PCLM-D-25-00039

Youth perceptions about climate change mitigation in Bangladesh: a mixed-method study

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Atiqul Haq,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 07 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Joanna Tindall, PhD

Staff Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Study Methods and Settings: The study aims to explore Bangladeshi

public University students' perceptions (though the title says

“Bangladeshi Youth perception”) of climate change mitigation. However,

the sample is limited to students from only one University, that is, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology (SUST) would be insufficient for generalization to incorporate the whole of Bangladesh study as mentioned in the title of the manuscript . I feel it raises concerns about the generalizability of the findings to all public funded University students in Bangladesh. There might be private Universities too in Bangladesh so this

limitation for not including students across other institutions of higher education in Bangladesh is not adequately justified by the authors.

Sampling Method in Survey: The study employs simple random sampling method

for the survey among all students in the university. However, there is

no mention of whether discipline wise- or department-wise strata were

considered, which could have ensured a more representative sample.

This is particularly important because students from STEM or

environment-related departments are likely to have greater knowledge

about climate change mitigation compared to those from social science

disciplines and similar liberal arts departments.

Selection of Interview Participants: While the selection of

departments for interviews is explained by the author, however, the process of choosing

candidates from those departments remains unclear. Further no details are given in the said manuscript on the criteria or method of selection of the requisite sample specified elaborately. In fact, had this issue been addressed it would have enhanced transparency of the manuscript submitted.

Discussion on Questionnaire: The discussion regarding the

questionnaire design lacks sufficient detail and clarity. A more

thorough explanation of the development, structure, and validation of

the questionnaire would strengthen the methodological rigor of the

study and of the manuscript thereof.

Outdated Population Data in Introduction section: The introduction portion of the manuscript cites a ‘2020 population prediction for Bangladesh by the United Nations,

stating that the population will be 164.70 million’. Referring to such outdated data in a 2024 or 2025 manuscript to be considered for publication in a reputed Journal such as PLOS Climate, would be inappropriate and undermines the credibility of the manuscript submitted by the authors.

Repetition of Words: The paper exhibits noticeable repetition of certain words, which affects the overall readability of the text.

However, my overall assessment is that the manuscript is well written, baring a few discrepancies, it is a good manuscript that would certainly add to the scientific knowledge in the domain of climate change research from the context of Bangladesh. Hence, I would like to recommend that the authors would do well if it is rectified by them so that it could be accepted for publication with minor changes/revision of the manuscript.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Deepak Upadhyaya

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers Comment on Manuscript number-PCLM-D-25-00039.docx

PCLM-D-25-00039R1

Youth perceptions about climate change mitigation in Bangladesh: a mixed-method study

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Atiqul Haq,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Comments from PLOS Editorial Office: We note that one or more reviewers has recommended that you cite specific previously published works. As always, we recommend that you please review and evaluate the requested works to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. It is not a requirement to cite these works. We appreciate your attention to this request.

Please carefully review the comments left by the reviewers and revise your manuscript accordingly. Please provide a point-by-point response to the reviewers upon resubmission. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 11 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sarah Jose, Ph.D.

Staff Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: I have noticed that the authors of the Manuscript have incorporated all the suggestions made by me in my earlier review. Now since the authors have rectified the same, I would like to recommend that the paper may be published if approved by the editor of PLOS Climate

Reviewer #2: There are multiple instances that leave the readers confused. For example, the introducotry part: Climate change caused sustained changes in temperature, precipitation, wind, and other climatic

events. = WHY simple past tense? Where are the references for the claim? Urban areas have higher temperatures in comparison to rural regions (Yu et al., 2017). = HOW does this sentence relate to the first one in that paragraph?

That was just one of multiple instances of incoherence and a total lack of logica ties that permeate the entire manuscript. The manuscript is not focused. It is overburdened by excessive details that have very little to do with the focus of the paper. Concurrently, however, the authors fail to discuss and present clearly their findings. The qualitaitve part reads like laundry list, which is purely random. The quantitiative part is a bit better. But is utterly convoluted and the readers are left to interpret the data on their ow. For example, the authors indicate that the participants were asked about their preferences in terms of the place to live. However, the readers do not see how that question related to the results of the study and whether or not there was a bias in terms of their preferences.

Importantly, the literature review is very shallowsly written. The literature review section lacks depth and, does not seem to mention a number of programmatic studies in the field, for instance, Fløttum et al., and, at least, Tvinnereim, E., Fløttum, K., Gjerstad, Ø., Johannesson, M. P., & Nordø, Å. D. (2017). Citizens’ preferences for tackling climate change. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of their freely formulated solutions. Global Environmental Change, 46, 34-41.

Reviewer #3: The authors have presented a very interesting and insightful analysis, so congratulations on your work. In my opinion, the paper is close to being ready for publication, requiring only minor additions.

To further enhance the quality and impact of your research in future revisions, I recommend considering the following improvements:

1. To enhance the paper's impact and clarity, the authors should clearly emphasize the novelty and key contributions of their work in the introduction and conclusion. Highlighting how this study offers unique insights or advances beyond existing research will help readers appreciate its significance and originality.

2. The authors are encouraged to incorporate additional literature in the introduction section that addresses climate change and its impacts, including mitigation strategies, emission drivers, and relevant action plans. Expanding this section will help contextualize the research within the broader global climate challenge and provide a more comprehensive perspective on the subject matter of the paper. Reference these studies for support:

• Tsepi, E et al (2024). Decomposition Analysis of CO 2 Emissions in Greece from 1996 to 2020. Strategic Planning for Energy & the Environment, 43(3). https://doi.org/10.13052/spee1048-5236.4332

• Martín-Ortega, J. L. et al (2024). Enhancing Transparency of Climate Efforts: MITICA’s Integrated Approach to Greenhouse Gas Mitigation. Sustainability, 16(10), 4219. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104219

• Nydrioti, I. et al (2024). Effective management of urban water resources under various climate scenarios in semiarid mediterranean areas. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 28666. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79938-3

3. The authors should enhance the introduction and/or discussion sections, as well as the overall literature review, by incorporating relevant findings on the COVID-19 pandemic and its implications for their study. In particular, the manuscript should address how pandemic-related restrictions influenced emissions and how these effects relate to the study’s scope and outcomes. You may refer to:

• Papadogiannaki et al (2023). Evaluating the Impact of COVID-19 on the Carbon Footprint of Two Research Projects: A Comparative Analysis. Atmosphere, 14(9), 1365. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14091365

• Progiou et al (2022). Impact of covid-19 pandemic on air pollution: the case of athens, greece. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 21(5), 879-889

4. The paper would benefit from a dedicated section discussing the limitations of the study and potential directions for future research. This addition would provide transparency and guide future studies building upon this work.

5. Include a "Policy Implications" Subsection. Incorporating a subsection on Policy Implications within the conclusion would be highly beneficial. This section should outline how the analysis informs policy formulation and implementation, thereby reinforcing the practical relevance of the study.

Reviewer #4: This work is interesting, especially in the context of Bangladesh. It is a warning to educational systems to reinforce their strategies. The statistical part is well applied, but there are several problems that the authors should analyze in maximum detail:

This work has several structural problems in English, and it needs a complete review, here are some examples:

17 line: analyzed not analyzed

22 line: the mixed method approach highlights a diverse range of

24 line: these are not just insights that deepen our ...

32- "Climate change caused sustained changes..." – the use of the past tense ("caused") can be misinterpreted as if the changes had already occurred in full.

Some details about references:

36 – replace: Cities play a significant role in exacerbating global warming because of human actions (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2018).

43- (Hossain and Ahmed 2024)must be (Hossain & Ahmed, 2024).

48- The United Nations predicts that the population of Bangladesh in 2020 will be 164.70 million. Reference is missing.

51 – It is not clear what factor 6 is: The rural population has had a 70% growth, whereas the urban population has increased by a factor of 6 (World Bank, 2007).

59- (Hus, 2020) 56- Due to this geographical location, Bangladesh is surrounded by rivers. As a result, the country is faced with climate hazards that put human lives at risk. The contextualization of the rivers is not clear.

61. Despite its vulnerability to climate change and weather patterns, it is a low-lying, productive land with beautiful rivers. The reference to the rivers and their beauty is not clear again. Is this relevant?

67- Some study participants understood climate change moderately but were highly aware of its effects on their lives. What studies? References in lack

80: "The IPCC states that adaptation and mitigation can be employed to address climate change". OK, where is the reference to the IPCC in this sentence?!

86: A multitude of diverse studies have been dedicated to the examination of climate change. Most studies.

Where are these studies? References to these studies are missing.

101. to 108 – "this work is supported by few studies, the authors should reinforce the ideas with more studies, for example the one on how school background can influence climate change could use the already mentioned saha (2025)" - seeing others would bring more robustness to the work. Suggestion to see this study: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/jtes-2024-0002

127: Scientists

"encounter difficulties in properly communicating weather variability and climate change to the public,

politicians, and policymakers because of a deficiency in trust and concern". Source? reference?

136. Although the study is interesting, the authors should find studies that are closer to the reality of Bangladesh, perhaps even biome, climate.

140: Due to their increased reliance on foreign sources for sustenance, such as food, water, and medical assistance, women are more susceptible to becoming victims of such calamities. Women encounter distinct challenges in tending to their own well-being and that of their families during natural disasters, primarily due to limited resources (Woods 2022). Repeated idea?! Something similar has already been said before

155-168: huge text without source

176: deph interviews should be referred to in the previous text, close to line 76

190: data sources and methods, it is missing to say where the authors based their questionnaire? Was it in Ahmed and Haq (2019?

If it was created by the authors, they should mention whether it was validated by professionals and by the university ethics committee. The same should happen for the interview, why did they ask these questions, had this interview already been used by other authors? In this part, ethics issues, such as informed consent, are omitted.

206: (Saha and Haq 2024) if there are two authors, is like that: (saha & haq, 2024). (Phunq et al., 215).

230: The researchers collected 438 samples for quantitative survey data and conducted 20 in-depth interviews for qualitative analysis.

A repeated idea, it has been said before.

193: percentage should be included: percentage (%)

321 and 555: "Based on the findings

of the study, it can be concluded that understanding the factors causing climate change is neither

influenced nor dependent upon these elements"

Authors should be careful in giving this type of conclusions, not can generalize. They should mention that there are indicators or predispositions that indicate that ....

565: "When it comes to mitigating climate change, women in this research

shown more understanding". Show the details in numbers

566: "This finding is consistent with other research. Recent research out of

Germany and the United Kingdom found that women are more concerned about global warming than

men (Shi et al., 2016)" It is suggested that the authors post more studies, there are several studies that can agree with shi et al, 2016 and more recent. This only brings benefits to this study

585: : by the in-depth interviews that were conducted. Check if they are really in-depth interviews. In-depth interviews are known for being categorized. They explore a wide range of topics, with open-ended questions. They are guided by a flexible script with several main questions and sub-questions. In the case of this work, in this case, it seems to be an exploratory qualitative component — and not exactly in-depth interviews.

597: although the authors mention the limitations in this part, they should give some clues during the text. The text seems very generalizable.

609: I think that focusing more on climate and environmental education would be a bonus to add to this chapter.

631: some references do not contain the name of the journal in italics, sometimes doi are missing.

Reviewer #5: This research paper is timely, novel and well written. This study aims to contribute to scientific knowledge by exploring how university students in Bangladesh perceive climate change mitigation through a mixed-method analysis.The findings reveal that perceptions of climate change mitigation vary significantly according to socio-demographic factors, such as

gender, academic year, and academic disciplines, illustrating the nuanced ways these variables influence awareness and attitudes. A big thumbs up to the researchers for a great job well done!

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Dr. Deepak Upadhyaya, Journalism and Mass Communication Department, Tripura University, Agartala, India, Pin799022.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Ioannis Sebos

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Youth perceptions about climate change mitigation in Bangladesh: a mixed-method study

PCLM-D-25-00039R2

Dear Dr. Atiqul Haq,

We're pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you'll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you'll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. For billing related questions, please contact billing support at https://plos.my.site.com/s/.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact climate@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Teodoro Georgiadis

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

There is a great accordance between reviewers to accept the manuscript in the present last version. This accord is also shared by the editor assigned and the last opinion is to publish in the present version. One reviewers asked for minor changes because it is not fully satisfied by the 'qualitative' approach, but it does not affect the general approach and the conclusions of the study. The study, have been presented with enough technical detail to allow for reproducibility and the conclusions. No further changes are needed by the authors considering the minor have a very limited influence on the overall validity of the study.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

--------------------

publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

--------------------

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

--------------------

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

--------------------

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?<br/><br/>PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

--------------------

Reviewer #1: All concerns are addressed.

Reviewer #2: Whilst substantial improvements are there in the revised version, I still would like to indicate that the authors should re-develop the qualitative part of their paper. There are two ways of doing it: (i) either use some (not all) of the particiaptns' quotes in discussing the major statistical findings, or (ii) expand substantialy upon the qualitative part by discussing what the participants have to say on the issue.

Reviewer #3: all comments addressed

Reviewer #4: The author seems to have improved the article.

Several criticisms have been addressed, and the article appears to be ready for publication.

--------------------

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes: Deepak Upadhyaya

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Ricardo Ramos

--------------------