Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: sustainability-3936233

The research aims to address a highly relevant and contemporary topic: the intersection of student leisure, ICT use, and environmental education. The study presents valuable empirical data on the ICT usage patterns of Andalusian students, which forms the primary strength and is a significant contribution. The fundamental issue is a misalignment between the title/abstract/introduction, which promise an integration of leisure and environmental education, and the actual results/discussion, which are predominantly a profile of ICT usage and does not sufficiently loop back to the central theme of environmental education. Thus, the link to environmental education currently feels like an afterthought rather than the central thesis. For example, the gender disparity in video game use, this finding could inform more targeted outreach strategies, such as incorporating gamified elements to better engage male students. At present, the interpretation of the data and results in the conclusion is presented in generic terms, listing broad advantages without sufficiently proposing what environmental educators should specifically develop as interactive content for the digital platforms already popular among this demographic. There are numerous formatting and typographical issues throughout the manuscript that need careful attention.

Section-by-section feedback is provided below to guide a successful revision.

Lines 10-17 (Abstract): 

The study first establishes a baseline of ICT leisure habits, and then, based on these findings, proposes a framework for integrating environmental education. However, the link to environmental education is presented as a proposal in the conclusion, not as a researched finding. The abstract must be rewritten to accurately reflect the paper's actual content.  

1. Introduction

• The introduction lacks a clear “problem statement” and a definitive research gap that this specific study aims to fill. Also, the narrative moves from general leisure concepts to the environmental crisis and the role of education. The logical thread connecting students' ICT-centric leisure directly to a supposed novel solution for environmental education needs to be more clearly articulated.
• Line 124:  remove “the” before “myriad”
• Lines 190-245: (Inclusion of Environmental Education...), this reads more like a general commentary on environmental education than a review that supports framework for the study. It should be revised to highlight the potential of digital tools (the very ICTs analyzed in the reported studies) to deliver the described environmental education goals. This would create a direct logical pipeline from the literature to the study’s implications.
• Any reference on how ICT might exacerbate environmental issues, such as e-waste? The authors should discuss this in the introduction, if any.
• Line 198–199: “the environment where the activity takes place will be composed of elements or structures” … what is meant by “elements or structures.”

2. Materials and Methods

• The stated objective in the introduction is not fully addressed by the methodological design.
• Lines 246-249: The statement “analysed their use of these technologies... and their impact on the environment” …. Does the study measure “impact on the environment?” It rather infers a potential for impact. Please clarify this
• Lines 255-260: The four listed objectives are limited to profiling ICT use. The broader aim of the paper, connecting this to environmental education, is not reflected in these operational objectives. This disconnect should be acknowledged or the paper’s scope should be refined to focus solely on the ICT profiling.
• Line 279-292: The use of Likert scale 1 to 4; clarify if neutral option was excluded (which may have implications for data interpretation).

3. Results and Discussion

• Findings (Table 1, Line 313, Table 2, Line 408, etc) should be interpreted and discussed in the context of environmental education.
• Limitations and potential biases in the study should be discussed
• Line 382, revise “occupy a significant part of students’ leisure time ( ).” – fill the blank or remove.
• MANOVA results (lines 393-398), for univariate tests interpretation (Table 2, line 408), clarify why heteroscedasticity matters in this study. Also, the discussion cites references [51-55] on gender, but overlooks counterarguments, like positive video game effects on cognition. This should be addressed.
• Line 413-422 (Table 2): There are formatting errors and unclear labels (e.g., “2h4 ours”). The superscripts and subscripts have corrupted the text. This table must be reconstructed for clarity.
• A thorough proofread of the entire manuscript is required to correct minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasings (e.g., “hous” should be “hours” in Graph 3 title)
• After line 475, add a paragraph synthesizing how these patterns inform environmental education.
• Where’s subsection 4????

5. Conclusions

• Lines 502-543: It reads like a new introduction to an additional content. The claims (e.g., “radically change students’ inclination,” “powerful tool”) are not directly supported by the data presented in this study. The study provides the foundation for such claims but does not test them.
• Rewrite the conclusion to be more specific and grounded in the findings. Instead of listing generic advantages, structure it as a set of evidence-based recommendations.
• Line 545 “In conclusion, we can highlight that digital environmental education...” ‘concluding’ conclusions?? (line 502-543) or what???? I don’t understand……

Lines 552: Referencias (Spanish???)

The list is extensive (79 entries), but formatting is inconsistent, e.g., line 553 has “:10.1080/” typo (should be “https://doi.org/”). Some URLs are broken (line 575). Duplicates or errors: check line 612 “Prieto Andreu, J. M. (2025)”, wrong formatting.

Use a consistent style (e.g., APA). Check for completeness; e.g., line 778’s DOI is truncated. Add missing DOIs where possible, and carefully revise the entire references

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

1. Introducción

Comentario 1: La introducción carece de una definición clara del problema y de una brecha de investigación específica que este estudio pretenda cubrir. Además, la narrativa pasa de conceptos generales de ocio a la crisis ambiental y el papel de la educación. Es necesario articular con mayor claridad el vínculo lógico que conecta el ocio de los estudiantes centrado en las TIC con una supuesta solución novedosa para la educación ambiental.

 

Respuesta 1: La introducción ha sido modificada.

Comentarios 2: Línea 124: eliminar “el” antes de “miríada”

Respuesta 2: El error ha sido corregido.

 Comentario 3: Líneas 190-245: (Inclusión de la Educación Ambiental...), este texto se asemeja más a un comentario general sobre educación ambiental que a una revisión que respalde el marco del estudio. Debería revisarse para destacar el potencial de las herramientas digitales (las mismas TIC analizadas en los estudios citados) para alcanzar los objetivos de educación ambiental descritos. Esto establecería una conexión lógica directa entre la literatura y las implicaciones del estudio.

¿Existe alguna referencia sobre cómo las TIC podrían agravar problemas ambientales, como los residuos electrónicos? Los autores deberían abordar este tema en la introducción, si la hubiera.

 Respuesta 3:

 Comentarios 4: Líneas 198–199: “el entorno en el que se desarrolla la actividad estará compuesto de elementos o estructuras”… ¿qué se entiende por “elementos o estructuras”?

Respuesta 4:

1. Materiales y métodos

 

Comentarios 5: El objetivo planteado en la introducción no se aborda completamente en el diseño metodológico.

Respuesta 5: La modificación se ha realizado.

 Comentario 6: Líneas 246-249: La afirmación «analizaron su uso de estas tecnologías... y su impacto en el medio ambiente»… ¿Mide el estudio el «impacto en el medio ambiente»? Más bien sugiere un impacto potencial. Por favor, aclaren este punto.

Respuesta 6: La modificación se ha realizado.

 Comentario 7: Líneas 255-260: Los cuatro objetivos enumerados se limitan a la caracterización del uso de las TIC. El objetivo más amplio del documento, que vincula esto con la educación ambiental, no se refleja en estos objetivos operativos. Esta desconexión debería reconocerse o el alcance del documento debería ajustarse para centrarse exclusivamente en la caracterización del uso de las TIC.

Respuesta 7: La modificación se ha realizado.

Comments 8: Line 279-292: The use of Likert scale 1 to 4; clarify if neutral option was excluded (which may have implications for data interpretation).

Response 8: That specification has been included in the text

 Results and Discussion

Comments 9: Findings (Table 1, Line 313, Table 2, Line 408, etc) should be interpreted and discussed in the context of environmental education.

Response 9: The modification has been made

 Comments 10: Limitations and potential biases in the study should be discussed

Response 10: The modification has been made

 Comments 11: Line 382, revise “occupy a significant part of students’ leisure time ( ).” – fill the blank or remove.

Response 11: The modification has been made

 

Comments 12: MANOVA results (lines 393-398), for univariate tests interpretation (Table 2, line 408), clarify why heteroscedasticity matters in this study. Also, the discussion cites references [51-55] on gender, but overlooks counterarguments, like positive video game effects on cognition. This should be addressed.

Response 12: The MANOVA results (lines 393-398), for the interpretation of univariate tests (Table 2, line 408), clarify the importance of heteroscedasticity in this study. Furthermore, the discussion cites references [51-55] on gender, but ignores counterarguments, such as the positive effects of video games on cognition.

 Comments 13: Line 413-422 (Table 2): There are formatting errors and unclear labels (e.g., “2h4 ours”). The superscripts and subscripts have corrupted the text. This table must be reconstructed for clarity.

Response 13: The modification has been made

 Comments 14: A thorough proofread of the entire manuscript is required to correct minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasings (e.g., “hous” should be “hours” in Graph 3 title)

Response 14: The error has been corrected

 Comments 15: After line 475, add a paragraph synthesizing how these patterns inform environmental education.

Response 15: The modification has been made

 Comments 16: Where’s subsection 4????

Response 16: The error has been corrected

 

1. Conclusions

Comments 17: Lines 502-543: It reads like a new introduction to an additional content. The claims (e.g., “radically change students’ inclination,” “powerful tool”) are not directly supported by the data presented in this study. The study provides the foundation for such claims but does not test them.

Response 17: The modification has been made

Comentario 18: Reescriba la conclusión para que sea más específica y esté mejor fundamentada en los hallazgos. En lugar de enumerar ventajas genéricas, estructúrela como un conjunto de recomendaciones basadas en la evidencia.

Respuesta 18: La modificación se ha realizado.

Comentario 19: Línea 545 “En conclusión, podemos destacar que la educación ambiental digital...” ¿Conclusiones 'conclusivas'? (líneas 502-543) ¿O qué? No entiendo…

Respuesta 19: La modificación se ha realizado.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear,
Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. I hope that my contributions will help to review and improve it.
First of all, I think that the article has two strengths: on the one hand, the data from a broad sample. On the other hand, an original idea of linking leisure and environmental education.
However, after reading the article carefully, I consider that the two parts are not related: the data presented is not related to the introduction, and I think that the conclusions cannot be extracted from these data.

It would be necessary, therefore, to choose: if these quantitative data are to be presented, a related theoretical framework and conclusions should be articulated that derive from their analysis and discussion. If you want to maintain the approach of the link between free time and environmental education, you should reformulate and present some empirical data that are related to it.

In the event of a second choice, I would like to add a few comments:

Required
- It is necessary to locate theoretically what is leisure and free time in the article: on the one hand, what time is it referring to (it is separated from studies and work, and something else? Or is it understood to mean any space that is not work or academic?), and also why is it identified as an individual space (if many activities are collective). It is also necessary to locate the references made to “dangerous behaviour” and “criminal behaviour”, to understand what they refer to and why they are brought when talking about free time.
- In the introduction and the theoretical framework, it would be necessary to specify the targeted population: sometimes we talk about young people, sometimes teenagers, sometimes children... Some specific studies are referred to, but their geographical location is not referenced (as we have seen, it seems to be a study on the Spanish population, but it is not specified).
- When talking about the time spent on screens during the covid lockdown, screens are linked only to free time but no reference is made to the use of technologies for studies or work. It would be interesting if this were well located, since non-free time can also be a space where technologies have a strong presence, and it is not referenced in itself whether lockdown involves a greater or lesser use of screens in global terms.
- In the theoretical framework, structured leisure activities are linked to natural spaces, which can lead to misunderstanding. Not all structured activity takes place outside, nor are unstructured activities carried out inside. The terms must be used rigorously and not generate erroneous correlations.
- On page 2 a discourse is generated in relation to free time, technologies and environmental education that is not clear at all. It needs to be reviewed and the relationship between the terms clarified.
- In page 4 there is talk of childhood and obesity, which does not seem to be too related to the issues that are being developed so far.
- In lines 212-213, it would be necessary to explain what “fair in both economic and ecological terms” means. The fact that these two aspects are being differentiated makes us wonder in what theoretical paradigm the authors are located in relation to environmental education. It would be necessary to locate itself in a specific paradigm and explain it.

Recommendations
- There is a lot of talk about the use of time and technologies. Given that it is a subject widely addressed by philosophy in recent years, and especially since the pandemic, it would be interesting to link it to philosophical paradigms or give it a little theoretical umbrella.
- Page 5 talks about the potential of outdoor activities in relation to environmental education. The environment not only offers resources, but there are several studies that demonstrate the importance of the link with the environment to improve environmental commitment, based on life experiences, roots, etc. It would be good to include the references and also the discussion, since it contradicts the main idea advocated by the text.
- In a text that reflects on the use of technologies and environmental education, I think it is essential that some reference to how the environmental impact of technological use itself is managed or problematized in environmental education proposals that contemplate the use of digital technology.

Author Response

Comments 1: It is necessary to locate theoretically what is leisure and free time in the article: on the one hand, what time is it referring to (it is separated from studies and work, and something else? Or is it understood to mean any space that is not work or academic?), and also why is it identified as an individual space (if many activities are collective). It is also necessary to locate the references made to “dangerous behaviour” and “criminal behaviour”, to understand what they refer to and why they are brought when talking about free time.

Response 1: The various aspects indicated by the reviewer have been modified.

 
Comments 2: In the introduction and the theoretical framework, it would be necessary to specify the targeted population: sometimes we talk about young people, sometimes teenagers, sometimes children... Some specific studies are referred to, but their geographical location is not referenced (as we have seen, it seems to be a study on the Spanish population, but it is not specified).

Response 2: The various aspects indicated by the reviewer have been modified.

  

Comments 3: When talking about the time spent on screens during the covid lockdown, screens are linked only to free time but no reference is made to the use of technologies for studies or work. It would be interesting if this were well located, since non-free time can also be a space where technologies have a strong presence, and it is not referenced in itself whether lockdown involves a greater or lesser use of screens in global terms.

Response 3:   The various aspects indicated by the reviewer have been modified.

 

Comments 4: In the theoretical framework, structured leisure activities are linked to natural spaces, which can lead to misunderstanding. Not all structured activity takes place outside, nor are unstructured activities carried out inside. The terms must be used rigorously and not generate erroneous correlations.

Response 4: The various aspects indicated by the reviewer have been modified.

   
Comments 5: On page 2 a discourse is generated in relation to free time, technologies and environmental education that is not clear at all. It needs to be reviewed and the relationship between the terms clarified.

Response 5: The various aspects indicated by the reviewer have been modified.

Comments 6: In page 4 there is talk of childhood and obesity, which does not seem to be too related to the issues that are being developed so far.

 

Response 6: The various aspects indicated by the reviewer have been modified.

Comments 7: In lines 212-213, it would be necessary to explain what “fair in both economic and ecological terms” means. The fact that these two aspects are being differentiated makes us wonder in what theoretical paradigm the authors are located in relation to environmental education. It would be necessary to locate itself in a specific paradigm and explain it.
Response 7: The various aspects indicated by the reviewer have been modified.

 

Recommendations
Comments 8: There is a lot of talk about the use of time and technologies. Given that it is a subject widely addressed by philosophy in recent years, and especially since the pandemic, it would be interesting to link it to philosophical paradigms or give it a little theoretical umbrella.

Response 8: We believe that this is not the purpose of the study we conducted. Therefore, this content has not been included in it.

Comments 9: Page 5 talks about the potential of outdoor activities in relation to environmental education. The environment not only offers resources, but there are several studies that demonstrate the importance of the link with the environment to improve environmental commitment, based on life experiences, roots, etc. It would be good to include the references and also the discussion, since it contradicts the main idea advocated by the text.

Response 9: The various aspects indicated by the reviewer have been modified.

Comments 10: In a text that reflects on the use of technologies and environmental education, I think it is essential that some reference to how the environmental impact of technological use itself is managed or problematized in environmental education proposals that contemplate the use of digital technology.

Response 10: We believe that this is not the purpose of the study we conducted. Therefore, this content has not been included in it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the modern world, the use of leisure time is very important. The use of leisure time for educational purposes, especially for the purpose of environmental protection, has an increasingly significant role, which is why the topic of this article is particularly important for the wider social community.
The abstract presented all segments of this research extremely well and presented the content of the article. The keywords are sufficient and appropriate. The introduction is very long. The authors can separate some different parts in the introduction. In my opinion, a separate section Introduction is good, the section Structured leisure time, ICT and the environment can remain, and then Inclusion of environmental education in leisure time for environmental protection. However, they can separate the literature review to gain insight into the research of other authors and other countries on the same topic. After that, they can give a parallel with their research in the article within the discussion.
The material and methods are sufficient, but Graph 1 does not have a source. The authors should add it.
The results are properly presented in graphs and tables. The sources are missing, so it is not clear whether the authors prepared them or not. They should be corrected. At the end of the chapter on results and discussion, a review of the obtained results in relation to previous, similar or the same research in this field and in other geographical areas should be added, in order to get a broader picture.
The conclusion is satisfactory.
The references are very well selected and very up-to-date. A very large number are from recent years, which is very important for this type of research, especially due to the use of ICT.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction is very long. The authors can separate some different parts in the introduction. In my opinion, a separate section Introduction is good, the section Structured leisure time, ICT and the environment can remain, and then Inclusion of environmental education in leisure time for environmental protection. However, they can separate the literature review to gain insight into the research of other authors and other countries on the same topic. After that, they can give a parallel with their research in the article within the discussion.
The material and methods are sufficient, but Graph 1 does not have a source. The authors should add it.
The results are properly presented in graphs and tables. The sources are missing, so it is not clear whether the authors prepared them or not. They should be corrected. At the end of the chapter on results and discussion, a review of the obtained results in relation to previous, similar or the same research in this field and in other geographical areas should be added, in order to get a broader picture.
The conclusion is satisfactory.
The references are very well selected and very up-to-date. A very large number are from recent years, which is very important for this type of research, especially due to the use of ICT.

Response:                               

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: sustainability-3936233-v2

The revised abstract still fails to accurately reflect the actual scope and findings of the paper. Additionally, there are typographical errors, such as “studentswas” instead of “students was.” More importantly, the abstract in its current form does not clearly convey the essence or significance of the study. The authors are strongly advised to carefully review the journal’s author guidelines and revise the abstract to ensure it tersely communicates the study’s objectives, methodology, main findings, and relevance.

The responses to my comments on the Introduction, Materials and Methods sections were provided in Spanish. All communication, including responses to reviewer comments, must be in English as required by the journal.

Furthermore, the responses lack specificity and do not clearly indicate the exact revisions made in the manuscript or provide substantive rebuttals. The changes are not easily traceable in the revised version. I strongly encourage the authors to address each point raised in the initial review with detailed, point-by-point responses, specifying the exact modifications or providing a reasoned rebuttal where appropriate.

Additionally, the use of “Referencias” instead of “References” is not acceptable; all headings and sections should be in English in accordance with journal guidelines.

The conclusion section in the revised manuscript is overly lengthy and presented in a numbered, point-by-point format, which is not appropriate for a scientific paper. The conclusion should succinctly synthesize the key findings and reinforce the main results and discussion, providing clear closure to the study. In its current form, it does not fulfill this purpose. I strongly recommend that the authors review the journal’s guidelines and consult recently published articles in this journal for proper formatting and content expectations in the conclusion section.

The entire manuscript requires a thorough and careful revision to ensure clarity, coherence, and adherence to the journal’s standards.

Author Response

3. Point-by-point response to the authors' comments and suggestions Before responding to the comments made by the reviewer, we would like to point out that the corrections to the article are indicated in green within it. Furthermore, the authors have asked the journal to thoroughly proofread the English of the article before publishing it.

Comment 1: The revised abstract still does not accurately reflect the scope and findings of the article. Furthermore, it contains typographical errors, such as “studentswas” instead of “students was.” More importantly, the abstract in its current form does not clearly convey the essence or relevance of the study. The authors are strongly encouraged to carefully review the journal's publication guidelines and revise the abstract to ensure that it concisely communicates the study's objectives, methodology, main findings, and relevance.   Answer 1: The abstract has been reviewed and modified, taking into account the reviewer's feedback, to clearly state the scope and findings of our article. We have reviewed the publication guidelines and corrected any errors found.      Comments 2: Responses to my comments on the Introduction, Materials, and Methods sections were provided in Spanish. All communication, including responses to reviewers' comments, must be in English, as required by the journal.   Answer 2: It was an error uploading the responses to the platform; we apologize for the inconvenience. We will keep this in mind for future reference.   Comments 3: Furthermore, the responses lack specificity and do not clearly indicate the exact revisions made to the manuscript, nor do they offer substantial rebuttals. The changes are not easily identifiable in the revised version. I strongly recommend that the authors address each point raised in the initial review with detailed, point-by-point responses, specifying the exact modifications or providing a reasoned rebuttal where appropriate.   Answer 3:   We apologize to the reviewer if the notifications from the first review were not specified correctly. Therefore, we want to simplify the changes made in this second review (specified in the article in green): -        The introduction and all its subsections have been revised to adapt it to the objectives, methodology, and conclusions of our study. -        Regarding the objectives, the two general objectives of the work have been clarified and the specific objectives have been outlined. -        In the methodology section, the working method has been redefined. -        The instrument has been defined and the exclusion of the neutral category of responses has been justified. -        In the results section, the application of the specific tests in the MANOVA analysis is explained and justified, taking into account heteroscedasticity. -        The conclusions have been rewritten as a more concise summary to reduce their length without omitting any key aspects of the content, in accordance with the results.   Comments 4: Furthermore, the use of “References” instead of “References” is not acceptable; all headings and sections must be in English in accordance with the journal's guidelines.   Answer 4:This is a translation error in the text that has been modified   Comments 5: The conclusions section of the revised manuscript is excessively long and presented in a numbered, point-by-point format, which is inappropriate for a scientific article. The conclusion should concisely summarize the key findings and reinforce the main results and discussion, providing a clear closure to the study. In its current form, it does not fulfill this purpose. I strongly recommend that the authors review the journal's guidelines and consult recently published articles to understand the formatting and content expectations for the conclusions section.   Answer 5: Taking into account the reviewer's feedback, the study's conclusions have been summarized and the previously presented numbering has been removed. Much of the wording has also been modified to improve the clarity of the article's conclusion. We reviewed the journal's publication guidelines and read several previously published articles to better conduct this review.     Comments 6: The complete manuscript requires a thorough and careful review to ensure clarity, consistency, and compliance with the journal's standards.   Answer 6:

As can be seen in the attached document, a thorough review of the presented study has been carried out to ensure greater clarity in all the ideas presented. Coherence has been found among all the topics covered, and the publication guidelines have been reviewed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I appreciate the effort you have put into addressing the previous concerns raised during the initial review process.

I recommend a thorough review and revision of references 4, 8, 11, 13, 14, and several others. Please consult the journal’s guidelines on reference formatting and ensure all citations adhere to the required standards.

Best regards,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for the corrections you made, which we have taken into account.

1. The bibliography has been reviewed, considering the numbers you mentioned and all of them.

2. The wording of the text has been reviewed again to achieve greater coherence between the justification of the research, the stated objectives, and the conclusions presented.

3. The objectives have been specified so that they are explicitly linked to the methodology, and the conclusions have been revised to reflect the findings in a coherent and convincing manner.

4. In light of the above, we have decided to change the title of the article to better reflect the content we have developed in the text.

Thank you again for your work.