Effects of Environmental Education on Young Children’s Water-Saving Behaviors in Japan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to read and review your article. I appreciate your idea to verify the success of environmental education for such young children. Exactly according to the proverb: "What you learn when you are young will pay you back in old age."
I have a few suggestions for improvement. It might be appropriate to consider them as well.
- In your opinion, what caused the decline in environmental behaviour after a week and again after a month (Figure 1)?
- Is the oscillating character assumed (new educational stimulus - increase, no stimulus - decrease and stabilization at a constant value)?
Has a correlation been created between financial savings and water savings? E.g. Mental connection for children: If you save water in this way for a month, it will be possible to buy a book with the money saved.
Was it possible to introduce the visual prompts for water saving in children's homes as well? Has it been suggested that parents also place information boards at home taps?
The presented results could also be expressed from the point of view of girls and boys, (Figures 3 ÷ 5).
Lots of success in your further research.
Sincerely
Reviewer
Author Response
COMMENT 1: Thank you very much for the opportunity to read and review your article. I appreciate your idea to verify the success of environmental education for such young children. Exactly according to the proverb: "What you learn when you are young will pay you back in old age."
RESPONSE 1: Thank you very much for your kind words about my work and the useful suggestions for further improvements of our manuscript. Below, I elaborate on how I addressed them in the revised version of the paper.
COMMENT 2: In your opinion, what caused the decline in environmental behaviour after a week and again after a month (Figure 1)?
RESPONSE 2: Young children reported the highest number of water-saving behaviors immediately after the program, perhaps due to shorter time lapsing between the program’s lessons and subsequent practicing of water-saving behaviors. One week after the program, the percentage of water-saving behaviors fell, but it was still significantly higher, compared to before the program. This study further found that the average rate of water-saving behaviors increased between one week and one month after the program. This increase may be rooted in pro-environmental communication between teachers and children, and among children. Compared to one week after the program, the researcher found more frequent pro-environmental communication one month after the program, including comments such as “do not waste water” during hand-washing time. This increased communication may have been triggered by teachers’ commitment to the environment and the instalment of visual prompts. I have put these sentence in the revised paper.
COMMENT 3: Is the oscillating character assumed (new educational stimulus - increase, no stimulus - decrease and stabilization at a constant value)?
RESPONSE 3: No. I added a sentence to clarify no oscillating character in the revised paper.
COMMENT 4: Has a correlation been created between financial savings and water savings? E.g. Mental connection for children: If you save water in this way for a month, it will be possible to buy a book with the money saved.
RESPONSE 4: In the EEEPEC, there was no financial topic, to encourage children’s water-saving behaviors. The external lectures encouraged the young children to develop a better understanding of the need for CO2 emissions reduction using several materials such as the picture-story show, hand generators, water towers, and water-saving coils.
COMMENT 5: Was it possible to introduce the visual prompts for water saving in children's homes as well? Has it been suggested that parents also place information boards at home taps?
RESPONSE 5: It is possible to introduce the visual prompts for water-saving in their homes as well, but the external lectures did not suggest the placement of water-saving coils adjacent to tap water in their homes. I added the sentence in the revised paper.
COMMENT 6: The presented results could also be expressed from the point of view of girls and boys, (Figures 3 ÷ 5).
RESPONSE 6: In response to your suggestion, I decided to analyze the data at the level of gender, while I added several sentence to clarify the way of data processing. I changed the methods and results section accordingly.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author,
I have read with great interest this article which examines a global problem of reducing water and energy consumption. This global problem is also the problem of Japan, respectively of the city of Fukuoka, which the author included in the analysis.
This article includes an analysis with data collected 7 years ago, respectively in 2015. Are these data current?
The article has a good structure. However, the gaps in the literature, the novelty and the usefulness of this analysis were not presented in the introduction. The author talks about an EEEPEC educational program.
The article lacks literature review. It is necessary to address education for the environment in general and for children in particular. What are the environmental practices for Japan? I recommend adding a section on literature review that is very necessary for this study. What are the research hypotheses?
At the methodology side, I recommend that you better explain the sample included in the analysis. Is the sample representative? Additional explanations are needed for the interview and questionnaire sample. Arguments must be supported by citations.
The analysis of the results is treated very generally, with brief explanations. I recommend that you provide additional data for this analysis. Also, how was the data processed? With what statistical program?
I recommend testing the research hypotheses added to this analysis.
Moreover, annexes with research tools are needed, which you have included in the analysis and completion of the reference section with new studies.
What are the limits of research? What about future research directions?
Given the complexity of the recommendations and the large volume of work, I choose to reject this article, giving the author the opportunity to work leisurely.
That's all! Good luck!
Author Response
COMMENT 1: I have read with great interest this article which examines a global problem of reducing water and energy consumption. This global problem is also the problem of Japan, respectively of the city of Fukuoka, which the author included in the analysis. This article includes an analysis with data collected 7 years ago, respectively in 2015. Are these data current?
RESPONSE 1: Thank you very much for your kind words about my work and the useful suggestions for further improvements of my manuscript. This article presents a case of two-years project called “The Eco Experience Education for Early Childhood (EEEPEC)” (2014-2015), although it took 7 years because of my other works to do. Below, I elaborate on how I addressed them in the revised paper.
COMMENT 2: The article has a good structure. However, the gaps in the literature, the novelty and the usefulness of this analysis were not presented in the introduction. The author talks about an EEEPEC educational program. The article lacks literature review. It is necessary to address education for the environment in general and for children in particular. What are the environmental practices for Japan? I recommend adding a section on literature review that is very necessary for this study. What are the research hypotheses? I recommend testing the research hypotheses added to this analysis.
RESPONSE 2: I did my best to collect additional references to clarify the novelty and the usefulness of my analysis as well as address research questions, and then I added a new section of “Literature review and research questions” in the revised paper.
COMMENT 3: At the methodology side, I recommend that you better explain the sample included in the analysis. Is the sample representative? Additional explanations are needed for the interview and questionnaire sample. Arguments must be supported by citations.
RESPONSE 3: I added several sentence and Table 1 to better explain the sample as you suggested. Besides, given the small sample size, I have highlighted this limitation in the conclusion.
COMMENT 4: The analysis of the results is treated very generally, with brief explanations. I recommend that you provide additional data for this analysis. Also, how was the data processed? With what statistical program?
RESPONSE 4: In response to your suggestion, I decided to analyze the data at the level of gender, while I added several sentence to clarify the way of data processing. I changed the methods and results section accordingly.
COMMENT 5: Moreover, annexes with research tools are needed, which you have included in the analysis and completion of the reference section with new studies.
RESPONSE 5: I added several sentences to clarify the used research tools and also added an Appendix for the questionnaire as you suggested.
COMMENT 6: What are the limits of research? What about future research directions?
RESPONSE 6: I added the limits and future research directions as you suggested.
Reviewer 3 Report
Title: it is concise and descriptive and its key ideas match those of the abstract and keywords
Abstract: provides an overview of the work, highlighting its main results and conclusions
Keywords: are related to the title and are the most used internationally
Introduction: It is brief, provides the background, the expected contribution and, in the end, the research objectives
Theoretical foundation: It focuses on the investigation previously carried out
Methodology: describes and explains in detail the methodology used, the data collection instruments and the way in which they were treated
Results: presents innovative results
Discussion: The new aspects of the investigation are confronted with the results of previous investigations
Conclusions: The main original contributions of the work are indicated
Implications: The main limitations of the work are indicated.
References: Are appropriate and updated to the research carried out
Author Response
Thank you very much for your kind words about my work and the useful suggestions for further improvements to my manuscript. I did my best to revise my paper as suggested.
COMMENT 1: Title: it is concise and descriptive and its key ideas match those of the abstract and keywords. Abstract: provides an overview of the work, highlighting its main results and conclusions
Keywords: are related to the title and are the most used internationally
RESPONSE 1: Thank you very much for this positive evaluation of the abstract and keywords.
COMMENT 2: Introduction: It is brief, provides the background, the expected contribution and, in the end, the research objectives
RESPONSE 2: Thank you very much for this positive evaluation of the Introduction.
COMMENT 3: Theoretical foundation: It focuses on the investigation previously carried out
RESPONSE 3: Thank you very much for this positive evaluation of the theoretical foundation. Besides, I added a new section of “Literature review and research questions” in the revised paper.
COMMENT 4: Methodology: describes and explains in detail the methodology used, the data collection instruments and the way in which they were treated
RESPONSE 4: Thank you very much for this positive evaluation of the Methodology. I added several sentences and Table 1 in the revised paper.
COMMENT 5: Results: presents innovative results
RESPONSE 5: Thank you very much for this positive evaluation of the Results. Besides, I added several sentences in the revised paper.
COMMENT 6: Discussion: The new aspects of the investigation are confronted with the results of previous investigations
RESPONSE 6: Thank you very much for this positive evaluation of the Discussion. Besides, I added several sentences in the revised paper.
COMMENT 7: Conclusions: The main original contributions of the work are indicated
RESPONSE 7: Thank you very much for this positive evaluation of the Conclusion. Besides, I added several sentences in the revised paper.
COMMENT 8: Implications: The main limitations of the work are indicated.
RESPONSE 8: Thank you very much for this positive evaluation of the paper limitation. Besides, I added several sentences in the revised paper.
COMMENT 9: References: Are appropriate and updated to the research carried out
RESPONSE 9: Thank you very much for this positive evaluation of the References. Besides, I added several references in the revised paper.
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review an interesting article. I have a few comments on it that should be reflected before even considering publishing:
1, Introduction needs to be developed more deeply. The topic of early childhood env. education is wide and crucial information about it (outside of Japan) is missing. See Ardoin & Bowers 2020 (10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100353) as a starting point… Reflect these in the discussion as well.
2, Information about the validity and reliability of the questionnaire used is missing.
3, The figures need to be explained not only in the text but directly in the (under the) figure.
3, You have to decide in which form you will present the results. I recommend using figures with text commentary (do not repeat the % results in the text).
4, As you have a lot of data, you should try to use higher statistical methods for comparing groups and presenting the results of questionnaires. For this kind of article, using only a percent is not enough.
Author Response
COMMENT 1: Introduction needs to be developed more deeply. The topic of early childhood env. education is wide and crucial information about it (outside of Japan) is missing. See Ardoin & Bowers 2020 (10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100353) as a starting point… Reflect these in the discussion as well.
RESPONSE 1: Thank you for introducing me to the useful reference for my paper. I did my best to collect additional references, including recent studies and the suggested reading, and have added them to the revised paper.
COMMENT 2: Information about the validity and reliability of the questionnaire used is missing.
RESPONSE 2: I added several sentences to clarify the validity and reliability of the research tools in the revised paper, while I also highlighted this limitation in the conclusion.
COMMENT 3: The figures need to be explained not only in the text but directly in the (under the) figure. You have to decide in which form you will present the results. I recommend using figures with text commentary (do not repeat the % results in the text).
RESPONSE 3: I revised the figures and several sentences in the text as you suggested.
COMMENT 4: As you have a lot of data, you should try to use higher statistical methods for comparing groups and presenting the results of questionnaires. For this kind of article, using only a percent is not enough.
RESPONSE 4: In response to your suggestion, I decided to analyze the data at the level of gender, while I added several sentence to clarify the way of data processing. I changed the methods and results section accordingly.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author,
Thanks so much for the improved version of this article! In order to improve it, I put my comments on the text.
Best wishes!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Detailed Response to the Reviewer 2
COMMENT 1: It is necessary to define the concepts used in this study. I recommend you to improve this chapter! There are too few references in the literature review. I recommend you add recent studies.
RESPONSE 1: Thank you very much for your kind words about my work and the useful suggestions for further improvements of my manuscript. I did my best to collect additional references and have added them to the revised manuscript, to clarify the novelty as well as define the concepts used in the study.
COMMENT 2: In the discussion section, you did not answer research question 2. I recommend adding a subchapter to the discussion section that includes the factors led to the adoption of such behavior by program participants in the different settings.
RESPONSE 2: The research question 2 (RQ2) was included in both 5.1 (at school) and 5.2 (at home), respectively, but it was not clear to address the question. In order to clarify it, I have changed the title of subchapter and revised the manuscript in 5.1 and 5.2, accordingly.
COMMENT 3: source of photos
RESPONSE 3: I have added the source of photos in the revised manuscript.
COMMENT 4: In the appendix I recommend adding the interview and the questionnaire.
RESPONSE 4: I have added Appendix A for the interview and Appendix B for the questionnaire in the revised manuscript.
COMMENT 5: Are the graphics in the figures included in the article processed in SPSS?
RESPONSE 5: The graphics in the figures were processed in Microsoft Excel 2016 so that I have added the information to clarify the way of data processing.
COMMENT 6: This section needs to be improved with the results of the questions in the questionnaire.
RESPONSE 6: I carefully re-checked the section and added several sentences in the revised manuscript.
COMMENT 7: The references for this study are very few.
RESPONSE 7: I have added the references as you suggested.
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is improved in the way I suggested.
Author Response
Detailed Response to the Reviewer 4
COMMENT 1: Introduction needs to be developed more deeply. The topic of early childhood env. education is wide and crucial information about it (outside of Japan) is missing. See Ardoin & Bowers 2020 (10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100353) as a starting point… Reflect these in the discussion as well.
RESPONSE 1: Thank you for introducing me to the useful reference for my paper. I did my best to collect additional references, including recent studies and the suggested reading, and have added them to the revised paper and reflected them in the discussion section.
COMMENT 2: Information about the validity and reliability of the questionnaire used is missing.
RESPONSE 2: I added several sentences to clarify the validity and reliability of the research tools in the revised paper, while I also highlighted this limitation in the conclusion.
COMMENT 3: The figures need to be explained not only in the text but directly in the (under the) figure. You have to decide in which form you will present the results. I recommend using figures with text commentary (do not repeat the % results in the text).
RESPONSE 3: I revised the figures and several sentences in the text as you suggested.
COMMENT 4: As you have a lot of data, you should try to use higher statistical methods for comparing groups and presenting the results of questionnaires. For this kind of article, using only a percent is not enough.
RESPONSE 4: In response to your suggestion, I decided to analyze the data at the level of gender, while I added several sentence to clarify the way of data processing. I changed the methods and results section accordingly.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author,
Thank you very much for the improved version of this article. I recommend this version for publication in the Sustainability journal.
Best wishes!
