ERASMUS+ Strategic Partnerships between UNESCO Global Geoparks, Schools, and Research Institutions: A Window of Opportunity for Geoheritage Enhancement and Geoscience Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper entitled "ERASMUS+ strategic partnerships between UNESCO Global Geoparks, schools and research institutions: a window of opportunity for geoheritage enhancement and geoscience education" is a very interesting contribution describing the application of educational programs in the schools of three European UNESCO Global Geoparks for two successive periods.

The use of the English language is generally good, however, there are a few linguistic problems. Some corrections have been indicated in the attached pdf file and also a number of sentences need to be rewritten and to be more precise I would suggest checking the English in your manuscript.

One of the problems in this paper is that there is no mention concerning possible research or similar projects that have been done in other geoparks around the world. There are several educational programs in UGGp  and there are several educational activities concerning climate change in particular. Hence it would be good to mention a few such examples.

Table 1 is a very extensive table that I  consider does not offer a lot to the manuscript. Either it has to be reduced significantly or it should be added as supplementary material. Thus without the table, the presented results should be enhanced without getting into too much detail.

I did not have the time to check the references thoroughly.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We really appreciate the indicated corrections and the helpful suggestions to our manuscript:

“ERASMUS+ strategic partnerships between UNESCO Global Geoparks, schools and research institutions: a window of opportunity for geoheritage enhancement and geoscience education”

We considered both the general remarks and the detailed notes by carefully amending the paper and by following the 47 comments.

We presented the replies to each comment as notes in the uploaded response files to reviewer.

Please see the attached file.

Moreover we appreciate the opinion  of the Academic Editor in order to label the paper as REVIEW. We agree in this solution because it gives more value to our paper and its contents.

According to this suggestion we introduced the concept into the abstract by adding 1 sentence:

“The common pedagogical approach is presented in this review paper, as well as the different methodological solutions”.

We also modified the introduction by adding few lines referred to the review nature of the paper:

“Since both the Erasmus+ and IGGP programs aim to develop models of best practices, with this review paper on international geoscience partnerships we’d like to demonstrate that a shared playground for common activities can be found in areas characterized by high geodiversity and rich geoheritage”.

Concerning our possible amendments to general comments, we had to face different views from the experts commenting the paper:

• As Reviewer 1, you pointed out some lack in mentioning similar research or projects within Geoparks, while Reviewer 2 considered proper selection of current cited references because “this topic is quite new”. Anyway we inserted a fair number of references to research projects within geoparks (1 to 8), specific references to the up-to-date educational activities concerning geoscience and climate change (10, 13 23, 24, 26, 27, 37) and some targeted experiences within UGGps (6, 14, 15, 22, 30, 31, 32, 39). As a completion to these references we added a further targeted sentence referring to a special issue of “European Geopark Network Magazine (38).
• As Reviewer 1 you considered Tab. 1 as a very extensive table not offering a lot to the manuscript”. On the contrary, Reviewer 2 considers this table important for defining the spatial and temporal framework of the projects and requested specific updates. We fulfilled this second requirement and completed with requested data in the table 1. We consider these geographic amendments as relevant data for the whole review paper.

The rejection or acceptance of other possible amendments have been carefully evaluated based on the new type of paper (review) and specific contents of our project:

• Concerning remarks by both reviewers to the use of SdGs and related targets, we accepted and deserved a new special explanation to the table 6 contents:

(See pag. 17 of the manuscript)

“To structure the learning content of the educational activities within the framework of the SDG topics, each GEOclimHOME-Pro exchange week (2018-2021) focused on specific environmental, territorial and cultural characteristics of the Geoparks. Table 6 offers an overview of the dates, locations and participants (host and guests, on site or remote participation) of the exchange weeks. It further summarises the key questions posed in relation to the objectives of the selected SDGs and a description of the educational content that was designed to increase student insight into the different professions found within sustainable Geopark territories.”

“The synthesis presented in Table 6 of the GEOclimHOME-Pro exchange weeks is completed by the description of the specific methods and activities employed. It provides an overview of the field and laboratory activities that were performed in the Geopark territories. These exercises allowed students to appraise the active and passive roles of humans towards the climate and environmental change. Activities included visits to geodiversity sites, infrastructure, museums and other locations relevant to either the environmental, cultural or economic aspects of each Geopark. The programme was designed to address global issues and local needs, and also to deliver educational content on geoheritage and climate change, social responsibility and active citizenship.  In person and online meetings with professionals and researchers were organised to allow students to discover initiatives that deliver sustainable development in Geopark territories.”

Concerning other issues such as the meaning of “professional perspective” we understand the necessity to better support territorial management within Geoparks by means of targeted education and professional perspectives. We modify phrases and added references in the introduction:

“These, in turn, could improve strategic planning and helps in delivering high quality standards for territorial management within Geoparks, thus integrating the preservation of geological heritage [7,8] into strategies for regional sustainable development [9]”

in paragraph 5.2:

It further summarises the key questions posed in relation to the objectives of the selected SDGs and a description of the educational content that was designed to increase student insight into the different professions found within sustainable Geopark territories.

And later we highlight the concept within the conclusion (see End of Paragraph 6):

Remodeled Table 7 an new conclusions

As a conclusion, new skills and pedagogical approaches introduced by strategic ERASMUS+ partnerships of UNESCO Global Geoparks, schools and research institutions foster the development of new models for enhancing geodiversity and geoheritage. These, in turn, improve strategic planning and the reach of high quality standards for new professional perspectives in the territorial management of Geoparks territories.

• Concerning the remarks about the sentence on the positive development of our Project during COVID-19 we accepted the suggestion to integrate this in detail. We agree with the reviewer in removing this sentence from conclusion and created a targeted paragraph (

5.5 Example of public recognition of the GEOclimHOME partnership: a resilient pandemic solution for UNESCO designations

Consequently we also modified the structure of the conclusions.

• Other than the above mentioned revisions we carefully applied amendments through all the text (see the attached files for reviewers) and performed a complete check on English language by our Co-Author Sophie Justice, English native speaking.

You will find the all the amendments in the attached files.

Best Regards,

Marco Giardino

Corresponding author of the Review Paper:

ERASMUS+ strategic partnerships between UNESCO Global Geoparks, schools and research institutions: a window of opportunity for geoheritage enhancement and geoscience education

Marco Giardino - [email protected]

University of Torino -Dept. of Earth Sciences
Via Valperga Caluso, 35 - 10125 Torino,  Italia
Tel. +39 011 6705164 - Fax +39 011 6708398

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors of:

ERASMUS+ strategic partnerships between UNESCO Global Geoparks, schools and research institutions: a window of opportunity for geoheritage enhancement and geoscience education

Giardino, M., Justice, S., Olsbo, R. Balzarini, P., Magagna, A., Viani, C., Selvaggio, I.,, Kuittu, M, Kauhanen, J, Laukkanen, M., & L. Perotti

Review report:

• A brief summary (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions and strengths.

The paper follows the abstract given and the main aims are mentioned from line 20-26. The paper gives a very detailed description of the aims defined and the actions realized. The absolute strengths lies in the detailed descriptions plus the additional documents to see details of the program and actions on the pear education methodology approach realised. By this the paper will be of high interest for other geoparks and hopefully to other researchers plus those who realized the “ERASMUS+strategi partnerships …”

Congratulation – I can imagine how difficult it was to realise this.

• General concept comments

Article: highlighting areas of weakness, the testability of the hypothesis, methodological inaccuracies, missing controls, etc.

Even if there is a shortage in the geoheritage description of the geoparks and the special integration of the geopark geoheritage topics into the actions is in a way general, the paper is a very valuable example in general on the chosen topic of describing collaboration between geoparks and schools and evaluating actions by research institutions.

Review: commenting on the completeness of the review topic covered, the relevance of the review topic, the gap in knowledge identified, the appropriateness of references, etc.

The before given comments show that it would be interesting to have the research results also more focused onto the geoheritage topics of the geoparks, but I guess this will be a new publication as I can imagine the big volume of data received.

I have also expected from the abstract more details on the “professional” perspective. The results on this is highlighted in the lines 709-720. From the numbers given earlier it was a surprise not to see more or getting more information on this important topic. – May be this will too be a new paper.

These comments are focused on the scientific content of the manuscript and should be specific enough for the authors to be able to respond.

• Specific comments referring to line numbers, tables or figures that point out inaccuracies within the text or sentences that are unclear. These comments should also focus on the scientific content and not on spelling, formatting or English language problems, as these can be addressed at a later stage by our internal staff.

See attached paper with comments for this.

General questions to help guide your review report for research articles

• Is the manuscript clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner?

-Yes, so far. In some parts e.g. mentioning the Program abbreviations, it would be good to explain the names when the are used for the first time.

-it would be good too the show consequent usage of “SDG …” and not leaving off this just using ”target 6.1” as done in some parts, see comments in paper.

-Table 6 gives a lot of detailed information and would deserve a special paragraph of explanation from my point of view.

-Finally I would like to ask the authors to think of using in the title “a window of opportunity” – From the whole paper to me it seems more to be a presentation of 

“… Pear education as a role model” for geoheritage enhancement and geoscience education” – But the authors need to decide their main focus – but this is after reading the interesting paper that seems to me an important point that also highlights the main methodological tool used – if I have understood the paper right.

• Are the cited references current (mostly within the last 5 years)? Does it include an abnormal number of self-citations?

27,8 % of the cited references are within the last 5 years. – The explanation is that this topic is quite new – nevertheless very important for future developments e.g. of sustainable development and resilience – so many references on geoheritage e.g. are from 1995 up to 2016 = 72,2 %

The number of self-citations is 19,4%.

• Is the manuscript scientifically sound and is the experimental design appropriate to test the hypothesis?

I think yes, but see also the comments before. It is important to have a start of this topics and hopefully to have following up papers on the topics discussed but then more detailed and quantitative.

• Are the manuscript’s results reproducible based on the details given in the methods section?

Yes

• Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand? Are the data interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript? Please include details regarding the statistical analysis or data acquired from specific databases.

Yes, except table as already mentioned above – would be a point as it could have an extended explanation as it is very long and stands a bit alone from my point of view. Even if there is an overview on the achieved points. But too in the whole the authors deal really with a complex topic. Congratulation on the done compilation and results! No question well done.

• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?

Yes, with the mentioned comments already given.

• Please evaluate the ethics statements and data availability statements to ensure they are adequate.

I think they are ok. I miss the gender data within the evaluations which would also be very interesting.

ERASMUS+ strategic partnerships between UNESCO Global Geoparks, schools and research institutions: a window of opportunity for geoheritage enhancement and geoscience education

Giardino, M., Justice, S., Olsbo, R. Balzarini, P., Magagna, A., Viani, C., Selvaggio, I.,, Kuittu, M, Kauhanen, J, Laukkanen, M., & L. Perotti

Review report:

• A brief summary (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions and strengths.

The paper follows the abstract given and the main aims are mentioned from line 20-26. The paper gives a very detailed description of the aims defined and the actions realized. The absolute strengths lies in the detailed descriptions plus the additional documents to see details of the program and actions on the pear education methodology approach realised. By this the paper will be of high interest for other geoparks and hopefully to other researchers plus those who realized the “ERASMUS+strategi partnerships …”

Congratulation – I can imagine how difficult it was to realise this.

• General concept comments

Article: highlighting areas of weakness, the testability of the hypothesis, methodological inaccuracies, missing controls, etc.

Even if there is a shortage in the geoheritage description of the geoparks and the special integration of the geopark geoheritage topics into the actions is in a way general, the paper is a very valuable example in general on the chosen topic of describing collaboration between geoparks and schools and evaluating actions by research institutions.

Review: commenting on the completeness of the review topic covered, the relevance of the review topic, the gap in knowledge identified, the appropriateness of references, etc.

The before given comments show that it would be interesting to have the research results also more focused onto the geoheritage topics of the geoparks, but I guess this will be a new publication as I can imagine the big volume of data received.

I have also expected from the abstract more details on the “professional” perspective. The results on this is highlighted in the lines 709-720. From the numbers given earlier it was a surprise not to see more or getting more information on this important topic. – May be this will too be a new paper.

These comments are focused on the scientific content of the manuscript and should be specific enough for the authors to be able to respond.

• Specific comments referring to line numbers, tables or figures that point out inaccuracies within the text or sentences that are unclear. These comments should also focus on the scientific content and not on spelling, formatting or English language problems, as these can be addressed at a later stage by our internal staff.

See attached paper with comments for this.

General questions to help guide your review report for research articles

• Is the manuscript clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner?

-Yes, so far. In some parts e.g. mentioning the Program abbreviations, it would be good to explain the names when the are used for the first time.

-it would be good too the show consequent usage of “SDG …” and not leaving off this just using ”target 6.1” as done in some parts, see comments in paper.

-Table 6 gives a lot of detailed information and would deserve a special paragraph of explanation from my point of view.

-Finally I would like to ask the authors to think of using in the title “a window of opportunity” – From the whole paper to me it seems more to be a presentation of 

“… Pear education as a role model” for geoheritage enhancement and geoscience education” – But the authors need to decide their main focus – but this is after reading the interesting paper that seems to me an important point that also highlights the main methodological tool used – if I have understood the paper right.

• Are the cited references current (mostly within the last 5 years)? Does it include an abnormal number of self-citations?

27,8 % of the cited references are within the last 5 years. – The explanation is that this topic is quite new – nevertheless very important for future developments e.g. of sustainable development and resilience – so many references on geoheritage e.g. are from 1995 up to 2016 = 72,2 %

The number of self-citations is 19,4%.

• Is the manuscript scientifically sound and is the experimental design appropriate to test the hypothesis?

I think yes, but see also the comments before. It is important to have a start of this topics and hopefully to have following up papers on the topics discussed but then more detailed and quantitative.

• Are the manuscript’s results reproducible based on the details given in the methods section?

Yes

• Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand? Are the data interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript? Please include details regarding the statistical analysis or data acquired from specific databases.

Yes, except table as already mentioned above – would be a point as it could have an extended explanation as it is very long and stands a bit alone from my point of view. Even if there is an overview on the achieved points. But too in the whole the authors deal really with a complex topic. Congratulation on the done compilation and results! No question well done.

• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?

Yes, with the mentioned comments already given.

• Please evaluate the ethics statements and data availability statements to ensure they are adequate.

I think they are ok. I miss the gender data within the evaluations which would also be very interesting.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We really appreciate the indicated corrections and the helpful suggestions to our manuscript:

“ERASMUS+ strategic partnerships between UNESCO Global Geoparks, schools and research institutions: a window of opportunity for geoheritage enhancement and geoscience education”

We considered both the general remarks and the detailed notes by carefully amending the paper and by following the 87 comments.

We presented the replies to each comment as notes in the uploaded response files to reviewer.

Please see the attached file.

Moreover we appreciate the opinion  of the Academic Editor in order to label the paper as REVIEW. We agree in this solution because it gives more value to our paper and its contents.

According to this suggestion we introduced the concept into the abstract by adding 1 sentence:

“The common pedagogical approach is presented in this review paper, as well as the different methodological solutions”.

We also modified the introduction by adding few lines referred to the review nature of the paper:

“Since both the Erasmus+ and IGGP programs aim to develop models of best practices, with this review paper on international geoscience partnerships we’d like to demonstrate that a shared playground for common activities can be found in areas characterized by high geodiversity and rich geoheritage”.

Concerning our possible amendments to general comments, we had to face different views from the experts commenting the paper:

• Reviewer 1, pointed out some lack in mentioning similar research or projects within Geoparks, while as Reviewer 2 you commented on cited references because “this topic is quite new”. We implemented number of references to research projects within geoparks (1 to 8), specific references to the up-to-date educational activities concerning geoscience and climate change (10, 13 23, 24, 26, 27, 37) and some targeted experiences within UGGps (6, 14, 15, 22, 30, 31, 32, 39). As a completion to these references we added a further targeted sentence referring to a special issue of “European Geopark Network Magazine (38).
• Reviewer 1 considered Tab. 1 as a very extensive table not offering a lot to the manuscript”. On the contrary, as Reviewer 2 you considered this table important for defining the spatial and temporal framework of the projects and requested specific updates. We fulfilled this second requirement and completed with requested data in the table 1. We consider these geographic amendments as relevant data for the whole review paper.

The rejection or acceptance of other possible amendments have been carefully evaluated based on the new type of paper (review) and specific contents of our project:

• We evaluated your suggestion to change the words “Window of opportunity” in the title. Anyway, we think these words better highlight the targeted role of Erasmus partnerships in enhancing geoheritage and geoscience education. That's why we'd like better to maintain these words in the title.
• Concerning your remarks to table 6 and the consequent use of SdGs and related targets, we accepted and deserved a new special explanation to the table contents:

(See pag. 17 of the manuscript)

“To structure the learning content of the educational activities within the framework of the SDG topics, each GEOclimHOME-Pro exchange week (2018-2021) focused on specific environmental, territorial and cultural characteristics of the Geoparks. Table 6 offers an overview of the dates, locations and participants (host and guests, on site or remote participation) of the exchange weeks. It further summarises the key questions posed in relation to the objectives of the selected SDGs and a description of the educational content that was designed to increase student insight into the different professions found within sustainable Geopark territories.”

“The synthesis presented in Table 6 of the GEOclimHOME-Pro exchange weeks is completed by the description of the specific methods and activities employed. It provides an overview of the field and laboratory activities that were performed in the Geopark territories. These exercises allowed students to appraise the active and passive roles of humans towards the climate and environmental change. Activities included visits to geodiversity sites, infrastructure, museums and other locations relevant to either the environmental, cultural or economic aspects of each Geopark. The programme was designed to address global issues and local needs, and also to deliver educational content on geoheritage and climate change, social responsibility and active citizenship.  In person and online meetings with professionals and researchers were organised to allow students to discover initiatives that deliver sustainable development in Geopark territories.”

Concerning other issues such as the meaning of “professional perspective” we understand the necessity to better support territorial management within Geoparks by means of targeted education and professional perspectives. We modify phrases and added references in the introduction:

“These, in turn, could improve strategic planning and helps in delivering high quality standards for territorial management within Geoparks, thus integrating the preservation of geological heritage [7,8] into strategies for regional sustainable development [9]”

in paragraph 5.2:

It further summarises the key questions posed in relation to the objectives of the selected SDGs and a description of the educational content that was designed to increase student insight into the different professions found within sustainable Geopark territories.

And later we highlighted the concept within the conclusion (see End of Paragraph 6):

Also Remodeled Table 7 and the new conclusions

As a conclusion, new skills and pedagogical approaches introduced by strategic ERASMUS+ partnerships of UNESCO Global Geoparks, schools and research institutions foster the development of new models for enhancing geodiversity and geoheritage. These, in turn, improve strategic planning and the reach of high quality standards for new professional perspectives in the territorial management of Geoparks territories.

• Concerning the remarks about the sentence on the positive development of our Project during COVID-19 we accepted the suggestion to integrate this in detail. We agree with the reviewer in removing this sentence from conclusion and created a targeted paragraph (

5.5 Example of public recognition of the GEOclimHOME partnership: a resilient pandemic solution for UNESCO designations

Consequently we also modified the structure of the conclusions.

• Other than the above mentioned revisions we carefully applied amendments through all the text (see the attached files for reviewers) and performed a complete check on English language by our Co-Author Sophie Justice, English native speaking.

You can check all the amendments in the attached files and the revised manuscript.

Best Regards,

Marco Giardino

Corresponding author of the Review Paper:

ERASMUS+ strategic partnerships between UNESCO Global Geoparks, schools and research institutions: a window of opportunity for geoheritage enhancement and geoscience education

Marco Giardino - [email protected]

University of Torino -Dept. of Earth Sciences
Via Valperga Caluso, 35 - 10125 Torino,  Italia
Tel. +39 011 6705164 - Fax +39 011 6708398

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Certainly, the manuscript has been significantly improved after revision, however, there are a few small problems that need to be considered. First of all, there are a few linguistic problems, mainly in the new paragraphs and sentences that have been added during revision (see attached file). Concerning table 1 you mention in your response "On the contrary, Reviewer 2 considers this table important for defining the spatial and temporal framework of the projects and requested specific updates. We fulfilled this second requirement and completed with requested data in table 1". Nevertheless, after cross-checking the revised version of table 1 with the original I did not observe any changes/additions at all, thus you did not update the table as you mention in your response.  In another comment you write "Concerning remarks by both reviewers to the use of SdGs and related targets, we accepted and deserved a new special explanation to the table 6 contents: (See pag. 17 of the manuscript)". On page 17 of the manuscript, I did not find this new special explanation and nothing else than part of table 6. In another comment, you mention "We agree with the reviewer in removing this sentence from conclusion and created a targeted paragraph ( " .  which one is this targeted paragraph?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

First of all, we thank you for the detailed revision of our paper, and apologize for some amendments not having fulfilled your requests.

• Concerning linguistic problems, we followed you suggestions and amended the text (see attached pdf file).

Particularly, when needed, we rewrote sentence:

See page 23 line 642:

An initiative by the UNESCO Regional Bureau for Science and Culture in Europe (Venice)

‘’Talking about...: PAndemic and REsili-ence’’ investigated COVID-19 impact on the territories, institutional organizations and economic activities within UNESCO designations, to understand what resilient pandemic solutions were adopted. The GEOclimHOME-PRO representative was invited to contribute to a public debate and to share data and outcomes from our project in a knowledge web platform and an exchange meeting on line (https://events.unesco.org/event?id=3406017155&lang=1033), for giving highlights to experiences from a diversity of UNESCO sites.

• Concerning table 1, since we considered this table important for defining the spatial and temporal framework of the projects, we updated.according to the requested amendment by reviewer 2. In our revised version of the table we added number of inhabitants for each areas. Probably we failed in uploading the correct table in the updated manuscript! We modify table 1 and added here to show changes requested by reviewer 2

• Concerning table 6 and the relationships between GEOclimHOME-PRO activities and UN SdGs and related targets, we added new sentences at page 16 (lines 489 to 508)

We consider these sentences as a useful explanation for table 6.

To structure the learning content of the educational activities within the framework of the SDG topics, each GEOclimHOME-Pro exchange week (2018-2021) focused on specific environmental, territorial and cultural characteristics of the Geoparks. Table 6 offers an overview of the dates, locations and participants (host and guests, on site or remote participation) of the exchange weeks. It further summarises the key questions posed in relation to the objectives of the selected SDGs and a description of the educational content that was designed to increase student insight into the different professions found within sustainable Geopark territories.

 The synthesis presented in Table 6 of the GEOclimHOME-Pro exchange weeks is completed by the description of the specific methods and activities employed. It provides an overview of the field and laboratory activities that were performed in the Geopark territories. These exercises allowed students to appraise the active and passive roles of humans towards the climate and environmental change. Activities included visits to geodiversity sites, infrastructure, museums and other locations relevant to either the environmental, cultural or economic aspects of each Geopark. The programme was designed to address global issues and local needs, and also to deliver educational content on geoheritage and climate change, social responsibility and active citizenship.  In person and online meetings with professionals and researchers were organised to allow students to discover initiatives that deliver sustainable development in Geopark territories. 

• Concerning the targeted paragraph, we fulfil the requested amendment by reviewer 2 concerning the removal from the conclusions of a single isolated sentence on the positive development of the project  during COVID 19. On this topic, we added the targeted Paragraph 5.5 (pag 23 line 638-663)

5.5 Example of public recognition of the GEOclimHOME partnership: a resilient pandemic solution for UNESCO designations

Results of the GEOclimHOME-PRO project were recognized at the international level for their good practice in resilience in UNESCO Global Geoparks during the pandemics. An initiative by the UNESCO Regional Bureau for Science and Culture in Europe (Venice)

‘’Talking about...: PAndemic and REsili-ence’’ investigated COVID-19 impact on the territories, institutional organizations and economic activities within UNESCO designations, to understand what resilient pandemic solutions were adopted. The GEOclimHOME-PRO representative was invited to contribute to a public debate and to share data and outcomes from our project in a knowledge web platform and an exchange meeting on line (https://events.unesco.org/event?id=3406017155&lang=1033), for giving highlights to experiences from a diversity of UNESCO sites. This initiatives was primarily aimed at site coordinators and local stakeholders but was open to anyone interested in the topic. After a first phase of investigation, which involved mainly site managers and the main stakeholders, the GEOclimHOME-PRO project was presented on 15 April 2021 during a webinar named: Talking about school and education. The topic was "Erasmus at the time of the pandemic." The meeting, dedicated to schools and educational and training activities, presented the experiences of Man and Biosphere Reserve and UNESCO Global Geoparks.

The GEOclimHOME experience was successfully shared to highlight the creative solutions of resilience identified in response to the current pandemic. Even the weaknesses of the GEOclimHOME project were discussed, along with their contribution to strengthening collaboration among UNESCO sites and their stakeholders. Moreover, the project inspired the identification of solutions that contribute to the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, strengthening the potential of UNESCO sites as sustainability laboratories and facilitating the dissemination of their best practice.

Hope these replies fully meet your reviews!

Best regards,

Marco Giardino