the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 23 Jan 2025
Crumbling cliffs and intergenerational cohesivity: A new climate praxis model for engaged community action on accelerated coastal change
Abstract. Climate change is widely accepted as an existential threat that requires urgent action globally, regionally and locally. Despite the challenge there remains a lack of awareness among many in society regarding the scale of the environmental changes and projected impact(s) on lives and livelihoods. Despite climate change being a prominent topic in politics and activism, broader engagement with the climate crisis in sections of society, particularly in disadvantaged communities remains lower than across society as whole. Part of these issues relate to unequal access to information and limited resources in some communities, which together contributes to a knowledge gap. Moreover, disinformation campaigns, fake news, and biases in media further complicate understanding of the climate crisis across sections of society. Here we report on the INSECURE project, which had the aim to engage a disadvantaged coastal community that is very much on the front line of climate change. The engagement was advanced through creative methodologies and intergenerational dialogues to bridge the gap between climate science, knowledge and public understanding through innovative ways to educate and communicate the issues of climate change. By considering individuals' attitudes, beliefs, cultural backgrounds, and lived experiences, the project seeks to overcome misconceptions and confusion. The results show the importance of knowledge and how knowledge gaps can act as a barrier for individuals in engaging with the climate crisis. The results additionally highlight how employing new and creative communication approaches can empower a disadvantaged coastal community with the understanding necessary to address climate change within their local context(s) and thus ensure that communities can be better prepared and equipped to face the future impacts of climate change.
- Preprint
(1423 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4085', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Mar 2025
I appreciated reading this paper, which tells a compelling and timely story about an action research project engaging disadvantaged young people in a coastal UK community. The authors have clearly undertaken a thoughtful, locally rooted project that addresses the urgent need for more inclusive forms of climate communication and education. The narrative is engaging, and the topic is relevant to diverse readerships. However, I believe that in its current form, the paper does not yet meet the standards of scientific rigour, theoretical grounding, and methodological clarity expected by a peer-reviewed journal. Major revisions are required for it to constitute a publishable scientific contribution.
Below, I detail both key concerns and recommendations, structured to reflect the journal’s evaluation framework.
- Scientific Significance
The manuscript presents a meaningful case study and offers a potentially valuable contribution in the form of the “new climate praxis model.” However, the theoretical and conceptual development of this model is not adequately established; the paper lacks clarity on how it advances the existing state of knowledge on the topic, particularly within the domains of climate literacy, participatory education, or community-based climate action, and how the model builds upon such literature.
While the project is potentially original in its practice, the paper currently reads more as a descriptive – and engaging - account of an experience than a critical analysis of a topic, offering new conceptual tools, methods, or generalisable insights for future research and practice on the topic. Also, terms like “intergenerational dialogues,” “creative methodologies,” and “transformative potential” are used loosely and need clearer definitions, theoretical anchoring, and evidentiary support.
- Scientific Quality
Several areas of the paper would benefit from improved methodological transparency and conceptual clarity:
- Literature/theory integration: The current literature is concentrated in the introduction and lacks a dedicated section clarifying key debates in climate education, youth engagement, or critical pedagogies. This weakens the paper’s ability to make a clear and evidenced claim about its knowledge contribution. A focused literature review and stronger conceptual grounding – linking contemporary climate education debates with Freire’s critical pedagogies theory - are urgently needed.
- Conceptual clarity: Terms such as “intergenerational dialogue” are not clearly justified or demonstrated in the empirical material. Since the project centres on year-eight students, it is not apparent in what way intergenerational exchange was achieved. Was the creative material from the community integrated in the sessions? Did the youth engage directly with elders at some point? These elements need to be clarified.
- Methodological rigour: The methods section does offer helpful detail on the sessions and activities undertaken with students, but it lacks critical information on:
- Sampling: Why this age group? How were students selected? Were there any limitations emerging from this sample?
- Data sources: What exactly is being analysed in the paper? Is this an analysis of the methods, the participants’ outputs, or the overall process/methodology?
- Analytical strategy: Are statements (e.g., “students did not perceive climate change as a risk to their community”) based solely on outputs such as word clouds and maps? Were transcripts, field notes, or recordings used to support interpretation? Clarification is needed on how claims were derived and what data supported them.
- Use of references: Some citations are used imprecisely or overly broadly (e.g., at some point Freire is cited as if he created the “new climate praxis model,” rather than the authors building upon his ideas). Greater care is needed in situating this work within—not merely citing—the theoretical literature.
- Presentation Quality
The manuscript is engaging but needs clearer structure and focus to guide the reader through the research story:
- Introduction: Overly long and lacks a clear funnel from problem → gap → contribution → research aim → structure of the paper.
- Findings: Results are described chronologically and narratively, which is compelling, but they need to be more analytically unpacked. For instance, the claim that students developed a deeper understanding of climate risks should be substantiated with clear evidence (e.g., comparison between baseline and post-questionnaires, direct quotes, etc.).
- Language and terminology: The paper uses accessible language, but at times imprecise or vague terms (e.g., “creative,” “transformative”) are left undefined.
Recommendations for Revision
To strengthen the manuscript, I suggest the following:
- Rework the introduction to provide a clear and structured argument: define the problem, establish the knowledge gap, state the contribution, describe the methods briefly, and outline the structure of the paper.
- Add a dedicated literature/conceptual section:
- Map key debates in climate education, especially with disadvantaged youth.
- Understand the key concepts that the paper builds upon and clarify what they mean: “intergenerational dialogue,” “creative climate engagement,” and “transformative education,” using scholarly sources. I personally do not think this paper is about “intergenerational dialogues”, but I could be wrong. A clearer explanation would help.
- Discuss the foundations of the “climate literacy-based approach” and how your model builds upon (or diverges from) this.
- Clarify the methodological approach:
- Why was this age group chosen?
- How were participants selected? Any ethics concerns?
- What data were collected? What was analysed? What was not (limitations)?
- What analytical methods were used for the paper?
- Deepen the discussion of findings:
- Draw out the themes more analytically and tie them clearly to your conceptual framework.
- For each major claim (e.g., “participants developed empathy,” “shifted perceptions”), provide clear supporting evidence.
- If there was evidence of change in behaviour or knowledge, show how this was captured – otherwise, any claims on change and transformation becomes thin.
- Clarify the originality of the ‘Climate Praxis Model’:
- Be explicit in showing how the model is derived from the empirical material.
- Situate it within existing models (e.g., critical pedagogy, participatory education, climate literacy).
- Clarify how it can be replicated or transferred to other contexts.
- Ensure proper referencing and citation precision, especially when invoking foundational theorists such as Freire. Avoid overstating their connection to new concepts developed in the paper.
- Conclude with more analytical reflection:
- What does this tell us about climate education in disadvantaged communities?
- What are the limitations of the work?
- How could this approach be scaled or adapted in other geographies?
I hope this helps.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4085-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Katie Jane Parsons, 09 May 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4085', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Apr 2025
This paper presents an inspiring and much-needed intervention into the world of climate education. The project’s emphasis on creativity, place-based learning, and emotional engagement is both powerful and timely—especially given the urgent need to include younger voices and coastal communities in conversations about climate change. That said, while the initiative is rich in vision and community engagement, the paper itself reads more like a project report than a tightly argued academic article. Below are some thoughts on how it might be strengthened for publication.
- The paper would benefit from more clarity around why Year 8 students (~12–13 years) were selected. Was there something about their developmental stage that made them ideal for this kind of emotional and creative engagement? Offering a short explanation here could help readers understand the pedagogical rationale more clearly. In terms of data and analysis, the authors gathered an impressive range of materials—empathy maps, stories, community maps, and more. However, how these were analysed is a bit unclear. There’s very little mention of how themes were drawn out or if any coding frameworks were used. It might help to walk readers through the process a bit more—what was looked for, how interpretations were made, and what might have been left out. The pre- and post-questionnaires mentioned early on sound like they could offer some incredibly valuable insights, but they’re not really brought back into the paper later.
- There are some lovely themes in the paper—like intergenerational learning, empathy, and localised environmental awareness—but they don’t feel fully developed or tied back to the conceptual framework. Since the paper gestures to Freire and critical pedagogy, it would be powerful to revisit those ideas when analysing the data: How did students engage in dialogue? What kind of transformation, if any, was visible? Some of the claims—for example, that students “took action” or developed empathy—are really compelling but feel a bit anecdotal. Could these be grounded more in the data? A quote here and there is useful, but a bit more structured evidence would go a long way in making those claims more convincing.
- The Climate Praxis Model introduced is one of the most promising parts of the paper. It has real potential as a framework others could build on. But right now, it’s a bit difficult to tell how the model emerged from the data itself. Was it built inductively based on what students did and said? Or was it designed in advance and then tested? Clarifying this could really help show the model’s originality and relevance. Also, a brief discussion of how the model relates to other educational frameworks—such as place-based learning, participatory education, or climate literacy—would ground it more firmly in existing scholarship and show where it makes a new contribution.
- The paper could end on a stronger note by reflecting on what all of this means for climate education in disadvantaged or climate-vulnerable communities. How could this work be adapted elsewhere? What challenges might come up? What kind of support would schools need to do something similar?
- While Freire is used for critical pedagogy, the paper sometimes relies on him a little symbolically. A more grounded use of his work could enrich the analysis. Also, adding more recent references in climate education would situate the work more firmly in the field and help readers connect it with similar efforts globally.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4085-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Katie Jane Parsons, 09 May 2025
Video supplement
Insecure: an exploration of climate change and coastal erosion with Withernsea High School Katie J. Parsons, Florence Halstead, Lisa Jones, Sarah Harris-Smith, and the pupils of Withernsea High School https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV6z0LKobfE
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 192 | 73 | 11 | 276 | 10 | 11 |
- HTML: 192
- PDF: 73
- XML: 11
- Total: 276
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1