Global Sustainability Crossroads: A Participatory Simulation Game to Educate in the Energy and Sustainability Challenges of the 21st Century

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is very interesting and it can inspire other applications with educational objectives. I suggest the publication of the article for several reasons. First, it presents a content of great importance and relevance given the problem of global unsustainability that we challenge. Secondly, the game is based on a robust model that faces the aforementioned problem and its potential is immense. Third, it is novel in terms of educational objectives through the implementation of the game. Fourth, the game has been applied to a broad and diverse sample, and in different contexts, which indicates great flexibility and applicability. Finally, the game serves to combine science and social challenges by means of influencing on social awareness.

However, in my view there are some shortcomings both in the presentation of information and from methodological point of view. These are my suggestions to improve the article:

1) Adequacy of the objectives of the article

Some dispersion is perceived in terms of the objectives pursued in the article. Although the objectives pursued by both the model and the game are pointed out (first in lines 146-148, and then in lines 154-156), the specific objectives pursued by the article are not clear. For example, the fact that the article tries to satisfy the 4 criteria proposed by Chen and Martin (2015) is more distracting than helpful. The objectives pursued by the article itself should be explicit.

2) Reorder the ideas in section 3

The content of section 3.1 does not follow a previous guide nor is it ordered according to a set of criteria. The "pedagogical capacity" should be analyzed according to certain criteria or previous ideas based on the literature (references 28 to 34, for example), which would bring more consistency to the analysis based on experience. Alternatively, the content of section 3.1 could also be ordered according to elements of analysis derived from the experience itself, such as "participant-facilitator interaction", "resources and previous assumptions", "results", "social and sustainability challenges”, etc.

The reordering of the contents of section 3.1 could be linked specifically to the objectives pursued by the article.

3) Reorder section 2

The Introduction is excessively long and part of its content corresponds more with methodological aspects (lines 101-125). On the other hand, part of the content of section 2 (lines 196-203) are misplaced in the text. Therefore, it is suggested to reorder section 2 introducing a new section called "2.1. Methodological background and novelty". Its content should be completed as follows: enter text of lines 101-125 and lines 196-203. Complete and adapt the new text.

Thus, section 2 would be as follows: 2.1. Methodological background and novelty; 2.2. Description of the "Global Sustainability Crossroads" Game; 2.3. Description of the "Global Sustainability Crossroads" graphical interface.

On the other hand, for a better understanding of section 2.2. Description of the "Global Sustainability Crossroads" Game would be convenient to describe more clearly the steps taken when describing the simulation phase of the game. The text could be ordered according to the steps given, for example: Step 1. Group Constitution; Step 2. Selection of hypotheses; etc.. Complete and adapt the new text.

Some other minor shortcomings or editing errors are the following ones (in ascending order by lines):

-line 176: instead of "Information" should be said "Material".

-page 5. Footnote n.1: instead of "see Discussion" it should be said "see section 3.2.".

-page 6. Table 1: "(composite indicator of income, life expectancy, education)" should go before in the text; it should be go after "HDI> 0.8".

-line 257: earlier in the text "spokesperson" is used instead of "secretary"; if the person is the same, it is advisable to use the same term in both cases.

-lines 337-342 (Figure 4): pointed out that (1), (5) and (6) are the event numbers corresponding to table B1; also note "event numbers" in table B1.

-line 461: specify the meaning of "IAM field" and code the following reference: "van Sluisveld et al. (2016) ".

-line 486: full stop at the end; i.e., "to very active."

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled "Global Sustainability Crossroads: a participatory simulation game to educate in the energy and sustainability challenges of the 21st Century" is well written and valuable contribution for research in ESD. This manuscript certainly has a potential. I have some comments and suggestions for authors.

Page 1, line 41. Not all members of human societies live unsustainable lifestyles!?

Page 9, line 326-328. More detailed information about participants and outcomes is needed, try to divide it according to age groups and educational background and level. This would substantially improve applicability of the results presented.

Some basic questions need to be answered, i.e., Do learners need prior training to be able to benefit from the simulations? For whom is the simulation beneficial and why? etc. Make sure you support your claims with results from assessments.

Page 12. Discussion on systemic thinking would improve the section on pedagogical capacity of the simulation.

Well done.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx