Consumers’ Willingness to Adopt Pro-Environmental Attitudes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

After a thorough evaluation, I have determined that significant revisions are necessary in all sections of the manuscript to improve its clarity, methodological rigor, and scientific contribution. Below are specific areas that require attention:

 

1. Abstract

* The phrase "followed by Negative Impact on the Environment and Climate (NIEC)" is unclear. Do you mean consumers influence both EMF and NIEC, or that EMF leads to NIEC? Consider rephrasing for clarity.

* "A decisive factor for sustainable develop" → should be "A decisive factor for sustainable development."

* The sentence "It then asks how to influence consumers to reduce their consumption." lacks clarity. Who is asking? Consider specifying that the study explores this question.

* The term "willingness to adapt to sustainability" seems imprecise. Do you mean "willingness to adopt pro-environmental behaviors"?

* The phrase "or oriented towards reducing the environmental and climate impact of consumption" is redundant. Consider merging with the previous sentence for better flow.

* The abstract should briefly mention the methodology (e.g., survey sample size, location) and key findings. Right now, it introduces questions but does not give an overview of results.

* Consider specifying whether the study focuses on individual behavior, policy interventions, or corporate responsibility.

* The last part of the abstract presents multiple questions. Instead of posing them, it might be more effective to summarize the study's approach to answering them.

* "Do we appeal to their consciousness or do we force them through political or financial means?" → This could be rephrased in an academic tone, such as: "This study explores whether consumer behavior is best influenced through awareness campaigns, regulatory policies, financial incentives, or implicit design strategies."

 

2. Introduction

* The introduction presents relevant concepts, but the structure could be improved for better flow. Right now, it jumps between different ideas (consumer influence, policy interventions, product design, circular economy, planned obsolescence, and economic models). Some parts read more like a discussion rather than an introduction. The introduction should clearly define the research problem, highlight the research gap, and justify the study.

* Some sentences are long and complex, making them difficult to follow. Breaking them into shorter, clearer sentences would enhance readability.

* The phrase “This begs some questions” should be replaced with “This raises important questions” for a more formal tone.

* Research Justification: (1) The introduction does not clearly state the research gap. What specific aspects of consumer readiness to adopt pro-environmental attitudes have not been sufficiently explored? (2) Consider explicitly stating the study’s objectives and hypotheses at the end of the introduction.

* While the introduction references various studies and reports (GFK, Nielsen, European Green Deal, Feigenbaum, Raworth, etc.), it lacks a critical synthesis of previous work. Instead of listing statistics, briefly discuss what prior research has found and how your study builds on it. Example: Instead of just stating that “Consumers support green business activities (73%) and are willing to pay more for sustainable products (66%)”, discuss what these findings imply for your research. Does this show a gap between consumer intention and behavior? Does it suggest that financial incentives work better than ethical appeals?

* The discussion of economic models (planned obsolescence, doughnut economics) is interesting but could be more directly connected to the research question. Right now, it feels like an extensive background discussion rather than a focused argument. Consider briefly summarizing these models and linking them directly to your research. For example, how does the concept of planned obsolescence relate to consumer readiness for sustainability?

* Role of Consumers vs. Other Stakeholders. The text presents conflicting ideas about consumer influence: At times, it suggests that consumer attitudes are key to sustainability. At other points, it argues that government regulations and product design changes are more effective.

It would help to clarify the study's stance: Are you primarily examining consumer attitudes, or are you assessing the balance between individual responsibility and systemic changes?

3. Materials and Methods

* Justification of Study Population

- The authors state that the study targeted individuals aged 21–40 because they are influential in educating the younger generation and making strategic decisions. However, it would strengthen the paper to provide supporting references or evidence that this age group is particularly influential in sustainability-related decisions.

- Consider discussing whether this age group is more receptive to sustainability initiatives compared to older or younger populations. Would including a broader age range provide additional insights?

* Sampling and Recruitment Strategy: The paper does not specify how participants were recruited (e.g., random sampling, convenience sampling, online survey, face-to-face interviews). Providing details on participant recruitment will help assess the study's generalizability. If the survey was distributed online, was any effort made to reach a diverse demographic? If in person, what locations or contexts were targeted?

* Survey Design and Question Development : The study mentions key research questions, but it is unclear how they were translated into survey items. Were the survey questions adapted from previous validated instruments, or were they designed specifically for this study? Including a sample survey question or providing an appendix with survey items would enhance transparency and allow for replication in future research.

* Explanation of Likert Scale and Weighting Approach: The paper uses a five-point Likert scale with weights assigned as 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0. This deviates from the typical Likert scale format (e.g., 1–5 or 1–7). It would be helpful to explain why this weighting approach was chosen. Does this method provide a specific advantage in interpretation or statistical analysis? Consider discussing how responses were treated in the analysis—were there any transformations applied to the data?

* Demographic Details: Consider providing a brief description of the demographic characteristics of the respondents, such as gender distribution, education level, or occupation, to offer more context to the sample.

* Pilot Study: It would be helpful to mention whether a pilot study was conducted to test the clarity and reliability of the questionnaire before full distribution.

* Survey Distribution Period: Please specify the period during which the questionnaire was distributed. This would help understand any potential temporal influences on the responses.

* Questionnaire Review: Were the survey questions reviewed by experts before distribution? Including this information would strengthen the validity of the questionnaire.

 

4. Results

* The current analysis is too simplistic and primarily descriptive. While it provides an overview of the responses, it does not offer deeper insights into relationships between variables. Please consider conducting statistical tests such as: (1) Correlation analysis to examine relationships between different variables. (2) ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) to test for significant differences between demographic groups. (3) Regression analysis to explore predictors of consumer behavior.

* Reliability Testing is Missing: Cronbach’s alpha should be reported to assess the reliability of the Likert scale-based questionnaire. This is an important step to confirm that the survey instrument is internally consistent and reliable.

* Improve Data Presentation – Use Tables Instead of Figures: The manuscript relies heavily on figures to present data distributions. Tables should be used instead to present key statistics (mean, standard deviation, p-values, etc.) for each question, as they provide a clearer and more detailed view of the data. This would add more depth to the analysis.

* Provide Inferential Statistics for Stronger Insights: The current approach only summarizes the data, but does not explain underlying patterns or significant trends. Inferential statistics would strengthen the conclusions by showing whether observed differences are meaningful rather than just descriptive.

* Demographic Group Comparisons Needed: The study should analyze how responses vary across different demographic groups (age, education, income levels). This would provide more useful and actionable insights rather than just summarizing overall trends.

* The commentary on the importance of material and non-material goods is insightful. However, discussing whether the differences observed are statistically significant would strengthen the conclusions.

 

5. Discussion

 * Provide Deeper Interpretation of the Findings: The discussion currently repeats the results rather than offering an in-depth interpretation. The authors should focus on why these findings are significant and how they contribute to the broader literature on consumption behavior and sustainability.

* Link Findings to Existing Literature: The discussion does not include references to prior studies. The authors should compare their findings with existing research on environmental awareness, purchasing behavior, and sustainable consumption. This will help establish the study’s relevance and contribution to the field.

* Explain Unexpected or Contradictory Results: Were there any surprising results or contradictions with previous studies? For example, why does consumer participation in design and customization receive the lowest ratings for product life extension? Providing potential explanations would strengthen the discussion.

* Discuss Practical and Policy Implications: How can policymakers, businesses, or consumers use these findings? For instance, if environmental awareness influences waste handling but not dietary choices, what strategies can be used to increase sustainable food consumption?

* Acknowledge Study Limitations: The discussion does not address any study limitations. The authors should acknowledge potential constraints, such as sample size, geographic scope, or the use of self-reported data, and suggest directions for future research.

 

6. Conclusions

* Clarify the Key Takeaways: The conclusion should clearly summarize the main findings without introducing new information. Currently, the discussion of Sustainable Development (SD) and Degrowth (DG) is quite theoretical and does not directly connect back to the study results. The authors should emphasize their key findings and practical implications in a more structured way.

* Strengthen the Practical Implications: The conclusion states that external incentives are necessary to support consumer behavior change, but what kind of incentives? Would financial mechanisms or regulations work better? The authors should provide specific recommendations based on their findings.

* Avoid Overgeneralizations: The phrase “People’s willingness to reduce consumption may encounter limits due to human nature” is too broad and lacks empirical support from the study. The authors should base their claims strictly on what their data shows rather than making general assumptions.

* Discuss Future Research Directions: The authors should explicitly state what areas require further research. For example: Should future studies analyze longitudinal consumer behavior rather than cross-sectional data? Would experimental studies on incentives provide deeper insights? Should additional demographic groups (e.g., older consumers) be studied?

* Ensure Consistency with Results: The discussion on SD and Degrowth (DG) is important but should be better linked to the study’s findings. Were respondents more inclined toward SD or DG? How does this influence future policy-making?

* Remove or Clarify Figure 9. The reference to “Limit of NIEC in different environmental scenarios” in Figure 9 is unclear. If the authors include this figure, they should explain its relevance to their study results. Otherwise, it should be removed or moved to the discussion section.

In general, the Conclusions section should focus on summarizing key findings, discussing their practical implications, and suggesting future research directions without introducing theoretical discussions that were not central to the study.

7. References

The number of references is insufficient, and many are outdated. The authors should include more recent and relevant studies published in the last 4–6 years to support their arguments, particularly on:

- Consumer behavior and sustainable consumption

- The impact of incentives on reducing consumption

* The authors should cite studies that use similar methodologies (e.g., survey-based studies with Likert-scale responses) to strengthen their argument and improve the paper’s scientific rigor.

If possible, please consider including the following recent studies:

- Hossain et al. (2022). How do environmental knowledge, eco-label knowledge, and green trust impact consumers’ pro-environmental behaviour for energy-efficient household appliances?. Sustainability, 14(11), 6513.

- Mouloudj et al. (2023). Modeling predictors of medication waste reduction intention in Algeria: Extending the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(16), 6584.

Expanding and updating the references will enhance the credibility of the manuscript and provide a stronger theoretical foundation for the study.

8. iThenticate

The iThenticate report showed that 7% of the manuscript text matches content from the following source: "journals.pan.pl". Please take the necessary steps to reduce this percentage to a minimum by rephrasing or properly citing the source.

Author Response

Thank you for all your valuable comments and suggestions, which have helped us improve the article. Please check the attached document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written, interesting paper on timely and important issues. The article provides a well-defined context regarding consumer behavior in sustainability. It highlights the role of consumers in reducing the Energy and Materials Flow and its Negative Impact on the Environment and Climate. The authors effectively discuss theoretical frameworks such as Sustainable Development and Degrowth, referencing previous studies on environmental awareness and consumer attitudes.

The research questions are explicitly stated, focusing on influencing consumers to reduce consumption and adopt pro-environmental behaviors. The study follows a survey-based research design with well-defined objectives.

Having said that, however, despite its strengths, the manuscript poses several concerns in its current form that call for further extensive development before it can be accepted for publication.

1. The paper's title uses the word readiness (Consumer' Readiness to Adopt Pro-environmental Attitudes), but the abstract states that the article aims to present the survey results on the willingness to adapt to sustainability. The terms "willingness" and "readiness" both relate to a person's attitude or state regarding taking action. Still, they emphasize different aspects: (1) willingness is the desire or intention to do something. It implies a positive attitude toward taking action, even if external circumstances might not be entirely conducive. (2) readiness refers to being prepared or equipped to take action. This includes having the necessary skills, resources, or circumstances to act effectively. Authors should decide whether they studied "willingness" or "readiness". They should also consider whether the title should be "Consumer' ..." or "Consumer's ...".
2. Authors should consider adding the purpose of the article and a description of the structure of the article at the end of the first chapter.
3. Chapter 2 begins with “How to get people to reduce consumption: ...”. It would be worth adding about 1 or 2 sentences of introduction.
4. The description of the research sample and how the survey was conducted is poor (it is limited to specifying the age of respondents). Information should be added regarding how respondents were selected, their country, their structure (gender, education, urban/rural, etc.), and how they filled in the research questionnaires (e.g. online).
5. More detailed explanation of the survey design, including question validation and sample representativeness, would strengthen the research approach. On what basis were the questions formulated? Was a ready-made research questionnaire used?
6. The discussion provides insightful reflections on consumer behavior, however the analysis could benefit from a more comparative approach by linking findings to similar studies in the literature. Moreover, the discussion on behavioral economics could be expanded by incorporating established consumer psychology theories.
7. In “Conclusions”, the authors should indicate limitations and directions for further research.

Author Response

Thank you for all your valuable comments and suggestions, which have helped us improve the article. Please check the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. While it presents a clear proposal, significant improvements are necessary.

1. The starting point requires a more consistent and diverse theoretical review. I consider that the circular economy is pertinent, but other elements should be taken into account.
2. The classification of sustainability habits among users is appropriate. Could it be presented more concisely? Perhaps in a table? Is it possible to incorporate a more extensive discussion supported by more current literature?
3. The analysis of each question is very broad and visually unclear. A form of representation that comprehensively outlines the survey parameters is needed.
4. The discussion and conclusions remain at a level that merely reiterates the results. A discussion that adds more foresight is required.
5. There is a need to include many more contemporary sources.
6. Finally, is it possible to reorient the study towards a more original approach? Could a comparative analysis be conducted?

Author Response

Thank you for all your valuable comments and suggestions, which have helped us improve the article. Please check the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your thorough revision of the manuscript titled "Consumer Readiness to Adopt Pro-environmental Attitudes." I appreciate the effort you have made to address most of the concerns raised in the previous review. The changes have significantly improved the clarity and overall quality of the manuscript.

Before proceeding further, please ensure that the references are formatted according to the guidelines of the journal Sustainability. In particular, journal names should be abbreviated in accordance with the journal’s requirements.

Once this formatting issue is addressed, the manuscript will be in much better alignment with the journal’s standards.

Thank you again for your careful revisions and your contribution to the field.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript offers a relevant and timely exploration of consumer behavior in the context of environmental sustainability. The study’s clear research questions, solid methodological approach, and practical implications are commendable. Particularly noteworthy is the integration of both Sustainable Development and Degrowth perspectives, which adds theoretical richness. While some minor issues regarding language clarity and structure could be improved in the final proofreading stage, the overall contribution is significant and merits publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• While the manuscript is generally well-organized, some passages would benefit from enhanced linguistic precision. For instance, the use of phrases such as “do as little damage as possible” (p. 11, l. 222) could be replaced with more academic terminology, such as “minimize environmental impact.”

• Several sentences are overly long and include repetitive clauses. Condensing these structures would improve readability. For example, on page 5, the paragraph discussing “planned obsolescence” contains redundancies that could be tightened for clarity.

• There are occasional inconsistencies in tense and article usage (“a person want” instead of “a person wants,” etc.). A final language edit by a native English speaker or a professional copy editor is recommended before publication.

• The manuscript sometimes blends normative and descriptive tones. It would be helpful to clearly distinguish between empirical findings and normative claims to avoid confusion.

• Some technical expressions (e.g., “market durability” vs. “technical durability”) are introduced without immediate clarification. A brief glossary or earlier explanation could enhance comprehension for a broader audience.