Review Reports - An Analysis of the Influence of Gender and Generational Factors on Sustainable Consumption Patterns in the Urban Environment of Colombia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors should present more clearly in the Introduction the research gap between this study and prior work. Why is it necessary to compare differences across several generational cohorts? What is the significance and contribution of such comparisons?

If participants’ ages fall on the boundary between two generations—for example, those born in 1996 and 1997—should they be regarded as belonging to two groups with potentially different perceptions and preferences? In other words, I believe that papers discussing generational differences often share a common issue: participants’ ages are continuous. This makes it appear that the difference between those born in 1996 and 1997 is larger than the difference between those born in 1996 and those born in 1981. Does this raise concerns about measurement bias in the study?

The research hypotheses need stronger support from existing literature and theoretical foundations.

Detailed demographic information about the participants—such as age, gender, occupation, hometown, income, and so forth—should be presented in tabular form.

The design of the questionnaire should follow recommendations from previous studies. The authors’ description here is overly brief—was the questionnaire designed arbitrarily?

After conducting PCA, tests for convergent validity and discriminant validity should be performed.

Some items show clear cross-loadings; the data processing procedure needs to incorporate more rigorous steps to prevent such issues.

The authors are advised to use SEM (Structural Equation Modeling) instead of regression analysis.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the detailed and rigorous review of our manuscript. The thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions provided have been invaluable in strengthening the quality and clarity of our work. We deeply appreciate the time and expertise dedicated to evaluating our research.

We have carefully considered each comment and made the necessary revisions throughout the manuscript. All changes and adjustments are clearly highlighted in red for your convenience.

Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each comment, detailing the changes made in the revised manuscript.

Comments1: The authors should present more clearly in the Introduction the research gap between this study and prior work. Why is it necessary to compare differences across several generational cohorts? What is the significance and contribution of such comparisons?

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable observation. We agree with the reviewer's suggestion and have revised the text accordingly. The requested adjustments have been incorporated on page 3, lines 65–91 of the revised manuscript.

Comments2. If participants’ ages fall on the boundary between two generations—for example, those born in 1996 and 1997—should they be regarded as belonging to two groups with potentially different perceptions and preferences? In other words, I believe that papers discussing generational differences often share a common issue: participants’ ages are continuous. This makes it appear that the difference between those born in 1996 and 1997 is larger than the difference between those born in 1996 and those born in 1981. Does this raise concerns about measurement bias in the study?

Response 2: We adopted the birth-year cohorts established by the Pew Research Center—Centennials (1997–2012), Millennials (1981–1996), Generation X (1965–1980), and Baby Boomers (1946–1964)—which are widely used in demographic and behavioral research to reflect shared sociohistorical experiences grounded in cohort theory. We acknowledge, however, that these boundaries are inherently arbitrary and may bias comparisons of perceptions and preferences among individuals born in adjacent years; this limitation is detailed on page 18 (lines 548–553).

Comments 3. The research hypotheses need stronger support from existing literature and theoretical foundations.

Response 3. Thank you for the suggestion. The requested revisions have been made and can be reviewed on page 6, lines 182–206.

Comments 4. Detailed demographic information about the participants—such as age, gender, occupation, hometown, income, and so forth—should be presented in tabular form.

Response 4: Thank you for the recommendation. A detailed demographic table has been added on page 7 (see line 216).

Comments 5. The design of the questionnaire should follow recommendations from previous studies. The authors’ description here is overly brief—was the questionnaire designed arbitrarily?

Response 5: Thank you for this observation. The adjustment has been made on pages 7–8, lines 229–237.

Comments 6. After conducting PCA, tests for convergent validity and discriminant validity should be performed.

Response 6: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. However, it is important to clarify that this study used Principal Component Analysis (PCA), not Factor Analysis (FA). As noted by Hair et al. (2022) and Tabachnick & Fidell (2019), PCA reduces data dimensionality by generating linear combinations of variables to identify patterns, without assuming latent constructs. Conversely, FA seeks to uncover latent variables, which makes the assessment of convergent and discriminant validity methodologically appropriate only in that context.

Since PCA relies on total variance rather than common variance (Krishnan, 2011), convergent and discriminant validity tests are not applicable. In this study, PCA was used exclusively as an exploratory technique to simplify data and describe empirical patterns with conceptual and statistical consistency.

Comments 7. Some items show clear cross-loadings; the data processing procedure needs to incorporate more rigorous steps to prevent such issues.

Response 7.WeI appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the presence of apparent cross-loadings in the results. However, it is important to clarify that the analytical procedure applied in this study was Principal Component Analysis (PCA), not Factor Analysis (FA). Unlike FA, which aims to identify latent constructs and statistically independent factors, PCA seeks to reduce data dimensionality by summarizing the total variance of observed variables into components that capture the most relevant patterns. Consequently, in PCA, it is expected that some items may exhibit substantial loadings on multiple components, as these are not conceived as independent latent factors.

In this context, the cross-loadings observed do not indicate a methodological flaw but rather reflect overlapping informational contributions of certain items across generational dimensions. This outcome is consistent with the theoretical aim of the analysis, which was to examine how each item behaves across three predefined generational groups rather than to identify orthogonal constructs. As highlighted by Hair et al. (2022) and Tabachnick & Fidell (2019), cross-loadings may legitimately occur in PCA when variables contribute simultaneously to the variance structure of multiple components.

Comments 8. The authors are advised to use SEM (Structural Equation Modeling) instead of regression analysis.

Response 8. We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the use of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). We acknowledge that SEM is a robust technique for estimating relationships between latent and observed variables. However, this study did not aim to model latent constructs but to analyze empirical patterns among categorical variables across generations.

Given this objective and the nature of the data, multinomial regression was the most appropriate method to examine the influence of independent variables on categorical outcomes, providing interpretable results without the need for structural modeling. Moreover, SEM is not ideally suited for multinomial outcomes, as it assumes linearity and continuous distributions, making its application to this dataset methodologically inappropriate.

Therefore, regression analysis was chosen to ensure methodological clarity and analytical coherence. Nonetheless, we appreciate the reviewer’s recommendation and will consider SEM in future studies involving latent constructs or complex theoretical models.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback and consideration.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article's topic appears relevant. The primary focus of the article is an analysis of the influence of gender and generational factors on sustainable consumption patterns in the urban environment of Colombia. The authors advance an original hypothesis that significant differences in sustainable consumption patterns exist between different generations in Colombia. The authors test this hypothesis in their research. This article is relevant to the scope of the journal, as it argues for solutions that take into account the specifics of sustainable consumption patterns across genders and generations. Unfortunately, the authors do not formulate their research questions.
The authors provide a detailed literature review. They structure their review well. Based on this review, the authors formulate a single research hypothesis. However, the authors do not formulate a research hypothesis about significant gender differences in sustainable consumption patterns in the urban environment of Colombia, although they are in fact testing such a hypothesis. Research hypotheses are typically formulated based on the identification of research gaps. The authors did not identify such research gaps.
I believe this study adds some analytical foundation to the field of sustainable development. The authors substantiate the discovery of significant gender and generational differences in sustainable consumption patterns in Colombia. These are very significant findings.
The article is very interesting and a joy to read. However, there are some caveats.

First, the title is too general and doesn't fully reflect the article's main content. In the title, the authors emphasize sustainable consumption patterns by generation and gender. However, the geographic scope of the study is not specified. The results obtained for Colombia may not be replicated in countries with different levels of economic development. Furthermore, the authors conducted a sociological survey in a densely populated city—the country's capital. In their list of limitations, the authors do not specify a specific urban environment, suggesting that sustainable consumption patterns will be identical in urban and rural areas. I believe this is not the case. Rural areas may have different sustainable consumption patterns, and these remain to be explored. I propose a more precise and expanded title, for example: An Analysis of the Influence of Gender and Generational Factors on Sustainable Consumption Patterns in the Urban Environment of Colombia.

Second, the authors do not formulate their research questions. I recommend clearly identifying the research questions and providing them at the end of the Introduction section.

Third, the authors do not explain how the sustainable consumption elements were selected for analysis. They only state that this was done based on a literature review. If an expert method was used to select the 38 elements, then the entire procedure should be described in detail, including the composition and number of experts.

Fourth, the authors do not provide an analysis of the hypothesis validation in the Discussion section.

The study's conclusions are not well formulated. I recommend creating a separate Conclusion section, which should present the main findings and analyze the theoretical and practical significance of the study results.
The article contains a set of 50 references. A certain portion of the sources are dated within the last five-year period. The bibliography is high-quality.
The article contains one figure and eight tables. Visualization of the results seems sufficient.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We have carefully considered each comment and made the necessary revisions throughout the manuscript. All changes and adjustments are clearly highlighted in red for your convenience.

Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each comment, detailing the changes made in the revised manuscript.

Comments1 The article's topic appears relevant. The primary focus of the article is an analysis of the influence of gender and generational factors on sustainable consumption patterns in the urban environment of Colombia. The authors advance an original hypothesis that significant differences in sustainable consumption patterns exist between different generations in Colombia. The authors test this hypothesis in their research. This article is relevant to the scope of the journal, as it argues for solutions that take into account the specifics of sustainable consumption patterns across genders and generations. Unfortunately, the authors do not formulate their research questions.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. The requested adjustments have been made on page 3 (lines 89–91) to address the points raised.

Comments 2. The authors provide a detailed literature review. They structure their review well. Based on this review, the authors formulate a single research hypothesis. However, the authors do not formulate a research hypothesis about significant gender differences in sustainable consumption patterns in the urban environment of Colombia, although they are in fact testing such a hypothesis. Research hypotheses are typically formulated based on the identification of research gaps. The authors did not identify such research gaps.

Response 2: Thank you for the insight. We have added the gender gap analysis (page 6, lines 163–181) and formulated the corresponding hypothesis (lines 194–206).

Comments 3. I believe this study adds some analytical foundation to the field of sustainable development. The authors substantiate the discovery of significant gender and generational differences in sustainable consumption patterns in Colombia. These are very significant findings.

Response 3. Thank you for your positive feedback; I appreciate it.

Comments 4. The article is very interesting and a joy to read. However, there are some caveats.

Response 4: Thank you for this suggestion. The title has been revised on page 1 (lines 1–4) to specify the urban scope in Colombia, and a limitation noting that findings from Bogotá may not generalize to rural areas has been added on page 18 (lines 556–558).

Comments 5. Second, the authors do not formulate their research questions. I recommend clearly identifying the research questions and providing them at the end of the Introduction section.

Response 5. Thank you for your comment. The requested adjustments have been made on page 3 (lines 87–90) to address the points raised.

Comments 6. Third, the authors do not explain how the sustainable consumption elements were selected for analysis. They only state that this was done based on a literature review. If an expert method was used to select the 38 elements, then the entire procedure should be described in detail, including the composition and number of experts.

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. The methodology has been expanded to detail the expert selection procedure, including panel composition and consensus criteria (pages 6–7, lines 229–237).

Comments 7 Fourth, the authors do not provide an analysis of the hypothesis validation in the Discussion section.

Response 7: Thank you for this suggestion. An analysis of the hypothesis validation has been added on page 17 (lines 455–508).

Comments 8. The study's conclusions are not well formulated. I recommend creating a separate Conclusion section, which should present the main findings and analyze the theoretical and practical significance of the study results.

Response 8: Thank you for this recommendation. We have added separate subsections on theoretical implications and practical implications (pages 16–17, lines 454–567).

Comments 9 The article contains a set of 50 references. A certain portion of the sources are dated within the last five-year period. The bibliography is high-quality.

Response 9: Thank you for your positive feedback on the quality and recency of our references.

Comments 10. The article contains one figure and eight tables. Visualization of the results seems sufficient.

Response 10: We appreciate your feedback and agree that the figure and tables adequately visualize the results.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback and consideration.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Brief Summary

This study investigates sustainable consumption behaviours (SCBs) across different generations (Centennials, Millennials, Generation X, and Baby Boomers) and genders in Colombia. Using a 38-item questionnaire administered to 736 participants, the authors employ principal component analysis and multinomial regression to identify distinct patterns. The main contribution is the detailed analysis of generational and gender differences in SCBs within the context of an emerging country, a relatively underexplored area in the literature. The paper's strength lies in its granular, behaviour-specific comparisons, which reveal nuances beyond broad generalisations, such as Generation Z's preference for second-hand clothing and Generation Y's focus on reducing excessive consumption.

2. General Comments

The manuscript addresses a relevant and important topic, providing valuable insights into sustainable consumption in Colombia. The quantitative approach is appropriate, and the study's focus on an emerging market is a welcome addition to the field. However, there are several key areas that require attention to strengthen the manuscript's scientific rigour and clarity.

Methodological Concerns: The decision to merge Generation X and Baby Boomers (X+BB) is a significant limitation. While justified by the authors due to a small sample size for Baby Boomers, these two generations have vastly different formative experiences, technological fluencies, and economic histories that influence consumption. This aggregation may mask important differences and could bias the results. The authors acknowledge this limitation, but its impact should be more thoroughly discussed in the main body of the paper, particularly in the Discussion section, with a stronger caveat about the interpretation of findings related to the "X+BB" group.
Hypothesis Testability: The manuscript proposes a single, broad hypothesis: "Significant differences exist in sustainable consumption patterns in Colombia among the generational groups...". While the results confirm this, the hypothesis lacks specificity. The study would be more robust if it were guided by a set of more focused, directional hypotheses derived from the literature review concerning expected differences between specific generations or genders.
Integration of Concepts: The literature review effectively introduces the concept of "strong" versus "weak" SCBs. However, this valuable framework is not systematically applied in the analysis or results sections. The study would have a greater impact if the 38 behavioural items were categorised a priori as strong or weak, allowing for a more profound analysis of whether certain generations lean towards more superficial (weak) or transformative (strong) sustainable practices.
Contextual Linkage: The introduction mentions Colombia's national policies on sustainable consumption. This provides excellent context, but the study misses the opportunity to link its findings back to these policies. A discussion on whether the observed behavioural patterns reflect the success, failure, or specific focus of these national strategies would significantly enhance the paper's implications for public policy.

3. Specific Comments

Title: "Sustainable Consumption Patterns by Generation and Genderⁱ " what does the i stand for? Is this a typo? Also, can you add " in Colombia" or "a Colombian perspective" in the title to reflect the geographical location of the study?
Table 3 (page 6): The table is titled a "Heatmap" but is presented as a standard table of numerical values without providing significance of the red, orange and yellow colours. A true heatmap with colour gradients with explanation in legends would be more effective for the intended visual comparison. More importantly, the text is ambiguous about what the values represent. The methodology states they are from a principal component analysis, suggesting they are component loadings or weights. However, the descriptive text claims, "The closer an item's value is to 1, the more is the frequency of the behaviour". This is confusing. Please clarify precisely what these values are (e.g., mean scores on the Likert scale, factor loadings) and ensure the description is accurate.
Line 190 (page 7): The statement "Generation Y does not exhibit widespread SCBs" is an oversimplification and appears to be contradicted by the data in Table 3. For instance, Gen Y scores highest of all groups on B5 (Recycle my old items, 0.658) and B30 (Look for information on the internet, 0.618). This generalisation should be revised to provide a more nuanced and accurate summary of the findings for Generation Y.
Line 222 (page 8): The text states that compared to Gen X+BB, Gen Y is 23% more likely to perform behaviour B4 ("minimize excessive consumption to preserve natural resources for future generations"). However, the descriptive data in Table 3 shows a higher value for Gen X+BB (0.704) than for Gen Y (0.609) on this item. While multinomial regression controls for other variables, this apparent contradiction between the descriptive and inferential results is striking and requires an explanation for the reader.
Line 237 (page 9): There appears to be a typo or error in the description of behaviours. The sentence reads: "...19% less likely to purchase energy-efficient products and appliances (B31) and tend to reduce meat consumption because of environmental concerns (B32)". According to Tables 3 and 4, B31 is "carry a reusable water bottle," and the comparison for meat consumption (B36) is not mentioned here. Please correct the behaviour descriptions and corresponding codes.
Clarity in Tables 4, 5, and 6: The comparative analysis tables contain blank cells. It is unclear whether a blank cell indicates a non-significant result or that the comparison was not performed. Please clarify this by using "n.s." (not significant) or another appropriate indicator for non-significant findings to improve readability.
Line 359 (page 13): The conclusion that "millennial men tend to adopt more reactive approaches based on available information" is an interpretation that may overstate the evidence. This should be phrased more cautiously and tied directly to the specific results presented in the tables.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We have carefully considered each comment and made the necessary revisions throughout the manuscript. All changes and adjustments are clearly highlighted in red for your convenience.

Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each comment, detailing the changes made in the revised manuscript.

Brief Summary

General Comments

Comments 1. Methodological Concerns: The decision to merge Generation X and Baby Boomers (X+BB) is a significant limitation. While justified by the authors due to a small sample size for Baby Boomers, these two generations have vastly different formative experiences, technological fluencies, and economic histories that influence consumption. This aggregation may mask important differences and could bias the results. The authors acknowledge this limitation, but its impact should be more thoroughly discussed in the main body of the paper, particularly in the Discussion section, with a stronger caveat about the interpretation of findings related to the "X+BB" group.

Response 1: Thank you for the observation. The adjustment has been made on page 16 (lines 466–473).

Comments 2. Hypothesis Testability: The manuscript proposes a single, broad hypothesis: "Significant differences exist in sustainable consumption patterns in Colombia among the generational groups...". While the results confirm this, the hypothesis lacks specificity. The study would be more robust if it were guided by a set of more focused, directional hypotheses derived from the literature review concerning expected differences between specific generations or genders.

Response 2. The research hypotheses have been revised on page 6 (lines 183–205) to include stronger theoretical foundations and clearer literature support, addressing the reviewer’s comment (lines 161–179).

Comments 3. Integration of Concepts: The literature review effectively introduces the concept of "strong" versus "weak" SCBs. However, this valuable framework is not systematically applied in the analysis or results sections. The study would have a greater impact if the 38 behavioural items were categorised a priori as strong or weak, allowing for a more profound analysis of whether certain generations lean towards more superficial (weak) or transformative (strong) sustainable practices.

Response 3: Thank you for this valuable observation. To address it, we formulated a second hypothesis distinguishing strong and weak sustainable consumption behaviors (page 6, lines 183–205). This distinction is now reflected in the results analysis (page 13, lines 357–369; pages 14–15, lines 407–421).

Comments 4. Contextual Linkage: The introduction mentions Colombia's national policies on sustainable consumption. This provides excellent context, but the study misses the opportunity to link its findings back to these policies. A discussion on whether the observed behavioural patterns reflect the success, failure, or specific focus of these national strategies would significantly enhance the paper's implications for public policy.

Response 4: Thank you for this observation. A discussion linking our findings to Colombia’s national sustainable consumption policies has been added (page 17, lines 506–509; lines 519–528; page 18, lines 539–547).

Specific Comments

Comments 5. Title: "Sustainable Consumption Patterns by Generation and Genderi " what does the i stand for? Is this a typo? Also, can you add " in Colombia" or "a Colombian perspective" in the title to reflect the geographical location of the study?

Response 5. Thank you for pointing this out. The “i” was a typographical error and has been removed. The title has been updated to include the geographic context on page 1 (lines 1–4).

Comments 6. Table 3 (page 6): The table is titled a "Heatmap" but is presented as a standard table of numerical values without providing significance of the red, orange and yellow colours. A true heatmap with colour gradients with explanation in legends would be more effective for the intended visual comparison. More importantly, the text is ambiguous about what the values represent. The methodology states they are from a principal component analysis, suggesting they are component loadings or weights. However, the descriptive text claims, "The closer an item's value is to 1, the more is the frequency of the behaviour". This is confusing. Please clarify precisely what these values are (e.g., mean scores on the Likert scale, factor loadings) and ensure the description is accurate.

Response 6. As suggested by the reviewer, a description of the color scale used in the heat map has been added in lines 269–274 page 8 to enhance clarity in data interpretation. The explanation specifies that darker red tones indicate a higher frequency and relative weight of behaviors within each generation, whereas lighter tones represent lower intensity values.

For improved clarity, lines 260–268 were expanded to specify that the values shown in the heat map represent component weights derived from the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) rather than means or regression coefficients. These weights range from -1 to 1 and reflect the relative contribution of each item across generations. Consequently, the heat map serves a descriptive and comparative function consistent with the exploratory scope of the analysis, rather than with factor-based inference.

Comments 7. Line 190 (page 7): The statement "Generation Y does not exhibit widespread SCBs" is an oversimplification and appears to be contradicted by the data in Table 3. For instance, Gen Y scores highest of all groups on B5 (Recycle my old items, 0.658) and B30 (Look for information on the internet, 0.618). This generalisation should be revised to provide a more nuanced and accurate summary of the findings for Generation Y.

Response 7: Thank you for this valuable observation. We have revised the paragraph on page 11 (lines 282–287) to better reflect the nuances shown in Table 3.

Comments 8. Line 222 (page 8): The text states that compared to Gen X+BB, Gen Y is 23% more likely to perform behaviour B4 ("minimize excessive consumption to preserve natural resources for future generations"). However, the descriptive data in Table 3 shows a higher value for Gen X+BB (0.704) than for Gen Y (0.609) on this item. While multinomial regression controls for other variables, this apparent contradiction between the descriptive and inferential results is striking and requires an explanation for the reader.

Response 8: An explicit explanation has been added in Section 4.2 under “Generation Y versus X+BB” (page 12, lines 328–336) to clarify the apparent contradiction between descriptive and inferential statistics for item B4.

Comments 9. Line 237 (page 9): There appears to be a typo or error in the description of behaviours. The sentence reads: "...19% less likely to purchase energy-efficient products and appliances (B31) and tend to reduce meat consumption because of environmental concerns (B32)". According to Tables 3 and 4, B31 is "carry a reusable water bottle," and the comparison for meat consumption (B36) is not mentioned here. Please correct the behaviour descriptions and corresponding codes.

Response 9: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. The behavior descriptions and corresponding codes have been corrected as indicated (page 13, lines 351–355).

Comments 10. Clarity in Tables 4, 5, and 6: The comparative analysis tables contain blank cells. It is unclear whether a blank cell indicates a non-significant result or that the comparison was not performed. Please clarify this by using "n.s." (not significant) or another appropriate indicator for non-significant findings to improve readability.

Response 10. Thank you for this valuable suggestion. The comparative analysis tables have been updated and renumbered as Tables 5 (page 11, line 295), 6 (page 13, line 370), and 7 (page 15, line 432), with blank cells now marked “n.s.” to indicate non-significant results.

Comments 11. Line 359 (page 13): The conclusion that "millennial men tend to adopt more reactive approaches based on available information" is an interpretation that may overstate the evidence. This should be phrased more cautiously and tied directly to the specific results presented in the tables.

Response 11: The entire Conclusions section has been revised (pages 16–18, lines 455–566).

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback and consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper it is interesting but some changes are need

1.Survey structure is missing

2.Figure 1 need to be change it with a more clear one with %

Line 133. Clear better the hypothesis

2.4. Hypothesis 133

Significant differences exist in sustainable consumption patterns in Colombia among 134

the generational groups BB and Generation X (BB+X), Generation Y, and Generation Z.

The author forget to give some explanation like in the following example

Line 193 4.2. Sustainable Consumption Behavior Patterns by Generation 193

The proposed hypothesis was confirmed by identifying differences in SCB patterns 194

across generations. Table 4 shows that some of these differences were highly significant. 195

Table 4. Comparative Analysis of Sustainable

Line 240 4.4. Sustainable Consumption Behaviors Among Women Across Generatio4.3. Sustainable Consumption Behavior Among Men Across Generations 240

Table 5 below shows the comparative analysis of SCBs among men of different 241

generations. 242

Table 5. Comparative Analysis of Sustainable Consumption Behaviors Among Men Across 243

AND ALSO

Table 6 presents a comparative analysis of SCBs among women across generations. 280

Table 6. Comparative Analysis of Sustainable Consumption Behaviors Among Women Across 281

References renew with recent ones.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

i am not qualify

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We have carefully considered each comment and made the necessary revisions throughout the manuscript. All changes and adjustments are clearly highlighted in red for your convenience.

Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each comment, detailing the changes made in the revised manuscript.

The paper it is interesting but some changes are need

Comments 1.Survey structure is missing

Response 1. Thank you for this observation. To avoid redundancy, the 38 items were previously shown only in the heatmap table. We have now added the full list in Appendix 1 for reference.

Comments 2. Figure 1 need to be change it with a more clear one with %

Response 2: The change has been made on page 7 (line 224). Figure 1 has been replaced with a clearer version that now includes percentage values.

Comments 3. Line 133. Clear better the hypothesis

2.4. Hypothesis 133

Significant differences exist in sustainable consumption patterns in Colombia among 134

the generational groups BB and Generation X (BB+X), Generation Y, and Generation Z.

Response 3: The research hypotheses have been revised on page 6 (lines 181–205) to include stronger theoretical foundations and clearer support from relevant literature.

Comments 4. The author forget to give some explanation like in the following example

Line 193 4.2. Sustainable Consumption Behavior Patterns by Generation 193

The proposed hypothesis was confirmed by identifying differences in SCB patterns 194

across generations. Table 4 shows that some of these differences were highly significant. 195

Table 4. Comparative Analysis of Sustainable

278-284

Response 4: Thank you for the suggestion. Explanatory text has been added on page 11 (lines 289–294) and page 12 (lines 297–304).

Comments 5. Line 240 4.4. Sustainable Consumption Behaviors Among Women Across Generatio4.3. Sustainable Consumption Behavior Among Men Across Generations 240

Table 5 below shows the comparative analysis of SCBs among men of different 241

generations. 242

Table 5. Comparative Analysis of Sustainable Consumption Behaviors Among Men Across 243

Response 5: Thank you for the suggestion. Explanatory text has been added on page 13 (lines 357–369).

AND ALSO

Comments 6 Table 6 presents a comparative analysis of SCBs among women across generations. 280

Table 6. Comparative Analysis of Sustainable Consumption Behaviors Among Women Across 281

Response 6: We have incorporated additional explanatory text in lines 407–422 as recommended.

Comments 7. References renew with recent ones.

Response 7. Two additional recent references were included, following the reviewer’s suggestion. It is also important to note that 50% of the total bibliography corresponds to publications from the last ten years, ensuring the updated nature of the literature used.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback and consideration.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no further comments

Author Response

Comments 1: I have no further comments

Response 1: Thank you

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-refined. Almost all of my comments have been addressed. However, I do have a comment regarding the Conclusion section. The authors combine the Discussion and Conclusion sections into a single section. I believe this integration is counterproductive. These are separate sections, each with its own purpose. The Discussion section opens a discussion of the validity of the results obtained, an analysis of the hypotheses, their verification with existing studies, and the identification of the limitations of this study. The Conclusion section is intended to briefly summarize the main findings and results of the study, demonstrate the theoretical and practical significance of the results, and outline directions for future research.

Author Response

Comments 1 The article is well-refined. Almost all of my comments have been addressed. However, I do have a comment regarding the Conclusion section. The authors combine the Discussion and Conclusion sections into a single section. I believe this integration is counterproductive. These are separate sections, each with its own purpose. The Discussion section opens a discussion of the validity of the results obtained, an analysis of the hypotheses, their verification with existing studies, and the identification of the limitations of this study. The Conclusion section is intended to briefly summarize the main findings and results of the study, demonstrate the theoretical and practical significance of the results, and outline directions for future research.

Response 1.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response to your comment, we have now separated the Discussion and Conclusion sections to clearly delineate their respective purposes.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with the progress of the article's revision. The authors have taken all my comments into account. There are still some technical improvements to be made.

Source numbers in the text of the article are usually provided in square brackets.

All tables and figures must be cited. If these are the authors' own calculations, this must also be reflected in the source citation.

The bibliography does not comply with the journal's standards.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

I sincerely appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback. I are pleased that you are satisfied with our article's revision and that we have successfully addressed your previous comments. I have carefully attended to all technical improvements you highlighted in your most recent review. Below, we detail the specific actions taken to address each point:

Comments1:

I am satisfied with the progress of the article's revision. The authors have taken all my comments into account. There are still some technical improvements to be made.

Source numbers in the text of the article are usually provided in square brackets.

All tables and figures must be cited. If these are the authors' own calculations, this must also be reflected in the source citation.

The bibliography does not comply with the journal's standards.

Resonse1:

Thank you for your positive feedback. I have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and confirm that all technical improvements you requested have been implemented:

✓ All in-text citations are in square brackets.
✓ All tables and figures are cited with proper source attribution
✓ Bibliography has been reformatted to comply with MDPI/Sustainability standards

I appreciate your guidance throughout the revision process.