Knowledge Transfer with Citizen Science: Luft-Leipzig Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic addressed in the paper is  relevant and provides a comprehensive overview of good practices for engaging large groups of people in solving significant science problems such as air pollution and global warming. The steps described in the article could be applied to other areas of interaction between citizens and the scientific community. The example of Leipzig is sufficiently detailed and illustrative.

language corrections.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, many thanks for the helpful suggestions. We have reorganized the paper and made several language corrections. In reply to your review, we added limitations and suggestions for future work into discussions. Thanks. Kind regards from Leipzig, Liina Tonisson 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript' Knowledge Transfer with Citizen Science: Luft-Leipzig Case-2 Study' by Tonisson, L et.al. presents a method for knowledge transfer beyond the scope of mitigating short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) and improving air quality. The manuscript presents information worthy of publication. Noteless, the structure of the manuscript needs to be revised. It is confusing that the results are presented before the discussion and that the manuscript lacks a conclusion section.

Some detailed feedback:

L31 – First reference to appear No 8? References should always be numbered in the order they appear!

L36-37 – The authors move from global warming to air quality policies. Consider adding a sentence in between to make this change more settle.

L50 – This sentence needs a reference.

L75 – Please add the last paragraph here to present the aims and highlights of the paper

L76 – This section looks more like a description of previous programs than state of the art. This section does not discuss the programs but instead looks like a collation of each paragraph's programs and briefly contextualises one to another on the paragraph (L163).

L76 – This section should be merged with the previous and then discuss this manuscript's highlights (see previous comment L75).

L76 – Moreover, this prompts the question of the method that the authors used to select these programs and no others.

L101-115 – Where did the authors take the information/data from this project? Please provide the sources for further information for the reader for each project presented in this section.

L146-155 – Same as above

L156-168 – Same as above

L201 – Up to this point, it is unclear whether the authors are doing a case study based on LR or their work. Hence, the authors have not mentioned the methods to collect data for the Luft-Leipzig project was done. Is this a project developed previously by the authors? Was this an initiative carried by other researchers, and the authors are here studying the findings? If the former, why making this a case study?

L201 – This section reads more like the Methods section of the manuscript

L202-214 – The authors assume that the Luft-Leipzig is common knowledge and do not present any further references when describing the project?

L222 – Consuming the information was not voluntary? What do the authors mean by this?

L246 – What are the specs and specific pollutants (PM2.5, PM5, PM10?) collected with these devices?

L245 – What type of data was collected using the monitors and which from the local stations?

L252 – please provide the month between which the measureless took place

L253 – please provide the exact amount of hours. 3000 or 50000 are above 1000!

L254 – Sem as above

L277 – This information is repeated

L287 – This information is also repeated

L287 –  In this chapter?

L290 – Why did the authors not mention the measurements section they collected from the local station? What kind of data did they collect?

L317 – Why the authors did not describe all the physical data collected and the specs on the measurements section? This now comes like a surprise already discussing the results

L334 – Related to previous comments (L290. L317)

L364 – Maxima?

L542 – Please discuss the limitations of this work/method. Please, also describe further work.

L543 – Results are usually presented before the Discussions. Perhaps the Results section should start around L294.

L556-LL564 – This information is repeated

L543-577 – These paragraphs read as part of the discussion. Please merge sections 4 and 5 and provide conclusions for the paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, many thanks for the most helpful suggestions. Please see our detailed replies below. Kind regards from Leipzig, Liina Tonisson

The manuscript' Knowledge Transfer with Citizen Science: Luft-Leipzig Case-2 Study' by Tonisson, L et.al. presents a method for knowledge transfer beyond the scope of mitigating short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) and improving air quality. The manuscript presents information worthy of publication. Noteless, the structure of the manuscript needs to be revised. It is confusing that the results are presented before the discussion and that the manuscript lacks a conclusion section.	Thank you for all the suggestions. This review was the most helpful for us to improve our paper. We made all the corrections as requested. We renamed the chapters as well to better organize the information.
Some detailed feedback:
L31 – First reference to appear No 8? References should always be numbered in the order they appear!	Thank you for pointing this out, we changed that.
L36-37 – The authors move from global warming to air quality policies. Consider adding a sentence in between to make this change more settle.	Thanks. This is a good point because the reader might not connect the issues immediately. Therefore "Dust, allergens, black carbon, water vapor, and other particles, as well as gases in the atmosphere, are constantly interacting and forming new mixtures, often with the influence of heat and ultraviolet radiation. Many direct human health effects of these airborne agents have been well characterized. Some of these agents also have greenhouse properties, contributing to the overall warming of the planet, while. Rising temperatures and air pollution are thus inextricably intertwined. " was added to make this "jump" more settled.
L50 – This sentence needs a reference.	Refrenced. Thanks.
L75 – Please add the last paragraph here to present the aims and highlights of the paper	Added a paragraph to explain what is the take-away from the next chapters. Thanks.
L76 – This section looks more like a description of previous programs than state of the art. This section does not discuss the programs but instead looks like a collation of each paragraph's programs and briefly contextualises one to another on the paragraph (L163).	This we hope we addressed by adding the paragraph above to explain what is meant by state-of-the-art " and we changed the chapter 2 title to "State-of-the-art of Knowledge Transfer Project Set-ups with Citizen Science" to be more clear that the goal is to summarize air quality CS projects because there is no common definition or set-up agreed upon within the science community - 6. Haklay, M.M.; Dörler, D.; Heigl, F.; Manzoni, M.; Hecker, S.; Vohland, K. What Is Citizen Science? The Challenges of Definition. In: Vohland K. et al. (eds) The Science of Citizen Science. Springer, Cham. 2021  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_2
L76 – This section should be merged with the previous and then discuss this manuscript's highlights (see previous comment L75).	Thank you for the recommendation. We stress in the introduction on sustainability and climate change problems that are interlinked with air quality issues and try to set the stage for air pollution makes a difference. We added manuscript highlights as an extra paragraph to the previous section, that was a very helpful suggestion. Not to confuse the reader the second chapter explain the most modern studies and their methods aspects for the reader as the case study was build based on previous studies. Only then do we start explaining the case study itself. I hope now, after several changes to the text this cut is clearer and we do not have to merge the modern methods for carrying out SLCP CS projects (state-of-the-art) and the motivation for such projects in general (introduction).
L76 – Moreover, this prompts the question of the method that the authors used to select these programs and no others.	Good point. As also suggested by later comments here, we have now a seperate "method" chapter. Thanks.
L101-115 – Where did the authors take the information/data from this project? Please provide the sources for further information for the reader for each project presented in this section.	Thanks. Tere is a reference (citation) also at the end of the HEAL-related project description now [11]. We also left the reference at the end of the second sentence, but at the end of the chapter cited two publications once more [10, 11].
L146-155 – Same as above	Thanks. Added [12].
L156-168 – Same as above	Thanks. Added [14].
L201 – Up to this point, it is unclear whether the authors are doing a case study based on LR or their work. Hence, the authors have not mentioned the methods to collect data for the Luft-Leipzig project was done. Is this a project developed previously by the authors? Was this an initiative carried by other researchers, and the authors are here studying the findings? If the former, why making this a case study?	We separated the overview of similar projects and their set-up details and created two separate paragraphs (as suggested also by the next comment). Indeed, the flow of the information is now clearer and easier to grasp. The "method" chapter should now make it clear that the 4 steps method is based on analysis of previous most successful initiatives in the state-of-the-art chapter (L214-215). Thank you for this suggestion. Methods to collect data for citizens we explain in "Measurements "L284-L320.
L201 – This section reads more like the Methods section of the manuscript	Please see the reply above. We seperated the parts were we address the 4 step method and where we summarize all previous related works.
L202-214 – The authors assume that the Luft-Leipzig is common knowledge and do not present any further references when describing the project?	As this is the first publication on Luft-Leipzig, where we just present a novel method and explain how we applied it in the Luft-Leipzig case, we can just add the project website, but this will be taken down by the time this article could get published. Therefore we were reluctant to add the project website here as an "invalid" link would later just confuse the reader.
L222 – Consuming the information was not voluntary? What do the authors mean by this?	We rephrased it. Thanks.
L246 – What are the specs and specific pollutants (PM2.5, PM5, PM10?) collected with these devices?	We specified PM10. We also now mention several times that the tech paper will be published seperately as this is a special issue for sustainability management and not a technical journal. We hope this is now clearer as it indeed might habe been confusing before why we do not show all the data. Thanks.
L245 – What type of data was collected using the monitors and which from the local stations?	Stated in L284-285 "Each volunteer was lent the PM10 and BC sensor set for one week for carrying out measurements". We have specified the PM10 as requested, thank you for pointing that out.
L252 – please provide the month between which the measureless took place	Thanks, made it more percise.
L253 – please provide the exact amount of hours. 3000 or 50000 are above 1000!	Thanks, made it more percise.
L254 – Sem as above	Thanks, made it more percise.
L277 – This information is repeated	Deleted this. Thanks.
L287 – This information is also repeated	Deleted it. Thanks.
L287 –  In this chapter?	We corrected it to "section". Thanks.
L290 – Why did the authors not mention the measurements section they collected from the local station? What kind of data did they collect?	We explain now in the chapter that more in detail, please see L386-395. Thanks.
L317 – Why the authors did not describe all the physical data collected and the specs on the measurements section? This now comes like a surprise already discussing the results	Thank you for mentioning this. We now explain more clearly at the end of the introduction that this paper aims at presenting a set-up that was missing from science before that we validate by showing how we applied that method in the Luft-Leipzig case study. We show in general the methods 4 steps and not all the physical data collected and the specs on the measurements. The technical paper will be published separately. The reader of this study is someone in a coordination role (as this is a special issue for management), whereas the reader to the technical paper will be a pure aerosol-physics scientist.
L334 – Related to previous comments (L290. L317)	We noticed our failure and corrected it. Please see the comment above. Thanks.
L364 – Maxima?	This is a common scientific language, please see https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-016-1927-2 for reference. If possible, we would like to keep this word in as for mathematical modeling such term is used and hope this is acceptable.
L542 – Please discuss the limitations of this work/method. Please, also describe further work.	Very good point thanks. Added a part in th beginning of discussions and at the very end.
L543 – Results are usually presented before the Discussions. Perhaps the Results section should start around L294.	Good point. We changed the case study title so, that now it shoudl eb clearer that the reults are the four validation steps in Leipzig. Thanks.
L556-LL564 – This information is repeated	We rephrased that for the conclusion part a bit and repeat just the most important take-aways from the main text for conclusions.
L543-577 – These paragraphs read as part of the discussion. Please merge sections 4 and 5 and provide conclusions for the paper.	Thank you for the recommendation. The conclusion chapter is now there, we previously referred to the method as a "result of our paper", but indeed as we also discuss the case study the last chapter should be "Conclusions". This was a very good suggestion. We conclude that by designing Luft-Leipzig based on the method that we for the first time present in this paper, we add to science a novel method. This paper is not about specific measurement results as the journal's special issue is for the management of sustainability and therefore we suggest a 4 step method to manage a knowledge transfer project with CS to mitigate air pollution. We hope that now it reads cleared after we separated the state-of-the-art and method parts as suggested and added twice an explanation that here the tech and data specifics won't be mentioned. Therefore we conclude with the method that we validated. Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Line 43. Specify which are the substances labelled as SLCPs.
2. In the state of the art chapter, the authors report relevant case studies corresponding to different methodological approach. Such differences should be better highlighted in conclusion of the chapter, resuming advantages and drawbacks arose from each of the case presented.
3. Chapter 3.2 authors should include a detailed description of the measurement apparatus. Also some consideration should be introduced about the affordability of portable instruments for each of the pollutants considered.
4. Line 296 which general hints were introduced to the participants?
5. Line 385, What does “hindcast mode” mean?
6. I was rather surprised that barbeques could have a significant impact on air quality. I think that a few lines about this habit (frequency of these events, period of the year etc.) should be introduced in the text, to provide an idea to all the readers. Also, results about air quality change due to BBQ should be possibly compared with existing literature studies about the topic.
7. Correct some typos (lines 207, 310, 438)

Author Response

Dear reviewer, many thanks for the helpful suggestions. We have reorganized the paper and made several language corrections. Please see the detailed replies below. Thanks. Kind regards from Leipzig, Liina Tonisson 

 

Line 43. Specify which are the substances labelled as SLCPs.	Good idea. Added: "These pollutants include the greenhouse gases methane and hydrofluorocarbons, and anthropogenic black carbon".
In the state of the art chapter, the authors report relevant case studies corresponding to different methodological approach. Such differences should be better highlighted in conclusion of the chapter, resuming advantages and drawbacks arose from each of the case presented.	Thanks.
Chapter 3.2 authors should include a detailed description of the measurement apparatus. Also some consideration should be introduced about the affordability of portable instruments for each of the pollutants considered.	Thanks. We now explain more clearly at the end of the introduction that this paper aims at presenting a set-up that was missing from science before that we validate by showing how we applied that method in the Luft-Leipzig case study. We show in general the methods 4 steps and not all the physical data collected and the specs on the measurements. The technical paper will be published separately. The reader of this study is someone in a coordination role (as this is a special issue for management), whereas the reader to the technical paper will be a pure aerosol-physics scientist.
Line 296 which general hints were introduced to the participants?
Line 385, What does “hindcast mode” mean?	Thanks.  It is a method of testing a mathematical model by using data from a past event, as this might cause confusion for other we added it L442.
I think that a few lines about this barbeques habit (frequency of these events, period of the year etc.) should be introduced in the text, to provide an idea to all the readers. Also, results about air quality change due to BBQ should be possibly compared with existing literature studies about the topic.	We introced the BBQ topic L524-525. the later paragraph explains it further e.g around 18.00 etc. Thank you for the recommendation.
Correct some typos (lines 207, 310, 438)	Corrected the grammar once more. Thank you for pointing this out.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

P2 L92 - Change chapter by sections. Otherwise the authors have addressed my comments and is good for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we made the change. Thank you once more for your reviews (especially review round 1). Your suggestions for improvements were the most useful for us for improving our paper. We know to appreciate a well-detailed review. Thanks. Kind regards from Leipzig, Liina Tonisson