Who Is Most Responsible for the Mitigation of Climate Change? An Intercultural Study in Central Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I appreciate your work and think that you have done an interesting piece. I found a very well structured research of the literature, though there are a few papers that you missed. These are: 

Post Raj Pokharel e al. Exploring GlobalEnvironmental Engagement: The Rome of Willigness and Membership in Environmental Action. Sustainability  2025, 17, 3611.

Jackson and Medvedev, Worldwide divergence of values. Nature communications 2024, 15. 2650

Pascual te al.Diverse Values of Nature for Sustainability. Nature 2023, Vol 620. Pp 813-823

All three papers show a more robust analysis that should be considered in the paper. At least you should discus them.

I have no way to assess that the sample you collected is representative and it is not biased, particularly because you sample mostly university students. I do not think these represents the countries studied population. At least you mention that it is an exploratory study so my suggestion is that from here you start doing a proper data collection, given that you have a god advance in the research.

I think the questions that you used are biased and leading to a response you wanted to have. May I suggest you check  Pokharel’s paper and in particular compare the world valued survey views for the countries under study. I think that these may be a more robust way to compare your information with a more representative analysis.

The way that you present your tables could be synthesized  and better explained, it is easy to get lost which the way you report the information. Likewise with the tables. I know it is hard, but you want your reader to comprehend every single bit of it.

From the exploratory analysis you made, you then start making inference, you decide to use a hierarchical regression model that usually have biases, multicollinearity, and subjectivity in the form that you entered the variables, this chances are that the interpretation you are giving is wrong or support what you expected to find. So I have doubts about such methods. May I suggest you start comparing with other techniques.

Overall I think it is an interesting paper but you need to work on the sampling, the methods and the way that you present your results. Good luck

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A few typos, should be edited for clarity

Author Response

Comment 1. Dear authors, I appreciate your work and think that you have done an interesting piece. I found a very well structured research of the literature, though there are a few papers that you missed. These are: 

Post Raj Pokharel e al. Exploring GlobalEnvironmental Engagement: The Rome of Willigness and Membership in Environmental Action. Sustainability  2025, 17, 3611.

Jackson and Medvedev, Worldwide divergence of values. Nature communications 2024, 15. 2650

Pascual te al.Diverse Values of Nature for Sustainability. Nature 2023, Vol 620. Pp 813-823

All three papers show a more robust analysis that should be considered in the paper. At least you should discus them

Thank you for your comment and the suggested literature. We have carefully reviewed the recommended sources and cited them in the literature and discussion sections (Pokharel - pp. 2, 4, 21; Jackson & Medvedev - p.7; Pascual - p. 4). We hope that the inclusion of these valid articles has now improved the quality of the manuscript.

Comment 2. I have no way to assess that the sample you collected is representative and it is not biased, particularly because you sample mostly university students. I do not think these represents the countries studied population. At least you mention that it is an exploratory study so my suggestion is that from here you start doing a proper data collection, given that you have a god advance in the research

Thank you for pointing out these limitations. We have now added a note in our limitations section regarding the generalizability of our study, as it is an exploratory project that indicates future research directions.

Comment 3. I think the questions that you used are biased and leading to a response you wanted to have. May I suggest you check Pokharel’s paper and in particular compare the world valued survey views for the countries under study. I think that these may be a more robust way to compare your information with a more representative analysis.

We appreciate you directing us to Pokharel et al.’s valuable study. We have thoroughly reviewed it and identified key points for supporting the analysis of our results. In fact, we believe that postmaterialist values align with the first factor of our individualistic values (self-actualisation), and hence, our findings could be further validated by alignment with Pokharel et al.’s work.

Comment 4. The way that you present your tables could be synthesized and better explained, it is easy to get lost which the way you report the information. Likewise with the tables. I know it is hard, but you want your reader to comprehend every single bit of it.

Thank you for this comment. We have reviewed the tables alignment with the APA’s standards and added necessary explanations to sections where clarity might have been lacking.

Comment 5. From the exploratory analysis you made, you then start making inference, you decide to use a hierarchical regression model that usually have biases, multicollinearity, and subjectivity in the form that you entered the variables, this chances are that the interpretation you are giving is wrong or support what you expected to find. So I have doubts about such methods. May I suggest you start comparing with other techniques.

Although the Reviewer is right about the limitations of the chosen methodology, it remains a widely used approach for this kind of exploratory analysis. We selected our models and variable order based on theoretical frameworks, but in future research, we will consider alternative methods to address the suggested bias. 

Comment 6. Overall I think it is an interesting paper but you need to work on the sampling, the methods and the way that you present your results. Good luck

Thank you. We hope our improved manuscript will fulfil your expectations.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an exceptionally well-conceived, well-conducted and well-reported study. Its great strengths are the use of multi-cultural data bases coupled with rigorous statistical analyses and an insightful relating of the findings to the current literature on climate change. I was especially impressed by the inter-weaving of social, cultural and personality characteristics in explaining your data. 

A suggestion for your future studies -- hopefully using these same and perhaps additional countries-- would be to develop climate change mitigation strategies that are the most likely to succeed given the political/social orientation and economic means of each country's population. What strategies would you suggest for, say, Poland or the UAE? The time for developing meaningful and effective response efforts is very rapidly running out (Indeed, for some parts of the globe time has probably already expired).

 

Author Response

Comment 1. This is an exceptionally well-conceived, well-conducted and well-reported study. Its great strengths are the use of multi-cultural data bases coupled with rigorous statistical analyses and an insightful relating of the findings to the current literature on climate change. I was especially impressed by the inter-weaving of social, cultural and personality characteristics in explaining your data. 

Thank you very much for such a positive comment.

Comment 2. A suggestion for your future studies -- hopefully using these same and perhaps additional countries-- would be to develop climate change mitigation strategies that are the most likely to succeed given the political/social orientation and economic means of each country's population. What strategies would you suggest for, say, Poland or the UAE? The time for developing meaningful and effective response efforts is very rapidly running out (Indeed, for some parts of the globe time has probably already expired).

We are very grateful for this suggestion. Definitely, in our future research we will consider the problem of successful mitigation strategies in the socio-political contexts. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The theme, structure, analytical methods and content, and discussion are all very well executed. No major revisions are needed.

First, the thematic approach is excellent: targeting citizens from six countries and examining not only their perspectives on actors responsible for climate change response (individuals and groups), but analyzing these in correlation with cultural values, ecological worldviews, and belief in intractability.

As clarified in the literature review section in the first half, whether we consider responsibility, individualism versus collectivism, or anthropocentrism versus ecocentrism, these are complex issues that cannot be simply reduced to black and white distinctions. This is precisely why comparative research across different societies, examining relationships with multiple value frameworks rather than a single criterion, holds significant merit.

The survey and analytical methods appear to be appropriately designed and presented.

If there are areas for improvement, they would be in the presentation of results and the design of figures and tables, which are overly dry. The regression analysis tables could benefit from better explanation of how to interpret them. Additionally, while Figure 1 is presented as a line graph, given its nature, I believe vertical or horizontal bar charts would be more appropriate (though this is merely my opinion, and I respect the research team's preference).

Another improvement concerns the first paragraph of the Discussion section. While it makes important points and the message is compelling, this content might be better moved to the Literature section. The Discussion section should ideally focus on insights derived from the current study's findings.

The Discussion section, particularly the three paragraphs on page 20 (relating to cultural values, ecological worldviews, and belief in intractability), presents extremely insightful analysis based on the study's results and truly represents the highlight of this paper.

Author Response

Comment 1. The theme, structure, analytical methods and content, and discussion are all very well executed. No major revisions are needed.

First, the thematic approach is excellent: targeting citizens from six countries and examining not only their perspectives on actors responsible for climate change response (individuals and groups), but analyzing these in correlation with cultural values, ecological worldviews, and belief in intractability.

As clarified in the literature review section in the first half, whether we consider responsibility, individualism versus collectivism, or anthropocentrism versus ecocentrism, these are complex issues that cannot be simply reduced to black and white distinctions. This is precisely why comparative research across different societies, examining relationships with multiple value frameworks rather than a single criterion, holds significant merit.

The survey and analytical methods appear to be appropriately designed and presented.

We greatly appreciate your positive comments on our study. Thank you. 

Comment 2. If there are areas for improvement, they would be in the presentation of results and the design of figures and tables, which are overly dry. The regression analysis tables could benefit from better explanation of how to interpret them.

Thank you for this suggestion. We added a few sentences to clarify the results of the regression analysis (pp. 16, 18).

Comment 3. Additionally, while Figure 1 is presented as a line graph, given its nature, I believe vertical or horizontal bar charts would be more appropriate (though this is merely my opinion, and I respect the research team's preference).

Indeed, we prefer a line graph. Thank you.

Comment 4. Another improvement concerns the first paragraph of the Discussion section. While it makes important points and the message is compelling, this content might be better moved to the Literature section. The Discussion section should ideally focus on insights derived from the current study's findings.

Thank you for pointing this. We moved this paragraph to the Literature section.

Comment 5. The Discussion section, particularly the three paragraphs on page 20 (relating to cultural values, ecological worldviews, and belief in intractability), presents extremely insightful analysis based on the study's results and truly represents the highlight of this paper.

Thank you. We really appreciate your positive comments. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for provinding me your interesting manuscript on climate change mitigation with an intercultural perspective which sounds innovative for this topic. The article is well written, the rationale behind it it's well explained and the methodology is coherent with the aims and scopes of the study. The topis fits perfectly with the journal and I believe that your research gives an important contribution for the scientific literature on climate change. All the best for your future work!

 

Author Response

Comment 1. Thank you for provinding me your interesting manuscript on climate change mitigation with an intercultural perspective which sounds innovative for this topic. The article is well written, the rationale behind it it's well explained and the methodology is coherent with the aims and scopes of the study. The topis fits perfectly with the journal and I believe that your research gives an important contribution for the scientific literature on climate change. All the best for your future work!

Thank you for your positive comments.