The Difference of Knowledge and Behavior of College Students on Plastic Waste Problems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept.

Author Response

Thank you for the support.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this observational study, the authors, using a series of questionnaires, try to find a relationship in a sample of students between their knowledge and their habits.

Although the relationship between knowledge and habits is not new, it could be interesting if some important questions are answered since this study is presented in a very preliminary way.

Introduction.

The introduction to the work presents the subject in an adequate way although it does not concretes what gap in the literature it intends to fill. However, working hypothesis number 3, in my opinion, is already implicit in hypotheses 1 and 2.

Methods.

A detailed description of the type of questionnaires used is missing: they were previously validated, they were validated at dawn, language, they were completed online or...

Similarly, a fundamental part of all the observational studies is not explained: how the sample was chosen and what were the criteria for dividing the participants into the two groups.

Results.

A description of the sample and its characteristics is not included (very important are the demographic, socio-economic and ongoing studies). Similarly, the homogeneity of both groups should be carefully studied.

Similarly, 25% of participants who are not taking environmental courses in class are introduced into the "Environmental sciences" group. How do you explain that this group is then presented as homogeneous in subsequent analyses? Is this not contradictory to the hypotheses put forward? In this sense, in the other group there are 30% of participants who are taking environmental courses in class. This evident heterogeneity in the sample should be studied and the results evaluated again.

The p values can NEVER have the value of 0.000.

Discussion.

The discussion of the paper does not indicate what this study contributes to the scientific literature on the subject.

Other issues.

The text includes some missing refferences and the grammar should be carefully checked.

 

 

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer

 

Reviewer 2

1. IntroductionChuvieco et al. [11] and Talai et al [14] have found that students who have majors in environmental studies had better attitudes toward environmental protection compared to the students who had no connection with environmental science. However, the different result from Hasan et al. [15] study found that science and social science majors did not show a significant different toward environmental behavior. Social connection, past experience, even socio-economic conditions are several factors that also influence environmental behavior [16]. Until now, there are still debates whether the majors which relate to environmental sciences influence the students' attitudes toward environmental issues, and the study which addressing this problem is still needed, especially which discuss the plastic waste problem.
2.  
3. The research gap had been improved in Line 45-54.
4. Methods 
5. Research method including procedures and questionnaire list had been improved in Section 3.1. and 3.2.
6. Result

1. The respondents’ characteristic had been added in Table 2 (page 5)
2. Similarity test for taking course for the two groups have been added in page 5 (line 163-166).
3. “ Levene’s test on homogeneity variance of the two groups of majors was carried out to evaluate the significance of the two groups on courses relating environmental studies. The probability value is 0.339 which is greater than 0.05 (significant). The p value greater than 0.05 means that each group is homogenous”
4. The explanation why 26% of participants who are not taking environmental courses in class are introduced into the "Environmental sciences" group and the other group 30% are taking environmental courses is provided in Page 6 (line 175-187). 
5. “Even though percentage of environmental science majors is higher on environmental bases-courses taking, 26.92% of the students have not taken the courses during their study. Or vice versa, 30.34% students in social science taking courses related environmental studies. It can be explained that the group major related to environmental sciences in this study includes many specific majors which also cover science majors such as agricultural and basic sciences which the environmental bases courses are not compulsory courses for them (or election courses). It is also possible that they have not taken the courses when this study carried out. Likewise, the students at social science majors have opportunity to take courses related environmental studies because in the course selection system in NCHU, the university allows students to select elective courses from other departments if they have interested to take courses related environmental issues. It also can happen because social based majors such as economics and law also provide lessons related environment issues, as it is mentioned in previous research [36] “
6. The P values appearing 0.000 had been corrected for all the tables

 

1. Discussion
2. The discussion part had been improved

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject of the article is important and would greatly attract the attention of readers, and research on this scale can play an important role.

However, the presentation requires many modifications to deliver the content to the readers.

When you go through proofreading by a native English researcher, many sentences can become clear. There are many confusing or unclear sentences partly due to a lack of objective words, and there are terms whose meanings are fluid.
In the Summary, they say that environmental education at the academic level is the most effective way to increase the environmental awareness of college students, particularly in managing plastic waste problems. This aspect m m mm ca That is not taken into account in the development of the article The research question should be expressed more clearly and section 1.1 should be reformatted to suit the purpose of the research. Sections require more references to be displayed. At the moment it gives the impression that it describes what has been uncritically said without pointing out how to improve all the investigation. In lines 41 they say that "students enrolled in specialties related to environmental sciences have a more sustainable behavior because they have a greater probability of obtaining environmental education provided by courses or curricula. It is not justified in the article

In lines 93-99, "the hypotheses constructed in this study are: Hypothesis 1: Students with specializations related to environmental science have more knowledge about the negative impact of plastic packaging than students who do not have specializations related to environmental science Hypothesis 2: Students who have specialties related to environmental science have the greater behavior to reduce the use of plastic containers in their daily lives than students who do not have careers related to environmental science Hypothesis 3: Increase of knowledge about the negative impact of plastic waste increases student behavior to reduce plastic consumption ". This does not appear to be reflected in the original dataset and conclusion of the article, or should indicate accordingly linked to the objective of the investigation

In lines 246-247 they say "These results indicate that environmental education 246 effectively affects the pro-environmental behavior of students shown by the best daily behavior to reduce the use of plastic. We believe that this result should be better justified.

In the Conclusion they say: “As an implication of this study, the formal environmental education that is provided in the courses in the schools effectively affects the student's 289 awareness of the problem of plastic waste. awareness of environmental issues. I do not, I do not understand what courses it refers to and in what specialty it has been carried out. If they are not led in both, the results cannot be compared.
A good job has been done, however the presentation requires many modifications to deliver the content to the readers.

Author Response

 

1. Section 1.1.
   - The introduction part (section 1.1.) had been improved by adding the reason why the research in this topic is important (provided in Line 45-54)
   - In line 41 “students enrolled in specialties related to environmental sciences have a more sustainable behavior because they have a greater probability of obtaining environmental education provided by courses or curricula”
   This statement had been justified in the discussion part (Page 9-10)
   Line 259-261 “Elmassah et al [41] also confirmed that different colleges or departments in university significantly influence the content of curriculum and student activities that later influence their competency and knowledge on environmental issues.”
   Line 283-285 “Hence, exposure of environmental education in core curriculum influence the students’ cognition and belief, and improve their awareness on environmental issues [43] that make students in environmental science majors are more aware than the social science students”
2. Data set to support the hypothesis (line 93-99)
   The data to support the hypothesis (1)
   The different mean score of the impacts of plastic waste toward environment on the two group of majors is presented in Table 4. The list of questions to support this issue is provided in Table 1. The result show that the mean score for environmental base major is higher that the social science majors, which mean that the environmental knowledge on plastic issues of the students enrolled in environmental science is higher than the social sciences.
   The data to support the hypothesis (2). The behavior on plastic package is listed in six daily behaviors to evaluate the student behavior to reduce plastic consumptions (Table 5). Different groups of majors have significant different behavior on the five of six daily behaviors. And, the environmental science base majors have the better behavior compare to social science.
   Data set to support the hypothesis (3), Increasing knowledge and increasing behavior
   The data is provided in Table 6, and the data had been improved by adding the correlation of knowledge and behavior for overall data. The discussion had been improved in Line 226-230.
3. In line 246-247 "These results indicate that environmental education effectively affects the pro-environmental behavior of students shown by the best daily behavior to reduce the use of plastic”.
   This statement had been justified in discussion part (Line 276-283)
   “The students in environmental based majors have more connected to environmental education that can encourage critical thinking, increase sensitivity to environmental problems, and develop the better attitude towards the environment, which all these processes can be gained during the continuous learning in schools. In Estrada-Vidal and Tójar-Hurtado [42] study, it was mentioned that
   environmental education teaches people to adopt habits that improve the quality environment, to act on their environmental thinking, and to know how to act and to solve environmental problems started from themselves and spread it to others. Hence, exposure of environmental education in core curriculum influence the students’ cognition and belief, and improve their awareness on environmental issues [
   43] that make students in environmental science majors are more aware than the social science students”.
4. Line 289 “As an implication of this study, the formal environmental education that is provided in the courses in the schools effectively affects the student's awareness of the problem of plastic waste awareness”
   This statement had been revised in Page 10 (conclusion part) Line 325-330
   “ By comparing the different behavior of students in environmental based major and social science majors in this study, this study explains that different intensity of environmental education in university level is effectively influence the student’s awareness on plastic waste problem. Hence, the environmental education at academic level is still proper to be implemented to increase people awareness on environmental issues

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,
Although the review of the work has improved its quality, the writing of the work, its objectives, methods, and its analysis are not strong enough to consider this work with sufficient quality for publication, as discussed in the previous review. The objective pursued so that this work can be considered in this journal cannot be achieved with the proposed experimental design.
I am sorry for the bad news but I do not see how this work can provide new and important information that justifies its publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

1. Introduction

The introduction section has been improved by adding literature review on environmental education, environmental knowledge, and behavior in paragraph 2   to strengthen the research objectives (page 2 line 45-61).

 

The importance of research in introduction part has been improved to explain the reason of the selection of the topic and the purpose of the research (Page 2, Line 72-77)

 

The research objectives also have been revised in Line 77-82.

 

2. Methods

Research method has been improved in Section 3.2. and 3.3 to explain the procedure, questionnaire design, and analysis in Page 4-5.

 

3. Result discussion

The discussion part had been revised and improved in Page 9-10.

 

4. Conclusion part has been improved

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for your responses to the first round of review. The new version of the manuscript is fine.

Author Response

Thank you for the support.

 

 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has improved enormously with the corrections made. Congratulations to the authors.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

aprobado.

Aceptar después de una revisión menor

Author Response

1. Moderate English changes is corrected.
2. Background and relevant references has been revised, please check the text, thank you.
3. Mothods has been revised, please refer to pages 3-5.

Reviewer 2 Report

Plastic waste is a grave concern so the topic under investigation has merit.  However, there was inadequate attention to the framing of what the authors describe on Line 10 as "the plastic waste problems"; including the extent of the anthropocentric impact of plastic both in terms of production, type, and inclusion/exclusion in the waste cycle, and the recycling economy.

There were 51 references listed but their value and contribution to the discussions were mentions at best and lacked real engagement and depth.

In some cases the text was not legible, for example, Lines 37-40: "Regarding to the environmental behavior, previous studies mentioned that major relating environmental science is an effecting factor of the sustainable behavior of university students through their higher chance to get environmental education provided by courses or curriculum..."

There was a high degree of repetition throughout: Line 45, Line 83, Line 226

There could have been a lot more detail provided on the use of T-Test and Chi-Square methods and why they were specifically chosen?

I am not convinced with the conclusion that just because an individual majors in 'environmental field' that they 'have produced the better knowledge and behavior on plastic waste problems' (Line 226). Nor is the explicitly stated opposite true.  There are a host of factors influencing Agency including, but not limited to, culture, politics, socio-economic background, geopolitics.

There are also studies that show that cognitive increases in knowledge about CC, for example, has little or no correlation with pro-environmental attitudes or behaviour (see Kijkstra and Goedhart, 2012)

The authors do not explain why the findings they present from Question 6 in Table 4 shows very little variance between both cohorts.

This is an important topic and one that deserves more thought, planning and analysis.

Author Response

There has been more discussion in sections 2, 3 and 4.Responses:

1.

Authors have added more in section.1 introduction and section2 literature review, please check pages 1-2.

Thank you

2. There has been more discussion in sections 2, 3 and 4.

3.Line 37-40 has been rewritten.

4.Lines 45 83 and 226 has been revised.

5.They have been more detail and discussion provided on sections 2, 3 4.

6.In various studies, indeed, there are various factors that influence the environmental awareness of students such as environmental conditions, informal education (participating in the organization, education from parents, mass and electronic media), socio- economic background (social and economic), etc. However, in this study, we examined the influence of formal environmental education at university level which is categorized in 2 groups, namely major that engaged to environmental studies (environmental-based majors) and those are not engaged (social majors). The results of this study proved that the percentage of environmental-based student’s major is more tied to environmental-based courses (indoor and outdoor activities) compared to social science. As mentioned in studies, the higher the chance for someone to be bound to environmental issues, it will change the mindset and attitude to express what is already known in daily life. This is also reflected in the percentage of students in environmental majors who have a more environmentally friendly attitude than the students in social majors. Hence, this study only assesses the correlation of environmental formal education toward knowledge and behavior on plastic. Thank you

7.Authors have intended to provide more studies and discussion in section 2. Please check pages 2-3; section.4.1.2 Result- Table 5 and section 5 Discussion, please refer to pages 6-8.

8.The authors have added more explanation in pages 4-6 regarding table 4. Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

For the following reasons my recommendation is as follows:

1. The authors' theoretical framework is, in my opinion, too simplistic and linearizing and doesn't reflect the current state of research on environmental education ("when knowledge increases, environmentally favorable attitudes that lead to responsible environmental actions are developed" (line 55-56), "attitude is the fundamental drivers of human behavior" (line 82-83). Thus, I recommend that the authors use a more contemporary theory of reference instead of the Model by Hungerford and Volk (1990).
2. Furthermore, the description of the current state of research is kept too vague and generic. Through a more detailed description, it would be easier to understand which desiderata are investigated by the authors in their study.
3. Moreover, independent and dependent variables are not sufficiently justified. Since it is perfectly plausible to invert the hypotheses of the authors (e. g. “students with higher knowledge on the negative impact of plastic packaging are more likely to study majors related to environmental sciences”), I consider this clarification to be particularly important.
4. The authors should give a more detailed description of why the instruments they have used are reliable and valid (sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2).
5. I wonder why the authors have not examined the (in my opinion) particularly exciting hypothesis if students with higher knowledge on the negative impacts of plastic packaging are more likely to show behavior to reduce plastic waste.
6. The sample of the study is far too small to perform a reliable Chi-squared test. The authors should rather use statistical methods for small samples (e. g. Fischer’s exact test).
7. The discussion should focus much more on the possible implications of this study for future research. Furthermore, I cannot agree with the authors' statement "the result of the study […] supports the behavioral change system theory (Hungerford & Volk, 1990)" (line 214-216). This statement is, in my view, only tenable if the authors have also positively tested the hypothesis I have mentioned in (3).

Author Response

Responses:

1.Authors have added more theoretical framework1 and literature review, please check pages 2-4. Thank you

2.There has been more discussion in sections 2, 3 and 4. Please refer to pages. 2-10. Thank you.

3. There has been more discussion in sections 2, 3 and 4. Please refer to pages. 2-10. Thank you.

4.It has been revised in 3.2.2 and 3.3, pages 3-4.

5. They have been added more details and discussion provided on sections 2, 3. 4.4.Correlation between Knowledge and Behavior; please refer to pages 2-7.

6. The authors have to confess this is the limitation of the study as timing and finial constraints. Thank you.

7. Based on the referee’s point of view, I would recommend my students to continue the thought for further studies. Thank you.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The quality of the manuscript has improved considerably. In my opinion, this article can be published.