Designing for Digital Education Futures: Design Thinking for Fostering Higher Education Students’ Sustainability Competencies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study examines how Design Thinking (DT) can be used to develop sustainability capabilities in higher education (HE) students. It is an intriguing study to mix a long-term mindset with practical and creative solutions within that framework in order to develop sustainability skills. Unfortunately, the analysis is conducted in a basic manner, analyzing the DT process of two teams of HE students in co-designing digital educational technologies to address sustainability concerns.

Bianchi et al. designed GreenComp from a European perspective. The authors referenced the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in their introduction. However, the authors have not explained in detail how this will support or limit additional advantages. It is interesting that authors describe how DT will play an essential role and in what capacity.

 

The recommended ways are lacking since the power and deficiencies of each side are not initially given in depth, followed by how the proposed research gained and evolved from a specific concept that will lead to the paper's purpose. The authors must also provide detailed descriptions of the developed approaches based on the gap discoveries revealed by the HE processes. A diagram block or flowchart illustrating the proposed strategy can help you comprehend the specific improvements over alternative methods that were not mentioned in detail in the introduction. The writers should include this in the introduction, followed by the research gap. The methodology should be explicitly stated as a new framework in detail. The methodology should be clearly described as a new framework with detailed processes and limitations.

 

The conclusion does not adequately answer the primary research issue. Furthermore, the final section of the conclusion appears trivial because it describes the qualities of the GreenComp that require DT for the candidate framework for the realization of the long-term mindset concept. The conclusion should highlight the remaining shortcomings of the proposed strategy and how to address them.

The references are suitable and current.

The wording in figures 3 and 4 is too small and requires improvement.

Author Response

Comment 1: The study examines how Design Thinking (DT) can be used to develop sustainability capabilities in higher education (HE) students. It is an intriguing study to mix a long-term mindset with practical and creative solutions within that framework in order to develop sustainability skills. Unfortunately, the analysis is conducted in a basic manner, analysing the DT process of two teams of HE students in co-designing digital educational technologies to address sustainability concerns.

Reply 1: Thank you for the comment. Under section 3.5, we report on the thematic and temporal analysis we conducted on the multimodal data. As it currently stands, the observation about the analysis being basic is somewhat unclear, as no specific aspects are identified. We would welcome further details on what elements of the analysis could be expanded or deepened to improve the manuscript.

 

Comment 2: Bianchi et al. designed GreenComp from a European perspective. The authors referenced the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in their introduction. However, the authors have not explained in detail how this will support or limit additional advantages. It is interesting that authors describe how DT will play an essential role and in what capacity.

Reply 2: The GreenComp framework includes the word “European” to signify its funding source. The methodology used to develop the framework has not included European cultural values.

The GreenComp framework by Bianchi et al. (2022) is introduced as an analytical tool from lines 76-79, with further details on its application in lines 115-118. It is used to classify and analyse the results in terms of sustainability competencies. While its European funding source is noted, we focus on how it supports our analysis of Design Thinking in this educational context.

With regards to “additional advantages”, we interpret this as referring to explaining the advantages and disadvantages of using the GreenComp framework for analysis. Under 3.5, line 403, we have added an explanation for why we chose the framework to address this point whilst noting a possible limitation.

 

Comment 3: The recommended ways are lacking since the power and deficiencies of each side are not initially given in depth, followed by how the proposed research gained and evolved from a specific concept that will lead to the paper's purpose. The authors must also provide detailed descriptions of the developed approaches based on the gap discoveries revealed by the HE processes. A diagram block or flowchart illustrating the proposed strategy can help you comprehend the specific improvements over alternative methods that were not mentioned in detail in the The writers should include this in the introduction, followed by the research gap. The methodology should be explicitly stated as a new framework in detail. The methodology should be clearly described as a new framework with detailed processes and limitations.

Reply 3: Thank you for the detailed comment. We found several elements unclear, such as what is meant by “recommended ways” and “power and deficiencies of each side.”
That said, the research context is introduced in lines 48-50: “The present research is concerned with EfS within Higher Education (HE) …”.
We have edited the introduction’s third paragraph, from line 54, to accent the gap we seek to address. The gap is now reiterated in lines 239-243 (under Research Motivation).
The methodology is based on existing analytic approaches/ conceptual tools. Since we are not using a new framework, we have not made any changes.

 

Comment 4: The conclusion does not adequately answer the primary research issue. Furthermore, the final section of the conclusion appears trivial because it describes the qualities of the GreenComp that require DT for the candidate framework for the realization of the long-term mindset concept. The conclusion should highlight the remaining shortcomings of the proposed strategy and how to address them.

Reply 4: Thank you for this feedback. To explicitly clarify how the study responds to the research question, we adjusted the conclusion, starting from line 1070: “Leveraging the GreenComp framework [1] and the Double-Diamond model of DT, we aimed to explore what sustainability competencies emerged during the DT process (RQ1) and what DT practices supported or hindered the development of these competencies (RQ2)”. This is followed by an explanation of the findings relevant to these RQs.

Additionally, based on our findings and the remaining shortcomings of the approach, we have added implications (from line 1086) for HE practitioners seeking to apply DT in their own practice, e.g., they should investigate ways to scaffold the practices we discuss.

Finally, we have addressed the limitation of transferability and recommend areas for further research.

 

Comment 5: The references are suitable and current.

Reply 5: Thank you. We have revised the references to follow the order of appearance, rather than alphabetical order, to align with the journal’s formatting guidelines (see line 1114).

 

Comment 6: The wording in Figures 3 and 4 is too small and requires improvement.

Reply 6: Thank you for the observation. We have replaced the low-resolution images in Figure 3 with high-resolution versions to increase readability (note, though, that the text within the screenshots of the app is not important to read in detail). Furthermore, we have increased the font size in the figure by 0.5 points for improved clarity. Additionally, the figure captions have all been enlarged from 8 to 10 points.  Lastly, because we do not have a high-quality image of the nature team’s sticky notes (figure 4), we have decided to remove this figure, as it is not legible.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Remove the reference cited in the abstract, adapt the text, and leave it only in the document.

The references cited in the document are in a different format from the references section. Adopt the numbering format, e.g. [1].

In the references section, they are sorted alphabetically, redo them in order of textual appearance in the document.

Current references were used, very good.

Lines 173 and 174 - leave only DT, there is no need for Design Thinking (DT) since it was abbreviated on the previous pages.

Is it possible to make a public folder available in the cloud with the materials collected or created during the DT phases? Such a repository will allow the replication of the research.

It was great to have performed the thematic analysis using NVivo software.

Figure 6 needs to be enlarged, one suggestion is to include it in an Appendix.

Lines 669 to 682 - The figures contained in A (Fashion Turtles introduction) were not cited in the text.

Given that the main premise of DT is the application of phases with a focus on people, it would be interesting to include their profile in the document. For example, create a table with the profile of those involved (stakeholders) in all phases of DT in the projects mentioned: children (age, residence (rural/city), prior knowledge of sustainability, knowledge acquired, difficulties presented, ...), designers (age, role in the project, knowledge acquired, difficulties presented, expectations of the project or future research, ...) and other stakeholders. A flowchart can be created to direct those involved (for example, designers pointing to children, who point to a more conscious and sustainable future) or use another diagram that focuses on how people interact with the applications presented (for example, UML use case diagram). It could also have presented the functional requirements and non-functional requirements of the two applications, which of these requirements were designed and then which of these requirements were met during the iterations in the DT phases or during the project life cycle.

Lines 979 to 984 - instead of using bullets, use numbering.

Congratulations on the work done, the research is relevant!

Author Response

Comment 1: Remove the reference cited in the abstract, adapt the text, and leave it only in the document.

Reply 1: Thank you for the note. We chose to keep the reference in the abstract as it briefly introduces the framework guiding the study (see lines 16-17).

 

Comment 2: The references cited in the document are in a different format from the references section. Adopt the numbering format, e.g. [1].

Reply 2: Thanks for pointing this out. We've updated all citations and references to follow the journal’s numbering format (see line 1114).

 

Comment 3: In the references section, they are sorted alphabetically, redo them in order of textual appearance in the document.

Reply 3: Thank you! The references have been reordered to follow their appearance in the text (see line 1114).

 

Comment 4: Current references were used, very good.

Reply 4: We appreciate the positive feedback.

 

Comment 5: Lines 173 and 174 - leave only DT, there is no need for Design Thinking (DT) since it was abbreviated on the previous pages.

Reply 5: We’ve updated the text to use only the abbreviation “DT” (see line 173).

 

Comment 6: Is it possible to make a public folder available in the cloud with the materials collected or created during the DT phases? Such a repository will allow the replication of the research.

Reply 6: Thank you for the suggestion. However, our participants did not give consent for their data to be shared more publicly, so we cannot share this for ethical reasons.

 

Comment 7: It was great to have performed the thematic analysis using NVivo software.

Reply 7: We’re glad that aspect stood out.

 

Comment 8: Figure 6 needs to be enlarged; one suggestion is to include it in an Appendix.

Reply 8: Thanks for the suggestion. We’ve enlarged Figure 5 (previously Figure 6) and other figures. Please let us know if they are now clear enough (see line 665).

 

Comment 9: Lines 669 to 682 - The figures contained in A (Fashion Turtles introduction) were not cited in the text.

Reply 9: Thank you for the note! We’ve now referenced each subfigure in the text (see lines 677-685).

 

Comment 10 (Part 1): Given that the main premise of DT is the application of phases with a focus on people, it would be interesting to include their profiles in the document. For example, create a table with the profile of those involved (stakeholders) in all phases of DT in the projects mentioned: children (age, residence (rural/city), prior knowledge of sustainability, knowledge acquired, difficulties presented, ...), designers (age, role in the project, knowledge acquired, difficulties presented, expectations of the project or future research, ...) and other stakeholders…

Reply 10: Table 2 reports the profiles of the student designers in this project. The children were Year 5 pupils at a rural school in Oxfordshire. Because the children were not direct research participants, we cannot report further data about them, unfortunately.

 

Comment 10 (Part 2) …A flowchart can be created to direct those involved (for example, designers pointing to children, who point to a more conscious and sustainable future) or use another diagram that focuses on how people interact with the applications presented (for example, UML use case diagram). It could also have presented the functional requirements and non-functional requirements of the two applications, which of these requirements were designed and then which of these requirements were met during the iterations in the DT phases or during the project life cycle.

Reply 10: Thank you for this comment. On the flowchart remark, we found it challenging to understand what is being suggested and, thus, are not certain how to implement this. With regards to UML diagrams and requirements, these are used in engineering approaches to design. Design thinking follows from creative traditions rooted in design studies, and as such, the documentation tends to be more reflective and visual, aligning with what we have already reported in the findings section. Since these diagrams/requirements were not part of the HE students’ design process, we would also find it disingenuous to create them. This said, we have added additional screenshots to Figures 3 and 6 (screenshots of the two apps) to give extra detail of how children would interact in the apps (these figures can be read from left to right, top to bottom, in terms of flow), which we hope addresses this comment.

 

Comment 11: Lines 979 to 984 - instead of using bullets, use numbering.

Reply 11: We’ve numbered the items for easier reading (see lines 969-974).

 

Comment 12: Congratulations on the work done, the research is relevant!

Reply 12: Thank you so much! We're happy the research resonated with you.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors examined how Design Thinking for sustainable futures fosters higher education students’ sustainability competencies. The main comments that could improve the quality of the article:

1. The title of the article is too long. I suggest shortening it.
2. What new thing does the presented study bring to science? Based on the literature review, the research gap should be clearly highlighted. The paper formulates a research question. It should be extracted from the text. The research question should result from the research gap.
3. The number of students participating in the study is completely unclear, this should be explained in detail. At the moment it is as follows:

“This HE student designers (eight female, two male) were involved in the research…”

“From the 32 students participating in the overall module, this paper focuses on two five-member design teams…”

4. In what year was the study conducted?
5. Some parts of the text are written in bold. This marking should be removed.
6. The title of the table should be above the table. Explanations of symbols should be below the table.
7. The symbols in Table 5 are unclear. The meaning of the symbol “?” is explained. However, the meaning of the symbol “∞” is not explained. The symbol “¥” that is not in Table 5 is explained.
8. The Conclusions section should mention the limitations of the study.
9. References and citations to literature should be formatted according to the Sustainability journal guidelines.
10. Who is the author of the photos and figures (Figures 3-7)?

Author Response

Comment 1: The title of the article is too long. I suggest shortening it.

Reply 1: Reviewing the title, we have made small grammatical edits that improve its readability and shorten it slightly, whilst keeping important contextual information: “Designing for Digital Education Futures: Design Thinking for Fostering Higher Education Students’ Sustainability Competencies” (lines 2-4). The ‘short’ title of the paper (appearing in headers, etc.) can be “Design Thinking for Fostering Sustainability Competencies”.

 

Comment 2: What new thing does the presented study bring to science? Based on the literature review, the research gap should be clearly highlighted. The paper formulates a research question. It should be extracted from the text. The research question should result from the research gap.

Reply 2: We have edited the introduction’s third paragraph, from line 62-66: “Previous research has not taken a process-oriented…”, to accent the gap we seek to address. The gap is now reiterated in lines 239-243 (under Research Motivation).

 

Comment 3: The number of students participating in the study is completely unclear, this should be explained in detail. At the moment it is as follows: “This HE student designers (eight female, two male) were involved in the research…”, “From the 32 students participating in the overall module, this paper focuses on two five-member design teams…”

Reply 3: There were 10 students involved in this research, involving two five-member design teams. Each team had four female and one male member. These ten students came from an overall module with 32 students. We’ve corrected the text in the manuscript to make this clearer: “This research involved HE student designers enrolled in a ‘design thinking and making’ module offered in an Education and Technology postgraduate master’s degree at a London-based University in 2023. From the 32 students participating in the module, this paper focuses on two five-member student design teams (n=10 total) who worked with children on the topic of nature connection or fast fashion. All ten students provided informed consent to participate in this research following an institutionally approved ethics process. Of the ten student designers, eight were female and two male (one male per group). ” (lines 249-257).

 

Comment 4: In what year was the study conducted?

Reply 4: Thank you for highlighting this. The study was conducted in 2023 and analysed between 2023 and 2024. We have added this detail in the methodology section (see line 251).

 

Comment 5: Some parts of the text are written in bold. This marking should be removed.

Reply 5: We’ve removed the bold formatting to ensure consistency throughout the manuscript.

 

Comment 6: The title of the table should be above the table. Explanations of symbols should be below the table.

Reply 6: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised all tables to follow the journal's format, with titles and symbol explanations placed above.

 

Comment 7: The symbols in Table 5 are unclear. The meaning of the symbol “?” is explained. However, the meaning of the symbol “∞” is not explained. The symbol “¥” that is not in Table 5 is explained.

Reply 7: Thank you for your observation. We mistakenly referred to the symbol “¥” instead of “∞” and have corrected this to clarify the table (see Line 957-958).

 

Comment 8: The Conclusions section should mention the limitations of the study.

Reply 8: As this research is based on a case study, the limitations relate to how the chosen approach and findings might be further examined and applied in different educational contexts. We have added clarification on this point in the conclusion (from line 1097).

 

Comment 9: References and citations to literature should be formatted according to the Sustainability journal guidelines.

Reply 9: We have revised all citations and references to align with the journal’s formatting requirements (see line 1114).

 

Comment 10: Who is the author of the photos and figures (Figures 3-7)?

Reply 10: Thank you for raising this. Figures 3 to 7 were created by the student teams who participated in the study. We have now included team attribution in the figure captions (see Figures 1 to 9).

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You may need to broaden your study sample from 10 participants to 20 - 10 each

A longitudinal study in future can help to test the study in the real-world situation

Team dynamics need to be examined in terms of correlations to emergence of competencies

Also quantitative metrics can be used to measure dynamics of emergence of competences

The study can be broadened to include primary and secondary education.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: You may need to broaden your study sample from 10 participants to 20 - 10 each.

Reply 1: Thank you for your suggestion. As this is a qualitative case study, we intentionally focused on ten participants embedded in two student teams to explore their experiences and interactions in depth, in line with the study’s aims. Furthermore, in Design-Based Learning, it is important pedagogically for students to work in small groups (e.g., of 5), as larger groups become very difficult to manage.

 

Comment 2: A longitudinal study in future can help to test the study in the real-world situation.

Reply 2: Thank you for the thoughtful recommendation. The purpose of this research was to investigate Design Thinking/Design-Based Learning as a pedagogical approach in higher education, in line with the aims of this special issue. As such, the research was conducted in the real-world context of our teaching, and the students had the opportunity to engage with real-world external stakeholders/end-users. The length of the study reflects the teaching term. We appreciate the suggestion of a longitudinal approach for future research to continue exploring the development of these competencies over time, e.g., throughout an entire education programme. We have added this as a recommendation for future research in the conclusion (line 1104).

 

Comment 3: Team dynamics need to be examined in terms of correlations to emergence of competencies.

Reply 3: Thank you for raising this important point. As discussed in the findings, team dynamics played a role in the development of competencies, but it was out of scope to explore this topic in more depth since our RQ pointed towards a different gap. We will certainly consider your suggestion should we pursue this line of inquiry through a quantitative or mixed-methods approach.

 

Comment 4: Also quantitative metrics can be used to measure dynamics of emergence of competences.

Reply 4: Thank you for the insight. We agree that incorporating quantitative metrics could enrich future research that focuses on team dynamics and will keep this in mind as a possible extension of our current qualitative approach.

 

Comment 5: The study can be broadened to include primary and secondary education.

Reply 5: Thank you for the thoughtful idea. The current focus of the paper is on higher education, but we appreciate your perspective on how the study could be extended to other groups in future research.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

line 64 suggests answering 2 questions, however, line 67 proposes answering THIS QUESTION.

line 135 By saying PREVIOUS WORK SHOWS ... and then referring to Guaman-Quintanilla et al., 2023, we are confused if the authors mean that "this work was inspired" or they are citing Guaman-Quintanilla et al.

line 185 Not very easy to understand how an early work could extend a later research: "This research uses the ‘Double Diamond’ Model of Design Thinking proposed by the Design Council (2025) and extended by Liu (2016)".

line 225 "we postulate that it can also stimulate the communication and negotiation skills necessary to navigate wicked problems (Guaman-Quintanilla et al., 2023; Koh, 2015)" -if the authors are postulating or Guaman-Quintanilla et al.: that stayed beyond my understanding.

Concerning the second group of children, the Fashion team, we can also say some positive things towards the students that carried out this research. However, we do not share the students expectations that children should have known a lot in clothing lifecycle and if their knowledge is influenced by peers or adults in their lives (at least we are speaking about 9-10-year-old.

Of course it is naive to anticipate interest in fashion trends reflected in social media. (We do not think these questions are based). When it comes to some concerns, like animal welfare and byproducts (e.g., cows for leather produce methane, animals are poached for materials, silkworms die in the process of making silk), as well as other processes (e.g., deforestation for cotton fields, factories that make clothing running on fossil fuels, animals getting caught in discarded materials) we would like to ask: are you ready go back to 2000-3000 years or these concerns are a mere concern to express concerns? I would advise the students to remember their being a kid and not criticize the latter for being unable to speak on some things.

line 408 check the grammar: (how did they understood the complexity of the sustainability challenge) 

line 409 check the grammar: (how did they designed digital educational technologies to address the challenge).

The conclusion should not have any references to scholars because it is not their conclusion but the authors'.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

line 408 check the grammar: (how did they understood the complexity of the sustainability challenge) 

line 409 check the grammar: (how did they designed digital educational technologies to address the challenge).

Author Response

Comment 1: line 64 suggests answering 2 questions, however, line 67 proposes answering THIS QUESTION.

Reply 1: Thank you for noticing this! We've clarified lines 66 and 70 (previously 64 and 67) to reflect both research questions.

 

Comment 2: line 135 By saying PREVIOUS WORK SHOWS ... and then referring to Guaman-Quintanilla et al., 2023, we are confused if the authors mean that "this work was inspired" or they are citing Guaman-Quintanilla et al.

Reply 2: Thank you for the helpful note. We’ve revised the sentence to clarify that we are citing Guaman-Quintanilla et al.'s study: “Previous work carried out by Guaman-Quintanilla et al. [13] shows that design-based learning (DBL) can inspire HE students to reflect on their learning process and create their own meanings as they work on mitigating real-life challenges through design, including identifying constraints, generating possible ideas, and testing prototypes” (see lines 137-140).

 

Comment 3: line 185 Not very easy to understand how an early work could extend a later research: "This research uses the ‘Double Diamond’ Model of Design Thinking proposed by the Design Council (2025) and extended by Liu (2016)".

Reply 3: Thank you for catching this! We've corrected the reference: “This research uses the 'Double Diamond' model of Design Thinking, proposed by the UK Design Council in 2003 [32] and later extended by Liu in 2016 [33]” (see lines 183-184).

 

Comment 4: line 225 "we postulate that it can also stimulate the communication and negotiation skills necessary to navigate wicked problems (Guaman-Quintanilla et al., 2023; Koh, 2015)" -if the authors are postulating or Guaman-Quintanilla et al.: that stayed beyond my understanding.

Reply 4: Many thanks for flagging this. We’ve clarified that the examples are drawn from the literature by adding “e.g.” before the references: “we postulate that it can also stimulate the communication and negotiation skills necessary to navigate wicked problems, e.g. [13,43].” (see lines 222-223).

 

Comment 5: Concerning the second group of children, the Fashion team, we can also say some positive things towards the students that carried out this research. However, we do not share the students expectations that children should have known a lot in clothing lifecycle and if their knowledge is influenced by peers or adults in their lives (at least we are speaking about 9-10-year-old.

Reply 5: Indeed, it was speculative of the Fashion team to have these expectations about children’s knowledge. We’ve added an acknowledgement of this in lines 765-767: “During the weekly group chat, Stefania and Angelina both reflected on how they had spent effort looking at the general domain of fast fashion without connecting these broader themes to children’s values and practices:”

 

Comment 6: Of course it is naive to anticipate interest in fashion trends reflected in social media. (We do not think these questions are based). When it comes to some concerns, like animal welfare and byproducts (e.g., cows for leather produce methane, animals are poached for materials, silkworms die in the process of making silk), as well as other processes (e.g., deforestation for cotton fields, factories that make clothing running on fossil fuels, animals getting caught in discarded materials) we would like to ask: are you ready go back to 2000-3000 years or these concerns are a mere concern to express concerns? I would advise the students to remember their being a kid and not criticize the latter for being unable to speak on some things.

Reply 6: Our analysis seeks to foreground the HE students’ interpretations of the design process. Nonetheless, we agree that there is no basis for the students to be judgmental of the children’s lack of knowledge. As their tutors, we felt there were many different (and more interesting) directions that the students could have taken after their user research, but their novice experience led them to latch onto what they saw as a knowledge gap for the children. We acknowledge this in lines 776-779: “Despite these reflections, the Fashion team did not appear to return to the literature after the user research to understand how children have engaged in positive environmental actions as it relates to fast fashion and juxtapose previous work to their findings.”

 

Comment 7: line 408 check the grammar: (how did they understood the complexity of the sustainability challenge).

Reply 7: Thank you for the observation. We've revised it to: “(how students made sense of the sustainability challenge)” (line 416).

 

Comment 8: line 409 check the grammar: (how did they designed digital educational technologies to address the challenge).

Reply 8: We’ve updated this sentence to: “(how students designed an educational technology to address the challenge)” (line 417).

 

Comment 9: The conclusion should not have any references to scholars because it is not their conclusion but the authors'

Reply 9: Thank you for this comment. We have only kept references that contextualise the research topic and competence framework. We have added “e.g.” to illustrate similar projects and “see” to specify the framework that founded the research (see lines 1067, 1071), to make it clear that this derives from others and is not part of our conclusions derived from our findings.

 

Comment 10: line 408 check the grammar: (how did they understood the complexity of the sustainability challenge).

Reply 10: Thank you again for your careful reading. The sentence has been corrected as mentioned in reply 7.

 

Comment 11: line 409 check the grammar: (how did they designed digital educational technologies to address the challenge).

Reply 11:  We appreciate the reminder. The correction has been implemented as mentioned in reply 8.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript addresses the questions and concerns raised during the review process. While it is understood that some responses do not provide direct or unequivocal answers to specific issues, the writers made an honest effort to discern the objective behind each question and edit the paper accordingly. The changes made in the amended version exhibit careful consideration of the reviewers' recommendations and a willingness to improve the work's clarity, coherence, and academic rigor. The manuscript now better aligns with the topic and methodological expectations laid out during the review. Given these revisions, the work is regarded to have met an acceptable scientific level and is ready for publishing.