Supporting Sustainable Development Through Early-Life DRR Learning Opportunities: UK School Insights

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In Table 1, the frequency of the item with a tally of 1 should be 4.3% instead of <0%.
2. Although the author's research content is very meaningful, discussing children's understanding of the necessities needed to survive in floods. However, some shortcomings limit these findings. First, the author only included 31 children from one class in the study. The small sample size may lead to bias in this finding. It is recommended to use a multi-grade study of the whole school and compare the differences in the understanding of the necessities needed to survive in floods among children of different grades or age groups. It would be more interesting. In addition, the author mentioned that the contents of the paintings of 8 children were difficult to identify. They should not be simply eliminated here. Maybe they have some unique insights. The contents of their paintings can be determined by post-questioning and included in the study.

Author Response

Comment: In Table 1, the frequency of the item with a tally of 1 should be 4.3% instead of <0%.

Response: This error has been amended in the table. 

Comment: Although the author's research content is very meaningful, discussing children's understanding of the necessities needed to survive in floods. However, some shortcomings limit these findings. First, the author only included 31 children from one class in the study. The small sample size may lead to bias in this finding. It is recommended to use a multi-grade study of the whole school and compare the differences in the understanding of the necessities needed to survive in floods among children of different grades or age groups. It would be more interesting. In addition, the author mentioned that the contents of the paintings of 8 children were difficult to identify. They should not be simply eliminated here. Maybe they have some unique insights. The contents of their paintings can be determined by post-questioning and included in the study.

Response: This is an exploratory study as this is an under investigated area of research. In line with exploring the ideas outlined in this paper, the researcher was observing this limited group to identity whether an important insight could be drawn. The suggested study design would be a good direction to take after this study, but as it stands this research was simply an exploration of insights in this context. A further picture has been included in the study to evidence why the exclusion of certain posters was necessary – to ensure rigor, only clearly visible items were included with annotations as the focus was on what the children drew. This study only focused on the secondary data not the children themselves. 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper analyses posters created by 7-year-old children in a primary school in the United Kingdom and is methodologically well structured. In fact, the analyses carried out appear to have been performed correctly. However, I found it difficult to understand the aim of the paper on first reading because it is not clearly stated. I therefore recommend that the authors improve the abstract and introduction so that readers can understand their research objective.

Author Response

Comment: The paper analyses posters created by 7-year-old children in a primary school in the United Kingdom and is methodologically well structured. In fact, the analyses carried out appear to have been performed correctly. However, I found it difficult to understand the aim of the paper on first reading because it is not clearly stated. I therefore recommend that the authors improve the abstract and introduction so that readers can understand their research objective.

Response: The aim of the paper is to improve understanding about children’s capacity to engage with disaster risk reduction information and knowledge, as reflected in the posters they produced. This has been added to the Abstract and Introduction to create greater clarity.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Supporting Sustainable Development through Early-Life DRR 2

Learning Opportunities: UK School Insights

Comments: 

The topic is interesting, discussing the engagement of children in DRR as part of sustainable development. It is based on the outcomes of prior climate change workshops.

The paper is well-designed and well-written. A few comments for development are listed as follows: 

Proof-reading and language checks are needed to avoid long sentences and perform other language checks as highlighted in the attachment

  

Page 1 line 40 is it based on references or is it the research hypothesis?

 

Page 2 line 62-66 proof reading and language check are needed to avoid long sentences. Please break them into shorter, less confusing ones.

 

Page 2 line 89 please avoid the use of 'logically', instead, authors should provide scientific evidence and not urge readers based on logical claims. Hence, either state it is based on previous studies (adding references), or it is the paper's hypothesis.

 

Page 3 lines 94-95 please delete any personal views

 

Page 3 line 98 ..’making in later life’… not clear, what do you mean?

 

Page 3 line 111, ‘otherwise but unavailable to’..sentence check

 

Page 4 Line 167 ‘select’ ..change to selected

 

Page 5 line 214.. repeated, delete

 

Page 10 line 366 language check

 

Page 10 line 357.. have DRR knowledge and skills hope to see future workshops concerning this, authors can add in recommendations for future research in the conclusion section

 

Section 5.4: Limitations:

Also add the age as another limitation to the research findings. Why the age of 7 particularly?

The poster: as a visual representation , not supported with oral discussion. This is why some of the posters were excluded because their annotations were not clear enough for analysis, not because the children did not participate.

 

Abstract and Conclusion,

Suggest supporting it with numerical evidence based on your study, adding some of your data analysis insights about categorizing the needs

 

Please move the directions for future research to the conclusion section 

 

Kindly find attached a detailed annotated version for your guidance. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment: Page 1 line 40 is it based on references or is it the research hypothesis?

Response: a reference for this statement as been added. 

Comment: Page 2 line 62-66 proof reading and language check are needed to avoid long sentences. Please break them into shorter, less confusing ones.

Response: The sentence has been clarified - Through earlier engagement, there are simply more opportunities to involve children in sustainable practices. In early interactions, it can be established what sustainable behaviours look like – essentially children are supported in developing reference points that help to guide future interactions with the environment and sharpening their critical evaluation skills. In synthesis, such interactions help to develop the precision of distinguishing the impacts of actions and identifying misinformation.

Comment: Page 2 line 89 please avoid the use of 'logically', instead, authors should provide scientific evidence and not urge readers based on logical claims. Hence, either state it is based on previous studies (adding references), or it is the paper's hypothesis.

Response: This has been corrected. 'Logically' has been removed, and evidence for the statement in the form of prior research has been provided. 

Comment: Page 3 lines 94-95 please delete any personal views

Response: This has been deleted. 

Comment: Page 3 line 98 ..’making in later life’… not clear, what do you mean?

Response: This has been clarified - Such a reality outlines that the value of early exposure goes beyond establishing accurate information about the changing climate, in that it also supports critical thinking development by asking children to question ideas early on. And this is vital for high-level decision making in later life, especially in assessing evidence presented by political parties, companies, etc., or other decision makers. 

Comment: Page 3 line 111, ‘otherwise but unavailable to’..sentence check

Response: This has been corrected ('but' has been changed to 'be'). 

Comment: Page 4 Line 167 ‘select’ ..change to selected

Response: The above change has been made. 

Comment: Page 5 line 214.. repeated, delete

Response: Repetition has been removed. 

Comment: Page 10 line 366 language check

Response: Sentence structure has been improved. 

Comment: Page 10 line 357.. have DRR knowledge and skills hope to see future workshops concerning this, authors can add in recommendations for future research in the conclusion section

Response: This has been added to the conclusion as a recommendation for the future. 

Section 5.4: Limitations:

Comment: Also add the age as another limitation to the research findings. Why the age of 7 particularly?

Response: The following has been added - The age of the children is another limitation of this research. The posters that have been reviewed were created by children aged 7, which means the outcomes of this research are skewed towards reflecting this particular age group. This is a purely circumstantial reality, and any future studies would benefit from reviewing work and interacting with a range of age groups to better reflect the views across different ages. 

Comment: The poster: as a visual representation , not supported with oral discussion. This is why some of the posters were excluded because their annotations were not clear enough for analysis, not because the children did not participate.

Response: This has not been changed. As this study focused on secondary data, it is simply the nature of the research to rely primarily on that data and respect the inclusion/exclusion criteria to maintain rigour. While conversations with children would have clarified their posters, that is an entirely different study design that stirs away from the outputs.  

Abstract and Conclusion,

Comment: Suggest supporting it with numerical evidence based on your study, adding some of your data analysis insights about categorizing the needs

Response: Some additions have been made. 

Comment: Please move the directions for future research to the conclusion section 

Response: This has been moved. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Evaluation

This study explores the importance of involving children in disaster risk reduction (DRR) education and assesses children's capacity to participate in DRR decision-making by analyzing flood emergency kit posters created by UK primary school children. The topic is timely and aligns with current needs in sustainable development and climate adaptation. The case study design is appropriate, but there are limitations regarding sample representativeness and depth of data analysis. Revisions are necessary to enhance the manuscript’s clarity, rigour, and persuasiveness.

Specific Comments

（1）The study includes only 31 children (with 23 valid samples) from a single UK primary school. However, the manuscript does not describe the school’s geographic location, socio-economic context, or flood exposure history, which limits the generalizability of the findings (e.g., urban vs. rural differences). The authors should either diversify the sample (e.g., comparative multi-school data) or clearly state this is an exploratory case study with limited scope.

（2）The methodology does not specify whether teachers or researchers provided item prompts during the workshop. If such prompts were used, they may have influenced the children’s responses. Please clarify the instructions given to children and how suggestive or leading content was avoided, to ensure authenticity in children's item choices.

（3）The study focuses on item frequency (Table 1) and broad categorization (Table 2), but lacks deeper qualitative insight. Children’s annotations—if available—could offer valuable perspectives on their motivations (e.g., why a child chose a gaming console). Consider conducting thematic analysis (e.g., “pragmatic survival” vs. “emotional comfort”) and incorporating sample quotations to support interpretations.

（4）There are discrepancies in item frequency reporting. For instance, “Food” appears in 22 out of 23 posters, which should be reported as 95.6%, not 96%. Also, the frequency for “Map” is listed as "<0%," which is incorrect—it should be 4.3%. Please review and correct these inconsistencies.

（5）The high frequency of survival items (e.g., food, water) shows basic hazard awareness, but the study lacks comparison with adult-curated DRR kits (e.g., Red Cross emergency checklist). This comparison would better establish the “practicality” of children’s choices. Furthermore, the interpretation of “comfort” items like gaming consoles as tools for stress relief is speculative. Support this claim with psychological literature, or alternatively, acknowledge the potential risk (e.g., delay in evacuation). The low selection rate of flood-specific items like flotation devices (13%) suggests gaps in children’s hazard-specific knowledge—this should be discussed in more depth.

（6）While international practices (e.g., Japan) are well referenced, the manuscript does not critically examine UK-specific curriculum limitations. Consider including examples from the UK national curriculum or policy documents to highlight where DRR is currently absent or underrepresented.

（7）The title refers to “Supporting Sustainable Development,” but the manuscript does not clearly articulate how children’s DRR education contributes to specific SDG targets (e.g., SDG 4.7, 11.5, 13.3). Please strengthen the conclusion by explicitly linking the findings to these goals.

（8）The manuscript advocates for DRR integration into the school curriculum but lacks actionable guidance. Suggestions could include subject-specific integration (e.g., using flood simulation games in Geography), or teacher training strategies (e.g., referring to de Rivas et al., 2025).

（9）Some references lack complete citation details or consistent formatting. Please revise all entries to adhere to journal style guidelines (e.g., author names, publication years, DOI links).

 

 

Author Response

（1）The study includes only 31 children (with 23 valid samples) from a single UK primary school. However, the manuscript does not describe the school’s geographic location, socio-economic context, or flood exposure history, which limits the generalizability of the findings (e.g., urban vs. rural differences). The authors should either diversify the sample (e.g., comparative multi-school data) or clearly state this is an exploratory case study with limited scope.

Response: It has been clarified in the Methodology that this is an exploratory case study with limited scope. It is focused on engaging with ideas in an area of research that is understudied. 

（2）The methodology does not specify whether teachers or researchers provided item prompts during the workshop. If such prompts were used, they may have influenced the children’s responses. Please clarify the instructions given to children and how suggestive or leading content was avoided, to ensure authenticity in children's item choices.

Response: The following statement was added to the Methodology - The workshops only included descriptive information about events like flooding, climate change, and evacuation without discussing items needed for flood evacuation. Rather, they focused on presenting what happens during a flood, how climate change relates to flooding, and what it means to evacuate – this was the only information presented to the children prior to the poster creation activity, meaning there were no prompts posed to the children. They were only asked to use their knowledge to design a poster of a flood evacuation kit with items they would take if there was a flood. 

（3）The study focuses on item frequency (Table 1) and broad categorization (Table 2), but lacks deeper qualitative insight. Children’s annotations—if available—could offer valuable perspectives on their motivations (e.g., why a child chose a gaming console). Consider conducting thematic analysis (e.g., “pragmatic survival” vs. “emotional comfort”) and incorporating sample quotations to support interpretations.

Response: This was an exploratory study that focused on assessing children's capacity to engage with DRR information and knowledge, especially in terms of determining whether there is legitimacy to the exclusion of children from DRR activities and information. There were no further annotations or descriptions provided by the children about their drawing that would support further analysis. This suggestion would be helpful for the construction of a future study.

（4）There are discrepancies in item frequency reporting. For instance, “Food” appears in 22 out of 23 posters, which should be reported as 95.6%, not 96%. Also, the frequency for “Map” is listed as "<0%," which is incorrect—it should be 4.3%. Please review and correct these inconsistencies.

Response: This has been identified and corrected. 

（5）The high frequency of survival items (e.g., food, water) shows basic hazard awareness, but the study lacks comparison with adult-curated DRR kits (e.g., Red Cross emergency checklist). This comparison would better establish the “practicality” of children’s choices. Furthermore, the interpretation of “comfort” items like gaming consoles as tools for stress relief is speculative. Support this claim with psychological literature, or alternatively, acknowledge the potential risk (e.g., delay in evacuation). The low selection rate of flood-specific items like flotation devices (13%) suggests gaps in children’s hazard-specific knowledge—this should be discussed in more depth.

Response: Comparison to British Red Cross kit has been made. Further psychological literature has been used to justify comment about video games. And specific flood related items have now been discussed. 

（6）While international practices (e.g., Japan) are well referenced, the manuscript does not critically examine UK-specific curriculum limitations. Consider including examples from the UK national curriculum or policy documents to highlight where DRR is currently absent or underrepresented.

Response: The following statement had been refined and added to to reflect the absence of DRR in the UK context - In reflecting on children’s experiences with DRR, it is pivotal to acknowledge the current education curriculum and its limits in supporting the development of disaster resilience and engagement in DRR activities in the UK context. At present, there is no formal DRR education in schools across the UK, with Geography lessons touching upon some topics relevant to natural hazards and disasters but not directly offering localised information or engaging children in emergency response activities (Rawling, 2016) like in Japan where there are regular evacuation drills coupled with preparedness education (Sun et al., 2024; Kitagawa, 2024). Rawling (2016) evaluated the UK geography curriculum, reflecting that it is constrained by a multitude of different topics such as place, space and the environment. And that at key stage 1 and 2, concepts of disasters are largely avoided, leaving ample time for describing landscapes and building geographical vocabulary. However, in structuring the UK curriculum in this way, the real potential of disasters is not addressed and children in the UK are denied useful learning opportunities – essentially, there is no opportunity in the UK education system for children to learn about DRR specifically. 

（7）The title refers to “Supporting Sustainable Development,” but the manuscript does not clearly articulate how children’s DRR education contributes to specific SDG targets (e.g., SDG 4.7, 11.5, 13.3). Please strengthen the conclusion by explicitly linking the findings to these goals.

Response: The following statement has been added to the conclusion - Through insights gained this research supports efforts by the United Nations to meet the Sustainable Development Goals, specifically goals 4 (Quality Education), 11 (Sustainable Cities & Communities), and 13 (Climate Action). In advocating for DRR workshops and other learning opportunities this research seeks to support children’s learning aligning with SDG 4, while through establishing a pathway for outlining sustainable behaviour at an early age this research supports SDGs 11 and 13.

（8）The manuscript advocates for DRR integration into the school curriculum but lacks actionable guidance. Suggestions could include subject-specific integration (e.g., using flood simulation games in Geography), or teacher training strategies (e.g., referring to de Rivas et al., 2025).

Response: The following statement has been added to the conclusion - This research advocates for future DRR workshops to support knowledge and skills development. While there is a recognition that pre-existing curriculum (especially geography) is constrained, a case should be made for including DRR learning opportunities as part of extra-curricular activities which may be more feasible and give children a choice in engagement.

（9）Some references lack complete citation details or consistent formatting. Please revise all entries to adhere to journal style guidelines (e.g., author names, publication years, DOI links).

Response: All references have now been reviewed to adhere to the journal specific requirements. 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for revising the manuscipt following my previous comments. I have revised the revised version and all previous comments have been addressed. 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of the manuscript titled “Supporting Sustainable Development through Early-Life DRR 2 Learning Opportunities: UK School Insights” (ID: sustainability-3660922). I have carefully evaluated the authors’ responses to the review comments and the corresponding revisions made to the manuscript.

The authors have addressed all the concerns raised in the previous review. The revised manuscript is now more rigorous and clearly presented.Given the satisfactory revisions, I recommend acceptance in its current form (Accept as Is).

Please feel free to contact me if further clarification is needed.

Best regards,