The Relationship between Environmental Awareness, Habitat Quality, and Community Residents’ Pro-Environmental Behavior—Mediated Effects Model Analysis Based on Social Capital

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Based on the micro-research data obtained by questionnaire, this paper analyzes the influence of environmental awareness and habitat quality on community residents' pro-environmental behavior through structural equation model and Bootstrap method, and verifies the intermediary role of social capital in it. The theme of the article is relatively novel and has practical value, the logic is clear, the method is reasonable, and the conclusion is reliable to a certain extent. It is recommended that the article be published after revision. The following suggestions are for reference:

1. The introduction part of the problem orientation is not very clear, what is the core problem to be solved? It needs to be further explained.

2. The literature review part does not specify the difference between this article and the existing literature, and it is suggested to summarize the current research situation of the research topic at home and abroad.

3. It is suggested to refine the research hypothesis in section 2.2 (theoretical hypothesis and analysis) and put forward the research hypothesis clearly.

4. Table 6 of the recommendation lists the research results in the order of research hypotheses and empirical content analysis.

5. An asterisk (*) appears in the comments at the bottom of Table 7, but there is nothing about it in the table.

6. The expression of the empirical analysis of section 4.2 (structural equation model test) is too simple and can be changed slightly.

7. The essence of the content analyzed in Section 5.2 (discussion) is the enlightenment of the policy, and it is suggested to discuss the relevance, importance and significance of the main results, as well as the limitations and prospects of the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper isn’t ready for publish. It looks more like a report, not a research paper. The writing needs improvements. Extensive language editing is also needed. Specific comments are as follows. 

[1] In line 5 “social capitall”, what is it?

[2] The title doesn’t look good. I don’t think “Research on” is needed.

[3] In the Abstract, I don’t think it is good to list the results with “① ② ③”.

[4] Which community or what country is in this analysis?

[5] In line 61 “by domestic scholars”, what country? I think the region should be included in the title or Keywords.

[6] In line 66 “with a view to providing useful guidance and policy recommendations for…”, this sentence is not needed here. The aim of each research article is to provide useful guidance and policy recommendations.

[7] The introduction doesn’t show the research question and the configuration of this paper.

[8] In line 70-155 “Concept definition”, this section is too long and looks like a textbook. Why does “① ② ③…” appear so many times? Can these be summarized or shown in a figure?

[9] In line 281, center the figure title.

[10] In line 282 “Study design”, I think “Data and Methodology” is better.

[11] I line 283, delete “Research”.

[12] Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 weren’t mentioned in the text.

[13] In line 317-344, I think “3.3 Study area” can be combined with “3.4 Data Acquisition”. It is the region where the data comes from.

[14] In line 325 “3.4 Data Acquisition”, “A” should be “a”. Keep the same format with other section titles.

[15] Center all table titles.

[16] In line 378 and 575, Section 4.2 and 5.1 have the same title.

[17] In line 613 “5.2 Discussion”, this section looks like recommendations or suggestions, not discussions.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I don’t think this paper is ready for publication although it is the second review. It looks like the authors are trying for publishing the paper as soon as possible rather than improving the writing quality of this paper. Same mistakes appear again in the revised version. The quality of this paper remains low.

[1] In line 95-315, I don’t think this section looks good. Either separate literature review and research hypothesis as two sections, or move research hypothesis to section 3 “Data and methodology”. Delete “2.1 Concept definition” and “Connotation” in each section titles.

[2] In line 379, delete “analysis of” in section title.

[3] In line 417, 442, 465, 483 and 497, delete “Path analysis”.

[4] In line 528, delete “Analysis of”.

[5] In line 380 and 410, section 4.1 and 4.2 have the same title. Same tiles for two sections have happened again. What’s going on? Are authors serious in writing?

[6] In line 607 “5.1 The results of structural equation model testing”, I think section 4.2 looks like the results for empirical test. Therefore, section 5.1 should be the conclusion of this paper, not results again.

[7] In line 697 “Due to the limitation of time space and research groups…”, I don’t think this paper is ready for publication if there are so many limitations. And the quality for this paper doesn’t look good although it is the revised version. I suggest the authors to spend more time for the research and make more improvements in writing quality.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf