An Evidence-Informed Framework for Practice-Oriented Geographical Fieldwork Education: Lessons from Environmental Analysis and Resource Assessment of China’s Eight Major Deserts

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Title: The Educational Value of Practice-Oriented Geographical Field Studies: Integrating Environmental Evidence and Resource Assessment in China's Deserts

Manuscript ID: 4484690

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript and for giving us the opportunity to undertake a major revision. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's careful, constructive, and encouraging comments. In response, we revised the manuscript throughout. We shortened and refocused the title; strengthened the Introduction and study rationale; expanded the Materials and Methods to clarify the datasets, polygon-area aggregation, trend analysis, uncertainty assessment, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and fieldwork-design procedure; reorganised the Results into environmental change, resource assessment, and evidence-informed geography fieldwork; removed the unsupported carbon-negative projection; added a four-stage framework in Figure 6 and detailed supporting information in Supplementary Tables S1-S3; strengthened the interpretation of the findings and their methodological and educational boundaries; revised the Conclusions; updated and reordered the reference list; and edited the English for concision and clarity. The detailed responses below refer to the section and line numbers in the current line-numbered revised manuscript. Author responses and revisions are shown in red in this response document.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer's Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Must be improved

Addressed. We shortened and refocused the manuscript and strengthened its theoretical and empirical context. The revised Abstract now states the evidence, methods, principal findings, educational purpose, and scope concisely (lines 13-31). Section 1 integrates dryland science, geography-fieldwork theory, data-supported inquiry, and sustainability-education literature while defining the gap and the three-part study design (lines 34-93). The interpretation embedded in Sections 3.1-3.3 relates the environmental and educational findings to previous research while explicitly limiting causal, engineering, and educational-effectiveness claims (Section 3, lines 163-395).

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Must be improved

Addressed. The revised Introduction states the three connected components of the study and distinguishes the environmental analyses from the proposed educational framework (lines 84-93). Because this is a comparative environmental analysis and framework-development study, it is organised around explicit objectives and inquiry tasks rather than unsupported formal hypotheses. Section 2 now describes the study area and datasets, polygon-area aggregation, temporal coverage, trend and uncertainty analyses, four-dimensional MCDA, weighting scenarios, fieldwork-design principles, intended learning outcomes, and assessment evidence (lines 94-162), with additional technical details in Supplementary Tables S1-S3.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Must be improved

Addressed. The revised manuscript places critical interpretation next to the corresponding evidence. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 report and interpret the temperature, radiation, soil-moisture, and MCDA findings in relation to previous studies while identifying causal, reanalysis, indicator, and engineering boundaries (lines 164-328). Section 3.3 explains the geography-fieldwork and sustainability-education contribution, the complementary scales of regional data and site observation, and the status of the framework as a proposed rather than empirically validated design (lines 329-395).

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Addressed. Section 3 now presents the empirical evidence in a clear sequence: environmental change across the eight deserts (Section 3.1, lines 164-271), four-dimensional resource assessment and weighting sensitivity (Section 3.2, lines 272-328), and the evidence-informed educational translation (Section 3.3, lines 329-395). Figures 2-5 report the quantitative results and statistical notation, while Figure 6 summarises the proposed four-stage fieldwork framework and its intended learning outcomes (lines 365-371).

Is the article adequately referenced?

Can be improved

Addressed. We reassessed and updated the citations supporting dryland environmental change, ERA5, the national desert-boundary dataset, polygon-area aggregation, trend and uncertainty analyses, MCDA, inquiry-based geography fieldwork, constructive alignment, sustainability competencies, soil-moisture uncertainty, and renewable-energy trade-offs. The current reference list contains 37 entries. (References, lines 424-504; supporting citations in Sections 1-3).

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Can be improved

Addressed. Section 4 derives its scientific summary directly from the temperature, radiation, soil-moisture, and MCDA results and explicitly states that the resource comparison is relative, depends on selected indicators and weights, and should not be interpreted as absolute development suitability (lines 396-410). It then identifies the educational contribution as a staged, evidence-informed fieldwork design and presents data literacy, spatial reasoning, systems thinking, evidence integration, and sustainability decision-making as intended learning outcomes rather than demonstrated effects (lines 411-418).

3. Point-by-point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: Comments and suggestions for improvement: The manuscript has some advantages, research is valuable and yields significant insights, but still there are some things that need to be improved, especially in the methodological part of the research, which has more limitations. Also, some key sections are missing, like the "Discussion" and "Study limitations" section.

Response 1: Thank you for recognising the value and potential of the study and for identifying the major structural and methodological weaknesses. We agree and have undertaken a manuscript-wide revision rather than a limited local edit.

Revisions and locations: The Introduction was rebuilt to clarify the research gap and three-part design (Section 1, lines 34-93); Materials and Methods was expanded to describe the environmental analysis, resource assessment, and fieldwork-framework development (Section 2, lines 94-162); and the Results were reorganised into environmental change, resource assessment, and evidence-informed geography fieldwork (Section 3, lines 163-395). In the current compact structure, critical discussion and study limitations are integrated with the relevant findings and the Conclusions rather than repeated in separate standalone sections (Sections 3-4, lines 163-418).

Representative revised text: "The framework represents a proposed design rather than an empirically validated teaching intervention." (Figure 6 caption, line 371).

Comment 2: Title: The title is informative, but it is too long and a bit clunky. It tries to include too many elements, so the main focus of the research is not immediately clear. If the authors wish to emphasize the educational contribution of the paper, the title should be simplified. For example: "The Educational Value of Practice-Oriented Geographical Field Studies in China's Deserts: Environmental Resource Assessment and Sustainability Education" or "Practice-Oriented Geographical Field Studies in China's Deserts: Integrating Environmental Resource Assessment and Sustainability Education". Also, the term "Environmental Resource Evolution" is not very common in the titles of scientific papers and sounds imprecise. Similarly, "Carbon-Negative Assessment" seems overly ambitious given that the paper does not include a detailed methodology for such an assessment. Therefore, I would recommend that the title be shortened and more precisely aligned with the actual content of the work. Sometimes a simpler title is a much better choice. Be more clear and concise. Think about a different title for your paper.

Response 2: Thank you for this precise suggestion. We agree that the original title was too long and that the expressions "Environmental Resource Evolution" and "Carbon-Negative Assessment" overstated or blurred the manuscript's actual contribution. We therefore removed both expressions and aligned the title with the evidence and educational purpose of the study.

Revision and location: The title is now "The Educational Value of Practice-Oriented Geographical Field Studies: Integrating Environmental Evidence and Resource Assessment in China's Deserts" (lines 1-3). The unsupported carbon-negative projection and associated claims were also removed from the manuscript.

Comment 3: Study area: This part is generally well described, but it should be made more concise and more methodologically oriented. The authors devote too much space to the general geographical characteristics of deserts, while a clearer explanation is lacking as to why exactly these eight deserts were chosen for research and how their selection contributes to the goals of the work. Also, it would be useful to emphasize the representativeness of the selected areas in the context of the proposed pedagogical framework.

Response 3: Thank you. We agree and rewrote the study-area description to focus on comparative design, analytical consistency, and relevance to the proposed fieldwork framework rather than providing a lengthy general description.

Revisions and locations: The Introduction explains why the eight deserts form contrasting comparative cases across an east-west aridity gradient and differing resource and management contexts (lines 74-83). Section 2.1 identifies the gradients in climate, elevation, surface conditions, soil moisture, vegetation, and aeolian activity that make the desert systems suitable for regional comparison (lines 95-102), and it specifies the national boundary dataset, fixed spatial units, ERA5 variables, temporal coverage, and supporting data table (lines 103-112).

Comment 4: Materials and Methods: The Materials and Methods section is one of the weaker parts of the manuscript and requires substantial improvement to support the scientific and pedagogical claims made later in the paper. Several methodological details are either missing or insufficiently described. This chapter is too short, too vague. It needs to be written in more detail to make it completely clear to readers how the research was conducted, to ensure transparency of the research process. The authors do not provide a sufficiently detailed description of the data processing procedures. Although the ERA5 variables and temporal coverage are reported, it remains unclear how the data were extracted, aggregated, and analysed. No statistical or analytical methods are described. The Results section reports warming rates, percentage changes, resource evaluations, and projected carbon-negative transitions, but the Materials and Methods section does not explain how these values were derived. The authors should clearly state the statistical methods, trend analysis techniques, and any formulas or indicators used in the study. The methodology underlying the four-dimensional resource assessment framework is not adequately presented. The manuscript does not explain how the four dimensions were selected, whether they were weighted equally, etc. Without this information, the framework cannot be replicated or critically evaluated. The transparency of the research process is questionable. The carbon-negative assessment is particularly problematic from a methodological perspective. The paper presents projections for the period 2025-2060 and discusses future carbon-sink potential, yet no modelling approach, assumptions, or scenario design is described. It is unclear whether these projections are based on existing literature, empirical calculations, or hypothetical educational scenarios. This issue should be explicitly addressed. The pedagogical methodology is insufficiently developed. Since the manuscript is positioned as an educational study, the authors should explain how the proposed fieldwork modules were designed. At present, the connection between the environmental analyses and the educational outcomes is largely conceptual. Information regarding the instructional framework, learning objectives, or curriculum design principles would considerably strengthen the paper. Please consider the comments and significantly improve the methodological part of your research, as it is not suitable for publication in its current form.

Response 4: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this detailed methodological critique. We agree and have substantially revised the Materials and Methods so that the environmental analysis, resource assessment, and educational design can be understood and critically evaluated.

Data and spatial processing: Section 2.1 identifies the desert-boundary and ERA5 sources and directs readers to Supplementary Table S1 for variables, resolutions, units, and access information (lines 95-112). Section 2.2 specifies polygon-grid intersection-area weighting, annual aggregation, temporal coverage, and calculation of 10 m wind speed from the u10 and v10 components (lines 115-123).

Statistics and indicators: Section 2.2 now specifies the Theil-Sen estimator, Mann-Kendall test, 95% confidence intervals, moving-block bootstrap robustness analysis, shortwave-albedo calculation, ERA5 soil-layer depths, and the Layer 4 minus Layer 1 vertical moisture-contrast indicator (lines 122-132). Detailed variables and procedures are provided in Supplementary Table S2.

Resource assessment and sensitivity: The four dimensions, Min-Max normalisation for benefit and constraint criteria, weighted linear aggregation, equal-weight, energy-priority, and ecology-priority scenarios, and sensitivity measures are defined in Section 2.2 (lines 133-142). We explicitly state that the scores describe relative characteristics among the eight deserts and do not constitute an engineering suitability assessment.

Pedagogical design: Section 2.3 specifies the constructive-alignment and geographical-inquiry basis, four-stage sequence, feasible observations and measurements, intended learning outcomes, and assessment evidence (lines 143-162). Figure 6 and Supplementary Table S3 make the links among environmental evidence, fieldwork activities, intended outcomes, and assessment products explicit; the framework is identified as a proposed design rather than an empirically validated intervention (lines 365-371 and 385).

Carbon-negative claim: We accepted the reviewer's concern and removed the unsupported 2025-2060 carbon-negative projection and associated claims rather than presenting them as modelled scientific results.

Comment 5: Results and pedagogical applications: The section presents several interesting ideas, but it currently reads more like an educational concept paper than a scientific study. The main weakness is the imbalance between environmental interpretations and pedagogical claims, which are often presented without sufficient methodological or empirical support. The Results section is overly descriptive and repetitive. Many paragraphs follow the same structure by describing environmental patterns and subsequently suggesting possible student activities. The pedagogical implications are often generic and could be presented more concisely. Reducing repetition would considerably improve readability. The environmental analyses are not sufficiently rigorous. The manuscript reports warming patterns, radiation characteristics, and soil moisture dynamics, but the results remain largely descriptive. The distinction between scientific findings and pedagogical applications is not always clear. The authors frequently move from environmental observations to educational recommendations without explicitly explaining how the proposed teaching activities were developed. The Results section would benefit from a clearer structure separating scientific results from their pedagogical implications. In addition, the proposed pedagogical framework lacks empirical validation. The manuscript claims that the suggested activities can improve systems thinking, quantitative reasoning, and sustainability competencies, but no educational evaluation or classroom implementation is provided. Even a small case study, pilot teaching exercise, or expert validation would substantially strengthen these claims. The resource assessment framework requires further justification. While the radar charts provide a useful visual representation of desert resource endowments, the criteria used for evaluating and comparing the different deserts are not adequately explained. The section on carbon-negative transitions is speculative in its current form. The manuscript presents projections extending to 2060 and discusses the transformation of deserts from carbon sources to carbon sinks, yet no modelling procedures or scenario assumptions are provided. These projections should either be methodologically justified or presented more cautiously as educational scenarios rather than scientific predictions. Several pedagogical recommendations are relatively generic and could be applied to many geography courses regardless of the study area. The authors should further emphasize what makes China's desert environments uniquely suitable for developing the proposed learning outcomes and how these activities differ from existing geography fieldwork approaches. Finally, the manuscript would benefit from a summary table that links environmental indicators, geographical concepts, proposed fieldwork activities, and expected learning outcomes. Such a table would make the pedagogical contribution more transparent and easier to implement in higher education settings.

Response 5: Thank you for this comprehensive comment. We agree that the original structure blurred scientific findings and educational proposals, and we have reorganised and tightened both components.

Scientific results: Sections 3.1 and 3.2 now report the environmental and resource-assessment evidence, including Sen's slopes, Mann-Kendall significance, bootstrap confidence intervals, layered soil-moisture contrasts, four-dimensional scores, and weighting sensitivity (lines 164-328).

Pedagogical translation: Section 3.3 separately explains how Figures 2-5 inform pre-field data inquiry, field observation and measurement, post-field evidence integration, and sustainability-oriented decision-making (lines 329-395). Figure 6 provides the requested transparent summary of the evidence-to-fieldwork sequence, and Supplementary Table S3 gives the detailed relationships among evidence, activities, intended outcomes, and assessment products (lines 365-371 and 385).

Validation boundary: The manuscript no longer claims demonstrated learning gains. It states that short field visits and regional reanalysis provide different forms of evidence (lines 354-363) and explicitly identifies the framework as a proposed design rather than an empirically validated teaching intervention (Figure 6 caption, lines 365-371).

Study-area specificity: The revised manuscript uses the eight deserts as contrasting cases across climate, elevation, radiation, soil moisture, wind exposure, vegetation, water constraints, restoration, and photovoltaic development (lines 74-83, 95-102, and 272-328), allowing learners to compare place-specific resource opportunities and ecological constraints.

Distinctiveness from existing fieldwork approaches: The framework positions long-term environmental evidence before field observation and requires explicit post-field comparison between regional datasets and site-scale records, followed by sustainability decision-making under alternative MCDA priorities (lines 340-363).

Resource-assessment justification: The indicators, normalisation procedures, weighted aggregation, three weighting scenarios, sensitivity measures, and interpretive boundary are specified in Section 2.2 (lines 133-142), and the consequences of weighting choices are reported and interpreted in Section 3.2 (lines 272-328). The unsupported carbon-negative projection was removed.

Comment 6: Discussion: The manuscript does not include a separate Discussion section, which is a standard and important component of scientific papers published in international journals such as Sustainability (MDPI). The Discussion should go beyond just presenting the results by critically interpreting the findings in the context of previous studies, highlighting their scientific and educational significance, addressing potential limitations, and discussing their broader implications. In its current form, the manuscript presents the results and pedagogical applications without sufficiently discussing how the findings compare with existing literature or what their implications are for geography education and sustainability-oriented teaching. Including a dedicated Discussion section would substantially improve the scientific quality of the paper and provide a clearer interpretation of the study's contributions and limitations. My recommendation is to add a new Discussion section after the Results section.

Response 6: Thank you. We fully agree that the manuscript must go beyond description and critically interpret the findings in relation to previous studies, their educational significance, and their limitations. We integrated this discussion directly with the corresponding results, so that each interpretation and qualification remains adjacent to the evidence on which it depends. We respectfully hope that this compact structure addresses the reviewer's substantive concern while reducing repetition.

Revision and location: Section 3.1 interprets the temperature, radiation, and soil-moisture results in relation to previous research and states causal and reanalysis boundaries (lines 164-271). Section 3.2 interprets the MCDA results in relation to weighting sensitivity, ecological and social constraints, and previous photovoltaic research (lines 272-328). Section 3.3 discusses the geography-fieldwork and sustainability-education contribution, its relationship to established inquiry literature, scale and uncertainty, and the need to treat the framework as a proposed design (lines 329-395).

Comment 7: Study limitations: To ensure the transparency and scientific rigor of the research process, in addition to presenting the obtained results, it is important to highlight the shortcomings of this study and its methodological limitations, as well as to indicate directions for future research. The manuscript would benefit from the inclusion of a dedicated section discussing the limitations of the study. This is an important component of scientific papers published in international journals, as it provides transparency regarding the scope, assumptions, and potential limitations of the research. At present, the limitations of the proposed methodological and pedagogical framework are not clearly stated. The authors should explicitly acknowledge issues such as the reliance on ERA5 reanalysis data, the absence of empirical validation of the proposed educational activities, the assumptions underlying the resource assessment framework and future carbon-negative projections, and the limited generalizability of the findings beyond the selected desert regions. A discussion of these limitations would help readers better understand the applicability and boundaries of the study and would strengthen its scientific rigor and credibility. I suggest you add a new chapter before the Conclusion, i.e., Study limitations.

Response 7: Thank you. We agree that the assumptions and limitations must be explicit so readers can judge the scope and applicability of the work. In the current revised structure, these limitations are stated at the points where they affect interpretation and are reinforced in the Conclusions.

Revision and location: The manuscript states that the temperature analysis does not identify individual causal drivers and that ERA5 deep-layer soil moisture cannot be interpreted directly as groundwater recharge or plant-available water (Section 3.1, lines 164-271). The MCDA scores depend on selected indicators and weights and are not engineering, ecological, social, or investment-suitability rankings (lines 133-142 and 272-328). It also explains that regional reanalysis cannot replace local observation and that short field visits cannot validate long-term regional trends (lines 354-363), and it identifies the educational framework as a proposed design rather than an empirically validated intervention (lines 365-371). The unsupported carbon-negative projection was removed. The Conclusions retain the key indicator and weighting boundary (lines 396-410).

Comment 8: Conclusion: The Conclusion section could be strengthened. In its current form, it mainly summarizes the results presented in the manuscript and reiterates the proposed pedagogical applications. A stronger conclusion should more clearly emphasize the main scientific and educational contributions of the study and explain their relevance for geography education and sustainability-oriented teaching. In addition, the conclusion would benefit from a brief discussion of the study's limitations and suggestions for future research. The authors may also consider highlighting the potential applicability of the proposed framework in other geographical and educational contexts. Such additions would provide a more balanced and comprehensive closing section and enhance the overall quality of the manuscript.

Response 8: Thank you. We agree and rewrote the Conclusions to provide a balanced closing statement that connects the scientific results with the educational contribution without claiming evidence that the study did not collect.

Revision and location: Section 4 summarises the principal temperature, radiation, soil-moisture, and MCDA findings and explicitly states that the resource comparison is relative, depends on the selected indicators and weighting priorities, and is not an absolute development-suitability assessment (lines 396-410). It then identifies the scientific-to-educational contribution as a staged design connecting pre-field data inquiry, field observation, post-field evidence integration, and sustainability decision-making, while presenting data literacy, spatial reasoning, systems thinking, evidence integration, and decision-making as intended learning outcomes (lines 411-418). The empirical-validation boundary is stated in Figure 6 (lines 365-371).

Comment 9: References: After making corrections, add any new references you used to the reference list.

Response 9: Thank you. We reviewed and updated the citations supporting the revised background, methods, interpretation, resource assessment, and educational framework.

Revision and location: The current reference list contains 37 entries (lines 424-504). The updated sources support ERA5 and the national desert-boundary dataset; polygon-area aggregation; wind-speed calculation; Theil-Sen and Mann-Kendall trend analysis; moving-block bootstrap uncertainty assessment; albedo calculation; MCDA normalisation and weighted aggregation; inquiry-based geography fieldwork; constructive alignment; sustainability competencies; soil-moisture uncertainty; and dryland photovoltaic trade-offs.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Quality of English Language: Good. The manuscript is generally well written and easy to follow. The language is grammatically correct and appropriate for an academic journal. However, the text is somewhat verbose and repetitive in several sections, particularly in the pedagogical explanations. Some sentences are unnecessarily long and could be edited for greater clarity and conciseness. Minor language polishing would improve readability and reduce redundancy, but the overall quality of English is acceptable for publication.

Response 1: Thank you for the positive assessment and the helpful recommendation. We carefully edited the manuscript for grammar, sentence length, concision, terminology, and consistency. The Abstract was tightened to state the evidence, methods, findings, educational purpose, and scope (lines 13-31); the Introduction was organised around the research gap and three-part design (lines 34-93); the Methods were consolidated into a transparent sequence (lines 94-162); and the Results were reorganised into environmental change, resource assessment, and evidence-informed fieldwork while reducing repetitive pedagogical explanation (lines 163-395). The Conclusions were also revised for a concise and appropriately bounded closing statement (lines 396-418).

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Title: The Educational Value of Practice-Oriented Geographical Field Studies: Integrating Environmental Evidence and Resource Assessment in China's Deserts

Manuscript ID: 4484690

1. Summary

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and for recognising the importance of translating environmental theory and evidence into geography fieldwork. We sincerely appreciate the careful general evaluation and the detailed annotations in the PDF. In response, we reorganised and strengthened the Introduction; improved source attribution and the dryland human-environment context; documented the desert-boundary and ERA5 data sources and access information; expanded the environmental-data processing, trend, uncertainty, and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) procedures; revised the inquiry design so that regional evidence and field observations have complementary roles; and clarified that the four-stage educational framework is proposed rather than empirically validated. Technical details are provided in Supplementary Tables S1-S3. The detailed responses below refer to the sections and line numbers in the current line-numbered manuscript, which contains 37 references. Author responses and revision descriptions are shown in red.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer's Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Can be improved

Addressed. Section 1 now provides a focused context for dryland human-environment systems, inquiry-based geography fieldwork, data-supported learning, sustainability education, the temporal and spatial evidence gap, the eight-desert comparative setting, and the three-part study design (lines 34-93). The interpretation integrated into Sections 3.1-3.3 relates the environmental findings and proposed educational framework to relevant empirical and educational studies while maintaining appropriate causal and validation boundaries (lines 164-395).

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Can be improved

Addressed. The Introduction states the three connected study components and distinguishes the empirical environmental analysis from the proposed educational framework (lines 84-93). Because the study does not test a causal hypothesis, it is organised around explicit analytical objectives and bounded inquiry tasks. Section 2 reports the study area and data, polygon-area aggregation, temporal coverage, trend and uncertainty analyses, MCDA procedures and weighting scenarios, fieldwork-design principles, intended learning outcomes, and assessment evidence (lines 94-162), with technical details in Supplementary Tables S1-S3.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Yes

Thank you for this positive evaluation. We retained the central evidence-to-fieldwork argument and strengthened its balance by placing interpretation and qualifications next to the relevant findings. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 interpret the environmental and MCDA results without causal or engineering overclaiming (lines 164-328). Section 3.3 explains the educational contribution, the complementary scales of regional data and site observation, and the status of the framework as a proposed rather than empirically validated intervention (lines 329-395).

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thank you for this positive assessment. The empirical findings are presented in a clear sequence in Section 3: environmental change across the eight deserts (Section 3.1, lines 164-271), four-dimensional resource assessment and weighting sensitivity (Section 3.2, lines 272-328), and their evidence-informed translation into the proposed fieldwork framework (Section 3.3, lines 329-395). Figures 2-5 report the environmental and resource results, while Figure 6 summarises the proposed four-stage educational design (lines 365-371).

Is the article adequately referenced?

Must be improved

Addressed. We agree that citation and source documentation required substantial improvement. The revised manuscript now supports dryland change, geography fieldwork and sustainability education, ERA5, the national desert-boundary dataset, polygon-area aggregation, trend and uncertainty analysis, MCDA, soil-moisture interpretation, and photovoltaic-environment interactions with relevant sources. Dataset details and access information are consolidated in Supplementary Table S1 (Section 2.1, lines 103-112). The current reference list contains 37 entries (References, lines 424-504).

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Yes

Thank you for this positive evaluation. Section 4 derives the scientific summary directly from the temperature, radiation, soil-moisture, and MCDA findings and states that the resource comparison is relative, indicator- and weight-dependent, and not an absolute development-suitability assessment (lines 396-410). It then presents the staged educational framework and its learning outcomes as intended rather than demonstrated effects (lines 411-418).

3. Point-by-point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: The manuscript addresses a critical issue in translating theory to practice through fieldwork. The highlighted sections identify areas for improvement, notably missing citations.

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for recognising the importance of the theory-to-practice problem and for identifying missing attribution and source documentation. We agree and addressed the issue throughout the manuscript rather than by adding isolated citations.

Revisions and locations: Section 1 now establishes the dryland, geography-fieldwork, data-supported inquiry, and sustainability-education context and defines the research gap and study contribution (lines 34-93). Section 2.1 identifies the national desert-boundary dataset and ERA5 source and directs readers to Supplementary Table S1 for detailed variables and access information (lines 95-112). Section 2.2 supports the spatial aggregation, trend, uncertainty, albedo, wind, and MCDA procedures with relevant methodological sources (lines 115-142). The interpretation in Sections 3.1-3.3 is linked to dryland, photovoltaic, fieldwork, and sustainability-education research (lines 164-395). The updated reference list contains 37 entries (lines 424-504).

Comment 2: The PDF contains three related paragraph-structure annotations: "i believe this is a paragraph on its own"; "i believe this is also a separate paragraph"; and "paragraph on its own".

Response 2: Thank you. We agree that the original Introduction combined distinct functions within overly long paragraphs. We reorganised it into focused units with clearer controlling purposes.

Revision and location: Section 1 now separates the dryland human-environment context (lines 34-49), geography-fieldwork and sustainability-education background together with the evidence gap (lines 50-73), the eight-desert comparative context (lines 74-83), and the three connected study components (lines 84-93).

Comment 3: Attribute source/ citation.

Response 3: Thank you for identifying the missing attribution. We now name and cite the national desert-boundary dataset and explain its analytical use.

Revision and location: Section 2.1 identifies the China 1:100,000 Desert (Sandy Land) Distribution Dataset, its provider, and the use of the extracted boundaries as fixed spatial units for aggregation and regional analysis (lines 103-107). The full dataset citation is reference [22] in the reordered reference list (References, lines 424-504), and supporting access information is provided in Supplementary Table S1.

Comment 4: Providing the link to such data sets is recommended. This annotation was repeated at seven highlighted locations in the PDF.

Response 4: Thank you. We agree that readers need traceable access to the datasets. To avoid repeating identical links at multiple Results locations, we consolidated the source and access information in the Methods and supporting information.

Revisions and locations: Section 2.1 identifies the national desert-boundary dataset, ECMWF ERA5 source, variables, periods, and analytical uses and directs readers to Supplementary Table S1 for resolutions, units, and access information (lines 103-112). Section 2.2 documents polygon-area weighting, temporal aggregation, wind calculation, trend and uncertainty analysis, albedo, soil-layer processing, normalisation, weighted aggregation, and sensitivity analysis (lines 115-142), with further procedural detail in Supplementary Table S2.

Comment 5: Provide background on different activities in various deserts (human-ecosystem interaction effects) in the deserts outlined in the study to support this assertion.

Response 5: Thank you. We agree that the human-ecosystem context of the eight deserts needed to be clearer. We strengthened the regional background and the field-observation component while avoiding causal claims that the present environmental data cannot test.

Revisions and locations: The Introduction now discusses desertification control, oasis agriculture, ecological restoration, water constraints, land-use transitions, and photovoltaic development as interacting dryland issues (lines 34-49) and explains how these contexts vary across the eight-desert comparison (lines 74-83). Section 2.3 specifies field observations of renewable-energy infrastructure, ecological restoration, vegetation, soils and moisture, aeolian features, water constraints, land use, and human-environment relationships (lines 143-156). Section 3.2 interprets resource profiles in relation to ecological, water, technical, social, and planning constraints (lines 272-328), and Section 3.3 translates these contrasts into place-based inquiry and decision tasks (lines 329-395).

Comment 6: Can be reframed as "how can energy development impact desert ecosystems/ecological environments". Check and improve all other questions in previous sections.

Response 6: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We reviewed the inquiry design and framed the questions so that they remain open, bounded, and answerable through the complementary use of regional environmental evidence and feasible field observations.

Revision and location: Section 2.3 now specifies the four-stage sequence, learner tasks, observable field evidence, post-field comparison, and sustainability decision-making (lines 143-162). Section 3.3 explains how the environmental results support inquiry into regional warming, surface-energy processes, soil-moisture contrasts, and the trade-offs between renewable-energy development and ecological protection (lines 329-395). Figure 6 summarises the sequence, and Supplementary Table S3 provides the detailed relationships among evidence, inquiry activities, intended outcomes, and assessment products (lines 365-371 and 385).

We adopted the intent of the suggested question while avoiding an unqualified causal formulation. The manuscript asks learners to evaluate possible ecosystem implications under contrasting environmental conditions, but it does not claim that the present regional analysis identifies causal effects of energy development.

Comment 7: Here define multi-criteria decision analysis, citing some examples.

Response 7: Thank you. We agree that MCDA needed a clearer conceptual and operational basis. The revised manuscript explains its role in comparing alternatives across multiple resource and ecological criteria, defines the analytical elements, and cites relevant methodological applications.

Revisions and locations: The Introduction identifies MCDA as the approach used to make normalisation, weighting, and decision priorities explicit (lines 84-93; reference [21]). Section 2.2 defines the four dimensions, benefit and constraint transformations, Min-Max normalisation, weighted linear aggregation, equal-weight, energy-priority, and ecology-priority scenarios, and sensitivity measures (lines 133-142; references [28,29]). Section 3.2 reports and interprets the resulting profiles, composite scores, and rank sensitivity (lines 272-328). Detailed indicators and procedures are provided in Supplementary Table S2.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Title: The Educational Value of Practice-Oriented Geographical Field Studies: Integrating Environmental Evidence and Resource Assessment in China's Deserts

Manuscript ID: 4484690

1. Summary

We sincerely thank you for the careful and constructive assessment. The comments identified important weaknesses in the distinction between environmental evidence and educational effectiveness, methodological reproducibility, resource-assessment transparency, pedagogical design, and evidential boundaries. In response, we revised the manuscript substantially. The educational component is now presented as a proposed and untested framework; the ERA5 processing, statistical workflow, resource indicators, normalisation, weighting scenarios, and sensitivity analysis are specified; the unsupported carbon-negative projection and 2035 transition claim were removed; geography-education scholarship and intended assessment evidence were strengthened; and the roles of desktop analysis, field observation, and post-field integration were clarified. Figure 1 is a self-prepared map based on the cited desert-boundary dataset, and Figure 6 presents the four-stage framework. Technical details are supplied in Supplementary Tables S1-S3. The responses below refer to the sections and line numbers in the current line-numbered manuscript, which contains 37 references. Author responses and revision descriptions are shown in red.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer's Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Can be improved

Addressed. Section 1 now distinguishes the dryland human-environment context, inquiry-based geography fieldwork and sustainability-education scholarship, the temporal and spatial evidence gap, the eight-desert comparison, and the three-part study design (lines 34-93). Sections 3.1-3.3 relate the environmental findings and proposed educational framework to relevant dryland, fieldwork, geospatial-inquiry, and sustainability-education research while maintaining appropriate evidential boundaries (lines 164-395).

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Must be improved

Addressed comprehensively. The Introduction states the three connected components and distinguishes the empirical environmental analysis from the proposed educational framework (lines 84-93). Section 2 specifies the data sources, polygon-area weighting, temporal aggregation, trend and uncertainty analyses, indicator transformations, MCDA weighting scenarios and sensitivity tests, staged fieldwork tasks, intended learning outcomes, and assessment evidence (lines 94-162), with technical detail in Supplementary Tables S1-S3.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Can be improved

Addressed. The revised Section 3 presents and interprets the scientific evidence and educational translation in three clearly differentiated subsections. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 discuss environmental change, uncertainty, resource profiles, and weighting sensitivity without causal or engineering overclaiming (lines 164-328). Section 3.3 explains the educational contribution, scale relationships, and limitations while identifying the framework as proposed rather than validated (lines 329-395).

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Addressed. Section 3.1 reports temperature, radiation, and vertical soil-moisture results with trend estimates, statistical significance, confidence intervals, and relevant uncertainty interpretation (lines 164-271). Section 3.2 reports the four-dimensional resource profiles, composite scores, and sensitivity to alternative weighting priorities (lines 272-328). Section 3.3 then translates, but does not relabel, these environmental findings as the basis for a proposed educational framework (lines 329-395).

Is the article adequately referenced?

Can be improved

Addressed. We added and integrated sources on inquiry-based geography fieldwork, geospatial and data-supported inquiry, sustainability competencies, dryland change, ERA5, polygon-area aggregation, trend analysis, MCDA, soil-moisture uncertainty, and photovoltaic-environment interactions. Dataset details and access information are consolidated in Supplementary Table S1 (Section 2.1, lines 103-112). The current reference list contains 37 entries. (References, lines 424-504).

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Must be improved

Addressed comprehensively. The unsupported carbon-negative projection, Figure 7, and the specific 2035 source-to-sink claim were removed. Section 4 now summarises only the reported temperature, radiation, soil-moisture, and MCDA findings and explicitly limits the resource assessment to relative, indicator- and weight-dependent comparison (lines 396-410). The educational component is described as a proposed framework with intended, not demonstrated, learning outcomes (lines 411-418; Figure 6 caption, lines 365-371).

3. Point-by-point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: The manuscript needs to distinguish clearly between a proposed educational framework and evidence of educational effectiveness. Sections of the paper repeatedly suggest that the approach strengthens quantitative reasoning, systems thinking, fieldwork competence, and decision-making. However, since no students were recruited, no fieldwork intervention was implemented, and no learning outcomes were assessed, the empirical component of the manuscript is environmental rather than educational.

Response 1: We fully agree and sincerely appreciate this essential correction. The revised manuscript distinguishes the empirical environmental analyses from the proposed evidence-informed educational design and no longer presents intended competencies as demonstrated learning gains.

Revisions and locations: The Abstract identifies the educational contribution as a proposed framework (lines 13-31), and the Introduction separates the three empirical and design components (lines 84-93). Section 2.3 uses the term intended learning outcomes and lists proposed assessment evidence (lines 143-162). Section 3.3 explains the framework's design and evidential role without reporting student outcomes (lines 329-395), while the Figure 6 caption explicitly states that it is a proposed design rather than an empirically validated teaching intervention (lines 365-371). The Conclusions retain this boundary by describing the outcomes as intended (lines 411-418).

Comment 2: The Materials and Methods section is presently insufficient to reproduce the environmental results. The Methods describe the study area, desert boundaries, ERA5 variables, temporal periods, and nominal spatial resolution, but do not describe exactly how monthly ERA5 data were processed, spatially aggregated within each desert polygon, temporally summarized, and analysed, etc.

Response 2: We agree and rewrote the Methods to make the environmental workflow reproducible and transparent. The current text specifies how desert polygons and ERA5 grids were combined, how variables were aggregated through time, and how trends and uncertainty were evaluated.

Revisions and locations: Section 2.1 reports the desert-boundary and ERA5 sources, variables, temporal coverage, analytical use, and the location of detailed metadata in Supplementary Table S1 (lines 95-112). Section 2.2 specifies grid-cell/polygon intersection-area weighting, annual aggregation, calculation of 10 m wind speed from u10 and v10, analysis periods, Theil-Sen estimation, Mann-Kendall testing, 95% confidence intervals, moving-block bootstrap analysis, albedo calculation, and vertical soil-moisture processing (lines 115-132). Detailed variables, periods, units, and statistical procedures are provided in Supplementary Table S2.

Comment 3: The four-dimensional resource assessment is insufficiently defined. While the proposed framework could become one of the manuscript's central contributions, the reader is not told exactly how 'solar resource abundance,' 'thermal stability,' 'water and vegetation-support capacity,' and 'wind-shelter stability' are operationalised, transformed, normalised, weighted, or combined in the eventual implementation during a field trip.

Response 3: Thank you. We agree that the original four-dimensional assessment was insufficiently operational. The revised manuscript defines each dimension through a measurable indicator and makes the transformation, normalisation, weighting, aggregation, and sensitivity procedures explicit.

Revisions and locations: Section 2.2 defines solar-resource abundance, thermal stability, soil-moisture support, and wind-exposure stability; applies Min-Max transformations for benefit and constraint criteria; specifies weighted linear aggregation; compares equal-weight, energy-priority, and ecology-priority scenarios; and evaluates score variation, rank change, and Spearman rank correlation (lines 133-142). It also states that the assessment is a relative comparison and not an engineering suitability assessment. The empirical profiles and weighting sensitivity are reported in Section 3.2 (lines 272-328). Supplementary Table S2 provides the detailed indicator definitions and procedures, and Supplementary Table S3 links the evidence to proposed fieldwork and decision tasks (line 385).

Comment 4: Figure 7 and the carbon-negative projection require major clarification or removal. Figure 7 presents projected carbon-sink, photovoltaic-offset, conventional-energy baseline and net-negative trajectories from 2025 to 2060. However, I could not find a methodological description explaining how these projections were generated, what empirical data or scenarios underpin the curves, the assumptions concerning photovoltaic expansion and avoided emissions, the carbon-sequestration model, uncertainty ranges, or why the trajectories take their displayed forms. Despite this, the Conclusion makes the very specific claim that the eight deserts may transition from carbon sources to carbon sinks by 2035. This is currently not sufficiently supported by the research.

Response 4: We fully agree. Because the manuscript did not contain the photovoltaic-expansion pathways, avoided-emission factors, carbon-sequestration model, land-cover scenarios, or uncertainty distributions required for a defensible projection, we followed the reviewer's recommended removal option.

Revision and location: The former Figure 7, all 2025-2060 trajectory text, and the specific 2035 source-to-sink claim have been deleted. The current Results end with the evidence-informed fieldwork framework in Section 3.3 (lines 329-395), and the Conclusions contain only the reported environmental and resource-assessment findings together with a bounded educational proposal (lines 396-418). Photovoltaic development is discussed as a context-dependent sustainability trade-off, not as a projected carbon outcome (Sections 3.2-3.3, lines 272-395).

Comment 5: The manuscript needs a more explicit pedagogical framework and stronger engagement with geography-education scholarship. Much of the education literature currently cited in the Introduction is relatively general, while the later pedagogical sections repeatedly state that students 'can acquire,' 'develop,' or 'understand' particular competencies. The authors should make the educational design more systematic: identify the intended learner group and prior competencies; state specific learning outcomes; map datasets/tasks to those outcomes; describe what actually constitutes 'fieldwork' when much of the proposed activity involves ERA5 analysis, remote sensing, radar charts, MCDA and simulations; and indicate how student learning could be assessed. Also, given the title and proposition for geographic education, authors should engage more with contemporary research on inquiry-based geography fieldwork, fieldwork pedagogy, geospatial/data literacy, systems thinking, and education for sustainable development to strengthen the educational contribution considerably.

Response 5: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this detailed guidance. We redesigned the educational component around constructive alignment and geographical inquiry, with a staged sequence, intended outcomes, observable assessment evidence, and an explicit validation boundary. We also strengthened engagement with geography-fieldwork, data-supported inquiry, systems-thinking, and sustainability-education scholarship. The framework is intended for higher geography education; because it has not yet been implemented in a particular course or with a defined student cohort, we do not claim empirically verified learner prerequisites. In application, instructors would need to adapt the level of scaffolding to learners' prior experience with maps, environmental data, field recording, and comparative decision analysis.

Revisions and locations: The Abstract identifies higher geography education as the intended context (lines 13-31), and the relevant educational literature and evidence gap are integrated into the Introduction (lines 50-73). Section 2.3 specifies pre-field data inquiry, feasible on-site observations and measurements, post-field evidence integration, and sustainability decision-making, together with intended learning outcomes and proposed assessment products such as annotated maps, georeferenced records, comparison reports, MCDA worksheets, and evidence-based decision reports (lines 143-162). Section 3.3 explains how environmental evidence supports each stage, addresses differences in spatial scale, temporal representation, and uncertainty, and relates the framework to established educational research (lines 329-395). Figure 6 and Supplementary Table S3 summarise the alignment (lines 365-371 and 385). The manuscript does not claim that these outcomes have already been achieved by students.

Comment 6: The relationship between field observation and secondary-data analysis should be conceptually clarified. While the paper makes great efforts to connect real landscapes with large environmental datasets, concepts such as 'fieldwork,' 'field-based learning,' and desktop quantitative analysis appear to be used almost interchangeably. Authors should explain how these data and concepts are integrated with actual observations or measurements made in the field. What would a staged framework look like (including pictorially)? This would make the pedagogical contribution much clearer and more transferable.

Response 6: We agree and now distinguish the three forms of activity explicitly. ERA5 interpretation and MCDA are pre-field desktop activities; geography fieldwork consists of observation and feasible measurement at actual desert sites; and post-field work compares the site evidence with long-term regional data while preserving their different spatial and temporal scales.

Revisions and locations: Section 2.3 defines the four stages and lists field-observable phenomena including landforms, surface materials, vegetation, soil and moisture conditions, aeolian features, ecological restoration, renewable-energy infrastructure, water constraints, land use, and human-environment relationships (lines 143-162). Section 3.3 explains the complementary, non-substitutable roles of regional analysis and field evidence and cautions that a short visit cannot validate a multi-decadal regional trend (lines 329-395). Figure 6 provides the requested pictorial four-stage framework (lines 365-371), and Supplementary Table S3 maps evidence, activities, intended outcomes, and assessment products (line 385).

Comment 7: Sharpen the research gap in the introduction.

Response 7: Thank you. We sharpened the Introduction to define the unresolved temporal, spatial, and pedagogical gap. Short field visits provide direct place-based evidence but cannot reveal multi-decadal environmental change, whereas reanalysis provides continuous regional time series but cannot replace observation of local landscapes and human-environment interactions.

Revision and location: The gap, the complementary roles of the two evidence sources, and the need for a mechanism linking pre-field questions, field evidence, post-field scale comparison, and sustainability decisions are stated at lines 50-73. The eight-desert comparative rationale appears at lines 74-83, followed by the three connected components of the study at lines 84-93.

Comment 8: Clearly distinguish between the framework-in-development from own analyses from previous literature.

Response 8: We agree. The revised structure distinguishes three sources of knowledge: previous scholarship, the author-generated environmental analyses, and the proposed educational framework developed from those analyses.

Revisions and locations: Section 1 synthesises previous literature and defines the unresolved gap (lines 34-83), then states the three components and their relationship (lines 84-93). Sections 2.1-2.2 describe how the environmental evidence and resource assessment were produced, while Section 2.3 describes how the proposed fieldwork framework was developed (lines 94-162). Sections 3.1-3.2 report the author-generated environmental and MCDA results (lines 164-328), and Section 3.3 presents their educational translation (lines 329-395). The Figure 6 caption explicitly identifies the framework as proposed rather than empirically validated (lines 365-371).

Comment 9: Could the authors prepare a self-prepared map for Figure 1 to ensure accuracy of the scale?

Response 9: Thank you. Figure 1 is a self-prepared analytical map based on the actual national desert-boundary dataset, which improves traceability and scale accuracy.

Revision and location: Section 2.1 identifies the China 1:100,000 Desert (Sandy Land) Distribution Dataset and explains that the extracted boundaries of the eight deserts were used as fixed spatial units for aggregation and analysis (lines 95-107). Figure 1 follows this description (caption, line 114), while Supplementary Table S1 provides the associated data details and access information. The dataset is cited as reference [22] in the reordered reference list (References, lines 424-504).

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Manuscript ID: sustainability-4484690

Title: An Evidence‑Informed Framework for Practice‑Oriented Geographical Fieldwork Education: Lessons from Environmental Analysis and Resource Assessment of China’s Eight Major Deserts

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript again and for your encouraging assessment of the previous revisions. We sincerely appreciate the time and care you have devoted to both review rounds. Your further comments have helped us identify where the manuscript still needed clearer explanation and more precise reporting.

In response, we have expanded the Introduction, corrected two citation-number mismatches, clarified the indicators and scenario weights in Supplementary Table S2, and revised the title and Abstract to communicate more clearly the proposed nature of the educational framework. We address each comment below and distinguish new revisions from relevant statements retained in the manuscript.

Our responses and quoted revised passages are shown in red. All manuscript page and line references below refer to the current Minor Revision Manuscript. Supplementary material is identified by table and page because it has no line numbering.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes

Thank you. We have further expanded the context and rationale; see Response 1.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Can be improved

Objectives clarified and MCDA reporting detailed; see Responses 1 and 3.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Can be improved

Rationale clarified and educational claims qualified; see Responses 1 and 4.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thank you for this positive assessment.

Is the article adequately referenced?

Can be improved

Two citation-number mismatches corrected; see Response 2.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Yes

Thank you. The Conclusions retain the distinction between intended and demonstrated outcomes; see Response 4.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1

Manuscript length/Scope and level of detail: I feel that the manuscript could benefit from a somewhat more detailed presentation. Compared with the previous, first version (17 pages), the manuscript is now considerably more concise (14 pages), which raises the question of whether all relevant aspects of the topic can be adequately addressed within the current length, particularly given the amount of graphical material included. This is especially noticeable in the Introduction, which appears relatively brief in relation to the scope of the study. It could provide a broader context for the topic, as well as a clearer rationale for the study and a more explicit statement of its objectives. I therefore suggest that the authors consider expanding and elaborating on those sections where additional detail would contribute to a more complete presentation and discussion of the paper.

Response 1:

Thank you for this thoughtful suggestion. We agree that the manuscript should provide enough context and explanation for readers to understand the connection between the environmental analysis, resource assessment, and proposed fieldwork framework. We recognise that the previous Introduction was too compressed for the breadth of the study.

We have therefore expanded the Introduction in four specific places. First, we explain more explicitly why the overlapping environmental and development processes in drylands provide a useful context for examining evidence-informed decisions about resource use and conservation (page 2, lines 51–53). Second, we elaborate on how long-term geospatial and reanalysis datasets can extend field inquiry beyond a single visit and connect local observations with regional patterns (page 2, lines 61–67). We also emphasise their complementary roles and the need to consider spatial scale, temporal representativeness, and uncertainty (page 2, lines 83–88).

Third, we add a clearer rationale for multidimensional resource comparison and the use of MCDA: favourable conditions in one dimension do not necessarily imply favourable conditions in others, and the resulting scores are relative comparisons within a specified indicator system (pages 2–3, lines 97–102). Fourth, the final paragraph now explicitly identifies the three study objectives: quantifying environmental differences and trends, assessing four resource dimensions, and using this evidence to develop a staged geographical fieldwork framework (page 3, lines 103–114).

For example, the added text states: “Long-term datasets and direct field observations have complementary rather than interchangeable roles. Their integration requires explicit attention to differences in spatial scale, temporal representativeness, and uncertainty.” (Introduction, page 2, lines 83–86.)

We have also made the MCDA specifications more explicit in Supplementary Table S2 and its notes (Supplementary Materials, page 3; see Response 3). The existing discussion of environmental interpretation, resource trade-offs, and limitations remains in Sections 3.1–3.3. These changes address the need for fuller explanation while preserving the distinction between the environmental findings and the proposed educational application.

Comment 2

References and citation numbering should be carefully checked: There appear to be several cases where the reference cited in the text does not seem to correspond to the methodological or scientific statement for which it is cited. There also seem to be some inconsistencies in the citations supporting the discussion of the MCDA. This may simply be a consequence of the extensive restructuring and renumbering of the reference list, but it should be checked throughout the manuscript. The references cited for specific methods should directly support the methods being described.

Response 2:

Thank you for drawing our attention to these inconsistencies. We apologise for the confusion caused by the citation-number errors. We have checked the in-text citation numbering against the reference list and corrected the two mismatches in Section 3.2.

The statement on the sensitivity of MCDA to weighting previously cited [22,36,37]. It now cites [21,36,37], so that the first reference correctly points to Malczewski’s review of GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis rather than the desert-boundary dataset. The corrected sentence reads: “Sensitivity to weighting is intrinsic to MCDA because the method combines multiple criteria with different meanings and decision priorities [21,36,37].” (Section 3.2, page 9, lines 325–326.)

The statement about vegetation responses around photovoltaic facilities previously cited [21]. This has been corrected to [20], corresponding to the study by Xia et al. The corrected sentence reads: “Remote sensing studies have reported spatially heterogeneous vegetation responses around photovoltaic facilities in drylands [20].” (Section 3.2, page 9, lines 334–335.)

We have also rechecked the numbering associated with the specific methods in Section 2.2. The manuscript identifies references [23]–[27] alongside spatial aggregation, wind-speed calculation, trend estimation, bootstrap analysis, and albedo calculation, respectively (page 4, lines 137–149); references [28] and [29] are linked to benefit/constraint Min–Max normalisation and weighted linear aggregation (page 4, lines 154–159). These method citations were retained after the numbering check. All 37 reference-list entries are cited in the text, and the in-text numbers correspond to existing entries. We appreciate your careful reading, which helped us correct these errors.

Comment 3

Please make sure that the supplementary material provides sufficient information to reproduce the MCDA analysis: The revised manuscript now explains the four dimensions, weighted aggregation, and the three weighting scenarios much more clearly. However, the actual indicators and weights used in each scenario should be sufficiently explicit for another researcher to reproduce the calculation. If this information is already provided in Supplementary Tables S1- S3, no major change is necessary, but the authors should ensure that the tables clearly report the indicators, their direction of preference (benefit/constraint), and the weights used in each scenario. This is particularly important because the manuscript correctly states that the resulting scores depend on the selected indicators and weighting priorities. Note: I'm not entirely sure about this part, maybe I'm wrong. Therefore, I ask the Editor to consult with at least one other reviewer regarding this part of the research.

Response 3:

Thank you for emphasising the need for reproducible MCDA reporting. We agree that naming the dimensions and weighting scenarios is insufficient unless the operational indicators, preference directions, and numerical weights are explicit. We have revised Supplementary Table S2 to present this information together, including separate columns for all three scenarios and explanatory notes on normalisation and aggregation.

Each dimension uses one operational indicator: solar-resource abundance uses multiyear mean surface solar radiation downwards, treated as a benefit criterion; thermal stability uses the multiyear mean annual temperature range, treated as a constraint criterion; soil-moisture support uses the layer-thickness-weighted mean for ERA5 Layers 1–3 (0–100 cm), treated as a benefit criterion; and wind-exposure stability uses the hour-weighted multiyear mean 10 m wind speed, treated as a constraint criterion. The table states the calculation and period for each indicator. For soil moisture, the layer thicknesses are 0.07, 0.21, and 0.72 m; Layer 4 is excluded from this MCDA indicator.

In the order solar, thermal, soil moisture, and wind, the weights are (0.25, 0.25, 0.25, 0.25) for the equal-weight scenario, (0.40, 0.20, 0.20, 0.20) for the energy-priority scenario, and (0.15, 0.20, 0.40, 0.25) for the ecology-priority scenario. Each set sums to 1.00. The notes make clear that the indicator definitions, preference directions, and normalisation remain the same across scenarios; only the weights change.

The notes also give the Min–Max equations explicitly: benefit indicators use z = (x − xmin)/(xmax − xmin), whereas constraint indicators use z = (xmax − x)/(xmax − xmin), with the minimum and maximum taken across all eight deserts. The composite score is C = wS zS + wT zT + wM zM + wW zW. Wind speed remains an exposure constraint in every scenario, including the energy-priority scenario. These specifications make the direction and weighting of each contribution transparent.

Location: Supplementary Table S2, all four indicator rows and the accompanying notes, page 3 of the Supplementary Materials. The corresponding main-text description is in Section 2.2, page 4, lines 154–163. Table S1 (Supplementary Materials, page 2) identifies the input datasets; Table S3 presents the educational tasks rather than the numerical MCDA specification. The qualification that the scores represent relative resource characteristics is retained in Section 3.2 (page 9, lines 330–334) and the Conclusions (page 12, lines 428–430).

Comment 4

The distinction between proposed educational outcomes and demonstrated educational effects should be maintained consistently: The revised manuscript handles this issue much better than the previous version, and I appreciate the authors' explicit statement that the framework has not been empirically validated. I would nevertheless recommend a final check of the manuscript to ensure that terms such as “improve”, “develop”, or similar causal formulations are not used in places where the study has only proposed activities or intended learning outcomes. In the absence of an implementation or assessment with students, the educational contribution should remain framed as a proposed framework and set of intended outcomes.

Response 4:

Thank you for this important reminder. We fully agree that intended learning outcomes should not be presented as demonstrated educational effects. No teaching intervention or assessment with students was conducted in this study, and we recognise that the previous wording in the Abstract could imply a stronger educational claim than the evidence supports.

We have revised the title to begin “An Evidence-Informed Framework for Practice-Oriented Geographical Fieldwork Education” (page 1, lines 1–4), making the framework contribution more explicit. In the Abstract, the framework is now described as being “designed to engage students in interpreting long-term datasets, comparing regional processes and evaluating sustainability trade-offs” (page 1, lines 28–31). This wording describes the intention of the design.

We have also replaced the previous phrase “offering a transferable approach to strengthening quantitative reasoning, systems thinking and evidence-based sustainability learning” with “offering an adaptable framework in which quantitative reasoning, systems thinking and evidence-based sustainability learning are specified as intended educational outcomes in higher geographical education” (Abstract, page 1, lines 32–35).

We checked this framing against the rest of the manuscript. Section 2.3 retains conditional descriptions of what learners would do and explicitly identifies intended outcomes and proposed assessment evidence (page 5, lines 168–183). The Figure 6 caption retains the statement: “The framework represents a proposed design rather than an empirically validated teaching intervention.” (Page 12, lines 390–391.) The concluding paragraph likewise identifies the educational contribution as a proposed framework with intended learning outcomes (page 13, lines 434–438). These statements are retained safeguards, rather than newly demonstrated outcomes. Thank you for helping us make the boundary between environmental evidence and educational expectations clearer.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Manuscript ID: sustainability-4484690

Title: An Evidence‑Informed Framework for Practice‑Oriented Geographical Fieldwork Education: Lessons from Environmental Analysis and Resource Assessment of China’s Eight Major Deserts

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript again and for your encouraging assessment of the revision. We sincerely appreciate the time and care you have devoted to helping us improve the paper. We agree that both the title and the wording throughout the manuscript should reflect the distinction between a proposed educational framework and empirically demonstrated learning outcomes.

In response to your two comments, we have revised the title and the Abstract and checked the consistency of the educational claims throughout the manuscript. Our detailed responses are provided below in red. All page and line references refer to the current Minor Revision Manuscript.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes

Thank you for this positive assessment.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes

Thank you for this positive assessment.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Yes

Thank you for this positive assessment.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thank you for this positive assessment.

Is the article adequately referenced?

Yes

Thank you for this positive assessment.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Yes

Thank you for this positive assessment.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comment

Thank you for the substantial revision. The authors have addressed and responded carefully and constructively to the major concerns raised in my previous review. The manuscript has also improved considerably.

Response: Thank you for recognising our efforts to address your previous concerns. Your constructive feedback has been very helpful in clarifying the scope and contribution of the study. We have carefully considered both remaining points, as detailed below.

Comment 1

The authors could reconsider whether the phrase “The Educational Value” in the title could imply empirically demonstrated educational effectiveness. Consider a title that better reflects the study design.

Response 1:

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that “The Educational Value” could suggest that educational effectiveness had been empirically demonstrated. We apologise for this ambiguity. The study analyses environmental evidence and resource characteristics to inform a proposed fieldwork framework; it does not evaluate learning gains through implementation with students.

We have therefore replaced the previous title, “The Educational Value of Practice-Oriented Geographical Field Studies: Integrating Environmental Evidence and Resource Assessment in China’s Deserts”, with:

“An Evidence‑Informed Framework for Practice‑Oriented Geographical Fieldwork Education: Lessons from Environmental Analysis and Resource Assessment of China’s Eight Major Deserts”

The revised title explicitly identifies the contribution as an evidence-informed framework and links it to the environmental analysis and resource assessment on which it is based. We believe this wording more accurately reflects the study design and the scope of the available evidence.

Location of revision: title, page 1, lines 1–4.

Comment 2

Please complete a final consistency check to ensure that no remaining wording implies demonstrated student learning gains or educational effectiveness, since the educational framework has not yet been empirically tested.

Response 2:

Thank you for this important reminder. We fully agree that the educational claims must remain proportionate to the evidence. No student-based implementation or assessment was conducted, and the framework has not been empirically tested. We have checked the title, Abstract, main text, and figure captions for consistency with this limitation and revised the wording in the Abstract where it could imply demonstrated learning gains.

In the Abstract, the framework is now described as being “designed to engage students in interpreting long-term datasets, comparing regional processes and evaluating sustainability trade-offs” (page 1, lines 28–31). This wording expresses the purpose of the proposed activities. We have also replaced “offering a transferable approach to strengthening quantitative reasoning, systems thinking and evidence-based sustainability learning” with “offering an adaptable framework in which quantitative reasoning, systems thinking and evidence-based sustainability learning are specified as intended educational outcomes in higher geographical education” (page 1, lines 32–35).

We also checked the relevant statements elsewhere in the manuscript and retained their explicit qualifications. Section 2.3 uses conditional descriptions of what learners would do and identifies “intended learning outcomes” and “Proposed assessment evidence” (page 5, lines 168–183). These describe the activity design and possible assessment products, rather than results obtained from students.

The Figure 6 caption explicitly states: “The framework represents a proposed design rather than an empirically validated teaching intervention.” (Page 12, lines 390–391.) The Conclusions likewise state: “The proposed framework identifies environmental data literacy, spatial reasoning, systems thinking, evidence integration, and decision making for sustainability as intended learning outcomes.” (Page 13, lines 436–438.) These qualifications were already present and have been retained to ensure consistency with the revised title and Abstract.

We appreciate your guidance in making this distinction clearer. The empirical findings concern environmental conditions and relative resource characteristics; the educational contribution is a proposed framework whose effectiveness requires future implementation and assessment.

Locations: revised Abstract, page 1, lines 28–35; corresponding statements checked and retained in Section 2.3, page 5, lines 168–183; Figure 6 caption, page 12, lines 385–391; and Conclusions, page 13, lines 434–438.