Affective Sustainability. The Creation and Transmission of Affect through an Educative Process: An Instrument for the Construction of more Sustainable Citizens

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I was intrigued with this research and the theoretical base. I found that it added depth to my consideration of the role of place/locality in the affective life of humans. The role of affective relationship in engaging community in the recovery of the natural environment and subsequently in maintaining that space are significant factors as were work to rebuild our degraded ecology. This research adds to our knowledge and provides a model for intergenerational practice.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,
you deal with an interesting topic, unfortunately there is a lack of a real research design. This could be a qualitative interview study, whose guide is based on the theoretical chapter.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

The proposal of the paper is interesting from the perspective of sustainability and education, therefore, it fits the scope of the Journal. Nonetheless, the manuscript requires extra efforts to improve its quality and presentation for the prestigious journal Sustainability. After a careful revision, a set of comments are expounded hereafter.

- The manuscript is, in general, well written and organized. However, there are some mistakes regarding the format of the document, as commented below.

The affiliation of the author seems to be a mixture between Spanish and English. This reviewer suggests using only one language. If English is preferred, perhaps “Department of Urbanism and Territory Planning” could be appropriate. In addition, the country, Spain, should be included.

The Abstract is not correctly presented. It must be an unique paragraph as can be checked in the template of the Journal.

Within such Abstract, the acronym NGO must be defined the first time it appears. The same comment is applied for the Introduction (see line 58).

Still in the Abstract, it would be desirable to avoid citations to other works, if possible.

Is ASDIPAR an abbreviation? If so, it should be defined in the text. In addition, the web page of that association should be included as a reference.

The page headings include an incorrect year, 2018. This minor issue should be revised.

Figures must be cited within the text, including, in general, some comment about the provided information. This issue must be solved along the whole manuscript.

Also concerning the figures, the captions that contain URL of the sources of information should be revised. Namely, such URL should be included as references in the section devoted to this aim.

Figure 9 contains two figures, a) and b), however, these are not indicated in the figure caption.

Works of A. Bisquert are cited various times. This is correct but not the way of citing. For instance, in page 2, the reference 3 should be placed in line 42 from this humble reviewer perspective. Another example is found in subsection 2.2, where a whole paragraph of such author is placed without citing the associated work. In a similar sense, in line 493, the author is mentioned but the work/s is/are not cited. Moreover, references 3 and 32 seem to be the same work.

A similar problem is found for the work of A. Cussianovich; an entire paragraph is placed at the beginning of the subsection 2.3 but the citation is missing.

In the Funding section, “Please add:” must be removed.

The references must be properly formatted according to the template.

- About the content of the manuscript, as aforementioned, it covers an interesting topic. The comments after a careful revision are the following:

A good practice in scientific papers consists on describing in a brief manner, at the end of the Introduction, the structure of the rest of the paper. This information contributes to the readability of the paper.

The theoretical framework is well scheduled, stating the relevance and novelty of the proposal.

The methodology is well expounded but some suggestions to be enhanced are now given. To begin with, a map to illustrate the geographical locations of the scenarios where the project has been carried out would be very interesting. Just a simple capture placing, at least, Cadiz, Paterna and the area Fuente la Negra would help the reader to contextualize the project. In addition, a brief sentence to explain the content and/or structure of the section would be desirable before the subsections that compose it. It must be noted that contributing to restore the situation of the area Fuente la Negra is a valuable action towards a sustainable development and sustainable attitudes of the involved participants.

Section 4, devoted to show the achieved results, is in a certain sense poor. Only descriptions about the initial and final participants in the described project are not enough for a scientific paper. This issue can be improved if the authors would provide some kind of graphical charts indicating, for instance, the increasing amount of participants over time, some percentages in form of graphs or tables, as well as some collected opinion of the participants through formal or informal contacts. Indeed, the author could design some questionnaire in order to receive useful feedback information from the participants as well as their opinions/motivations, and also include it in this section. Even more, if the NGO ITACA Ambiente Elegido initiative has received attention from press (local, national, etc.), it should be mentioned in this section. Another idea, if the author agrees, consists on including some kind of guideline or recommendations for this type of initiatives that could have been generated as a consequence of the project. This way, the reported results would be better presented and would illustrate in a more scientific manner the achievement of the proposed goals.

In the Discussion section, some limitation of the conducted work could be mentioned in order to enrich the information given to the interested reader. For instance, if economic boundaries have inhibited the possibilities of the project, or if local government/entities have supported in a proper way the initiative. Finally, indicating some further guideline that the author is considering would also improve the presentation of the manuscript.

As a conclusion of the revision, if all the described suggestions are addressed, the manuscript will reach a better presentation and scientific level, according to the prestigious journal Sustainability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 4 Report

From the perspective of environmental education, the concept of affective sustainability is definitely meaningful, and the relevant practices are valuable. However, I think that the present manuscript has not reached the level as an academic article.

- The title should more specifically express the academic contribution of this manuscript.

- The introduction part should further assert the need for the concept of affective sustainability. What is missing specifically in previous efforts?

- The theoretical framework part is generally cluttered and needs to be organized, which obscures the purpose of this research. Furthermore, the figures are not clearly mentioned in the text and the necessity of them is unclear.

- As a result of the theoretical framework not being fully understood, the validity of the research method can not be judged. In addition, what is the result and how it should be positioned also needs to be specified.

- In the discussion part, it should be more clearly shown which result each description is based on.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the paper has improved and you can publish it now.

Author Response

Point 1: I think the paper has improved and you can publish it now.

 

Response 1: Thank you very much for the comments in general, which I consider very appropriate.

Reviewer 3 Report

The efforts carried out by the authors are appreciable in the revised manuscript. The provided suggestions have been properly addressed. Some minor issues are now commented.

Most of figures are not cited or commented in the text, which was indicated in the previous version. In addition, three tables that have been included should be revised according to the template of the Journal. In a similar sense, the last figure of the manuscript, numbered as Figure 11, should be commented in the text, renumbered and improved; currently it is unclear what it is supposed to represent.

Author Response

Point 1: Most of figures are not cited or commented in the text, which was indicated in the previous version.

 

Response 1: All the figures are cited and commented as well as they are modified their position according to their appearance in the text.

Point 2: In addition, three tables that have been included should be revised according to the template of the Journal.

Response 2: The three tables have been modified, adapting them to the templates of the journal.

 

Point 3: In a similar sense, the last figure of the manuscript, numbered as Figure 11, should be commented in the text, renumbered and improved; currently it is unclear what it is supposed to represent.

Response 3: Following the indications of another of the reviewers, "figure 11" has been moved to the results section. This figure has been cited, renumbered and improved to try to make its meaning clearer.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

- The Instructions for Authors in the "Sustainability" says "All Figures, Schemes and Tables should be inserted into the main text close to their first citation and must be numbered following their number of appearance (Figure 1, Scheme I, Figure 2, Scheme II, Table 1, etc.)." The entire manuscript does not meet this point.

- Figure 11 should be shown in the results part. In addition, the methods part also needs to explain this quantitative analysis.

Author Response

Point 1: The Instructions for Authors in the "Sustainability" says "All Figures, Schemes and Tables should be inserted into the main text close to their first citation and must be numbered following their number of appearance (Figure 1, Scheme I, Figure 2, Scheme II, Table 1, etc.)." The entire manuscript does not meet this point.

 

Response 1: The entire text has been revised by entering comments that justify the appearance of the figures and tables and its order of appearance has been modified to adapt them to the "Sustainability" standards. 

 

Point 2: Figure 11 should be shown in the results part. In addition, the methods part also needs to explain this quantitative analysis.

 

Response 2: The "Figure 11" has been improved and following the indications of another of the reviewers, we have tried to clarify its function. As it had been requested, this figure has been moved to the Results section and a small explanation has been added in the method section to the quantitative analysis performed.