Preventing the Separation of Urban Humans from Nature: The Impact of Pet and Plant Diversity on Biodiversity Loss Belief

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for allowing me to give feedback on this interesting study. This is a very well written study, with a clear theoretical framework. The authors do touch upon the area of nature connection and disconnection, with the following references perhaps being of value:

Barrable, A., & Booth, D. (2022). Disconnected: What Can We Learn from Individuals with Very Low Nature Connection?. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(13), 8021.

Samus, A., Freeman, C., Dickinson, K. J., & Van Heezik, Y. (2022). Relationships between nature connectedness, biodiversity of private gardens, and mental well-being during the Covid-19 lockdown. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 69, 127519.

The 4 hypotheses were very clearly stated, the data were accessible in the open data repository and the priors and operetionalisation were very explicit. The analysis was shared clearly and comprehensively. 

Overall this is a very interesting study. I have some concerns about the variable of 'comfortability' or 'comfort' and how this fits into the overall framework. The authors suggest that this may be related to nature connection or biophilia, but this needs further clarification.  

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive comments! Please see our responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your manuscript. I believe it reads very well, is highly relevant for the field, and presented in a well-structured manner.

You have used the mindsponge theory and the statistical advantages of Bayesian inference to examine whether pet and plant diversity can improve the probability of biodiversity loss belief among urban residents. Your results show that if the respondents feel comfortable at home, a higher diversity level of pets is associated with a higher likelihood of obtaining the belief that biodiversity loss is a major problem, which is the opposite when the respondents feel uncomfortable at home. You conclude that plant diversity has a positive impact on biodiversity loss belief regardless of the level of comfort in the respondents’ home, and that the impact of plant diversity on biodiversity loss belief is greater among respondents feeling uncomfortable than those who feel comfortable. Lastly, you propose that increasing residential biodiversity can raise urban residents' awareness of the occurrence and significance of biodiversity loss.

This is a very timely and policy relevant topic. I commend you for using ‘new’ methods to investigate and combine topics, which has been investigated before - i.e. plant and animal biodiversity, wellbeing, and the novel link to house plants/pets and biodiversity loss belief.

The particular strengths of your study is this new approach to addressing topics, which has been investigated in many different ways over the years, but are still very much relevant and timely.

I have very few comments:

Your writing is generally clear and concise all the way through. You explain everything very well and your figures/tables clearly illustrates your approach and results.

You do describe in the methods what you mean by ‘…the residents’ comfortable feeling…’ and you explain well why it is important in this context. However, it is not clear to me if the participants received any of this information before answering the questions. If I had not read your explanation in your methods, I do not think I would have understood (and answered) the question in the intended way. If further explanation was not given to the participants, I believe this could be a significant limitation that needs to be mentioned so it can be addressed in future studies.

You discuss your findings and contextualise them very well.

Overall, a very well written and interesting manuscript.

I wish you good luck with the publication of you manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive comments! Please see our responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is well and clearly written and discussed, so a series of language corrections by a native speaker can be published in the journal.

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive comments! Please see our responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Congratulations to all the authors on their article. It is clear that considerable effort has been expended on producing this article, for which there are a number of suggestions to help the authors achieve appropriate presentation of their work more successfully.

The following observations are provided as constructive feedback and guidance on the article submitted for review:

1.       The research questions are easily identifiable, clear and unambiguous, with suitable background during the introduction section.

2     The topic, in the context provided, is original and provides insight to whether Vietnamese urban residents’ access to the diversity of in-house animals and plants is associated with their belief in biodiversity loss and whether the associations between urban residents’ access to in-house biodiversity and belief in biodiversity loss are moderated by their feeling of comfortability when being in the house. It will be interesting to see if other researchers use this study as a basis for comparison in other countries.

3.       What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding each section?

a.       In each section caution is advised when using emotive and powerful influential terms.  Please try to avoid using loaded words (words which prejudice the reader) as these can be considered out of place in a research paper when formulating evidence-based robust arguments. Suggestions for reconsidering words used include, but are not limited to the following:

                                                               i.      Line 43 remove ‘momentously’ as unnecessary

                                                             ii.      ‘flooding immigrants’ lines 44-45 – suitable alternative may be as basic as ‘increase of immigrants’

                                                           iii.       ‘Mounting’ line 58 – use of the word ‘Increasing’ would be an appropriate term – adding one or more citations to this sentence to support this assertion would make the argument more persuasive.

                                                           iv.      ‘swamped’ line 79 – more formal words might be ‘overwhelmed’ or ‘inundated’, but still leading terms for which the sentence has no evidence, therefore suggest something less dramatic but similar: ‘ … the internet was active with increased engagement on the criticism of the report’s results …’

b.       Please avoid clichés; a cliché is a phrase which has become repeated too often to be effective and detracts from academic rigour.  For example, what do the writers mean by ‘given 16 birth to the rise of climate and biodiversity denialists’ in lines 16 and 17? Try to use suitable language that avoids informal and potentially confusing language where meaning may not translate readily into other languages. There is nothing wrong with clear and basic language, for example, consider this suggestion as an alternative: This separation appears to have created an increase in the numbers of climate and biodiversity denialists, confronting global efforts to prevent environmental degradation and addressing environmental issues they could contribute to resolving.

c.       Thorough proof read required in final version e.g. line 69 has ‘Parris’

4.       The methodology is presented clearly with suitable, robust justification. The authors have clearly identified the limitations to the study indicating transparency in data collection and analysis. The robustness to data collection and removal of erroneous responses further encourages trust in the quality of the data collected.

5.       Deductions and discussion based on the extensive evidence presented are sufficiently robust and evaluated therefore no suggestions for changes in these parts of the article.

6.       Suggest section 3 renamed Results and Discussion and Section 4 Conclusion. At the moment it appears that these sections, when reading content, need to be renamed to align with content. The  conclusions align with the evidence and arguments presented within the article. The research questions are clearly answered.

7.       The references re sufficient with the exception of one suggestion to support an assertion, otherwise relevant and appropriate.

8.       The tables and figures all appear to be correctly numerated, titled and legible.

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive comments! Please see our responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf