Youth, Communication & Climate: A Pluridisciplinary Analysis of Distancing Strategies in Response to Climate Change among Belgian Youth
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The manuscript details a qualitative study of the distancing strategies that young people (10-24 years) in Belgium, not in education or employment (NEET), employ in response to climate change. Sociological, linguistic, and content analytical approaches are used. Overall, the study is interesting and is relevant to those in with a youth focus in the fields of environmental sociology, sustainable development, and political science. The manuscript presents a lot of information in the results section, which I did at times find challenging to follow. Re-structuring the introduction and perhaps having a more nuanced focus in would help improve the manuscript’s clarity. It would also be useful to have greater detail about the study participants and a clearer explanation of the analytical approach.
To strengthen the manuscript, I suggest the following major revisions:
· Overall. A greater focus on coherence would improve the manuscript. The results read to me like a series of mini studies, which may in part be due to the different analytical approaches used. It may be appropriate to reduce the content/themes and have a more nuanced focus.
· Introduction.
o I thought that structure of the introduction could be improved. Perhaps consider removing paragraphs 1 to 3, so that the manuscript begins with the wider context and then presents the current state of knowledge.
o A paragraph or two engaging with the literature on climate change distancing / discursive strategies would improve this section. This article may be helpful: Lamb, W. F., Mattioli, G., Levi, S., Roberts, J. T., Capstick, S., Creutzig, F., ... & Steinberger, J. K. (2020). Discourses of climate delay. Global Sustainability, 3, e17.
o Greater engagement with the literature on youth NEET or in marginalised communities and climate change would also be helpful. Research shows for example that these communities are among the most vulnerable to climate change but they are also communities struggling with more immediate issues (eg around access to employment/education, food security etc). It would also be useful to understand NEET in the wider context of Belgium (eg what proportion of youth are not in education/ employment/ training?)
· Methods.
o Research questions – these may be better placed at the end of the Introduction section
o It would be nice to see the Methods section begin with an overview of the study design.
o Please indicate the sample size / how many participants took part in the study. Further details about the participants (eg gender breakdown, how many were in the younger, mid, older age groups). It is difficult to contextualise the findings without these results.
o Please clarify if participants were NEET or if there was a mixture of youth in/out of school. The focus on school in the results section seems out of place if only youth NEET comprised study participants?
o Last paragraph – I found the analytical approach challenging to follow. It might be useful to include a table or figure to help illustrate how the approach.
· Results.
o I like how analysis is of the French text and the nuance this provides. It would however be helpful for non-French speaking readers to have the translations alongside the French.
o There is a lot of information presented in the results section, it might be better to focus on fewer themes.
o It would help to contextualise the findings and implications within NEET/low socio-economic contexts, given the study population.
o “The trap of the globalising framework” – a figure/table would help to illustrate these results as it is difficult following the levels in the manuscripts present form.
· Conclusions.
o I recommend the conclusions engage with wider literature on the socio-structural conditions that may impact youth NEET / youth from lower socio-economic engagement with climate change.
· The lower age of participants in this study is very young (10 years) to be classified at NEET. Discussion in the manuscript considering the wider context of these young people’s lives and how these contexts might impact distancing strategies and perceptions of climate change would be beneficial.
I also recommend the following minor revisions:
· Abstract, first sentence: I feel that this sentence overstates the reach of the study, please consider re-writing.
· Abstract: Please indicate in the abstract that the study is of young people not in education or employment. It would also be helpful for readers to know that analysis is of the French text/language.
· Please clarify whether the age range of study participants is 10 to 24 years (as indicated in Abstract and Introduction) or 10 to 20 years (as indicated in Methods)
The quality of English was acceptable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It’s an interesting article. Originality and positioning suffer from the low treatment of the context of youth clubs and vulnerable young people.
The main problem involve the “concept” of distancing which is less conceptualized. The state of the art and theoretical work appear in barely 2 pages, which it’s very short. In the text, it is attested that “distancing” it is of psychological origin with reference to some researchers, it is also of a political, sociological ... and falls under the school. All these origins are put on the same level. We can even change distancing with conflict, obstacle, paradox, which are sometimes used in the text.
An example to clarify my comments. At the 3.4 point, the authors discuss about political distancing and depoliticisation of the environmental stake without contrast. However there are some differences. For political distancing, the authors attest that young people do not refer to politics, present mistrust towards it. Depoliticization is described as individualisation of the issue, or as a reduction of political questioning. For young people, the major meaning of depoliticization, as it’s attested by various studies, is linked to the loss of the political dimension of the issue, like absence of debates, slight search for consensus, deliberation in ways compatible with democracy...
What is missing is a model, a figure that groups these distancing factors into dynamic and causal relationships. Avoidance strategies in psychology of learning are the VS of motivational strategies. Therefore, are distancing strategies the flip side of the strategies of commitment, empowerment ?
Part 2 : There is not enough precision on sampling, data collection (transcription on audio and/or video recording?). The linguistic approach is mainly lexical. Although focus groups aim at an analysis of discussions and debates among participants, no method of analyzing debates, arguments against arguments... is used. All of cited examples show statement of mediator, and 1, 2 or 3 claims of young people which follow each other. Young NEETs as variable is insufficiently used. Youth clubs are also less discussed. Only one example is provided (example 22: with words of a young person without the loop of exchanges around this statement).
In the interview grid, why authors don’t add clubs as informal education in contrast with school ? It’s a bias to target only the school for educational approach. The authors’ study would gain in originality by attesting its specificity and highlighting the potential contributions of youth clubs, as informal education, to support climate change, and to draw recommendations for formal education (schools).
“Focus groups analysis report on the contribution of for to ten participants”: authors have to be precise. Compared to the six focus groups, the number of participants is either 24 or 60, which is widely different as sample size. We miss also information about how many young people participate out of these ten in the “discussion”. The study show 49 examples with interaction between 2 or 3 young people. However, overall, are discussions limited to a few young people? Are the same young people always participating? Are all interactions conducted by the same participants? In what proportions? It can be useful for clarifying the limits of study.
The results as laughable solutions (like sorting waste, waste management in example 5), naturalisation of ecological practices (in 3.4)… should be highlighted as a weak knowledge attributable to school. What alternatives can be expected from youth clubs?
The Anthropocene (example 3), “institutionalized mistrust” (example 7) are relevant but insufficiently discussed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
In this text V2, we can better see the relevance of such research to enrich the state of the art on the issue of climate change and the relationship with young people to such issues. In addition, the text targets French speakers whose views are relevant to cross with those from Anglo-Saxon culture.
