Geoethics and Sustainability: Addressing Challenges in Environmental Education for Achieving the SDGs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have read with initial interest the manuscript submitted for review. However, at some point I found that due to the structure of the discourse, it was very difficult to follow the thread of thought and that the conclusions were somewhat vague. I do not recommend to publish the article in the present form.

I am not sure even if the article answers the questions posed by the title: Geoethics and Sustainability: Challenges for Environmental Education in the Context of the SDG.
The authors try to make a link between SDG4 (QUALITY OF EDUCATION) AND the philosophy behind Environmental Education, but as I say the rationale is very obscure, I cannot follow the line of thought

I found interesting th first part, the description of what Geoethics is. But although in the abstract it is stated that "The method consists in bibliographical research and critical analysis around discussions involving geoethics and
sustainability." such methodology is not described in the article. How the bibliographic search was done, inclusion and exclusion criteria, keywords for querying the bibliography, etc, etc. The paper has 4 main blocks but it is very difficult to draw links between them (Geoethics-Sustainability-Challenges for EE)
 I am a science education researcher, and I am used to perform empirical work, rather than philosophical analyses.
The paper is not empirical and the literature review is not described, this is one of the reasons why I suggest to reject the article
The writing is so obscure and the discourse so long that I sincerely believe that it is difficult to understand how the authors reached the conclusions.
The references are appropriate.
The tables and figures and the quality of the data are not empirical data.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

"Dear Authors,

I have read with initial interest the manuscript submitted for review. However, at some point I found that due to the structure of the discourse, it was very difficult to follow the thread of thought and that the conclusions were somewhat vague. I do not recommend to publish the article in the present form.

I am not sure even if the article answers the questions posed by the title: Geoethics and Sustainability: Challenges for Environmental Education in the Context of the SDG.
The authors try to make a link between SDG4 (QUALITY OF EDUCATION) AND the philosophy behind Environmental Education, but as I say the rationale is very obscure, I cannot follow the line of thought

I found interesting th first part, the description of what Geoethics is. But although in the abstract it is stated that "The method consists in bibliographical research and critical analysis around discussions involving geoethics and
sustainability." such methodology is not described in the article. How the bibliographic search was done, inclusion and exclusion criteria, keywords for querying the bibliography, etc, etc. The paper has 4 main blocks but it is very difficult to draw links between them (Geoethics-Sustainability-Challenges for EE)
 I am a science education researcher, and I am used to perform empirical work, rather than philosophical analyses.
The paper is not empirical and the literature review is not described, this is one of the reasons why I suggest to reject the article
The writing is so obscure and the discourse so long that I sincerely believe that it is difficult to understand how the authors reached the conclusions.
The references are appropriate.
The tables and figures and the quality of the data are not empirical data".

Response to the reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your comments and constructive feedback, which are invaluable for improving the quality of our work. We acknowledge the issues you raised regarding the structure and clarity of our discourse and will address these in the revised version.

In response to your feedback:

1. Clarity and Structure: We understand that the organization of the paper might have been difficult to follow. We will revisit the structure and ensure a clearer flow of ideas, particularly connecting the different sections (Geoethics, Sustainability, and Challenges for Environmental Education). We will also make sure that our reasoning and conclusions are presented in a more accessible and logical manner, ensuring the arguments are easier to follow.

2. Linking SDG4 and Environmental Education: We appreciate your point regarding the connection between SDG4 (Quality of Education) and Environmental Education. We will work on clarifying how this link is made, improving the rationale and ensuring that the connections between the concepts are more transparent and well-defined.

3. Methodology: We take your comment on the methodology seriously. Although the manuscript describes bibliographical research and critical analysis, we realize that the lack of detail on how the literature search was conducted, including inclusion/exclusion criteria and keywords, may have led to confusion. We will revise the methodology section to provide a clear and detailed explanation of how the bibliographical research was carried out.

4. Literature Review: We acknowledge that the literature review could be better described. In fact, given the philosophical perspective of the article, we will justify the brief selection of texts and it will not be possible to present a comprehensive literature review due to the limits of the article.

5. Empirical Data and Writing: We appreciate your perspective as a science education researcher, and we understand that the paper's philosophical approach might not meet expectations for empirical work. We will reconsider the paper's scope, making it clear that it is a theoretical discussion rather than an empirical study. If needed, we will provide further context to justify the philosophical approach we adopted. We will also aim to shorten and clarify the writing to avoid any unnecessary complexity.

We believe that the revisions will address the issues you pointed out and significantly improve the manuscript. We value your feedback and are committed to enhancing the paper in response to your comments.

Once again, thank you for your insightful review. We look forward to submitting a revised version that addresses your concerns.

Best regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I want to begin by congratulating the authors for their work and thanking them for the opportunity for this review. The exercise of reviewing academic work  is always an exercise of privilege, providing moments of reflection and learning for those who undertake it.

The text presented focuses on the challenges posed to environmental education by geoethics and sustainability within the scope of the SDG.

The authors present a literature review delving into three basic concepts for their article: geoethics, sustainability and environmental education.

The relevance and timeliness of the work is not in question. Here are just a few suggestions to improve the quality of the final result:

 1 - The first suggestion is related to the formulation of the research question. As formulated and presented in the article, the question has a "yes" or "no" answer (as mentioned by the authors at the end of the paper). However, a research question of this type is self-contained. It limits the possibilities of the study and, in this specific case, the presentation and discussion of the article. It would be more interesting to take on a question related to "How can environmental education problems related to sustainability, including geoethics, be addressed, taking targets from accounts 3 and 4 of the SDG?". On the other hand, the challenges of environmental education stated in the title are "left out" of this research question... What is the specific objective of the proposed article? Clarifying this aspect will also increase the coherence of the article itself.

2 - I also think it is necessary to explain the research design and the entire methodology followed. Which method is followed and why? How does this relate to the research questions and research goals? What data collection and analysis techniques were followed? Were analysis categories defined? How do they relate to the goals? This clarification will be important not only for the coherence and validity of the study, but for the structure of the article itself, allowing, subsequently, to argue in a reasoned way and discuss the results from a more solid basis. The text presented is largely based on a theoretical exercise, and it is important to clarify the procedures adopted.

3- Finally, it is necessary to review the bibliographic references. On the one hand, documents that are not cited in the text (for example, references 29, 30 and 52) are presented in the "References" section. On the other hand, there are inconsistencies both in the "References" section (for example, the date of publications is not always presented in the same order; authors with their names in capital letters) and throughout the text. Citation rules need to be revised.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

"I want to begin by congratulating the authors for their work and thanking them for the opportunity for this review. The exercise of reviewing academic work  is always an exercise of privilege, providing moments of reflection and learning for those who undertake it.

The text presented focuses on the challenges posed to environmental education by geoethics and sustainability within the scope of the SDG.

The authors present a literature review delving into three basic concepts for their article: geoethics, sustainability and environmental education.

The relevance and timeliness of the work is not in question. Here are just a few suggestions to improve the quality of the final result:

 1 - The first suggestion is related to the formulation of the research question. As formulated and presented in the article, the question has a "yes" or "no" answer (as mentioned by the authors at the end of the paper). However, a research question of this type is self-contained. It limits the possibilities of the study and, in this specific case, the presentation and discussion of the article. It would be more interesting to take on a question related to "How can environmental education problems related to sustainability, including geoethics, be addressed, taking targets from accounts 3 and 4 of the SDG?". On the other hand, the challenges of environmental education stated in the title are "left out" of this research question... What is the specific objective of the proposed article? Clarifying this aspect will also increase the coherence of the article itself.

2 - I also think it is necessary to explain the research design and the entire methodology followed. Which method is followed and why? How does this relate to the research questions and research goals? What data collection and analysis techniques were followed? Were analysis categories defined? How do they relate to the goals? This clarification will be important not only for the coherence and validity of the study, but for the structure of the article itself, allowing, subsequently, to argue in a reasoned way and discuss the results from a more solid basis. The text presented is largely based on a theoretical exercise, and it is important to clarify the procedures adopted.

3- Finally, it is necessary to review the bibliographic references. On the one hand, documents that are not cited in the text (for example, references 29, 30 and 52) are presented in the "References" section. On the other hand, there are inconsistencies both in the "References" section (for example, the date of publications is not always presented in the same order; authors with their names in capital letters) and throughout the text. Citation rules need to be revised".

Response to the reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We truly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work. Your insights are invaluable, and we are grateful for your suggestions, which will help us improve the quality of our paper.

We are pleased to know that you find the relevance and timeliness of the work important. We have carefully considered your comments and would like to address them as follows:

1. Research Question: We appreciate your observation regarding the formulation of the research question. We understand that the question as currently stated may be too limiting. Based on your suggestion, we will revise the research question to a more open-ended one, such as: "How can environmental education problems related to sustainability, including geoethics, be addressed, taking targets from SDG accounts 3 and 4 into consideration?" This revision will allow us to explore a broader range of perspectives and challenges, particularly regarding the intersection of sustainability, geoethics, and environmental education. Additionally, we will clarify the specific objectives of the article, ensuring that the challenges of environmental education outlined in the title are directly addressed within the context of the research question.

2. Research Design and Methodology: We agree that it is essential to provide a clearer explanation of our research design and methodology. While our study is primarily theoretical, we will revise the methodology section to provide a detailed account of how we approached the literature review, how the sources were selected, and the analytical framework used. This will include clarifying any methods or techniques related to data collection, as well as explaining the categories of analysis and how they align with our research goals. We are committed to ensuring that the paper’s structure reflects a coherent and valid approach, and your comments will guide us in making these revisions.

3. Bibliographic References: We apologize for the inconsistencies in the citation and reference list. We will carefully review the references and ensure they are formatted according to the required citation style. Specifically, we will correct any discrepancies in the presentation of author names, publication dates, and ensure all cited works in the text are properly referenced. We will also ensure consistency throughout the document in line with citation standards.

Once again, we appreciate your thoughtful review and will make the necessary revisions to improve the clarity, coherence, and structure of the paper. We believe that these changes will help strengthen the manuscript and enhance its overall contribution to the field.

Thank you again for your time and invaluable input.

Best regards,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has changed dramatically and can be read without major issues.

It is still a very theoretical work and it would be improved with teaching implications for educators dealing with EE and sustainability.

I would not say human education in the abstract. Is there any other education not addressed to humans?

Author Response

Comments 1

The article has changed dramatically and can be read without major issues.

It is still a very theoretical work and it would be improved with teaching implications for educators dealing with EE and sustainability.

I would not say human education in the abstract. Is there any other education not addressed to humans?

Response 1 

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive comments and for acknowledging the significant improvements made to the manuscript. We appreciate your recognition that the article has become more accessible and readable.

On the theoretical nature of the work:
We understand your observation that the article remains highly theoretical. While the primary goal of this work is to contribute to the theoretical discourse, we agree that its relevance can be enhanced by providing practical teaching implications for educators in Environmental Education (EE) and sustainability. In response, we have added a dedicated section outlining specific teaching strategies and implications. This addition bridges the gap between theory and practice and provides actionable insights for educators working in this area.

On the use of 'human education':
Thank you for pointing out the redundancy in the term "human education." We agree with your perspective and have revised the manuscript to avoid this phrase. Where appropriate, we now use "education" or "environmental education," which are clearer and more precise.

These adjustments reflect our commitment to addressing your feedback and improving the manuscript's clarity and practical value. We hope the revisions meet your expectations and enhance the overall quality of the work.

Thank you again for your insightful comments.

Best regards,

Samuel Mendonça, Gabriel Piovesana Franco and Vanessa Pissolito

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf