the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 25 Aug 2026
Protecting Blue Horizons – A role-play to make a marine protected area work
Abstract. International biodiversity commitments will remain largely aspirational unless they are translated into socially legitimate forms of local action. This challenge is particularly evident in marine protected areas (MPAs), where conservation objectives intersect with fisheries, tourism, energy development, local livelihoods, and competing uses of marine space. Addressing these tensions requires ecological knowledge as well as stakeholder dialogue and an understanding of biodiversity governance as both a scientific and socio-political process. This paper presents Protecting Blue Horizons, a role-play exercise designed to help students and young adults explore how global biodiversity goals can be negotiated in local MPA contexts. The exercise combines top-down policy objectives with bottom-up stakeholder deliberation. Eleven stakeholder roles were developed through interviews, literature review, and professional experience. Particular attention is given to moderation and to the debriefing as components of reflection and learning. The role-play was tested in different educational settings. An initial implementation with young adults included debriefing and provided formative feedback on moderation and consensus building. Subsequent university implementations in Argentina and Mexico used shorter formats and constituted the analytical corpus of this study. As these sessions did not include formal debriefing, the analysis focused on recorded stakeholder deliberations. Directed thematic content analysis used the four overarching goals of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) as analytical categories. Goal B, concerning sustainable use and nature’s contributions to people, was most consistently represented, while Goals A and D were partially represented and Goal C, concerning fair benefit-sharing, was least represented. The findings suggest that Protecting Blue Horizons can support engagement with biodiversity governance while highlighting dimensions that require more explicit integration into scenario design, facilitation, and debriefing. The role-play is proposed as a flexible educational tool for strengthening deliberative skills and more grounded engagement with GBF implementation.
- Preprint
(1022 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-5012', Yolanda Sánchez, 13 Oct 2026
-
EC1: 'Thank for RC1', David Crookall, 13 Oct 2026
Thank you, Yolanda, for an excellent review.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5012-EC1
-
EC1: 'Thank for RC1', David Crookall, 13 Oct 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-5012', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Oct 2026
Review of the manuscript “Protecting Blue Horizons – A role-play to make a marine protected area work” submitted to Geoscience Communication.
In its current form, the manuscript is weak and requires major revisions before it can be considered for any journal. The comments below are constructive and are aimed at helping the authors improve the quality of the manuscript.
What are the main goals of this research?
What role-play framework has been employed?
The title “Protecting Blue Horizons – A role-play to make a marine protected area work” is vague.
VERY IMPORTANT: I don’t see any acknowledgement that research ethics approval was obtained to undertake this research. You must obtain research ethics approval before commencing this type of research, namely when you engage with students and external participants and evaluate their feedback and use it in a paper. Editors, please confirm if you require research ethics approval.
Line 15: Clarify the ages of students and young adults. What is the level of education of these students (e.g. secondary school, third level)? What is the size of the sample? How many students and young adults were involved?
Lines 36 – 37: Improve the writing: “It is thus important not only to spread knowledge and raise awareness about biodiversity issues.”
Line 38: Provide references.
Line 40: Why the “” in threatened?
Lines 40 – 41: Provide references.
Lines 42 – 44: Provide an example.
Lines 50 – 51: Provide references.
Lines 60 – 61: Provide references.
Line 62: Provide references.
Lines 64 – 66: Provide references.
Lines 66 – 70: Provide references.
Lines 67 – 68: Improve the writing. “The challenges are stark, however, as shown by the assessment of finance for nature by UNEP (2026).”
Line 72: Provide references.
Lines 74 – 79: Provide references.
Lines 82 – 85: Provide references.
Line 96: How old are these young adults? In what context are they participating? How many? What type of stakeholders?
Lines 104-106: Provide references.
Lines 116-118: Provide references.
Line 119: Include the specific page from which you are citing.
Lines 119-124: Provide references.
Lines 135-137: Provide references.
Line 137: Avoid using pronouns. Use the word student instead.
Lines 140-141: Include the specific page from which you are citing.
Lines 141-143: Provide references.
Lines 148-151: Provide references.
Section 2.1. Role-play design and development
This section must be improved and provide more detail. This is necessary to ensure that the research can be reproduced by others.
For instance, lines 169-170: “ An equal number of persons were contacted through email in different regions.” Who are you contacting? How many? What regions? What is the framework for recruitment and selection?
There are different types of role play. Which one are you using?
Section 2.2. Educational implementation and analytical corpus
This section must be improved and provide more detail. This is necessary to ensure that the research can be reproduced by others.
Line 207: What conference?
Line 207: What is the educational background of these students (e.g. the programmes they are enrolled in)? Are they undergraduate or postgraduate students?
Line 207: How many participants?
How many students were involved? Indicate totals for each university. What was the framework employed in terms of recruitment and selection of students to participate in this research?
Section 2.3. Direct Thematic Content Analysis
Line 225: What kind of transcripts? How did you originate them?
Section 3. Results
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT: please indicate percentages in relation to the total number of participants/students engaged in the research when reporting outputs. All the reporting is very vague and not scientifically accurate; see examples in line 169 “mostly related”; line 271 “in this group players ended”; line 279 “a number of players unsatisfied”.
Lines 265-266: Please provide more details.
Lines 265-268: This is methodology, not results!
Line 266: “Larger sample”. What is the size of the sample?
Line 269: What is the size of this test group?
How do these findings relate to previous research?
Include the details of the role-play that were distributed to participants as appendices.
Please improve the proofreading and writing of this manuscript and give it a more scientific tone.
Note to Editors: I am unsure how ethical it is to include AI-generated figures in the manuscript and whether this follows editorial guidelines.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5012-RC2 -
EC2: 'Thanks for RC2', David Crookall, 14 Oct 2026
Many thanks for your excellent review. Much appreciated. d
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5012-EC2
-
EC2: 'Thanks for RC2', David Crookall, 14 Oct 2026
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-5012', Anonymous Referee #3, 26 Oct 2026
The article addresses an important educational gap on the topic of marine biodiversity and the implementation of MPAs in line with global biodiversity goals and local socioeconomic and ecological context. It offers much needed contributions to pedagogical approach and practice in teaching this issue and provides a fresh look on how GBF and similar global frameworks for biodiversity conservation propose a holistic approach and targets that may not be equally relevant, accessible or meaningful to all stakeholders. I believe this is where the article can be improved by addressing the fact that different stakeholders have different priorities, responsibilities, and needs and do not necessarily need to know about all GBF goals to make an informed decision about the benefits and trade-offs of MPA. While the authors make a compelling case about the learning outcomes of educational role-play games, especially on understanding different points of view and the complexities of social negotiation processes, their main focus appears to centre around the absence of discourse on certain GBF goals amongst the students participating in the game and how this gap can be filled.
In line 330 they suggest redesigning the game to include scenarios that explicitly incorporate dilemmas around benefit-sharing, inclusion of Indigenous people and local communities, and international cooperation, as well as encouraging broader participation of student from different disciplines in the game. While these are valid concerns and strategies to enhance learning about the topics students appeared to lack knowledge, the article will benefit from a stronger emphasis on the target audience (addressing as well the limitations in participation such as self-selection bias or compulsory attendance) and how and why different scenarios may relate to this audience or enhance their learning, and more importantly if the new scenarios or diversity of players will bring a certain GBF goals into focus, and why is it important that all goals are addressed in the game.
The authors’ presentation of the findings and suggestion for iterative refinements of the game leave me confused about the main aim and main learning objectives of the game. Is it about learning about the issue, about different aspects of the issue, about how different people are affected by it, about the dynamics of negotiation, about the complexity of conservation frameworks, or about personal growth and change? Depending on this outcome, why is it important that all GBF goals are part of the game discourse?
I think the article needs a better introduction addressing these questions and foregrounding the game and its contributions to learning. In paragraph 95 the authors state the objectives of the game as - (a) connect global treaties and their objectives to local implementation, and (b) introduce the players to practising their listening and deliberation skills as they impersonate different stakeholders or rights holders. They state that the game is intended to drive curiosity in biodiversity issues and negotiations and provide first-hand appreciation about the challenges and opportunities of stakeholder participation. This is all good and could come earlier in the introduction, where it could also be linked to the challenges of real-life negotiations and how the students may potentially participate in or be affected by them.
Another point I would suggest the authors to consider in the introduction is the discussion of respectful dialogue and knowledge exchange in the context of facilitated/moderated dialogue. A key finding from the first implementation of the game has been the need for better guidance for the moderator. This is discussed in line 270 in relation to facilitating a more balanced discussion and reminding the players of the overall biodiversity protection objectives. But if one of the aims of the game is to help players develop skills to engage in respectful dialogue, it would be useful to consider the extent to which these skills can be learned through a discussion where dialogue is facilitated and regulated by a moderator. Does the game create the primary conditions for learning to engage in respectful dialogue, or does it simply enable all views to be heard?
I also suggest the following revisions in the introduction:
- A more throughout explanation of the term “paper park” is needed. While it may be common in conservation and environmental governance, it should not be assumed that the reader knows it. Later in the article the authors discuss the issue of “paper park” in the game, where consensus is sought but not at the expense of creating a paper park. This also requires further discussion around the different outcomes of the game, the objectives of each character, and examples of what type of ending scenarios would result in a paper park, as well as if the students understand this and how is it communicated.
- The discussion of biodiversity and biomass is used interchangeably but these terms should be clarified and distinguished. Changes in biomass do not necessarily mean changes in biodiversity and vice versa. Furthermore, the examples for biodiversity loss in the introduction are quite general and do not offer grounding to the game. I would urge the authors to pick more relevant examples and also to contextualise the game.
- Simplification of paraphrased sentences. For example, in lines 70-75-95-270 statements are unclear, mainly due to their structure.
On the note of examples and context, I can understand that the game was designed to be adaptable and the authors provide test play results from different countries and context. However, a discussion on the design and especially the development of the characters and game scenarios is needed. This may be best achieved with a contrast to the holistic approach of the GBF and different regional compositions in terms of social, geographical, environmental, and economic characteristics.
In relation to the authors’ approach to how the game “educates” the students, I suggest they explore further their claims about “authenticity” and “authentic experience”. They cite Crow & Nelson (line 105) to show how role-play supports experiential learning by enabling participants to construct their own understanding through authentic experiences. What appears to be the authentic experience here is the experience of playing the game and not the authentic experience of the real-situation by the stakeholders/characters they play. This is an important distinction that needs to be made.
Later, in line 130, the authors state that “in role-playing, the authenticity of the setting – for example, simulating a debate between fishermen, scientists and authorities about a marine reserve – makes it easier for students to “bridge the gap” between theory and reality…” A discussion on the problem of accurate and authentic setting and situation is necessary, as this approach appears to imply that the role-play scenario represents the real situation, and lacks the reflexive approach of appreciating the difference of context and participants both in real and simulated situations (i.e. both the real stakeholders represented by the characters and the students playing the game).
Similarly, in line 143-144, they state that role-play allows students “to experience first-hand the associated challenges and dilemmas”. It is important to differentiate what exactly is experienced first-hand – is it the complexity of the problem, the difficulty of negotiation, or the experience of stakeholders – and how is this framed within the discussion of authenticity. Perhaps the authors would consider looking at Baudrillard’s notion of simulacra to explore how representation, models, and simulations can come to shape and replace our understanding of reality. Rather than suggesting that the role-play simulation provides access to an authentic reality, the authors can examine how the simulation constructs the reality that participants experience and learn, and that in turn can be connected to the whole process and difficulties of various stakeholders drafting, agreeing, and adopting conservation frameworks based on learning from representations of others’ experiences.
Additionally, I think the article will be significantly improved if the authors include a discussion on the players’ own pre-existing knowledge, experience, and meaning-making to show that these may be very different from the stakeholders they are playing, and thus, create an illusion of understanding and authenticity. This can include reflection on the prep time limitations, short character descriptions, and possibilities of misinformation entering the game as an element of role-play dynamic and discourse (e.g. players making up facts to make up for their lack of knowledge on a certain topic).
Finally, I also suggest the game is better connected to the main issue it is trying to solve – i.e. the gap between the global biodiversity commitments and the ability to translate them in local context into legitimate decisions. In its current form, the article makes compelling case for the educational problem – students not having enough knowledge or opportunities to learn about these issues and to connect theory and practice – showing how the game addresses this. The analysis of the GBF goals appearing in play discourse is fine, but offers only a limited focus that reveals knowledge gaps around specific goals and targets. As a reader I do not see how the authors connect the use of the game as a way to bridge the gap between global biodiversity commitments and local action. As suggested earlier in this review, perhaps a discussion on the target audience, their career trajectories, and use of the game beyond the classroom can help show the relevance and transformative capacity of role-play in real-world context. The findings and discussion offer information on how to improve the game as educational tool, but they do not show if the game improves participants discussion and deliberative skills or leads to better decisions around MPAs. This connection is central to make a strong argument for the value and impact of such games beyond them being diagnostic tools for knowledge gaps. Perhaps a way to do this may be by showing how local knowledge, if any was used in the design of the game, has been represented in the game and learned by the players, and how this can be applied in context beyond the classroom.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5012-RC3 -
EC3: 'Thanks for RC3', David Crookall, 26 Oct 2026
Many thanks for an excellent review.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5012-EC3
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 167 | 95 | 52 | 314 | 52 | 50 |
- HTML: 167
- PDF: 95
- XML: 52
- Total: 314
- BibTeX: 52
- EndNote: 50
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Overall recommendation
The manuscript presents a valuable educational initiative that could help broaden engagement with the social and political dimensions of marine conservation. However, substantial clarification and revision are needed to strengthen the alignment between its goal, conceptual framework, educational design, analytical approach and conclusions.
I recommend that the authors clarify the primary purpose of the study, provide greater transparency regarding the role descriptions and coding procedures, present the empirical findings in a more interpretable form, and moderate claims about educational effectiveness where learning outcomes have not been directly assessed.
With these changes, the manuscript could make a useful contribution, either as an exploratory study of how participants engage with competing perspectives on MPA governance or as a description and formative educational resource. The key is to define this contribution clearly and ensure that the claims made are supported by the evidence presented.