Environmental Education Awareness in Light of Sustainable Development Goals and Its Relationship with Environmental Responsibility Among University Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses a highly relevant and timely topic by investigating the relationship between environmental education awareness, within the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and environmental responsibility among university students. The study aims to contribute empirical evidence to a long-standing debate in environmental education research: whether knowledge can effectively translate into responsible behavior. The topic aligns well with the scope of your Sustainability and has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the literature. However, while the paper demonstrates strengths in theoretical framing, psychometric validation, and statistical rigor, several methodological and interpretive issues require substantial revision before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

 

1. The study design precludes causal inferences. The authors could explicitly discuss how this limitation affects interpretation of the awareness–responsibility relationship and suggest future longitudinal or experimental research.
2. The use of convenience sampling from four Egyptian institutions limits external validity. The manuscript should acknowledge this more clearly and discuss how cultural and institutional factors might influence the unusually high correlation.
3. The reliance on self-reported measures introduces the risk of social desirability bias. The authors could include a stronger discussion of how this might inflate correlations and consider complementary behavioral data in future studies.
4. The regression results are presented as if they imply causal relationships. These could be reframed as predictive or associative, not causal.
5. It is suggested to provide more contextual detail about the curriculum or educational environment in Egypt to help international readers interpret the findings.
6. It is suggested to include more discussion on policy or pedagogical implications, particularly how universities can operate SDG-aligned environmental education.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 1)

Revisions Highlighted in Green

Comment 1: The study design precludes causal inferences. The authors could explicitly discuss how this limitation affects interpretation of the awareness–responsibility relationship and suggest future longitudinal or experimental research.

Response 1: Thank you for your insightful observation. We have now explicitly acknowledged the limitations of the cross-sectional design in the revised manuscript and discussed how it affects the interpretation of the awareness–responsibility relationship. Additionally, we have suggested future longitudinal and experimental research to better establish causality and clarify the directionality of this association

Comment 2: The use of convenience sampling from four Egyptian institutions limits external validity. The manuscript should acknowledge this more clearly and discuss how cultural and institutional factors might influence the unusually high correlation.

Response 2: we have more clearly addressed the limitations of convenience sampling and its impact on external validity. The revised discussion now highlights how cultural and institutional factors specific to Egyptian higher education—such as collective values, religious teachings, and national sustainability efforts—may have contributed to the unusually strong correlation observed, and we recommend future cross-cultural studies to explore this further

Comment 3: The reliance on self-reported measures introduces the risk of social desirability bias. The authors could include a stronger discussion of how this might inflate correlations and consider complementary behavioral data in future studies.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have expanded the limitations section to address the potential impact of social desirability bias and suggested incorporating behavioral data in future research to enhance validity.

Comment 4: The regression results are presented as if they imply causal relationships. These could be reframed as predictive or associative, not causal.

Response 4: Thank you for the observation. We have revised the Results, Discussion, and Conclusion sections to clarify that the regression findings reflect predictive associations rather than causal relationships.

Comment 5: It is suggested to provide more contextual detail about the curriculum or educational environment in Egypt to help international readers interpret the findings.

Response 5: We have added contextual sections in both Introduction and Methods. The Introduction now describes Egypt Vision 2030, education colleges' role, and UNESCO ESD framework adoption. The new Methods subsection (2.5) describes specific environmental education components, pedagogical approaches, and multi-dimensional student exposure.

Comment 6: It is suggested to include more discussion on policy or pedagogical implications, particularly how universities can operate SDG-aligned environmental education.

Response 6: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added a focused discussion on policy and pedagogical implications, highlighting how universities can implement SDG-aligned environmental education through curriculum design, inclusive strategies, and institutional support.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a clear and well-organized study that examines the relationship between environmental education awareness and environmental responsibility among Egyptian university students. The paper presents its objectives and methods in a logical way and uses solid statistical tools (including factor analyses and regression) to explore the data. The psychometric validation of the instruments is explained clearly, and the results are presented in a way that supports the study’s main claims. The methodological approach and sampling fit the study’s goals, although they limit causal interpretation and broader generalization. The authors acknowledge these points appropriately.

Recommendation

While the manuscript already notes that “The study's focus on Egyptian university students limits cross-cultural generalizability, as the strong correlation observed may be specific to the Egyptian context”, the discussion and/or conclusions could be strengthened by adding one or two  paragraphs situating these findings within a comparative international framework. Referring to similar studies in other cultural contexts (e.g., Europe, Asia, Latin America) would allow readers to better understand how exceptional the observed effect size is and would broaden the article’s appeal to a wider audience.

Author Response

Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 2)

Revisions Highlighted in Pink

Comment 1: While the manuscript already notes that “The study's focus on Egyptian university students limits cross-cultural generalizability, as the strong correlation observed may be specific to the Egyptian context”, the discussion and/or conclusions could be strengthened by adding one or two  paragraphs situating these findings within a comparative international framework. Referring to similar studies in other cultural contexts (e.g., Europe, Asia, Latin America) would allow readers to better understand how exceptional the observed effect size is and would broaden the article’s appeal to a wider audience.

 

Response 1: Thank you for the valuable suggestion. We have expanded the discussion to situate our findings within a broader international framework. By referencing comparative studies from Latin American studies (Peru), Asian and European studies.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article examines the relationship between environmental education awareness in light of the Sustainable Development Goals and environmental responsibility among Egyptian university students. The hypotheses presented—that greater environmental education awareness correlates strongly with greater environmental responsibility, and that demographic factors such as gender and residence may influence this relationship—are relevant, timely, and well-founded theoretically. Their soundness is reinforced by their articulation with international literature, although the magnitude of the correlation coefficient (r = 0.848) is extraordinary and deserves further critical discussion.

The statistical validation of the instruments, including exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, internal consistency, and content validity, strengthens the robustness of the study. However, the use of convenience sampling limits the representativeness and generalizability of the results. At the same time, the cross-sectional nature of the study prevents causal inferences, which the authors acknowledge.

With regard to controls, the study is predominantly correlational and therefore does not include positive experimental controls or observational triangulation mechanisms. However, the quality of the instruments (validity and reliability) has been verified, which supports the neutrality of the results. The main limitation is the reliance on self-report measures, which are susceptible to social desirability bias.

The article provides a new perspective on the research area. Although it does not present entirely new findings, it challenges the dominant narrative by demonstrating that, in a specific cultural context and in line with the Sustainable Development Goals, this gap can be greatly reduced.

It should be considered for publication, but revision of some points is recommended: reinforcement of the critical discussion on the magnitude of the observed correlation and further exploration of the limitations of sampling and self-reporting.

As for future lines of research, it would be important to conduct longitudinal studies to verify whether the relationship holds over time; employ mixed methodologies that include observation of concrete behaviors; and expand the analysis to other cultural contexts, allowing for international comparisons.

Author Response

Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 3)

Comment 1: The hypotheses are relevant, timely, and well-founded theoretically, but the extraordinary correlation coefficient (r = 0.848) deserves further critical discussion.

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable observation. We have substantially expanded the critical discussion of the exceptional correlation magnitude in the Discussion section. Specifically, we now: (1) explicitly compare our finding to typical international meta-analytic results (r = 0.25-0.41), (2) contextualize it within the broader literature on the attitude-behavior gap, (3) propose potential explanatory factors specific to the Egyptian SDG-aligned educational context, and (4) acknowledge the need for cross-cultural validation to determine generalizability versus context-specificity.

Comment 2: Statistical validation of instruments strengthens study robustness, but convenience sampling limits representativeness and generalizability.

Response 2: We appreciate this observation. The psychometric validation is thoroughly documented in Section 2.3 (Procedure), including CVI scores, EFA/CFA results, and excellent reliability coefficients for both instruments. Regarding sampling limitations, we now explicitly address this in the Limitations section, stating: "the use of convenience sampling from four Egyptian institutions limits external validity, as these institutions may not represent the broader student population or other cultural contexts." We also recommend probability sampling across diverse institutions in future research (Limitations).

 

Comment 3: Cross-sectional design prevents causal inferences, which the authors acknowledge.

Response 3: Thank you for noting this acknowledgment. We have strengthened causal inference discussions throughout: (1) in the regression analysis section (3.3), we explicitly state "the cross-sectional design does not permit causal inferences about directional relationships," (2) in the Discussion, we note findings "provide preliminary evidence" while clarifying that "establishing causal attributions requires experimental or longitudinal investigation," and (3) in Limitations, we emphasize that "future longitudinal and experimental research is needed to clarify directionality and establish causality."

 

Comment 4: The study lacks positive experimental controls or observational triangulation mechanisms, relying primarily on self-report measures susceptible to social desirability bias.

Response 4: We fully agree with this limitation. In the revised Limitations section, we now explicitly state: "The reliance on self-reported measures introduces the risk of social desirability bias, potentially inflating the association between awareness and responsibility. Participants may have overstated their attitudes or behaviors to align with perceived norms." We recommend that "future research should employ complementary behavioral data" and incorporate "mixed-methods research incorporating qualitative interviews and behavioral observations" (limitations paragraph).

 

Comment 5: The article provides a new perspective but doesn't present entirely new findings; it challenges the dominant narrative about the knowledge-action gap in specific contexts.

Response 5: Thank you for this characterization. We have framed our contribution precisely in the Discussion: "This study contributes to theoretical understanding of environmental education effectiveness by demonstrating that under appropriate conditions, the knowledge-action gap can be substantially narrowed through integrated, contextually relevant educational approaches. The exceptionally strong correlation observed challenges traditional assumptions about the inevitability of the attitude-behavior gap." We position this as context-dependent evidence requiring cross-cultural validation (Discussion, paragraph 8).

 

Comment 6: Recommendation for reinforcement of critical discussion on correlation magnitude and further exploration of sampling and self-reporting limitations.

Response 6: These enhancements have been comprehensively integrated: (1) Critical discussion of correlation magnitude now spans three full paragraphs in the Discussion, including international comparisons and contextual factors; (2) Sampling limitations are explicitly addressed in Limitations with specific recommendations for probability sampling and diverse institutional representation; Self-reporting bias is now thoroughly discussed in Limitations with concrete methodological recommendations for future research.

Comment 7: Future research should include longitudinal studies, mixed methodologies with behavioral observation, and cross-cultural expansion.

Response 7: We have substantially expanded the Future Research section to address all three recommendations: (1) Longitudinal research: "Future research should explore the stability of the awareness-responsibility relationship over time and whether high levels of environmental education during university years translate into sustained pro-environmental behaviors post-graduation"; (2) Mixed methodologies: "Mixed-methods research incorporating qualitative interviews and behavioral observations can provide deeper insights into the mechanisms through which environmental awareness translates into responsible behaviors"; (3) Cross-cultural studies: "Cross-cultural comparative studies are needed to determine if the strong correlation observed in Egypt can be replicated in other contexts"

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has addressed the concerns raised in my previous review. The revisions have improved the quality of the paper, and I find it suitable for publication in its current form. Therefore, I recommend acceptance.