Reevaluating Propensity to Support Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors address the need to develop an instrument that allows a holistic assessment of the concept of sustainability, focusing on three important pillars: environmental, economic and social. They emphasize the large number of definitions, which can reach up to 300, and show the great difference of the term according to the environment or field in which its definition is based, justifying the need to develop a generic instrument. 

The document is simple and easy to understand, but this does not mean that it lacks rigor and importance. However, I am concerned about three points.

1. The sample, in my opinion, is insufficient in relation to the type of analysis of the results, and it is not clear whether the authors analyze the results in terms of the construction of an instrument or evaluate the information collected with the instrument. 

2. Regarding the first point, it is important that the authors focus more on the validation of the instrument and not on the analysis of the information collected with it. 

3. A complementary evaluation by experts could be presented if the objective of the work is the construction of an instrument. In addition to evaluating the effectiveness of the instrument to measure what is to be measured, it is necessary to guarantee its suitability by means of experts. 

review the conclusions in relation to the objective of the document

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thoughtful and detailed feedback. Your suggestions have significantly contributed to improving the quality of our paper. Below is our response to your comments.

Comments 1: 1. The sample, in my opinion, is insufficient in relation to the type of analysis of the results, and it is not clear whether the authors analyze the results in terms of the construction of an instrument or evaluate the information collected with the instrument. 2. Regarding the first point, it is important that the authors focus more on the validation of the instrument and not on the analysis of the information collected with it. 

Response 1: We acknowledge your concern regarding the sample and the clarity of our analysis. Since our research aims to develop and validate the instrument, we have clarified our objectives in the Introduction (p.2 / 47-50) and revised the wording throughout the paper to emphasize this goal. Additionally, we have provided a more detailed explanation of the sample selection process to contextualize the intended analysis.

Comments 2: 3. A complementary evaluation by experts could be presented if the objective of the work is the construction of an instrument. In addition to evaluating the effectiveness of the instrument to measure what is to be measured, it is necessary to guarantee its suitability by means of experts. 

Response 2: We agree that a complementary evaluation by experts could enhance the validity and reliability of our work. We have acknowledged this limitation in the Conclusion section (p.13 / 415-417):: “First, the instrument has not yet undergone expert evaluation, which could ensure its suitability and reliability. Future research should consider conducting such an evaluation to enhance the instrument’s robustness.” This acknowledgment aims to guide future efforts in this area.

Comments 3: Review the conclusions in relation to the objective of the document

Response 3: We have revisited the conclusion to ensure it accurately reflects the focus on the construction and validation of the instrument. We have removed the paragraph (p.13) that was more aligned with evaluating the information collected with the instrument.

We believe these revisions will significantly enhance the rigor and clarity of our manuscript. Thank you again for your constructive feedback.

Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Lack of literature review section；

2.The numbering of the first part needs to be improved, only 1.1, no 1.2；

3.More than 40% of the 162 participants have a monthly income of less than $2000, the representativeness of the sample is questionable and needs to be rescreened.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful feedback. Your review has greatly enhanced the quality of our paper. Below is our response to your comments.

Comments 1: 1. Lack of literature review section ; 2. The numbering of the first part needs to be improved, only 1.1, no 1.2

Response 1: We have added a Literature Review section and reorganized the content to improve the structure (p.2-5). Specifically, we updated the numbering as follows: 1.1 becomes Section 2, 1.1.1 becomes Section 2.1, 1.1.2 becomes Section 2.2, and 1.1.3 becomes Section 2.3. Additionally, we incorporated a discussion on existing scales, such as the NEP scale on sustainability, to emphasize the research gap that our study aims to address (p.3 / 111-119).

Comments 2: 3. More than 40% of the 162 participants have a monthly income of less than $2000, the representativeness of the sample is questionable and needs to be rescreened.

Response 2: We acknowledge that the income distribution in our sample may not fully reflect the diversity of the general population. After reviewing previous studies, we found that similar income distributions, often underreported or derived from narrow samples, are common. As such, we noted this limitation in the Conclusion (p.13 / 417-427), where we suggest potential future research directions: “Additionally, our sample may not be representative of the general population, particularly in terms of income distribution. Although we included a broad range of income levels, with over 40% of participants reporting a monthly income of less than $2,000, this distribution may not fully capture the diversity of the general population. This limitation is common in many previous studies, where income data is often underreported or derived from samples with similarly broad or limited ranges. Socio-economic and cultural factors, such as income and country of residence, can significantly influence perceptions and behaviors related to sustainability. Therefore, future research would benefit from a more balanced and representative sample across diverse socio-economic and cultural contexts to enhance the generalizability of the findings.”

We trust these revisions improve the rigor and clarity of our manuscript. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

Best regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article, "Reevaluating Propensity to Support Sustainability," reevaluates the propensity to support sustainability through a literature review of 269 items and 162 responses. This research focuses on the literal propensity to support sustainability.

Through a process of refinement using principal component analysis, the original instrument was narrowed down to 13 items, which finalize sustainability as environmentally and socially conscious attitudes and behaviors, as shown in Figure 2 and Table 6. This is a good approach so far. However, Table 7 presents the demographics of the 162 participants who completed the original 100-item sustainability propensity scale, indicating an average age of 44, with 59.9% male, 39.5% female, and 0.6% preferring not to disclose. The racial/ethnic breakdown is 60.5% White, 28.4% Asian, 4.9% Black, and so on. It also includes the highest education level, monthly income, and employment status.

I think the authors should declare that each item was selected without considering other important living and environmental factors such as living location, type of residence (house/apartment), job titles, asset size (property scale), lifestyle, social community activities (including SNS activities), and car usage (gas or electric). It would be a great research work if the authors could consider these additional important factors.

All the best.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which has significantly contributed to the improvement of our paper. Below is our response to your comment.

Comment: I think the authors should declare that each item was selected without considering other important living and environmental factors such as living location, type of residence (house/apartment), job titles, asset size (property scale), lifestyle, social community activities (including SNS activities), and car usage (gas or electric). It would be a great research work if the authors could consider these additional important factors.

Response: We agree that living and environmental factors play a crucial role in shaping one’s sustainability propensity. To address this, we have added the following statement to the Methods section (p.7-8 / 251-253): “We did not consider specific socio-economic and environmental factors such as location, type of residence, employment, or lifestyle when distributing the survey to participants.” Additionally, we have included the following in the Conclusion section (p.13 / 423-427): “Socio-economic and cultural factors, such as income and country of residence, can significantly influence perceptions and behaviors related to sustainability. Therefore, future research would benefit from a more balanced and representative sample across diverse socio-economic and cultural contexts to enhance the generalizability of the findings.”

We believe these revisions have strengthened the rigor and clarity of our manuscript. Thank you once again for your insightful feedback.

Best regards.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Discussion of Wider Implications

While the findings of the study are well presented, the implications for practical applications (e.g. policy making, institutional strategies or training initiatives) are not sufficiently expanded.

Recommendation: Discuss in more detail how the findings can be used for different sectors, demographic groups, or interventions that promote sustainability behaviors. For example, questions such as “How can this scale be applied to measure individuals' sustainability dispositions in educational programs?” can be addressed.

2. Comparisons with Previous Tools

It is not clear how the developed tool compares with existing scales (e.g. NEP Scale). This does not sufficiently emphasize the innovative contribution of the study.

Recommendation: It should be clearly stated how the new scale differs from or improves upon existing tools in the literature. For example, “This scale is distinguished by its ability to assess social and environmental sustainability dimensions together”.

3. Limited Exploration of Economic Sustainability

There is no discussion of why economic sustainability differs from social and environmental dimensions. This makes it difficult to fully understand the finding.

Recommendation: The reasons for the differentiation of economic sustainability should be explained in relation to studies in the literature. For example, studies on the difficulties in perceiving economic sustainability at the individual level can be cited.

4. Relating the Findings to the Literature

The findings are not more strongly linked to the existing literature. In particular, the relationship between the concepts of “Sustainable Behavior” and “Sustainability Attitude” and the theoretical models in the literature (e.g. Theory of Planned Behavior) is not clear to me as a reader.

Recommendation: Discuss how these two constructs are compatible with conceptual frameworks in the literature. For example, “Sustainability Attitude is linked to an individual's beliefs and values, which in turn align with the normative component of the Theory of Planned Behavior”.

5. Discussion on Generalizability

The extent to which the study findings are generalizable beyond the sample (Amazon Mechanical Turk participants) is not discussed.

Recommendation: The limitations of the study should be clearly stated and potential challenges to generalizability to different contexts should be addressed. For example, statements such as “Generalizability can be increased by testing the validity of this scale in different cultural contexts” can be used.

6. Visualization 

The findings may be more comprehensible for the reader if they are supported by more explanatory visuals.

Recommendation: Graphs or tables summarizing the PCA results and factor structures could be added. For example, a diagram emphasizing the two-factor structure may help the reader to understand the findings more quickly.

7. In terms of Practical Application

No clear discussion of how the developed tool is applicable for decision makers, businesses or educators.

Recommendation: More concrete examples of how the scale can be used in different sectors or policy-making processes should be supported. For example, statements such as “This tool can help businesses assess employee behavior in their environmental sustainability strategies” could be added.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

We would like to express our gratitude for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your feedback was incredibly thoughtful and detailed, and we truly appreciate the opportunity to improve our work based on your suggestions. Below, we provide a detailed response to each of your suggestions.

[Comments 1]
1. Discussion of Wider Implications
While the findings of the study are well presented, the implications for practical applications (e.g. policy making, institutional strategies or training initiatives) are not sufficiently expanded.
Recommendation: Discuss in more detail how the findings can be used for different sectors, demographic groups, or interventions that promote sustainability behaviors. For example, questions such as “How can this scale be applied to measure individuals' sustainability dispositions in educational programs?” can be addressed.
7. In terms of Practical Application
No clear discussion of how the developed tool is applicable for decision makers, businesses or educators.
Recommendation: More concrete examples of how the scale can be used in different sectors or policy-making processes should be supported. For example, statements such as “This tool can help businesses assess employee behavior in their environmental sustainability strategies” could be added.

[Response 1]
Thank you for your insightful recommendations. In response, we have expanded the discussion on wider and practical implications in Section 5.3 (p. 13 / 383-398): “Our developed instrument has the potential to contribute not only to academic discourse by providing a valid tool for measuring an individual's sustainability disposition across diverse contexts (e.g., different demographic groups and the effectiveness of interventions) but also to practical applications in various domains such as policymaking, businesses, and educational programs. Since Sustainability Attitude can predict behavioral intention, this predictive power can be instrumental in enhancing the effectiveness of policy interventions aimed at promoting sustainability, thus broadening the practical applications of our instrument. Policymakers, for example, can utilize this instrument to promote sustainability at local, national, and global levels. It can aid in assessing the sustainability attitudes and behaviors of different communities, thereby enabling the development of policies that are better aligned with the characteristics and needs of these populations. Furthermore, the instrument can be used to monitor the effectiveness of sustainability policies or programs over time, facilitating evidence-based improvements. In education, the instrument offers a valid metric for assessing students' sustainability dispositions, supporting the design and enhancement of curricula aimed at fostering sustainability practices.”

[Comments 2]
2. Comparisons with Previous Tools
It is not clear how the developed tool compares with existing scales (e.g. NEP Scale). This does not sufficiently emphasize the innovative contribution of the study.
Recommendation: It should be clearly stated how the new scale differs from or improves upon existing tools in the literature. For example, “This scale is distinguished by its ability to assess social and environmental sustainability dimensions together”.

[Response 2]
We agree that comparing our tool with existing scales enhances its contribution. To address this, we have added the following paragraph at the beginning of the Discussion section (p. 11 / 302-316): “The key contribution of our work lies in its ability to address a gap in the literature—specifically, the limited availability of comprehensive scales that incorporate diverse sustainability dimensions. While existing scales, such as the NEP Scale, have predominantly focused on environmental factors, our instrument uniquely integrates individual decisions and actions, offering a more holistic view of sustainability. This distinction underscores our work's contribution to the ongoing challenge of effectively measuring attitudes toward sustainability. While previous literature has made important strides in this area, there remains room for further development in constructing scales that fully capture the complexity of sustainability attitudes. Our instrument represents a meaningful step forward by integrating multiple dimensions of sustainability within a single, cohesive framework. By grounding our work in established theories and addressing existing gaps, we aim to contribute to the broader conversation on how to more effectively measure and understand sustainability attitudes and behaviors. In this section, we provide detailed definitions of each final factor and discuss the implications of our instrument.”

[Comments 3]
3. Limited Exploration of Economic Sustainability
There is no discussion of why economic sustainability differs from social and environmental dimensions. This makes it difficult to fully understand the finding.
Recommendation: The reasons for the differentiation of economic sustainability should be explained in relation to studies in the literature. For example, studies on the difficulties in perceiving economic sustainability at the individual level can be cited.

[Response 3]
We appreciate your thoughtful feedback. To address this, we revised Section 5.3 to clarify the differentiation of economic sustainability, incorporating relevant literature (p.12-13 / 372-382): “Our results also show that economic sustainability is distinct from environmental and social sustainability, at least at an individual level. When individuals use this comprehensive instrument to measure their sustainability propensity, their responses tend to define sustainability in terms of human development. Previous research has shown that economic constraints and backgrounds can vary significantly, leading to diverse impacts and barriers to sustainable attitudes and behaviors across different life domains. As a result, perceiving economic sustainability may be challenging due to the complex nature of individual economic circumstances and their interrelated effects. However, when considering sustainability from a broader perspective, it remains possible to conceptualize it in ways that promote sustainable economic growth.”

[Comments 4]
4. Relating the Findings to the Literature
The findings are not more strongly linked to the existing literature. In particular, the relationship between the concepts of “Sustainable Behavior” and “Sustainability Attitude” and the theoretical models in the literature (e.g. Theory of Planned Behavior) is not clear to me as a reader.
Recommendation: Discuss how these two constructs are compatible with conceptual frameworks in the literature. For example, “Sustainability Attitude is linked to an individual's beliefs and values, which in turn align with the normative component of the Theory of Planned Behavior”.

[Response 4]
We agree that linking these constructs to established models would strengthen our theoretical contribution. Accordingly, we added the following paragraph at the beginning of the Discussion section (p.11 / 291-301): “The finalized factors - Sustainability Attitude and Sustainability Behavior - and their relationships within our comprehensive instrument are consistent with theoretical models from the literature on attitudes and behaviors, including the Theory of Reasoned Action, the Theory of Planned Behavior, and the Technology Acceptance Model, which builds upon the Theory of Reasoned Action. Specifically, Sustainability Attitude reflects an individual's beliefs and values concerning sustainability, aligning with the Attitudes and Subjective Norms components of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Similarly, Sustainability Behavior corresponds to the Behavior component in the Theory of Planned Behavior. This alignment with theoretical models underscores that our instrument is not only theoretically grounded but also capable of effectively capturing the mechanisms of attitudes and behaviors as outlined in the existing literature.”

[Comments 5]
5. Discussion on Generalizability
The extent to which the study findings are generalizable beyond the sample (Amazon Mechanical Turk participants) is not discussed.
Recommendation: The limitations of the study should be clearly stated and potential challenges to generalizability to different contexts should be addressed. For example, statements such as “Generalizability can be increased by testing the validity of this scale in different cultural contexts” can be used.

[Response 5]
We recognize the potential limitations regarding generalizability. To address this, we added the following in the Conclusion section (p.13 / 423-427): “Socio-economic and cultural factors, such as income and country of residence, can significantly influence perceptions and behaviors related to sustainability. Therefore, future research would benefit from a more balanced and representative sample across diverse socio-economic and cultural contexts to enhance the generalizability of the findings.”

[Comments 6]
6. Visualization
The findings may be more comprehensible for the reader if they are supported by more explanatory visuals.
Recommendation: Graphs or tables summarizing the PCA results and factor structures could be added. For example, a diagram emphasizing the two-factor structure may help the reader to understand the findings more quickly.

[Response 6]
Thank you for your suggestion. We identified some mislabeling in Table 8 and Figure 3, which summarize the PCA results and structure. These have now been corrected, and we have emphasized the key results in the text (p.10-11).

We truly appreciate the time and careful consideration you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We are confident that the revisions made in response to your feedback have significantly improved the quality of the paper. Once again, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for your invaluable insights and support in refining this work.

Best regards.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the recommended changes. I recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

none

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is well done.