Empowering Older Migrants: Co-Designing Climate Communication with Chinese Seniors in the UK

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

Using co-design workshops, Empowering Older Migrants: Co-Designing Climate Communication with Chinese Seniors in the UK aims to understand how older Chinese migrants in London engage in sustainable and low-carbon behaviours and their understanding of this. It focuses on their role and what potential they have for climate action, offering practical communication advice. Older people generally are an under-researched group within climate communication, therefore exploring this topic area with older Chinese migrants offers new and useful insights.

I enjoyed reading and reviewing this interesting paper. I thought it was well structured and clear, and addresses an ongoing gap in the literature about older people and climate communication. The figures and tables throughout are clear and help to provide essential information. I have put my comments for each section below, along with a few very minor changes.

 

Introduction:

The introduction is clear and succinct, introducing the topic area and rationale for focusing on this. The aims and theory used are also clear and understandable.

 

Research background:

I think this literature review provides a good overview of climate communication and engagement generally, as well as specific engagement with migrants around environmental actions. It generally does a good job of linking the literature back to the group that is being focused on for the paper, providing a strong rationale for why this research is needed. It is helpful to see the examples of international environmental engagement and a model of engagement (CBPR) that is particularly useful when working with migrant populations. The theoretical framework chosen is clearly explained and appropriate for the group in focus. The cited references are relevant and many are recent.

 

Methods:

The recruitment and workshop procedure were well thought out and tailored for this particular group of participants, and it is good to see this was refined further after the pilot study. The workshop structure is detailed, justifying why each activity took place and is appropriate for the aims of the research. The description of the methods and approach to analysis in this section is clear and easy to follow. The sample size is small but does target a specific group of older people and therefore it is understandable that the sample size is not slightly bigger.

Could you please briefly justify why London was chosen as the location for the workshops? Is this because there are a lot of older Chinese migrants in London compared to other locations in the UK, or due to practical reasons, or something else?

 

Results:

I found the results easy to follow. It was helpful to have key insights within each sub-section, and the quotes were helpful in providing detail and context. I liked how practical the results were, particularly in offering insights about different communication channels.

 

Discussion:

The first sentence says “UK-based Chinese communities” which is a little misleading as it sounds like it was broad, but you only undertook the research in London. Please change “UK” to “London”.

The results are clearly linked back to literature and comments made on how the results differ from the general older population. The suggestions for future work are practical and clear, and the conclusions are consistent with the research results. The ethics statement and data availability statement are adequate.

Please add a colon or full stop at the end of the title of each research limitation.

 

Line-specific comments:

There are a few minor errors that I spotted.

Line 30: Full stop missing at the end of sentence (after citation number 9).

Line 77: Missing citation at the end of the line

Lines 75 and 81: Needs a space after the full stop

Line 83: Remove double space after the full stop

Line 366: Remove double space after the full stop

Line 570: The comma should be at the end of the previous line

Line 639: Comma needs a space afterwards

Line 671: Should (e.g., Berry, 1997) be removed given the numbered citation [25] is already there?

Line 693: Sub-title of section is missing an ‘e’ from ‘Literature’

Line 713: Shouldn’t this be “In our workshops” ? Also remove double space before the start of this sentence.

Line 721: Shouldn’t this be “our findings”?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript, "Empowering Older Migrants: Co-Designing Climate Communication with Chinese Seniors in the UK." We sincerely appreciate your time and insights, which have greatly helped us improve the clarity, precision, and overall quality of the paper.

Below, we provide a detailed response to each of your comments. All changes have been made in the revised manuscript, and we believe they have strengthened the overall presentation of the study.

 

Methods – Justification for London as Research Site

“Could you please briefly justify why London was chosen as the location for the workshops?”

 Response:
We have added a sentence to clarify this in the methodology section:

“London was chosen due to its high concentration of older Chinese migrant populations and the well-established Chinese community organisations that facilitated access and recruitment. ”

 

In London, there are more than six Chinese organizations. I visited these organizations. They are distributed in the central, eastern, northern and western parts of London. During traditional festivals such as the Spring Festival every year, these organizations hold parties of a certain scale. Moreover, each Chinese association has a continuous stream of members joining, which means that each organization has a rich population structure.

 

Discussion – Reference to “UK-based communities”

“Please change ‘UK’ to ‘London’ to reflect the study’s scope more accurately.”

Response:
We have revised this sentence to:

“This chapter, through co-design workshops conducted with older Chinese migrants in London-based Chinese communities...”

 

 

 Research Limitations – Add punctuation to subheadings

“Please add a colon or full stop at the end of the title of each research limitation.”

Response:
Colons have been added to all subheadings in the limitations section:

• Sample Representativeness:
• Socio-Demographic Variation:
• Language and Accessibility Constraints:

 

Minor Line-Edits

Line 30: Full stop missing at the end of sentence (after citation number 9).
Added

Line 75 and 81: Needs a space after the full stop
Fixed

Line 83 & 366: Remove double space after the full stop
Fixed

Line 570: The comma should be at the end of the previous line
Adjusted

Line 639: Comma needs a space afterwards
Adjusted

Line 671: Should (e.g., Berry, 1997) be removed given the numbered citation [25] is already there?
Removed duplicate citation

Line 693: Sub-title of section is missing an ‘e’ from ‘Literature’
Corrected to “Literature”

Line 713: Shouldn’t this be “In our workshops” ? Also remove double space before the start of this sentence.
Edited to “In our workshops...” and fixed spacing

Line 721: Shouldn’t this be “our findings”?
Revised to “our findings”

 

 

Once again, thank you for your helpful and supportive review. We hope the revised version addresses your suggestions satisfactorily.

Kind regards,
Qing Ni

Brunel University of London
On behalf of all co-authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The study addressed a significant gap in climate change communication research by focusing on older Chinese Seniors which are often times neglected. however, the focus on participants from only two community organizations in London may not fully represent the views of diversity of older Chinese seniors in the UK and globally.
2. The use of co-design workshops as the research design for the study is very apt as it granted the participants a active involvement in the research procedure. however, conducting only two sessions of the workshop with only 13 participants reduces the generalizability of the findings of the research. Consider increasing the number of sessions by involving other community organizations
3. In any case, a mixed method or a triangulation of methods of qualitative and quantitative approaches could strengthen the study. 
4. some tables and figures are poorly formatted with repeated headers and inconsistent alignments

5. Some write ups seems misplaces or redundant such as the repeated sentence structure in the discussion section

6. The discussion was not conducted in line with the research questions raised. At least not completely. 
7. Other comments are contained in the attached reviewed paper. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive feedback. We appreciate the detailed comments, which have significantly helped to improve the clarity, rigor, and impact of our manuscript. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each of the reviewer’s suggestions, with corresponding revisions made in the manuscript.

 

1. Participant Population and Justification

Reviewer Comment:
“Specifically mention the population of the study and its justification.”

Response:
Thank you for this important point. We have revised the “Participant Recruitment” section to explicitly justify the choice of study population. London was selected due to its large concentration of older Chinese migrants and its established infrastructure of Chinese community organisations. Additionally, the selected organisations—North London Chinese Association and the London Mandarin Evangelical Church—were chosen because they each represent demographically distinct subgroups of the community. The former reaches a wide population through annual cultural events and online platforms, while the latter, based in central London, includes members from a variety of regional and social backgrounds.

 

2. Sample Size and Selection Rationale

Reviewer Comment:
“Specifically mention the sample size and how it was arrived at.”

Response:
We have clarified in the “Sampling Strategy” section that a purposive sampling approach was used to recruit 6–8 participants per workshop, allowing for meaningful engagement while ensuring diversity of perspectives. A total of 13 participants were included. We added a new paragraph under “Data Saturation” to explain that data collected in the first workshop already revealed substantial thematic richness, and the second session largely confirmed these themes—demonstrating a level of saturation typical in qualitative research with targeted subgroups.

 

3. Limited Number of Workshops / Community Diversity

Reviewer Comment:
“Conducting only two sessions of the workshop with only 13 participants reduces the generalizability of the findings of the research. Consider increasing the number of sessions by involving other community organizations.”

Response:
We acknowledge this limitation and have addressed it more explicitly in the “Research Limitations” section. While the sample size limits generalizability, we argue that the two workshops revealed sufficient thematic diversity, supported by the demographic variation among participants (e.g., education, occupation, migration pathways). We also added a forward-looking statement recommending future studies include more regional and dialect groups to enhance coverage.

 

4. Recommendation for Mixed Methods

Reviewer Comment:
“A mixed method or triangulation of qualitative and quantitative approaches could strengthen the study.”

Response:
We agree. This point has been incorporated into the “Future Research” section, where we now explicitly recommend the inclusion of mixed-method or longitudinal ethnographic approaches to enrich understanding of behavioural patterns and long-term impact of climate interventions among migrant seniors.

 

5. Formatting Issues in Tables and Figures

Reviewer Comment:
“Some tables and figures are poorly formatted with repeated headers and inconsistent alignments.”

Response:
We appreciate the observation. The figures have been reviewed and revised. Where headers were repeated (intended as part of sub-section explanations), we adjusted the formatting to clearly distinguish between title and annotation.

 

6. Repetition and Redundancy in Discussion Section

Reviewer Comment:
“Some write-ups seem misplaced or redundant such as the repeated sentence structure in the discussion section.”

Response:
We have edited the Discussion section. The content was reorganised to align more clearly with the three research questions. The revised Discussion now opens with a direct mapping to RQ1–RQ3.

 

7. Link Between Research Questions and Discussion

Reviewer Comment:
“The discussion was not conducted in line with the research questions raised. At least not completely.”

Response:
We have restructured the Discussion section to explicitly align with the research questions (RQ1–RQ3). Each thematic sub-section now begins by restating the research question and summarizing the relevant findings. This ensures a clear logical flow and improves coherence between the study’s aims, results, and interpretation.

 

8. Double-Barrel Question in RQ3

Reviewer Comment:
“This is double barrel. Information channel and content format should be separated and treated differently.”

Response:
We appreciate this observation and have now split the original RQ3 into two separate research questions for clarity:

• RQ3a: What information channels do older Chinese migrants use to engage with climate-related content?
• RQ3b: Which content formats do they trust and prefer?

This revision is reflected in both the Methods and Discussion sections. Corresponding findings are discussed separately under distinct subheadings: “Information Channels” and “Content Preferences.”

 

We hope these revisions address the reviewer’s concerns. Once again, thank you for the insightful feedback that helped strengthen the manuscript both conceptually and structurally.

Sincerely,
Qing Ni

Brunel University of London
On behalf of all authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a timely and original contribution to the intersection of ageing, migration, and climate change communication. By focusing on older Chinese migrants in the UK—a highly underrepresented population in both climate policy and ageing research—the study fills a significant gap and offers nuanced, culturally grounded insights. I highly appreciate the participatory co-design methodology that enhances both empirical depth and ethical engagement, empowering older migrants not just as subjects, but as co-creators of knowledge. In general, the article addresses a clear gap in the literature on ageing, migration, and sustainability and offers practical implications for culturally tailored climate communication strategies.

However, before recommending for publication, I wish the article can further discuss the following aspects:

First, in this study, cultural values such as thrift, collectivism, filial piety, and intergenerational duty were central in understanding participants’ sustainability behaviors. But is there any difference between Chinese (eastern) seniors and Westerners, or between immigrants and native citizens? 

Similarly, the East-West Comparison on Social Responsibility was not addressed in a comparative framework. The study did not compare Chinese seniors' values with Western seniors’ roles or intergenerational duties. Neither did it explicitly contrast Eastern collectivist norms (e.g., Confucian family roles) with Western individualism. 

While the above requests might be excessive suggestions, I think it can be particularly important, as more and more studies found Chinese people's climate action is often nationalism-driven. Then, in a context outside Chinese, are they still be driven by this unique sociocultural values? I would be happy to see the authors reexamine their data to reach some relevant findings. 

There are also some technical suggestions:

1. The distinction between intentional climate engagement vs. practiced sustainability could be further theorized.
2. Consider tightening some overly detailed sections in the Methods and Results, particularly repetitive workshop process descriptions.
3. The term “culturally sensitive” is used frequently—consider specifying whether it refers to communication content, channel, or design process in each instance.
4. Include more detail or critical reflection on data limitations—for example, how power dynamics, language comfort, or social desirability may have shaped participant responses.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and encouraging feedback on our manuscript. We are especially grateful for your recognition of the study’s originality, empirical depth, and participatory approach. Below, we respond point-by-point to your constructive suggestions and outline the corresponding revisions made to the manuscript.

 

Comment 1: Cultural values such as thrift, collectivism, filial piety, and intergenerational duty were central—can the authors compare Chinese (eastern) seniors and Westerners, or migrants and native citizens?

Response:
Thank you for this insightful suggestion. While our study focuses specifically on older Chinese migrants and does not include a Western comparison group, we have now added a new paragraph in the Discussion section titled "Cultural Framing of Climate Motivation ". This paragraph situates our findings within broader literature on ageing, cultural values, and family dynamics, and explicitly contrasts Eastern collectivist values (e.g., filial piety, intergenerational duty) with Western norms of autonomy and individualism. We also highlight the need for future cross-cultural studies to further examine these contrasts in the context of climate engagement (p. 600).

 

Comment 2: Nationalism vs. personal motivation—are participants still driven by culturally specific values in the diaspora context, or does nationalism play a role as it often does in studies based in China?

Response:
This is an excellent observation. We have now addressed this point directly in a new subsection titled "Cultural Framing of Climate Motivation". As noted in the revised manuscript (p. 600), our participants rarely referenced national or state-aligned discourses when discussing sustainability. Instead, motivations were framed through personal habit, family responsibility, or health-related values. This finding contrasts with research in mainland China where nationalism or state messaging often plays a stronger role. We believe this distinction underscores the importance of context—diaspora communities may be shaped more by everyday lived experience than national campaigns.

 

Comment 3: The distinction between intentional vs. practiced (unintentional) sustainability could be theorized further.

Response:
Thank you—we agree that this is an important conceptual distinction. We have now added a subsection titled "Unintentional vs. Intentional Sustainability" in the Discussion section (p. 706). This passage explores how older migrants may engage in climate-positive behaviours out of habit or economic prudence, even when not explicitly motivated by environmental concern. We draw on this theme to suggest that future communication efforts should acknowledge such culturally embedded practices rather than rely solely on overt environmental messaging.

 

Comment 4: Tighten overly detailed sections in the Methods and Results, particularly the repetitive workshop process descriptions.

Response:
We appreciate this suggestion. In response, we carefully revised the Methods section to streamline repetitive descriptions of the workshop structure. We removed redundant explanations, merged overlapping content, and shifted detailed procedural justifications to tables or appendices where appropriate. This has improved clarity while preserving transparency.

 

Comment 5: The term “culturally sensitive” is used frequently—please specify whether it refers to communication content, channel, or process.

Response:
Thank you for flagging this. We have now revised the manuscript to clarify our use of “culturally sensitive” throughout. Where relevant, we now explicitly distinguish between:

 

• The findings emphasise the necessity of inclusive and peer-led communication strategies that are attuned to older migrants’ linguistic preferences, media habits, and cultural values—underscoring their significant but often overlooked potential to meaningfully contribute to climate action. (p. 12)
• By addressing these questions, the study aims to illuminate the under-recognised role and potential of older Chinese migrants in climate action, identifying both the barriers to their participation and strategies for effectively engaging them. The findings offer practical guidance for designers, policymakers, and community stakeholders in developing more inclusive communication strategies that reflect participants’ language preferences, media use, and cultural values.(p. 64)

 

Comment 6: Please include more critical reflection on data limitations (e.g., language comfort, group politeness, social desirability).

Response:
We agree and have expanded our Research Limitations section (p. 762) to include a third limitation titled "Cultural and Linguistic Constraints". This section addresses how participants’ language abilities, dialect variation, and cultural norms (e.g., group politeness, reluctance to critique) may have influenced their engagement during the workshops. We also reflect on how these dynamics may have shaped the data collected.

 

We hope these revisions address the reviewer’s concerns. Once again, thank you for the insightful feedback that helped strengthen the manuscript both conceptually and structurally.

Sincerely,
Qing Ni

Brunel University of London
On behalf of all authors