The Interrelationship between Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Subjective Well-Being: The Case of Central and Eastern European Countries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript describes a quantitative study investigating relations of pro-environmental attitudes and subjective well-being, adopting data from European Social Survey among six Central and Eastern European countries. Given the emerging studies suggesting evidence of the positive correlation of pro-environmental attitudes and higher level of well-being, this study comes as a timely contribution to this existing collection of studies. There are good efforts from the authors in the discussion of the current findings, with a depth benefited from illustrative comparisons with relevant literature and studies conducted by various research groups. Discussion on future work directions is also indicative and expected to provide further insights regarding the important aspects in achieving a sustainable environment including sustainable health, happiness and surging green initiatives. I am in support of the current study and would suggest the following for further consideration.

1.

Ln 25-26: for the keywords, considering the current content and focus of the study, I would suggest the main items analyzed such as “pro-environmental attitudes” should also be included.

2.

Ln 269-272: the reasons or the selection of the six countries in this study are not explicit and clearly written. I suggest more details can be supplemented specifically, and can further consider adding perhaps a table showing the comparison of some key demographics or characteristics, as mentioned in the paragraph for “a comparable economic structure and development”, for clear illustration of the inclusion criteria. Or if there are restrictions in the selection, the authors should consider mentioning the details.

3.

Please check, including the sampling of data, methods, and statistical analysis performed, any triangulation basis / multiplicity to address the research questions, are there any limitations or bias in addition to those mentioned in Ln 341-345, and also those in ln 547-553.

4.

Are there any perspectives on the difference observed for Czechia and Slovenia as mentioned in ln 381-387? Is there any significance in the observation? In addition, would there be further details for the explanation on the result with exception in round 4 (ln 487).

5.

While I appreciate the sharing of future work (ln 554) regarding a comparative study with Western Europe, would there be any perspectives or insights gained for future studies or possible work required in the Asian contexts in relation to the current study.

6.

I suggest not to rounding up this study in the conclusion with the listed items in the current format (ln 559-582). Also, proofreading and some editing are suggested, e.g. ln 123-124: the current sentence needs to be revised, the sentence is broken after the phrase “…revealed that students from green schools reported about more cases of.”

Thank you for considering the comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we appreciate Your comments and responded to all of them. We hope it will be valuable for future research as well.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I find your research on the interrelationship between pro-environmental attitudes and subjective well-being with a focus on Central and Eastern European countries intriguing and current, directly linked to sustainability. However, to enhance the comprehensiveness and publishability of your paper, I recommend several adjustments:

1.      The main issue refers to the analysis itself, which is quite hard to follow (more countries, more rounds, various numbers). I observed that you tried to have a kind of a summary overview in table 3 an kept the data for appendices; however, I am not convinced that this is a good idea, since it is not only the sign that matters. In quite many cases the signs come from a number very close to zero, therefore they do not really lead to the interpretation we have only by looking at signs. I do not not know exactly what to suggest in terms of presenting data, yet clearly a change is needed. Moreover, results of R squared in appendix have quite low values (mostly below 0.1)!

2.      I suggest exploring more in the literature review the relationship from the opposite direction and avoiding statements such as 'although there is no clear explanation,' as mentioned in line 148. From my perspective, the reverse causality can be better understood. It's not just that exhibiting greener behavior leads to feeling better; it could also be that feeling better prompts individuals to adopt greener attitudes. Conversely, when feeling low, individuals may not prioritize such behaviors.

3.      Starting from the previous point, I believe the analysis would be more suitable as correlations rather than regression. While the results may be similar, they would not imply causality, which, in my opinion, aligns better with the paper's objectives (your three hypotheses do not mention anything about a causality, so it is not needed). Alternatively, if you opt to retain the focus on causality, I suggest providing further clarification on why this direction was chosen in your research. Elaborating on the rationale behind prioritizing causality would enhance the clarity and coherence of your analysis.

4.      I am not entirely convinced that the questions this study aims to address (lines 50-53) are accurately articulated, particularly the first one (regarding the link depending on the level of economic development of the country), as you stated in the text that the countries are comparable. I think the research questions should better reflect your own focus.

5.      Why have you used some of the constructs as variables and you mentioned others are dimensions? Aren’t they all variables (Figure 1)? Please review the measurement approach used for each construct (SWI, ECI, CCCI, orientation towards materialistic values, household’s total net income) to ensure that they are appropriately operationalized as variables rather than dimensions, since you use them all in your analysis in the same way.

6.      I suggest streamlining the methodological section, particularly in the explanations provided for Cronbach’s alpha and the multiple regression model. These details, resembling a classroom lecture, may not be necessary for your audience, as most researchers are familiar with these concepts and rely on software for calculations. Simplifying this section could enhance the readability and focus of your paper.

7.      Please develop more the limitations of your study and areas of further research (more ideas).

8.      Conclusions do not need to be numbered (although this is not a mistake). Anyway, they could be developed.

9.      Also, another formal and minor issue is related to your text in general. For example:

a.       Line 123 – a full stop and then starting a new paragraph (typing mistake);

b.      The term "approved" is not typically used in the context of hypotheses. Instead, you would generally say that a hypothesis is "supported" or "confirmed" if the evidence from the study aligns with the hypothesis;

c.      The graphs in the appendix appear to have readability issues, with text occasionally obscured by red lines. It would be beneficial to enhance the visual presentation for better clarity and readability.I hope my suggestions will help you refine your paper, making it more appealing to a wider audience.

Good luck with your work!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate Your comments and responded to all of them. We hope they will be valuable for future research as well. Thank You!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

As mentioned by you in the coverletter, I could see big improvements in your work; indeed, you took into account all the ideas, within the framework of our defined research aim. In this second round of review, I have only two minor comments:

·       Regarding the response to my seventh comment in round 1: “We substantiated more limitations and areas of further research – this is seen in 2.3. Data part and at the end of Discussion’s part.” – I would suggest consolidating all these points at the end of the Discussion section rather than scattering them throughout the text (lines 359-367 could be moved, and, furthermore, consider expanding on these points with more elaborate explanations, avoiding numbering to maintain consistency with the rest of the discussion). While I understand the rationale behind their placement in the methodology section due to their close ties, integrating them into the discussion would enhance coherence. Prior to presenting the results, consider elaborating on the reasons behind your choice of methodology, if necessary.

·       Additionally, I overlooked mentioning the term "Cron’ A" in my previous review. Although not incorrect, I recommend using the more commonly recognized term "Cronbach’s alpha" for better clarity and understanding.

Congratulations for your work!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

we appreciate your comments and suggestions. We revised them and corrected.

Thank You! 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf