Barriers to Enduring Pro-Environmental Habits among Urban Residents

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, I would like to thank the opportunity of reviewing the paper entitled "Barriers to Enduring Pro-environmental Habits among Urban Residents” for Applied Sciences.

Here are my comments and suggestions about the article:

(a) This is a very interesting and relevant study, with an original topic.

(b) The abstract should be rewritten so that it sounds more scientific.

(c) The scientific relevance of the study is not stated (What is the gap in the literature that is addressed by this study?)

(d) Have the authors considered the theoretical framework or any theories when conducting the research?

(e) There is no discussion on the novelty that the study would like to add in the literature.

(f) Also, I believe the paper would benefit from an English language review by a native English speaker.

Author Response

1. This is a very interesting and relevant study, with an original topic.
   Author's Response: Thank you for your appreciation
2. The abstract should be rewritten so that it sounds more scientific.
   Author’s Response: Abstract is revised as suggested.
3. The scientific relevance of the study is not stated (What is the gap in the literature that is addressed by this study?)
   Author’s Response: literature is updated and revised accordingly.
4. Have the authors considered the theoretical framework or any theories when conducting the research?
   Author’s Response: Discussed in section 4. Theoretical Discussion on page 5.
5. There is no discussion on the novelty that the study would like to add in the literature.
   Author’s Response: Discussed in section 6. Practical and theoretical Implications of Findings on page 13.
6. Also, I believe the paper would benefit from an English language review by a native English speaker.
   Author’s Response: Careful proofreading was done.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the respected editor for this great opportunity. 

My Comments:

The topic is interesting and the authors covered the topic comprehensively. My detailed but minor comments are:

*The introduction section is well-argued. How authors should re-write the contribution of the study. I recommend the authors see the following paper to this end.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X221137567

*Authors should update the literature. See the following articles and cite them.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121756

https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211061580

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19095-0

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21427-z

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126035

*The methodology section is sound. 

*The results are well explained. 

*The conclusion should be enriched by including results-based recommendations. 

*I can see several typo errors. 

 

Author Response

1. The introduction section is well-argued. How authors should re-write the contribution of the study. I recommend the authors see the following paper to this end.
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X221137567
   Authors should update the literature. See the following articles and cite them.
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121756
   https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211061580
   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19095-0
   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21427-z
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126035
   Author’s Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have updated the literature review and acknowledged the suggested studies.
2. The methodology section is sound.
   Author's Response: Thank you for the appreciation
3. The results are well explained. 
   Author's Response: Thank you for the appreciation
4. The conclusion should be enriched by including results-based recommendations.
   Author's Response: Incorporated as suggested.
5. I can see several typo errors. 
   Author’s Response: Careful proofreading was done.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for the revision.

The article has become more reader-friendly in its current form.

Congratulations!