies have mainly investigated the factors influencing pro-environmental behaviors in terms of individual factors, cognitive factors, and the factor of social structure.”
Question 2: The literature review must engage in the constructs of your analytical framing in a meaningful way. The literature review section could be improved by being more analytical. In other words, building on the existing literature to highlight what is missing and what is yet to be done and in so doing outline the theoretical puzzles or debates to which this work contributes. I have concerns related to theoretical development, and note the need for a more rigorous critique of the literature to help deepen the theoretical underpinnings of the study.
Answer 2: In the introduction, we specify two opposing theories of the relationship between national economic development and pro-environmental behavior that have prevailed in the West over the past few decades: global environmentalism and the affluence hypothesis. We then evaluate this theoretical debate and show that a social capital perspective is more appropriate for studying pro-environmental behavior in Chinese society, where "Guanxi" prevail. In Section 2, we specifically identify the concepts and dimensions of social capital, pro-environmental behavior, and draw a diagram of our theoretical analysis framework.
Question 3: What are the theoretical contributions?
Answer 3: Relatively few studies have used social capital to explore pro-environmental behavior in China, and many of these studies do not carefully distinguish between dimensions of social capital and types of pro-environmental behavior. We distinguish the effects of different types of social capital on different types of pro-environmental behavior. Specifically, we this report had theoretically sort out two dimensions of social capital, CSC and ISC, and two types of pro-environmental behavior, private pro-environmental behavior behaviors and public pro-environmental behavior.
Question 4: The authors need to draw substantive conclusions from their results, and suggest, develop recommendations for further research.
Answer 4: Conclusions and contributions of this study can be summarized as follows. (1) Distinguish the effects of different types of social capital on different types of pro-environmental behavior. Specifically, we this report had theoretically sort out two dimensions of social capital, CSC and ISC, and two types of pro-environmental behavior, private pro-environmental behaviors and public pro-environmental behavior. (2) Female groups are more likely to perform private pro-environmental behavior behaviors compared to male groups, and the level of participation in private pro-environmental behaviors behaviors is much higher than that in public pro-environmental behaviors for both men and women. (3) ISC positively influences private and public pro-environmental behavior. Social networks both enable individuals to learn about environment issues and provide them with social support, thus promoting pro-environmental behavior behaviors through increased social cap-ital. (4) CSC also has a positive, albeit small, effects on private and public pro-environmental behavior, which implies that CSC can be used to promote pro-environmental behavior behaviors in China.
Question 5: What are the theoretical and practical implications of your study and which limitations emerge from it?
Answer 5: The effect of CSC on pro-environmental behaviors is much lower than the effect of ISC on pro-environmental behavior. In addition, female groups are more likely to perform private pro-environmental behaviors than male groups. This paper argues that, the social capital should be actively used to promote civic engagement in China's environmental protection process. Nevertheless, this study is not without its limitations. Firstly, due to the limit of the questionnaire questions, this study did not measure the different dimensions of ISC and CSC separately. This report, thus, was unable to compare differences in the effects of various dimensions of individual or collective social capital on pro-environmental be-haviour. Secondly, the variables selected for this study did not involve environmental knowledge or environmental concern. Further studies could include other environ-mental variables such as participants' environmental knowledge, environmental con-cern. Finally, this study used cross-sectional data, and individual heterogeneity could not be excluded. causal mechanisms using panel data models need to be researched in the future.
We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
