Environmental Concern in Rural Andean Communities: Comparative Study in Central Ecuadorian Highlands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a timely and well-structured study examining the structure of environmental concern in two Andean communities. The integration of CFA and SEM is technically sound, and the discussion offers critical reflections on Western theoretical models when applied to indigenous contexts. However, a few critical issues require clarification or correction before this manuscript can be accepted.

1. Overinterpretation of CFA Correlations
   While high inter-factor correlations (e.g., EC–AC = 0.95 in Guaranda) may indeed reflect cultural integration, values exceeding 0.85 typically suggest redundancy or multicollinearity. You may consider testing a bifactor or second-order model to validate whether the three-factor structure truly holds or if a unified “environmental concern” factor would be more appropriate.
2. Causal Language in SEM Interpretation
   Some SEM findings are interpreted as causal relationships (e.g., "living in Riobamba predicts higher environmental concern"). Please clarify that SEM, being based on observational and cross-sectional data, allows for modeling associations but not strict causality.
3. Theoretical Misalignment in Measurement Instrument
   The use of Schultz’s tripartite concern model—developed in Western urban contexts—raises cultural validity concerns. Although acknowledged in the discussion, the paper lacks a critical analysis of whether concepts like “altruism” or “biocentrism” align with Andean relational ontologies (e.g., Sumak Kawsay, Pachamama). Consider elaborating on this conceptual gap and the risk of epistemic mismatch.
4. Ambiguity in Agricultural Activity Interpretation
   The finding that agricultural involvement negatively predicts environmental concern contradicts conventional assumptions. The manuscript attributes this to policy influence but lacks empirical evidence or references to support this interpretation. Please consider alternative explanations (e.g., response fatigue, instrument bias, or livelihood trade-offs) and provide more literature support.
5. Abstract Needs Clarification
   The abstract currently overstates the implications of the study (e.g., “contributes to rethinking environmental governance in Latin America”). Please moderate the tone or support such claims more explicitly in the discussion.
6. Figure Readability: Figures 3–6 are referenced in the text but not clearly labeled in the manuscript layout. Please ensure all figures are appropriately formatted for readability, with full legends.
7. Model Fit Indices Table: Table 1 lacks consistent formatting. Some threshold values are unclear or only partially cited. Please revise.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

    Although generally readable, a few grammar issues persist (e.g., “The results reveal distinct patterns: biocentric concern predominates in...” could be simplified). Consider light proofreading.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for your valuable suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving our manuscript.
We are pleased to submit the final version of the document, which incorporates all the revisions requested by the three anonymous reviewers. The changes have been made using track changes, and in your case, they are highlighted in blue.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Comment 1. Overinterpretation of CFA Correlations
While high inter-factor correlations (e.g., EC–AC = 0.95 in Guaranda) may indeed reflect cultural integration, values exceeding 0.85 typically suggest redundancy or multicollinearity. You may consider testing a bifactor or second-order model to validate whether the three-factor structure truly holds or if a unified “environmental concern” factor would be more appropriate.

Response 1. Thank you for highlighting the issue of potential redundancy due to high inter-factor correlations. In response to your suggestion, we tested both a bifactor model and a second-order CFA model to assess whether a hierarchical structure would better explain the covariance among the three dimensions. The bifactor model did not converge, likely due to data characteristics. However, the second-order CFA model exhibited good fit indices, suggesting the presence of an overarching environmental concern factor in these communities.

We want to clarify that while the second-order CFA statistically accounts for the high inter-factor correlations, it does not replace the tripartite structure as the conceptual foundation of our study. Our primary objective was to confirm the three-factor structure of environmental concern (EC, BC, AC) in these Andean communities. The second-order model, therefore, is presented as a complementary analysis to show how the tripartite structure also functions as part of a broader integrated construct, which is consistent with local relational ontologies.

(3.2.1 Riobamba Lines 325-335)

(3.2.2 Guaranda Lines 378-387).

(4. Discussion Lines 511-529).

(5. Conclusions Lines 625-631).

Comment 2. Causal Language in SEM Interpretation

Some SEM findings are interpreted as causal relationships (e.g., "living in Riobamba predicts higher environmental concern"). Please clarify that SEM, being based on observational and cross-sectional data, allows for modeling associations but not strict causality.

Response 2.

We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and modified the language to ensure that our interpretations accurately reflect associations rather than causal relationships, as appropriate for SEM with observational and cross-sectional data  

(4. Discussion Lines 535-543).

Comment 3. Theoretical Misalignment in Measurement Instrument

The use of Schultz’s tripartite concern model—developed in Western urban contexts—raises cultural validity concerns. Although acknowledged in the discussion, the paper lacks a critical analysis of whether concepts like “altruism” or “biocentrism” align with Andean relational ontologies (e.g., Sumak Kawsay, Pachamama). Consider elaborating on this conceptual gap and the risk of epistemic mismatch.

Response 3.

We have added a new paragraph that explicitly addresses the conceptual gap between Western conceptualizations of environmental concern and Andean relational worldviews.

(4. Discussion Lines 498-501).

(4. Discussion Lines 511-529).

Comment 4. Ambiguity in Agricultural Activity Interpretation

The finding that agricultural involvement negatively predicts environmental concern contradicts conventional assumptions. The manuscript attributes this to policy influence but lacks empirical evidence or references to support this interpretation. Please consider alternative explanations (e.g., response fatigue, instrument bias, or livelihood trade-offs) and provide more literature support.

Response 4.

We have incorporated a dedicated paragraph in the revised manuscript that contextualizes this finding with updated empirical data on public investment in agriculture. Moreover, we acknowledge that other factors strengthen the discussion.

(4. Discussion Lines 556-576).

(5. Conclusions Lines 642-651).

Comment 5. Abstract Needs Clarification

The abstract currently overstates the implications of the study (e.g., “contributes to rethinking environmental governance in Latin America”). Please moderate the tone or support such claims more explicitly in the discussion.

Response 5. We have moderated some of the broader claims to better align them with the scope and data of the study. Specifically, we have rephrased the final sentences of the abstract.

(Abstract Lines 36-39).

Comment 6. Figure Readability: Figures 3–6 are referenced in the text but not clearly labeled in the manuscript layout. Please ensure all figures are appropriately formatted for readability, with full legends.

Response 6.

In the revised manuscript, we have reformulated the figure captions to ensure that they clearly explain what each figure represents, including the categories and statistical details involved.

(Figure 3. Lines 343).

(Figure 4. Lines 357).

(Figure 5. Lines 400).

(Figure 6. Lines 414).

Comment 7. Model Fit Indices Table: Table 1 lacks consistent formatting. Some threshold values are unclear or only partially cited. Please revise.

Response 7. We have revised Table 1 to ensure consistent formatting and explicit citation of all threshold values, as recommended.

(Table 1. Lines 245).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Line 58, the authors mentioned "Understanding this relationship could help overcome barriers that hinder environmental action". But what exactly does "this relationship" refer to, which is not clearly expressed.

2. Line 61-64, this sentence mainly emphasized in which countries the relevant research is carried out. It is inappropriate to mention "as well as in urban contexts" at the end of the sentence.

3. Line 69, whether the use of “intervention approaches” is accurate needs to be verified.

4. Please verify whether reference [22] can support the content of Lines 88-90.

5. Figure 1, (1) Each sub-figure should have a scale. (2) The meaning of A-A’ in the sub-figure on the left is not marked in the legend. (3) It is suggested to add the numbers (a), (b) and (c) to each sub-figure. (4) The legend of rural area in the left sub-figure is inconsistent with the marking in the map (it is also possible that the color is inappropriate, making it difficult to distinguish).

6. Line 280 and line 316 are both section 3.2.1.

7.For Figure 4 and Figure 5, it is suggested to add a horizontal coordinate and a vertical coordinate to each sub-figure; otherwise, it will be a little bit difficult to read and distinguish.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for your valuable suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving our manuscript.
We are pleased to submit the final version of the document, which incorporates all the revisions requested by the three anonymous reviewers. The changes have been made using track changes, and in your case, they are highlighted in violet.

Comment 1.

Line 58, the authors mentioned "Understanding this relationship could help overcome barriers that hinder environmental action". But what exactly does "this relationship" refer to, which is not clearly expressed.

Response 1

We revised the sentence to explicitly state the relationship and included a justification for its importance, as suggested.

(1. Introduction Lines 66-71).

Comment 2.

Line 61-64, this sentence mainly emphasized in which countries the relevant research is carried out. It is inappropriate to mention "as well as in urban contexts" at the end of the sentence.

Response 2

We have removed “as well as in urban contexts” from the end of the sentence and rephrased it in a separate sentence to improve clarity.

(1. Introduction Lines 76-82).

Comment 3.

Line 69, whether the use of “intervention approaches” is accurate needs to be verified.

Response 3

We have revised “intervention approaches” to “interventions” to enhance precision and maintain consistency in the paragraph.

(1. Introduction Line 85).

Comment 4.

Please verify whether reference [22] can support the content of Lines 88-90.

Response 4

We have added additional references to provide stronger support

(1. Introduction [20]; [23];[24] Line 106).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article investigates how how environmental concern manifests in two distinct rural communities, Riobamba and Guaranda, in Ecuador. More urbanized Riobamba primarily exhibits biocentric concern which is an intrinsic appreciation of nature. Guaranda is more rural and has concerns more focused on economic pressures. Agricultural involvement correlated negatively with environmental concern. Age and ethnicity showed no significant correlation, and gender affected biocentric concern, which was higher in men. The study calls for environmental education tailored to community values. 

The quality of the data is excellent. The sample sizes are fine for the studied populations (381 respondents in Guaranda and 383 in Riobamba), and the sampling strategy is clearly explained and statistically justified. The use of a pre-validated survey instrument based on Schultz’s widely recognized tripartite model of environmental concern ensures comparability. Sociodemographic variables were also collected.

The methods are suitable for the research objectives. I must confess that I’m not much of a statistician, and so the journal would be wise to rely on others for a critique of the methods. Based on what I know, the methods are executed correctly. 

The conclusions drawn are supported by the data. The paper illustrates differences between Riobamba and Guaranda by aligning conclusions about varying environmental concerns with empirical findings. However, the authors could better articulate the implications of the high correlations between latent constructs, discussing whether these correlations require a reconsideration of the original Western model’s applicability in the Andes. The claim that agricultural activity negatively impacts environmental concern is convincing. But the interpretation of cultural frameworks (e.g., Sumak Kawsay and Pachamama) could be a bit more cautious because the measurement tool was initially designed for a different cultural context. Still, the conclusions regarding policy recommendations and the need for culturally appropriate governance logically follow from the evidence.

The article is dense to be sure. I think it would be worthwhile to go back through the article and attempt to clean things up and simplify for readers who aren’t quantitative methodologists. As it is, this is a heavy read. The quality of the English is good. Some edits for grammar and style could enhance readability. This is particularly true regarding sentence complexity. Some lengthy sentences could be split into shorter ones. Despite these minor issues, the text is comprehensible and suitable for publication.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for your valuable suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving our manuscript.
We are pleased to submit the final version of the document, which incorporates all the revisions requested by the three anonymous reviewers. The changes have been made using track changes. In your case, most changes are highlighted in red; however, Reviewer 1 also requested some similar modifications, which are marked in blue.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Comment 1. The authors could better articulate the implications of the high correlations between latent constructs, discussing whether these correlations require a reconsideration of the original Western model’s applicability in the Andes. 

Response 1. We have added a paragraphs that provides a clearer explanation of the implications of high correlations between the latent factors.

(3.2.1 Riobamba Lines 325-335)

(3.2.2 Guaranda Lines 378-387).

(4. Discussion Lines 511-529).

(5. Conclusions Lines 625-631).

 

Comment 2. The claim that agricultural activity negatively impacts environmental concern is convincing. But the interpretation of cultural frameworks (e.g., Sumak Kawsay and Pachamama) could be a bit more cautious because the measurement tool was initially designed for a different cultural context. 

Response 2. We would like to mention that the interpretation of the cultural concepts (Sumak Kawsay and Pachamama) has already been discussed, and we have acknowledged that these concepts may not be fully captured by the questionnaire, given its different cultural context.

(Abstract Lines 36-39).

(4. Discussion Lines 601-611).

(5. Conclusions Lines 632-641).

Comment 3. The article is dense to be sure. I think it would be worthwhile to go back through the article and attempt to clean things up and simplify for readers who aren’t quantitative methodologists. As it is, this is a heavy read. The quality of the English is good. Some edits for grammar and style could enhance readability. This is particularly true regarding sentence complexity. Some lengthy sentences could be split into shorter ones.

Response 3.  We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback regarding the overall readability of the manuscript. We have carefully reviewed the text for sentence complexity and made some adjustments to enhance clarity, though we believe that the current level of technical detail is appropriate for the scope and nature of the study.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

    I have reviewed the revised manuscript and your response letter in detail. It is clear that you have addressed all major concerns from the previous review with considerable academic rigor and contextual sensitivity. My evaluation of your revisions is as follows:

1. Second-order CFA Model: You have effectively added and justified a second-order confirmatory factor analysis. The structural fit indices and theoretical rationale are clearly presented, improving the validity of your scale framework.
2. Avoidance of Causal Inference: You have revised language throughout the manuscript to emphasize associations rather than predictive or causal implications. This correction enhances scientific accuracy.
3. Cultural-Theoretical Contextualization: The discussion now meaningfully engages with Sumak Kawsay, Pachamama, and Andean cosmovision in contrast with Western models of environmental concern. This strengthens both the cultural relevance and interpretative clarity of your analysis.
4. Interpretation of Negative Associations with Agriculture: Your expanded interpretation—drawing from socio-economic constraints and livelihood theory—adds needed depth to this counterintuitive finding.
5. Abstract and Summary: Overstatements have been removed, and the abstract now better reflects the empirical scope and contribution.
6. Figure and Table Improvements: Captions, legends, and formatting have been significantly improved, enhancing reader comprehension and consistency with the text.

Given these improvements, I now recommend the manuscript for minor revision before publication. A few small adjustments remain:

• Please provide a concise definition of Sumak Kawsay when first introduced to assist non-local readers.
• Ensure that all model fit indices are fully reported in either the main text or appendix.
• Confirm final figure resolution and alignment with journal formatting requirements.

    This revised version offers an insightful and culturally grounded contribution to the literature on environmental attitudes and community-based conservation in the Andean region.

Author Response

Comment 1:
Please provide a concise definition of Sumak Kawsay when first introduced to assist non-local readers.

Response 1:
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have now added a concise definition of Sumak Kawsay at its first mention in the Discussion section (lines 459–460). The revised sentence reads: Sumak Kawsay (Kichwa for “Buen Vivir” or “life in plenitude”), a concept that emphasizes harmony among humans, nature, and the spiritual world. Additionally, we reviewed other key Indigenous terms (e.g., Pachamama, Ayni, Minga, Yachay) and included short definitions in parentheses to assist non-local readers and maintain intercultural clarity throughout the manuscript.

Comment 2:
Ensure that all model fit indices are fully reported in either the main text or appendix.

Response 2:
We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and confirm that all relevant model fit indices are already fully reported in the main text across the CFA, second-order CFA, and SEM sections. 

Comment 3:
Confirm final figure resolution and alignment with journal formatting requirements.

Response 3:
All figures have been checked for alignment, consistent font use, and caption formatting. In addition, we have uploaded a separate high-resolution file (600 dpi) for each figure as recommended in the author guidelines.