Review Reports - Effects of a Nomadic Lifestyle, Gender, and Education on Attitudes of Chinese People Towards Animal Welfare

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Introduction provides a comprehensive and relevant overview of the topic, particularly in relation to nomadism, cultural influences, and their potential connection to perceptions of animal welfare. The manuscript is clearly structured and benefits from the inclusion of diverse geographical and historical perspectives, which enrich the context of the study.

While the manuscript notes that research in this area is limited, the overall argument could be further strengthened by more clearly articulating the specific research gap. Providing a slightly more explicit statement of what remains unexplored in the literature (for example, the role of nomadic background in shaping attitudes toward animal welfare), supported by additional references, would help to further clarify the contribution of the study.
The cultural and historical framing of the topic is valuable and well developed. At the same time, the Introduction might benefit from a somewhat closer connection to established scientific frameworks in animal welfare. Integrating these perspectives could further enhance the positioning of the study within the broader field of animal welfare science.
The aim of the study is present, and with minor refinement it could be made even clearer. The final paragraph of the Introduction could be slightly revised to more explicitly outline the research objectives and, where appropriate, briefly indicate the main research questions or hypotheses.

Author Response

Below are the responses from the authors:

Reviewer 1

While the manuscript notes that research in this area is limited, the overall argument could be further strengthened by more clearly articulating the specific research gap. Providing a slightly more explicit statement of what remains unexplored in the literature (for example, the role of nomadic background in shaping attitudes toward animal welfare), supported by additional references, would help to further clarify the contribution of the study.

Authors’ response: We have amended the part of the introduction to more clearly articulate the research gaps and have made a more explicit statement about this section by adding references. (The specific revision is located on word line 57-72,127-147)

The cultural and historical framing of the topic is valuable and well developed. At the same time, the Introduction might benefit from a somewhat closer connection to established scientific frameworks in animal welfare. Integrating these perspectives could further enhance the positioning of the study within the broader field of animal welfare science.

Authors’ response: In the revised Introduction (after line 55), we have now incorporated the Five Freedoms and the Five Domains model. We have used these models as scientific benchmarks to contextualize how the transition from a nomadic to a settled lifestyle may shift public perceptions of welfare.

The aim of the study is present, and with minor refinement it could be made even clearer. The final paragraph of the Introduction could be slightly revised to more explicitly outline the research objectives and, where appropriate, briefly indicate the main research questions or hypotheses.

Authors’ response: As before, we have amended the part of the introduction to more clearly articulate the research gaps and research objectives, have made a more explicit statement about this section by adding references. (The specific revision is located on word line 57-72,135-153)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting paper and contributes to the scientific literature. It includes a thorough write up of the results - the discussion is particularly strong.

There were 1660 respondents - a short discussion regarding the sample size in relation to the estimated population would be useful.
Really enjoyed reading this paper; the motivations section felt original and added important perspective beyond attitudinal information.
The discussion section is strong and includes factors such as social expectation bias, social role theory etc especially relevant given the topic/nature of the study.
The subheadings in the discussion are not clear and are confusing - need to change the font/style
The discussion uses language carefully to differentiate between previous evidence-based findings and interpretation of the results of this study building on previous work.
Some of the questions in the survey do not really make sense in English. e.g., 10 - the question about if the participant has direct contact with animals having the options of 'well' etc.
Further research exploring behaviours and how they align/don't align with attitudes would be an interesting direction to take.

- Note I do not have sufficient expertise in stats to critically evaluate the stats elements of this paper.

Author Response

Below are the responses from the authors:

Reviewer 2

This is a very interesting paper and contributes to the scientific literature. It includes a thorough write up of the results - the discussion is particularly strong.

There were 1660 respondents - a short discussion regarding the sample size in relation to the estimated population would be useful.

Authors’ response: A brief discussion of the sample size requirements for national-level surveys and supporting references have been added to the first paragraph of the discussion section.(The specific revision is located on word line 422-426 )

Really enjoyed reading this paper; the motivations section felt original and added important perspective beyond attitudinal information.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your kind comments.

The discussion section is strong and includes factors such as social expectation bias, social role theory etc especially relevant given the topic/nature of the study.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your kind comments.

The subhe-adings in the discussion are not clear and are confusing - need to change the font/style

Authors’ response: The 4 subheadings of the discussion section have been changed to a clearer style

The discussion uses language carefully to differentiate between previous evidence-based findings and interpretation of the results of this study building on previous work.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your kind comments.

Some of the questions in the survey do not really make sense in English. e.g., 10 - the question about if the participant has direct contact with animals having the options of 'well' etc.

Authors’ response: The inappropriate wording in the English version has been corrected and replaced with an expression that is closer to the original meaning.

Further research exploring behaviours and how they align/don't align with attitudes would be an interesting direction to take.

Authors’ response: We have already added a direction of inquiry into the future based on your input in the last part of the discussion(The specific revision is located on word line 605-617)

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the biggest issu is that the text lacks a clearly defined research thesis.

the metodology of the study seemts to be prepared rationally and has proofed the discrepances in diferent gropus od comminuty - men vs. woman, nomadic vs non-nomadic etc, but what was it made for? what was to proof?

less important, but still: line5 50:

There is no such a thing such as <<“environmental"sustainability>>. Sustainability is so much more than environmetnal concept...

Tables lack source e.g. “own research”

However: The methodology is described in an exceptionally simple and accessible manner. I do appreciate the results described cleary - not only the hard data, but also clear explanation.

my doubt was: does the assumption of distributing the survey online not limit the study group exclusively to individuals who are not digitally excluded, thereby preventing the investigation of views among technologically marginalized nomadic populations?

but I found the answer in the "limitations" part (lines: 504-506), I'm glad with.

Author Response

Below are the responses from the authors:

Reviewer 3

the biggest issu is that the text lacks a clearly defined research thesis.

Authors’ response: We have amended the part of the introduction to more clearly articulate the research gaps and research objectives, and we have made a more explicit statement about this by adding references. (The specific revision is located on word line 57-72,135-153)

less important, but still: line5 50:

There is no such a thing such as <<“environmental"sustainability>>. Sustainability is so much more than environmetnal concept...

Authors’ response: We have modified this inaccurate concept where it was, using only the phrase “a sustainable system”(line 50)

Tables lack source e.g. “ research”

Authors’ response: The information in the tables is derived from the data analysis of the questionnaire itself, and there may be no need to add information such as ‘own research’.

However: The methodology is described in an exceptionally simple and accessible manner. I do appreciate the results described cleary - not only the hard data, but also clear explanation.

but I found the answer in the "limitations" part (lines: 504-506), I'm glad with.

Authors’ response: Glad that you found our answer acceptable.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting in-depth survey of attitudes towards animal welfare in interesting cross-sections of Chinese population.

The major focus is on the role of nomadic lifestyle, but there are issues with potential confounds of the measure of nomadism, some of which are not addressed. Although the term “nomadism” is described in the introduction (line 46 on) it is unclear how the nomadic connection for each respondent was determined. There appears to be no question specifically related to nomadic connections on the questionnaire in Appendix A1, yet such a question is described (lines 148-151) and Table 1 reports on the breakdown of nomadic connections in the survey sample. How was this defined for the respondents? It appears that it was just assumed that they would understand what was being asked, but nomadism is not a bimodal variable, different people or generations might exhibit varying degrees of nomadic lifestyle dependent on seasons, animals in their care or other variables.

A major issue in explaining the reportedly complex connection between nomadism and attitudes toward animal welfare is the fact that nomadism is likely correlated with other variables that are more clearly connected to such attitudes, including urban vs. other residence, age and education. It would be helpful, if not essential, to provide information cross-tabulating these variables with one another, or submitting the data to a multi-factorial analysis. It is likely that the non or distantly nomadic part of the group is also more likely to be urban and better educated.

As admitted by the authors, many of the questions related to animal welfare have clearly “socially acceptable” responses that might skew the results, and such skewing also likely impacted by age, gender, residence and education. For example, the high positive response to “Are you willing to pay a higher price for products from animals that have received better care (72.8%) is out of line with reports from real market surveys. The better question is something like “Do you often pay a higher price…”, which assesses actual behavior rather than opinion.

The detailed reporting of the survey results in Tables 3 and 4 should be made available as supplementary material or as an appendix, with the most statistically significant findings presented as text. The results are difficult to interpret in the present form, in part because column labels only appear at the top of the Table (page 9). Although there are some interesting results in the simple tabulation of results, as noted, the authors should explore using a factor analysis approach to try to assess the relative loading of nomadism as a factor influencing attitudes.

Some of the authors interpretations of the results are based on assumptions not clearly assessed in the survey. For example, the statement that respondents no longer engaged in nomadism “inherited the spiritual legacy of nomadic culture” (line 488), may have been true of some respondents but is seems a stretch to assert it for all.

Author Response

Below are the responses from the authors:

Reviewer 4

This is an interesting in-depth survey of attitudes towards animal welfare in interesting cross-sections of Chinese population.

Authors’ response: Sorry, it has been included in the Questionnaire now; we tested for differences in the various responses and this is explained in the results. We did indeed assume that the question would be understood, but accept that a variety of interpretations were possible. We have added this to the limitations section.

Authors’ response: Regarding factors, we used a single model for analysis and supplemented it with a Spearman Rank Correlation analysis. The results show that none of the correlations between pairs of factors are significant, except for one pair (Gender and Nomadic background) with a p-value<0.05. However, even for this pair, the correlation coefficient is extremely low (0.06), indicating a negligible relationship. The independence of each factor is therefore good

Authors’ response: We did not consider that recall would necessarily represent honest opinions, in just the same what that asking about intentions may also solicit the answer that the respondent considered to be most desired. However, the limitations section has been revised in accordance with the feedback, and the idea of incorporating a more scientific design as a future research method has been added.

Authors’ response: The tables in the manuscript have been revised to present the complete version.

Similar to the question above, regarding factors, we used a single model for analysis and supplemented it with performed a Spearman analysis. The results show that none of the correlations between pairs of factors are significant, except for one pair (Gender and Nomadic background) with a p-value=0.01. However, even for this pair, the correlation coefficient is extremely low (0.06), indicating a negligible relationship. The independence of each factor is good

Spearman
		Gender	Nomadic Lifestyle	Education
Gender	Rho	1.00	-0.061*	0.03
	Sig（TTT）	.	0.013	0.222
	N	1660	1660	1660
Nomadic Lifestyle	Rho	-.061*	1.00	0.033
	Sig（TTT）	0.013	.	0.181
	N	1660	1660	1660
Education	Rho	0.03	0.033	1.00
	Sig（TTT）	0.222	0.181	.
	N	1660	1660	1660

Authors’ response: We revised this expression in the original manuscript, replacing it with a more credible one. “Athough these respondents are no longer engaged in nomadism, the traditional nomadic cultural characteristics might have evolved into an underlying cultural logic that influences the relationship between humans and livestock.”

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The additional analysis of correlations between gender and education and nomadism and education help address those potential confounds. However there was no similar analysis of the possible confound of region type and nomadism. The authors seem to recognize this as a potential issue, noting (line 540) that the results "may not fully represent the true attitude of China's remote rural areas".

There are still concerns about the key variable of "nomadic lifestyle". It is clearly complex. It is not bi-valent, "yes or no" although almost 1/3 of respondents indicated "none" so that is one possible breakdown worthy of review as none vs. some. The remaining categories based on the closeness of relatives reportedly having a nomadic lifestyle may not clearly reflect the degree to which such connections have influenced the respondents' attitudes toward animals. Having a nomadic grandparent you never interacted with would have a very different impact compared with having one with whom you had a close relationship. A better or additional measure would have been to ask something like "How important was this individual in shaping your attitudes toward animals?"

Author Response

Below are the responses from the authors:

Reviewer 4

The additional analysis of correlations between gender and education and nomadism andeducation help address those potential confounds. However there was no similar analysisof the possible confound of region type and nomadism. The authors seem to recognizethis as a potential issue, noting (line 540) that the results "may not fully represent the trueattitude of China's remote rural areas".

Authors’ response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' insightful comments on the confounding factors between region and nomadism. We agree that geographical location typically influences participants' attitudes, and added Spearman tables near line 222 and in order to separate generational differences in nomadic cultures, we retained nomadic background as a key variable despite the strong correlation between the two. There are many factors likely to be correlated with nomadic relationships but we were not able to fully incorporate all of these into the model.

There are still concerns about the key variable of "nomadic lifestyle". It is clearly complex.It is not bi-valent, "yes or no" although almost 1/3 of respondents indicated "none" so thatis one possible breakdown worthy of review as none vs. some. The remaining categoriesbased on the closeness of relatives reportedly having a nomadic lifestyle may not clearlyreflect the degree to which such connections have influenced the respondents' attitudestoward animals. Having a nomadic grandparent you never interacted with would have avery different impact compared with having one with whom you had a close relationship. Abetter or additional measure would have been to ask something like "How important wasthis individual in shaping your attitudes toward animals?"

Authors’ response: Regarding key variables, the intention of the question was to confirm an intergenerational difference that could be precisely quantified. We concur that the influence of relatives on participants' attitudes is indeed moderated by the depth of their interactions, yet within the context of traditional Chinese culture, family values inherited through indirect kinship often serve as the primary carrier of cultural identity. The analysis we did separated out the various posited connections to nomadic relatives, with options great-grandparents or earlier, grandparents, parents and self or same generation. This was necessary as the responses were clearly different for earlier generations than the current generation. grouping all relatives as 'some' would not allow such differentiation. We had tried various options, including combining nomadic relationships with ethnicity, but the results were not clear. Therefore, we revised the study limitations statement in the discussion section and will include a follow-up question about how important the person is in shaping their attitudes, integrating subjective measurement questions through precise wording to explore the phenomenon in depth in a future study.（line578-584）