the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 02 Sep 2025
Development of GreenDealz: A public engagement toolkit addressing critical raw materials and the EU Green Deal at informal education settings
Abstract. One of the most important challenges that Europe faces to date is the need for a sharp increase in the extraction, production and recycling of critical raw materials to meet the demands of renewable energy technologies as specified in the European Union’s (EU) climate targets. However, this topic is not widely discussed amongst publics and is underrepresented within the field of informal public engagement. We present the development of a public engagement toolkit called ‘GreenDealz’ that addresses this gap. We focus specifically on informal learning within the festival environment. GreenDealz was created via an iterative process informed by festival-based data collection and audience input. GreenDealz engages incidental audiences with a supermarket experience, where critical raw materials must be shopped for to build key renewable energy technologies and achieve EU climate goals. Evaluation is streamlined into the tactile experience of GreenDealz, employing embedded assessment measures which yield quantitative data that indicate this activity significantly enhances audience knowledge of this topic.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(6822 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(6822 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3753', Antje Wittenberg, 01 Oct 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lucy Blennerhassett, 13 Oct 2025
Thank you to RC1 for the constructive and helpful comments on our pre-print. We welcome these editions regarding clarity, structure and technicality and are working on revising the paper. We also await additional commentary from subsequent reviewers.
However, we feel that one aspect may have been misunderstood and as such, needs clarification: this manuscript is intended to describe the iterative development and testing of a public engagement toolkit in the festival space and discuss its future directions, not to make final conclusions about its effectiveness across a wider population context. This has implications for much of the commentary provided by RC1. This should be noted in the context of three main commentary themes:
- Sample size
Firstly, the nature of the study is festival-based development and testing, meaning sample sizes are reflective of a snowball sampling strategy which is the most realistic sampling strategy in the incidental audience setting. Secondly, as this describes a developmental process we were not focused on a fully representative sample, instead, the sample sizes reflect the testing samples needed to draw basic conclusions about how the tool and its evaluation are working in the festival environment and how best to iterate. With this in mind, the case of 40 participants within a sample across a large-scale festival population of >100,000 reflects not only the nature of engagement and what is possible in terms of evaluation in the festival space (15 minutes per interaction) and the final participatory sample (those who were willing to be part of research) but crucially, the size needed to make iterative changes between developmental phases. Lastly, as we are aware sample sizes are not representative; in the final phase, a control sample is included next to an intervention sample to add a level of robustness to make closing decisions about the tool’s usefulness and future directions.
- Statistics
The test statistics used are generally reflective of instruments used, the sample size (as outlined above) and, subsequently, whether key assumptions apply (e.g., often using non-parametric tests when sample sizes are very small and often non-normally distributed).
- The manuscript’s structure
The manuscript is written in a phase-by-phase structure due to the nature of iterative development in a public engagement context, whereby each phase acts as its own mini study feeding into the next. This structure draws on inspiration from previous Geoscience Communication manuscripts describing iterative development of public engagement activities (e.g., Vergunst et al., 2025 https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-8-67-2025) and it also follows closely to a social science or psychology-based research article (e.g., Schuitema and Steg, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2007.11.003).
As per the above points, we will strive to make this much clearer to readers during revisions and we thank RC1 again for their review.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3753-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lucy Blennerhassett, 13 Oct 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3753', Courtney Onstad, 27 Oct 2025
Overall quality:
This paper is an exceptionally novel approach to understanding public knowledge and perceptions of critical minerals. Overall, the paper is well-written with thoughtful consideration given to the evaluative component.
Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of GC? The study’s objective is within the scope of GC.
Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data? The ideas and data are novel in a geoscience context. The concepts and tools are well-established in social science literature.
Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined? The methods used are valid, but some further clarification is required. A thematic codebook is needed, along with more in-depth descriptions of statistical tests used and the rationale for their use.
Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions? For the most part results are sufficient. However, there are some issues with sample size. It would be useful to have a statistics expert look at the phrasing used in the discussion/conclusions to make sure the claims are valid.
Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution? Yes
Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper? Yes
Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary? Yes
Is the overall presentation well structured and clear? Yes, just a few changes will help with flow (specifically, Section 2)
Is the language fluent and precise? Yes, language is fluent and very well written.
Are the number and quality of references appropriate? Yes
General comments:
*Please note that I’ve qualified comments with “Consideration” and “Necessity”. Consideration is something for you to consider (not a necessary change), while necessity likely requires a change.
*I’ve reviewed Reviewer 1’s comments as well to ensure I’m not repeating.
- Concerning comments on experimental design, this paper does not refer to itself as a controlled experiment. In one case, they refer to it as a ‘quasi-experimental design’ which seems to be a well-justified approach for the flexibility required to perform research in a real-life setting.
- This paper will require a codebook to supplement the thematic analysis. This will clarify many terms used, which summarize participants’ thoughts. At a minimum, terms, definitions, and examples of how they represent participants' thoughts (Anchor Samples) are needed. Intercoder reliability is often encouraged with these types of studies too, so you’ll need to provide justification on why that wasn’t included.
- A significant component missing in this paper is a limitations section. There are many limitations to this research, none of which are currently emphasized. I have noted some, but I would encourage the author to carefully review the project from start to finish, noting all limitations.
- The paper refers to a follow-up student study to “test the validity” of the festival findings, but it is not clear which form of validity was being examined or how this was operationalized. Additionally, the follow-up sample (n = 9 business students) differs substantially from the festival audience, raising questions about comparability. The authors should clarify the rationale for this design choice and explain how the second study provides evidence of validity rather than simply replication or triangulation.
- In general, a statistics expert should be consulted to review the validity of claims made based on the various tests used and the small sample sizes. I think much of the statistics are fine to include, but based on my understanding, the issue may lie in how these results are used to make broader statements.
- Some additional details/insights on target audiences are needed to provide the reader with a realistic understanding of who is participating in the various engagements
Technical corrections/Specific Comments:
-specific comments have been included directly in the attached document
-since Reviewer 1 focused especially on the references, I focused on the other sections
- make sure you are consistent with capitalizations, hyphenations/non-hyphenations throughout
-see edits in attached document
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Lucy Blennerhassett, 24 Nov 2025
We would like to thank RC2 for their encouraging and helpful comments on our pre-print. We welcome RC2’s critiques which appear to be centred on methodology and experimental design and will strive to include all editions.
We agree that the edition of a limitations section will enhance the manuscript and provide further clarity for readers regarding the development process. Furthermore, in line with prior commentary from RC1, we acknowledge the need for re-phrasing of claims to make clearer to the reader about the limitations of this iterative toolkit development. We also agree that elaborating on target audience and providing further information about each informal education setting will benefit the text.
As also indicated to RC1, we feel that one aspect may have been misunderstood and as such, needs clarification: this manuscript is intended to describe the iterative development and testing of a public engagement toolkit in the festival space and discuss its future directions, not to make final conclusions about its effectiveness across a wider population context. As such, we wish to highlight that the inclusion of a codebook seems unwarranted in the case of a short thematic analysis used during the scoping phase of development (Section 2.4). This thematic analysis was performed on short open feedback survey sections, whereby participants at Dingle (festival 1) were asked how they would like to learn more about critical raw materials (line 171) and participants at Cork (festival 2) were asked how we could improve our prototype toolkit (line 214). Thus, these questions were used as a way to consolidate participant feedback relevant to each event and inform further toolkit iteration. There is no other information to be gleaned from this data than what is already presented and thus we feel that a codebook would provide no additional merit to the text at this early stage of the development process. While we appreciate the commentary about intercoder reliability, we again argue that it is not applicable to such short open feedback sections and goes beyond the developmental purpose of this paper. Following from this, it is obvious that this information could be made much clearer to the reader. Thus, we appreciate RC2 drawing attention to this. Notably, we agree that the inclusion of anchor samples is an excellent suggestion and will enhance the description of this open audience feedback.
We acknowledge that exact statistical tests used could be more clearly elaborated on within each section to remind readers of the reasoning behind using such tests as first stated in the analysis strategy (Section 2.2). We appreciate the suggestion from RC2 to consult statisticians, and will strive to do so in revision. However, we note that tests are all conventional based on the key assumptions of parametric or non-parametric data (e.g., sample size, normality, linearity). Such tests are familiar to the authors who have a range of statistical and scientific expertise across disciplines.
Lastly, we thank RC2 for their critiques regarding the comparability of the student study and the festival findings during the testing phase (Section 2.5). We will provide better description of these two samples and their use in our revisions. However, we wish to make clear here that these two samples represent a comparison of the evaluation capability between controlled (i.e., student study) versus un-controlled (i.e., in-festival) settings with limitations due to natural sample difference also considered.
We again thank RC2 for taking the time to review our pre-print and we hope that they find our response to be helpful.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3753-AC2
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3753', Anonymous Referee #3, 29 Oct 2025
General comments
The paper presents a public engagement toolkit aimed at raising public awareness of importance of critical raw materials (CRMs) and, specifically, their role and key contribution to delivery of the EU Green Deal. The paper presents how the toolkit, called GreenDealz, was deployed within a wide range of different types of informal education settings principally festivals. The CRM topic is clearly highly relevant and of clear societal importance in terms of a net zero transition and the authors rightly argue that focus on CRMs as an overlooked component of the energy transition as is the publics awareness of the key elements of the issues. As such the work is timely. The methods employed uses festivals as an outreach mechanism/location, although other examples exist of engaging audiences in such locales, this has some rareness in the context of the topic areas and has thus some innovative elements. Overall, the authors’ commitment to broadening participation in sustainability discussions with diverse audiences is commendable.
However, while the study’s intent is valuable, the paper in its current form requires very significant revision to ensure that methodological transparency and conceptual clarity is communicated as well as it could be. Overall, the contribution is primarily conceptual and experiential rather than empirical and as such is very descriptive in nature. Whilst this would be fine in my view as there is value in sharing the journey taken in undertaking the work, I do think that a stronger theoretical grounding and clearer structure would help the paper better serve as an important reference for others to make use of. At present the novel elements are rather hidden in a descriptive narrative of what was done rather than any insights gleaned from the work. There are some creative elements in the approaches that could be teased out more fully and benefit the paper as a result.
The GreenDealz concept is original and of clear societal relevance, but the paper requires substantial revision in my view. Strengthening the theoretical framing, clarifying the details of the methodology, improving data presentation and the way it is interpreted and discussed, and tightening the text would significantly enhance the paper’s potential impact. The work has good potential in showcasing a case study and pilot for informal sustainability communication in CRM once these improvements are made. I hope the authors find my thoughts and review helpful in the refinement of the paper.
Specific comments
1. At present the paper lacks a clear theoretical basis that effectively links informal engagement to learning or to the behavioural outcomes in the engagements undertaken. Perhaps including a defined theory of change or a learning framework (e.g., from informal science education or participatory communication) would strengthen the rationale for the work and the way it was executed. Such a framing would would also help to specify which dimensions of the EU Green Deal the toolkit addresses and how well it does that. For example mapping against resource circularity, supply-chain ethics, or awareness of material criticality. At present this is all lumped into a rather broad and bland narrative.
2. The methodology is described only in broad terms in the paper at present. A summary table showing each festival’s characteristics (location, participant numbers, activity duration, main observations) would aid comparison. The criteria for selecting festivals, participant demographics, data-collection instruments, and analytical techniques are not clearly stated nor justified as choices – the why is missing. The small and uneven sample sizes limit statistical reliability, and this is not discussed. The application of multiple statistical methods without explanation of why these were chosen also weakens reproducibility and thus the conclusions that can be drawn from the work. As a result I suggest that the work might be better positioned as an exploratory pilot rather than an evaluative trial and that, although semantics, might help the authors in not stretching the data too far in their discussion.
3. The findings are reported narratively, with limited data presentation nor analysis – either of the findings or the limitations. Claims about transferability to other contexts are not supported by the available data and this needs significant rewriting to catch what can and cannot be justified from the data presented. There are really interesting data to discuss that could be expanded upon in my view – such as the qualitative insights into audience engagement and the public misconceptions about CRMs. These really are valuable and merit deeper analysis – this can be speculative given the limited data, so could be part of a discursive analysis.
4. The manuscript’s readability could be improved by reducing the sometimes long and complex sentences, so I recommend some careful editing for concision and clarity. Figures and tables need clearer labelling, and the reference list should be reviewed for consistency in author order and formatting.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3753-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Lucy Blennerhassett, 24 Nov 2025
We would like to thank RC3 for their review of our pre-print and we welcome their helpful comments. We aim to include most of the editions suggested by RC3. Importantly, we note that much of the commentary is centred on methodology and limitations as with RC1 and RC2 and thus we direct RC3 to our responses to these earlier reviews.
We appreciate RC3’s suggestion to expand on the theoretical framework behind the study. We will strive to provide better context for the development of the toolkit and explain in clearer terms the way in which it was developed. However, please note that suggestions of mapping audience understanding of specific dimensions such as “resource circularity, supply-chain ethics, or material criticality” requires in-depth, long-form surveying which is exactly what this study aimed to avoid due to the desire for in-festival evaluation. Hence, the evaluation used does indeed aim to assess understanding of the topic in a broad sense, as this is what is possible in the more un-controlled environment of an informal education setting. Although, we do note that this can be better highlighted within both the theoretical framework and suggested limitation sections.
Similar to commentary from RC2, we appreciate RC3’s suggestions on deeper qualitative analysis of the open audience feedback during the scoping phase (Section 2.4). However, as with prior responses, please note that this is not the purpose of this study. Each phase acts as a developmental step to help iterate the toolkit further. Therefore, deeper evaluation of this short feedback section through "discursive analysis" is outside of the remit of what this study aimed to do: iteratively develop a toolkit led by audience preference, and develop an integrated evaluation strategy suitable for un-controlled settings. However, these suggestions are highly appreciated as recommendations for further evaluation of GreenDealz in more controlled settings.
We appreciate the constructive feedback regarding language and sentence clarity along with figure, table and reference corrections. Edits will be made accordingly. We thank RC3 again for spending the time to review our pre-print and we are convinced that it will help to improve the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3753-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Lucy Blennerhassett, 24 Nov 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3753', Antje Wittenberg, 01 Oct 2025
General Comments
It is of utmost importance to our society that the public gains an understanding and knowledge of the role of CRM and its connection to achieving the goals of the Green Deal to be achieved in a variety of ways. Any activities to gain public awareness and to improve the knowledge of the society on key challenges of the society in particular are desperately needed in most societies. The paper picks this need up and provides some simple solutions that can general be easily adopted elsewhere.
The title “Development of GreenDealz: A public engagement toolkit addressing critical raw materials and the EU Green Deal at informal education settings “ indicates very clearly the content of the paper. The concept of addressing festival visitors is relatively new and has the potential to reach a very diverse and inexperienced group of people. This is particularly true given that a wide variety of different types of festivals were included in the study.
The paper is written in a complex style that is rather atypical for scientific papers. The long and convoluted sentences make it even more difficult to understand it. This distracts from the actual message.
The paper seems to address the most of the aspects that need to be considered. A clear description of the method used, the statistical approach and the concept for achieving the overall objective is only available in broad terms.
The paper aims to stimulate thinking about CRM in relation to the EU Green Deal. Therefor it focuses on the tools to gain this stimulation rather than the description on the scientific content used for the stimulation, which could be reviewed by the RC. The study seems to be designed rather as a subordinated experiment in a context of a scientific project than as a stand-alone study. It provides a snap-shot of given festival situations, not tailormade solutions as the many researchers in the topic suggest. The authors fail to explain the selection criteria for the festivals to the reader. A more detailed and structured elaboration would improve the readability of the text. Thus, it could be better structured.
The authors discuss their findings in the context of existing research and made an effort to consider transdisciplinary findings as well. The data compiled to obtain the results are not always provided in a comprehensible manner. The methods used are not clearly described in terms of inclusion/exclusion criteria, procedures or tests used, measurements utilized, primary and secondary outcomes or independent and dependent variables, statistical analysis utilized.
The article does not test any hypotheses, but rather describes the development of a tool for knowledge transfer and discusses random examples from experience. In this context, it is an interesting opinion piece that encourages further testing and experimentation elsewhere. However, there is no solid evidence that the proposed GreenDealz toolbox actually enhanced the publics’ engagement in comparison with other approaches or at all. Yet, the article is a useful source of inspiration for those that view communication with lay audiences as part of their responsibilities. Some revisions required prior publication.
Specific comments
In the introduction (session 1.3) state three objectives of the toolkit without setting a hypothesis of the overarching goal against which the findings need to be tested. A clear general statement on how to structure the experiment, what are the goal of each step, against which parameter the experiments are tested at each of the iterative steps – what has led to stimulate the adjustments – are not very well described. Hence, it seems to be a random process rather than a full controlled experiment.
Unfortunately, the number of participants in all experimental setups is very low, so it must be assumed that the experimental setup is not very attractive in comparison to other festival events. The statistical relevance of the test results is very low and corresponds more to a non-representative sample. The results derived from the experiments are therefore only of limited reliability. However, the idea and set-up are of relevance and worth to be developed further.
Although some of the information is provided in the text, it is difficult for the reader to compare the different points. The paper would benefit when key figures provided somewhere in the text would be summarised in a tabular overview of the various parameters of the festivals, such as number of participants, social structure and duration of the experiment, would have been helpful as well as description of the elements of the GreenDealz tool and when what part is suitable. Parts such as aspects of the objectives and the experimental setup are scattered throughout the text, while the framework is described inadequately.
The statistical results are based on various statistical methods without any explanation as to why these different methods had to be used. The stated methods should does not allow another researcher to precisely reproduce the study. The authors point to the low statistical significance but nevertheless draw conclusions about the transferability to other social groups and the applicability of the tool. Based on the available data, this generalisation does not appear to be valid. However, it can still serve as a basis for further studies and experiments. The description of the experimental setup allows replicated by another researcher. The low response to the experiment at all events indicates that the attractiveness of the experimental design still needs to be refined. As outlined by Ford (2019) points out that "tailored content and experiences can resonate with a person at an emotional and intellectual level, they will ultimately become devoted to the" issue.
Technical corrections
Some of the references are unusually cited in the text, in particular those that are taken from websites (e.g. lines 527-528; 546 and 559). The reference list contains errors, including incomplete and unusual quoting’s (e.g. websites) as well as incorrect listed authors that seem not to be in line with common format requirements. If all important relevant references are included the list of cannot be judged by the RC. Thus, the cited ones are accurately quoted with in the limitations mentioned, e.g.:
- Schweingruber and Fenichel (2010) instead of Fenichel and Schweingruber (2010)
- Gronlund, Norman E. Assessment of student achievement. Allyn & Bacon Publishing, Longwood Division, 160 Gould Street, Needham Heights, MA 02194-2310; tele, 1998.
Some minor typos have been detected such as in line 28 and 32 “Parliament” and in line 831 https://periodic-taEnble.com/dysprosium/.
Figures and tables missing some descriptions such as N/A in tab 1 (inconsistent with n/a tab 3), Fig 2 label of age range (I assume).
Some descriptions are sloppy such as “pure image” instead of image of “pure metal” or “chemical element” (e.g. Fig. A1)
Some further comments are provided in the draft text.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lucy Blennerhassett, 13 Oct 2025
Thank you to RC1 for the constructive and helpful comments on our pre-print. We welcome these editions regarding clarity, structure and technicality and are working on revising the paper. We also await additional commentary from subsequent reviewers.
However, we feel that one aspect may have been misunderstood and as such, needs clarification: this manuscript is intended to describe the iterative development and testing of a public engagement toolkit in the festival space and discuss its future directions, not to make final conclusions about its effectiveness across a wider population context. This has implications for much of the commentary provided by RC1. This should be noted in the context of three main commentary themes:
- Sample size
Firstly, the nature of the study is festival-based development and testing, meaning sample sizes are reflective of a snowball sampling strategy which is the most realistic sampling strategy in the incidental audience setting. Secondly, as this describes a developmental process we were not focused on a fully representative sample, instead, the sample sizes reflect the testing samples needed to draw basic conclusions about how the tool and its evaluation are working in the festival environment and how best to iterate. With this in mind, the case of 40 participants within a sample across a large-scale festival population of >100,000 reflects not only the nature of engagement and what is possible in terms of evaluation in the festival space (15 minutes per interaction) and the final participatory sample (those who were willing to be part of research) but crucially, the size needed to make iterative changes between developmental phases. Lastly, as we are aware sample sizes are not representative; in the final phase, a control sample is included next to an intervention sample to add a level of robustness to make closing decisions about the tool’s usefulness and future directions.
- Statistics
The test statistics used are generally reflective of instruments used, the sample size (as outlined above) and, subsequently, whether key assumptions apply (e.g., often using non-parametric tests when sample sizes are very small and often non-normally distributed).
- The manuscript’s structure
The manuscript is written in a phase-by-phase structure due to the nature of iterative development in a public engagement context, whereby each phase acts as its own mini study feeding into the next. This structure draws on inspiration from previous Geoscience Communication manuscripts describing iterative development of public engagement activities (e.g., Vergunst et al., 2025 https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-8-67-2025) and it also follows closely to a social science or psychology-based research article (e.g., Schuitema and Steg, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2007.11.003).
As per the above points, we will strive to make this much clearer to readers during revisions and we thank RC1 again for their review.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3753-AC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3753', Courtney Onstad, 27 Oct 2025
Overall quality:
This paper is an exceptionally novel approach to understanding public knowledge and perceptions of critical minerals. Overall, the paper is well-written with thoughtful consideration given to the evaluative component.
Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of GC? The study’s objective is within the scope of GC.
Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data? The ideas and data are novel in a geoscience context. The concepts and tools are well-established in social science literature.
Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined? The methods used are valid, but some further clarification is required. A thematic codebook is needed, along with more in-depth descriptions of statistical tests used and the rationale for their use.
Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions? For the most part results are sufficient. However, there are some issues with sample size. It would be useful to have a statistics expert look at the phrasing used in the discussion/conclusions to make sure the claims are valid.
Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution? Yes
Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper? Yes
Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary? Yes
Is the overall presentation well structured and clear? Yes, just a few changes will help with flow (specifically, Section 2)
Is the language fluent and precise? Yes, language is fluent and very well written.
Are the number and quality of references appropriate? Yes
General comments:
*Please note that I’ve qualified comments with “Consideration” and “Necessity”. Consideration is something for you to consider (not a necessary change), while necessity likely requires a change.
*I’ve reviewed Reviewer 1’s comments as well to ensure I’m not repeating.
- Concerning comments on experimental design, this paper does not refer to itself as a controlled experiment. In one case, they refer to it as a ‘quasi-experimental design’ which seems to be a well-justified approach for the flexibility required to perform research in a real-life setting.
- This paper will require a codebook to supplement the thematic analysis. This will clarify many terms used, which summarize participants’ thoughts. At a minimum, terms, definitions, and examples of how they represent participants' thoughts (Anchor Samples) are needed. Intercoder reliability is often encouraged with these types of studies too, so you’ll need to provide justification on why that wasn’t included.
- A significant component missing in this paper is a limitations section. There are many limitations to this research, none of which are currently emphasized. I have noted some, but I would encourage the author to carefully review the project from start to finish, noting all limitations.
- The paper refers to a follow-up student study to “test the validity” of the festival findings, but it is not clear which form of validity was being examined or how this was operationalized. Additionally, the follow-up sample (n = 9 business students) differs substantially from the festival audience, raising questions about comparability. The authors should clarify the rationale for this design choice and explain how the second study provides evidence of validity rather than simply replication or triangulation.
- In general, a statistics expert should be consulted to review the validity of claims made based on the various tests used and the small sample sizes. I think much of the statistics are fine to include, but based on my understanding, the issue may lie in how these results are used to make broader statements.
- Some additional details/insights on target audiences are needed to provide the reader with a realistic understanding of who is participating in the various engagements
Technical corrections/Specific Comments:
-specific comments have been included directly in the attached document
-since Reviewer 1 focused especially on the references, I focused on the other sections
- make sure you are consistent with capitalizations, hyphenations/non-hyphenations throughout
-see edits in attached document
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Lucy Blennerhassett, 24 Nov 2025
We would like to thank RC2 for their encouraging and helpful comments on our pre-print. We welcome RC2’s critiques which appear to be centred on methodology and experimental design and will strive to include all editions.
We agree that the edition of a limitations section will enhance the manuscript and provide further clarity for readers regarding the development process. Furthermore, in line with prior commentary from RC1, we acknowledge the need for re-phrasing of claims to make clearer to the reader about the limitations of this iterative toolkit development. We also agree that elaborating on target audience and providing further information about each informal education setting will benefit the text.
As also indicated to RC1, we feel that one aspect may have been misunderstood and as such, needs clarification: this manuscript is intended to describe the iterative development and testing of a public engagement toolkit in the festival space and discuss its future directions, not to make final conclusions about its effectiveness across a wider population context. As such, we wish to highlight that the inclusion of a codebook seems unwarranted in the case of a short thematic analysis used during the scoping phase of development (Section 2.4). This thematic analysis was performed on short open feedback survey sections, whereby participants at Dingle (festival 1) were asked how they would like to learn more about critical raw materials (line 171) and participants at Cork (festival 2) were asked how we could improve our prototype toolkit (line 214). Thus, these questions were used as a way to consolidate participant feedback relevant to each event and inform further toolkit iteration. There is no other information to be gleaned from this data than what is already presented and thus we feel that a codebook would provide no additional merit to the text at this early stage of the development process. While we appreciate the commentary about intercoder reliability, we again argue that it is not applicable to such short open feedback sections and goes beyond the developmental purpose of this paper. Following from this, it is obvious that this information could be made much clearer to the reader. Thus, we appreciate RC2 drawing attention to this. Notably, we agree that the inclusion of anchor samples is an excellent suggestion and will enhance the description of this open audience feedback.
We acknowledge that exact statistical tests used could be more clearly elaborated on within each section to remind readers of the reasoning behind using such tests as first stated in the analysis strategy (Section 2.2). We appreciate the suggestion from RC2 to consult statisticians, and will strive to do so in revision. However, we note that tests are all conventional based on the key assumptions of parametric or non-parametric data (e.g., sample size, normality, linearity). Such tests are familiar to the authors who have a range of statistical and scientific expertise across disciplines.
Lastly, we thank RC2 for their critiques regarding the comparability of the student study and the festival findings during the testing phase (Section 2.5). We will provide better description of these two samples and their use in our revisions. However, we wish to make clear here that these two samples represent a comparison of the evaluation capability between controlled (i.e., student study) versus un-controlled (i.e., in-festival) settings with limitations due to natural sample difference also considered.
We again thank RC2 for taking the time to review our pre-print and we hope that they find our response to be helpful.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3753-AC2
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3753', Anonymous Referee #3, 29 Oct 2025
General comments
The paper presents a public engagement toolkit aimed at raising public awareness of importance of critical raw materials (CRMs) and, specifically, their role and key contribution to delivery of the EU Green Deal. The paper presents how the toolkit, called GreenDealz, was deployed within a wide range of different types of informal education settings principally festivals. The CRM topic is clearly highly relevant and of clear societal importance in terms of a net zero transition and the authors rightly argue that focus on CRMs as an overlooked component of the energy transition as is the publics awareness of the key elements of the issues. As such the work is timely. The methods employed uses festivals as an outreach mechanism/location, although other examples exist of engaging audiences in such locales, this has some rareness in the context of the topic areas and has thus some innovative elements. Overall, the authors’ commitment to broadening participation in sustainability discussions with diverse audiences is commendable.
However, while the study’s intent is valuable, the paper in its current form requires very significant revision to ensure that methodological transparency and conceptual clarity is communicated as well as it could be. Overall, the contribution is primarily conceptual and experiential rather than empirical and as such is very descriptive in nature. Whilst this would be fine in my view as there is value in sharing the journey taken in undertaking the work, I do think that a stronger theoretical grounding and clearer structure would help the paper better serve as an important reference for others to make use of. At present the novel elements are rather hidden in a descriptive narrative of what was done rather than any insights gleaned from the work. There are some creative elements in the approaches that could be teased out more fully and benefit the paper as a result.
The GreenDealz concept is original and of clear societal relevance, but the paper requires substantial revision in my view. Strengthening the theoretical framing, clarifying the details of the methodology, improving data presentation and the way it is interpreted and discussed, and tightening the text would significantly enhance the paper’s potential impact. The work has good potential in showcasing a case study and pilot for informal sustainability communication in CRM once these improvements are made. I hope the authors find my thoughts and review helpful in the refinement of the paper.
Specific comments
1. At present the paper lacks a clear theoretical basis that effectively links informal engagement to learning or to the behavioural outcomes in the engagements undertaken. Perhaps including a defined theory of change or a learning framework (e.g., from informal science education or participatory communication) would strengthen the rationale for the work and the way it was executed. Such a framing would would also help to specify which dimensions of the EU Green Deal the toolkit addresses and how well it does that. For example mapping against resource circularity, supply-chain ethics, or awareness of material criticality. At present this is all lumped into a rather broad and bland narrative.
2. The methodology is described only in broad terms in the paper at present. A summary table showing each festival’s characteristics (location, participant numbers, activity duration, main observations) would aid comparison. The criteria for selecting festivals, participant demographics, data-collection instruments, and analytical techniques are not clearly stated nor justified as choices – the why is missing. The small and uneven sample sizes limit statistical reliability, and this is not discussed. The application of multiple statistical methods without explanation of why these were chosen also weakens reproducibility and thus the conclusions that can be drawn from the work. As a result I suggest that the work might be better positioned as an exploratory pilot rather than an evaluative trial and that, although semantics, might help the authors in not stretching the data too far in their discussion.
3. The findings are reported narratively, with limited data presentation nor analysis – either of the findings or the limitations. Claims about transferability to other contexts are not supported by the available data and this needs significant rewriting to catch what can and cannot be justified from the data presented. There are really interesting data to discuss that could be expanded upon in my view – such as the qualitative insights into audience engagement and the public misconceptions about CRMs. These really are valuable and merit deeper analysis – this can be speculative given the limited data, so could be part of a discursive analysis.
4. The manuscript’s readability could be improved by reducing the sometimes long and complex sentences, so I recommend some careful editing for concision and clarity. Figures and tables need clearer labelling, and the reference list should be reviewed for consistency in author order and formatting.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3753-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Lucy Blennerhassett, 24 Nov 2025
We would like to thank RC3 for their review of our pre-print and we welcome their helpful comments. We aim to include most of the editions suggested by RC3. Importantly, we note that much of the commentary is centred on methodology and limitations as with RC1 and RC2 and thus we direct RC3 to our responses to these earlier reviews.
We appreciate RC3’s suggestion to expand on the theoretical framework behind the study. We will strive to provide better context for the development of the toolkit and explain in clearer terms the way in which it was developed. However, please note that suggestions of mapping audience understanding of specific dimensions such as “resource circularity, supply-chain ethics, or material criticality” requires in-depth, long-form surveying which is exactly what this study aimed to avoid due to the desire for in-festival evaluation. Hence, the evaluation used does indeed aim to assess understanding of the topic in a broad sense, as this is what is possible in the more un-controlled environment of an informal education setting. Although, we do note that this can be better highlighted within both the theoretical framework and suggested limitation sections.
Similar to commentary from RC2, we appreciate RC3’s suggestions on deeper qualitative analysis of the open audience feedback during the scoping phase (Section 2.4). However, as with prior responses, please note that this is not the purpose of this study. Each phase acts as a developmental step to help iterate the toolkit further. Therefore, deeper evaluation of this short feedback section through "discursive analysis" is outside of the remit of what this study aimed to do: iteratively develop a toolkit led by audience preference, and develop an integrated evaluation strategy suitable for un-controlled settings. However, these suggestions are highly appreciated as recommendations for further evaluation of GreenDealz in more controlled settings.
We appreciate the constructive feedback regarding language and sentence clarity along with figure, table and reference corrections. Edits will be made accordingly. We thank RC3 again for spending the time to review our pre-print and we are convinced that it will help to improve the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3753-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Lucy Blennerhassett, 24 Nov 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 836 | 246 | 42 | 1,124 | 34 | 37 |
- HTML: 836
- PDF: 246
- XML: 42
- Total: 1,124
- BibTeX: 34
- EndNote: 37
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Lucy Catherine Blennerhassett
Geertje Schuitema
Fergus McAuliffe
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(6822 KB) - Metadata XML
General Comments
It is of utmost importance to our society that the public gains an understanding and knowledge of the role of CRM and its connection to achieving the goals of the Green Deal to be achieved in a variety of ways. Any activities to gain public awareness and to improve the knowledge of the society on key challenges of the society in particular are desperately needed in most societies. The paper picks this need up and provides some simple solutions that can general be easily adopted elsewhere.
The title “Development of GreenDealz: A public engagement toolkit addressing critical raw materials and the EU Green Deal at informal education settings “ indicates very clearly the content of the paper. The concept of addressing festival visitors is relatively new and has the potential to reach a very diverse and inexperienced group of people. This is particularly true given that a wide variety of different types of festivals were included in the study.
The paper is written in a complex style that is rather atypical for scientific papers. The long and convoluted sentences make it even more difficult to understand it. This distracts from the actual message.
The paper seems to address the most of the aspects that need to be considered. A clear description of the method used, the statistical approach and the concept for achieving the overall objective is only available in broad terms.
The paper aims to stimulate thinking about CRM in relation to the EU Green Deal. Therefor it focuses on the tools to gain this stimulation rather than the description on the scientific content used for the stimulation, which could be reviewed by the RC. The study seems to be designed rather as a subordinated experiment in a context of a scientific project than as a stand-alone study. It provides a snap-shot of given festival situations, not tailormade solutions as the many researchers in the topic suggest. The authors fail to explain the selection criteria for the festivals to the reader. A more detailed and structured elaboration would improve the readability of the text. Thus, it could be better structured.
The authors discuss their findings in the context of existing research and made an effort to consider transdisciplinary findings as well. The data compiled to obtain the results are not always provided in a comprehensible manner. The methods used are not clearly described in terms of inclusion/exclusion criteria, procedures or tests used, measurements utilized, primary and secondary outcomes or independent and dependent variables, statistical analysis utilized.
The article does not test any hypotheses, but rather describes the development of a tool for knowledge transfer and discusses random examples from experience. In this context, it is an interesting opinion piece that encourages further testing and experimentation elsewhere. However, there is no solid evidence that the proposed GreenDealz toolbox actually enhanced the publics’ engagement in comparison with other approaches or at all. Yet, the article is a useful source of inspiration for those that view communication with lay audiences as part of their responsibilities. Some revisions required prior publication.
Specific comments
In the introduction (session 1.3) state three objectives of the toolkit without setting a hypothesis of the overarching goal against which the findings need to be tested. A clear general statement on how to structure the experiment, what are the goal of each step, against which parameter the experiments are tested at each of the iterative steps – what has led to stimulate the adjustments – are not very well described. Hence, it seems to be a random process rather than a full controlled experiment.
Unfortunately, the number of participants in all experimental setups is very low, so it must be assumed that the experimental setup is not very attractive in comparison to other festival events. The statistical relevance of the test results is very low and corresponds more to a non-representative sample. The results derived from the experiments are therefore only of limited reliability. However, the idea and set-up are of relevance and worth to be developed further.
Although some of the information is provided in the text, it is difficult for the reader to compare the different points. The paper would benefit when key figures provided somewhere in the text would be summarised in a tabular overview of the various parameters of the festivals, such as number of participants, social structure and duration of the experiment, would have been helpful as well as description of the elements of the GreenDealz tool and when what part is suitable. Parts such as aspects of the objectives and the experimental setup are scattered throughout the text, while the framework is described inadequately.
The statistical results are based on various statistical methods without any explanation as to why these different methods had to be used. The stated methods should does not allow another researcher to precisely reproduce the study. The authors point to the low statistical significance but nevertheless draw conclusions about the transferability to other social groups and the applicability of the tool. Based on the available data, this generalisation does not appear to be valid. However, it can still serve as a basis for further studies and experiments. The description of the experimental setup allows replicated by another researcher. The low response to the experiment at all events indicates that the attractiveness of the experimental design still needs to be refined. As outlined by Ford (2019) points out that "tailored content and experiences can resonate with a person at an emotional and intellectual level, they will ultimately become devoted to the" issue.
Technical corrections
Some of the references are unusually cited in the text, in particular those that are taken from websites (e.g. lines 527-528; 546 and 559). The reference list contains errors, including incomplete and unusual quoting’s (e.g. websites) as well as incorrect listed authors that seem not to be in line with common format requirements. If all important relevant references are included the list of cannot be judged by the RC. Thus, the cited ones are accurately quoted with in the limitations mentioned, e.g.:
Some minor typos have been detected such as in line 28 and 32 “Parliament” and in line 831 https://periodic-taEnble.com/dysprosium/.
Figures and tables missing some descriptions such as N/A in tab 1 (inconsistent with n/a tab 3), Fig 2 label of age range (I assume).
Some descriptions are sloppy such as “pure image” instead of image of “pure metal” or “chemical element” (e.g. Fig. A1)
Some further comments are provided in the draft text.