Towards Inclusive and Sustainable Nature Education in Austria: Evaluation of Organization, Infrastructure, Risk Assessment, and Legal Frameworks of Forest and Nature Childcare Groups^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses an important and relatively unexplored topic: the evaluation of forest and nature-based childcare groups in Austria from a sustainability perspective. The connection between Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) is well explained and supported by recent and relevant literature. The methodology combines structured and semi-structured instruments, which allows for a good overview of organizational and infrastructure conditions. The study also provides interesting findings on the relationship between type of infrastructure and childcare costs, supported by appropriate statistical analyses (ANOVA, Chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis).

While the English is understandable, some sections include long or complex sentences that could be improved for clarity and flow. For example, the discussion section often repeats what was already said in the results. It would be helpful to make this part more concise and focus on the main contributions. I also suggest a deeper analysis of the findings, especially regarding legal limitations, technical feasibility, and challenges for expanding this model. A comparison with international experiences could strengthen the argument.

The questionnaire is described, but key methodological details are missing—such as validation, reliability, and how possible self-selection bias was managed. It would also be important to mention whether the study received ethical approval, since it involves early childhood settings.

Another issue is that the article does not include a clear limitations section. This should be added, especially considering the study relies on self-reported data and a non-random sample. Recognizing these limits and suggesting future research directions would improve the quality of the paper.

Finally, although the study has clear practical value, the implications for policymakers, educators, and teacher training could be better developed, with more specific and actionable recommendations.

In summary, the article has good potential but needs significant revisions in writing, methodological reporting, and critical discussion.

Author Response

Please find the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript examines the state of forest and nature childcare groups in Austria, with the aim of identifying ways to improve pre-school care and education.

The paper is very interesting as it also considers the legal framework relating to forest and nature childcare systems. This aspect has to be improved at an administrative level in order to sustain nature education.

 

Please find below specific comments for the author/s.

• I suggest dividing the introduction into two sections: 'Introduction' and 'Background' (or 'Literature Review' or another suitable section title). The current introduction appears too long to me, as it includes issues that are usually found in literature analysis.
• I would also recommend splitting the discussion into two parts: firstly, the discussion itself, and secondly, the conclusion.
• From my perspective, there are some methodological issues that should be improved: a) The time frame during which the data were collected remains unspecified (only the year is specified); b) It remains unclear which source, if any, was used to collect the data. For example, it is unknown whether Limesurvey (or other) was employed for this purpose; c) The range of the predefined options used in the Likert scale is unclear. It is unclear whether different ranges were used; d) It is not clear who answered the questionnaire.
• Providing a table with a description of the three main types of infrastructure and their geographical distribution could help to clarify the topic.
• On page 4 of 11 (line 161) “A semi-standardized questionnaire, designed to collect both structured and unstructured information, was employed …”. Providing an example of what you mean by 'structured' and 'unstructured' information could improve comprehension for non-experts.
• Seventy-two of the seventy-nine forest childcare groups took part in the survey. Table 1 shows the distribution of the 64 groups only. The difference in the number of cases should be specified more clearly.
• In the discussion section, a table synthesising and comparing the regulations with the geographical area could help readers with less expertise in the subject.
• The paper should be strengthened by the addition of some limitations to the study.
• Review the editing of the references, as the journal names should be in italics (e.g. references 31 and 32).

Author Response

Please find the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction needs to clearly define the gap in the international literature. While some national studies are cited, the text does not provide a solid rationale for why a national-level overview of Austrian forest-based kindergartens is timely or relevant from a global perspective. A useful way to strengthen the argument would be to mention recent comparative research on infrastructure and inclusion in forest education systems, such as those conducted in Norway or Korea. Furthermore, the paper would benefit from the explicit formulation of research questions or hypotheses. These would help guide the reader and structure the results and discussion more effectively.

Regarding the theoretical framework, key concepts such as "nature-based education," "risk-benefit balance," and "Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)" are mentioned but not explored in depth. It would be advisable to engage more deeply with the literature on nature pedagogy, particularly international sources. For instance, Brussoni et al. (2015) is cited, but more recent contributions like Hattingh (2024) on executive functioning in outdoor contexts could be incorporated to enhance the argument. Additionally, the distinction between ESD and Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) should be clarified to avoid conceptual overlap.

The methodology section requires more transparency and precision. Although the sample includes 79 groups, there is no explanation of how they were selected or whether this leads to a regional or thematic bias. It would be helpful to provide inclusion and exclusion criteria. Furthermore, the questionnaire used should be validated or at least piloted. Reliability measures are absent, and the statistical methods are not fully explained. For example, which software was used? Were assumptions such as homoscedasticity or normality tested? Also, confidence intervals and effect sizes (e.g., eta squared or correlation coefficients) should be reported alongside significance values to improve statistical transparency.

The results section is well organized, but can be presented more effectively. A table with sample sizes, means, and standard deviations of key variables should be added for clarity. Visual representations, such as box plots comparing fees across types of sponsorship, could make trends more accessible. Some large tables might be better placed in supplementary material to keep the article concise.

In the discussion, the findings should be more clearly related to international literature. For example, the reported low number of accidents aligns with Norwegian data on forest preschools, and infrastructure quality appears to correlate with child well-being and engagement, as observed in other studies. Additionally, the limitations of the study must be addressed explicitly. These include the cross-sectional design, self-selection bias due to voluntary participation, and the absence of direct observational data. A call for longitudinal studies examining developmental and health outcomes would add value.

Concerning references, at least five new studies published between 2024 and 2025 should be integrated, especially those focusing on regulation and impact assessment of forest ECEC settings. The reference list shows several formatting problems. DOIs appear in different styles—for example, Ernst & Burcak (2019) contains the full string “https://doi.org/…”, while Kyle et al. (2008) only shows “10.1542/peds.2007-1400” without the “doi:” prefix—and some entries lack a DOI even though one exists (e.g., Jeon et al., 2020). There are spelling errors and internal duplications, such as “Raith und Lude Raith, A. und Lude, A. (2014),” where the surnames repeat, and the double mention of Kaga (2008) first as a chapter and then as an edited volume without clarifying the difference. Several items are incomplete: Lettieri (2004) omits page numbers; Cook & Kohlmaier (2024) gives no page range or repository; Miklitz (2018) lacks place of publication. Finally, the list mixes citation styles (APA, German format with colons, and Austrian legal references) and shows inconsistent capitalisation, making the bibliography hard to read and to index correctly.

There are also minor formal and ethical issues. The English should be revised for clarity and consistency.  Typos such as "wasanalysed" should be corrected. Ethical approval should be clearly mentioned. If not applicable, a formal statement explaining this should be included, as per MDPI guidelines. Moreover, the authors are encouraged to upload the anonymized dataset to an open-access repository, following FAIR principles. This would increase the transparency and replicability of the study.

 

Author Response

Please find the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper gives a solid, data‑driven picture of Austrian forest and nature childcare groups and situates the findings well within current European debate. Its scope, methods (descriptive statistics, ANOVA, non‑parametric tests, correlations) and cross‑national references (Germany, Scandinavia, Korea) are all clearly presented. The practical guidelines on risk, hygiene and infrastructure add real value for both practitioners and policymakers. 

Minor points for improvement:

Clarify the ECEC–ESD link in the introduction. A short visual or schematic overview could help readers see how Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) intersect in this study.

Expand the note on social‑desirability bias. The limitations section already mentions self‑report bias; underline this point and propose follow‑up qualitative triangulation to strengthen future research.

Add the questionnaire as an appendix, if possible. Making the survey instrument available would increase transparency and allow replication.

Author Response

Minor points for improvement:

Clarify the ECEC–ESD link in the introduction. A short visual or schematic overview could help readers see how Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) intersect in this study.: Introduction improved, see blue marked lines.

Expand the note on social‑desirability bias. The limitations section already mentions self‑report bias; underline this point and propose follow‑up qualitative triangulation to strengthen future research: Improved and expanded, see blue marked lines.

Add the questionnaire as an appendix, if possible. Making the survey instrument available would increase transparency and allow replication, attached.

Answer:

 

Submission Date

23 May 2025

Date of this review

09 Jul 2025 01:53:41

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf