Thank you for your thoughtful comments on my manuscript. I appreciate you taking the time to provide constructive feedback. In response:

General Comment: You raise a valid point that my hypothesis is not directly tested within the article itself. I agree it would be more accurate to frame this more as an opinion piece grounded in my experiences, rather than a hypothesis-driven study. I will revise the framing to clarify this is a first-person perspective on the potential of creative approaches in Geoscience Communication, rather than a rigorous examination of their impact. Your feedback has helped me recognise the need to temper any overstated claims around evidence of enhanced engagement. I will take care not to suggest there is solid proof without appropriate supporting data. Framing this as an inspirational discussion of possibilities, with recommendations based on practice, is a useful perspective. Thank you for highlighting the need to clarify the nature and limits of my central argument.

Specific Comment: I agree with your suggestion to position dialogue closer to participation on the communication spectrum. Framing dissemination as one-way and dialogue/participation as two-way communication is a helpful distinction. The current placement in the centre does imply a transitional or balanced role for dialogue between dissemination and participation. However, your point is well taken that dialogue aligns more closely with participation as two-way, reciprocal forms of engagement. I will update the figure and text to reflect this feedback and clarify that the spectrum illustrates forms of engagement, not a hierarchy of value. Thank you for catching this issue and providing a recommendation to better categorise the communication types.

I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to review my manuscript and provide constructive criticism. Your insights have helped me to improve the manuscript greatly. 



Sam

David,

Thank you for taking the time to provide such detailed feedback on my manuscript. I appreciate you sharing your extensive expertise on games and simulations to help strengthen my paper. Please find my responses to each of your comments below:

Page/Line Comments:

2.1a-d: I take your point that my hypothesis may be difficult to definitively prove. As noted in my response to Review 1 that I will revise the framing to clarify this is a first-person perspective on the potential of creative approaches in Geoscience Communication, rather than a rigorous examination of their impact.

Fig 1: I feel the current artistic spectrum effectively conveys the conceptual differences between communication types through visual metaphor. Adding more categories could over-complicate things. I would prefer to retain the figure as is but will also make changes as highlighted in my comments to Reviewer 1 with regards to how this is presented.  

2.19: Agreed, many films also incorporate dialogue elements. I will reword to just reference documentaries.

3.3: Equating dialogue and social interaction is possibly too much of a simplification in this instance, and so with the greatest of respect I will leave ‘dialogue’ as it is.

3.7: I take your point on abbreviations and will try to remove them from the text or at least make sure that they are all properly explained.

3.13: Creative is indeed a broad term. However, comprehensively defining creativity is beyond this paper's scope. I will add a brief clarification that I am referring to artistic and game-based approaches.

3.32: You raise a fair point on my word choice – however, this is the terminology that is used in the literature, and sadly many communities have been marginalised (unintentionally or not).

4.1: Thank you, I greatly appreciate your expertise in this area.  

4.17: Manual game is a useful term - I tend to use the term ‘analogue’ myself but will make this clearer throughout.

4.29: You make a fair point on hype - I will remove the term "fantastic" here and aim for more measured language throughout.

4.27: I agree that engagement and active learning warrant more explanation - I will expand on these concepts.

4.35: Excellent suggestion to also highlight skills development - I will incorporate this.

4.39-5.4: Moving this paragraph earlier when first discussing games is a good call - I will do so.

5.12: Multilogue is a helpful term alongside interaction, however I worry that it might itself need explaining and so for now I will not insert this into the text.

5.19: You raise a fair critique - I will rephrase this to avoid any unintended exaggeration.

5.25: Clarifying how different groups define "expert" could add context - I will consider incorporating this.

5.27: Citing relevant non-academic sources is worthwhile for inclusivity - I agree this practice should be encouraged. However, I am not entirely how I can work this into the text and so I will not make any changes but will agree with you on its merit.

6.6: You make a valid point that games' dialogue benefits are not scientifically proven in the references I provide and whilst I also address this point in my response to Reviewer 2 - I will also tone down this claim.

6.8: I take your critique of the "magic circle" concept; however, I think that it is an important concept and well defended in the literature and so I will keep it in, but I do also very much like your concept of ‘suspension of disbelief’.

6.11: Framing the game world as its own reality rather than an alternate reality makes sense - I will update this phrasing.

6.17: Arbitrary was too strong a term - I will reword this to reflect that game rules have purpose.

6.30: You raise an excellent point that games can implicitly embed values - I will note this nuance.

7.5: Game literacy is key as you indicate - I will emphasise the need to build this with novice players.

7.6: I should have done a better job of explaining the vague "metagame" - thank you for catching this. I will do this in the edit.

7.9: Good catch, "uses" should be "used."

7.13: Concrete examples of actionable dialogue would indeed clarify this idea. As noted in my response to Reviewer 2 I will aim to include some.

7.22/23: The redundant phrasing is unnecessary - I will delete the extra "both also."

7.33: Thank you – I am glad you agree.

7.37: Removing the casual terms "really" and "fantastic" is good advice - I will edit these out.

8.2: True co-creation does need explanation, as noted in my response to Reviewer 2, I will clarify this in the revision of the manuscript.

8.23: I agree that debriefing should be involved in game design - I will try to emphasis this in the revision.

8.39: Thank you for noting the multiple URLs - I will provide a link to the BoardGameGeek page for Carbon City Zero: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/288179/carbon-city-zero

9.15: The iterative community modelling process of ComMod is intriguing - I appreciate you bringing this approach to my attention.

9.18: Thank you for this observation, but as noted in my response to 2.1a-d, I will be working the theme and focus of my manuscript based on the very helpful peer review that I have received.,

10.6: Adding a point about thorough debriefing is an important addition - I will incorporate this recommendation.

Thank you again for your time in reviewing my manuscript and for generously sharing your extensive expertise. While I believe retaining certain aspects as written best conveys my experiences, I sincerely appreciate you identifying areas needing clarification and providing guidance to strengthen my paper. Your insightful critiques have been invaluable, and I look forward to revising my manuscript accordingly.

Many Thanks,

Sam

Dear Phil,

Thank you for your very helpful feedback on my manuscript. I truly appreciate you taking the time to provide such detailed comments to help strengthen the paper. Please find expanded responses outlining how I will address each of your points within the revised manuscript below:

Comment 1: I will add a paragraph to the end of the Introduction section noting that a recording of my award lecture is available in the Supplementary Materials. I will then work with EGU to upload the lecture audio file to the journal's website upon submission.

Comment 2: When DALL-E is first mentioned in Figure 1's caption, I will insert a sentence such as "DALL-E is an artificial intelligence tool developed by Anthropic to generate digital images based on text prompts." This will clarify what DALL-E is for readers unfamiliar with the technology.

Comment 3: Thank you for the feedback on Figure 1. Upon further reflection, I believe the original figure effectively illustrates the spectrum concept using a creative visual metaphor. The electromagnetic spectrum creatively conveys the idea of different but related communication types. While a more formal flow chart could also work, the current artistic figure aligns well with the spirit of the paper in demonstrating a creative approach to communication. However, as noted in my response to Reviewer 1, I will make changes to make this figure looks less hierarchical.

Comment 4: When discussing marginalised groups, I will add specifics such as "including communities of colour, persons with disabilities, and individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds" Where possible, I will also cite related publications that provide evidence of engaging these groups through my creative communication approaches, for example:



Illingworth, S., Bell, A., Capstick, S., Corner, A., Forster, P., Leigh, R., Loroño Leturiondo, M., Muller, C., Richardson, H. and Shuckburgh, E., 2018. Representing the majority and not the minority: the importance of the individual in communicating climate change. Geoscience Communication, 1(1), pp.9-24.

Illingworth, S. and Jack, K., 2018. Rhyme and reason-using poetry to talk to underserved audiences about environmental change. Climate Risk Management, 19, pp.120-129.

Comment 5: To illustrate poetry methods in disseminating climate change impacts, I will include some examples of the poems that I have written in Section 2 after this approach is introduced.

Comment 6: After introducing tabletop games in Section 2, I will include some images of the games that I have designed and them being played by different audiences.

Comment 7: In Section 2 where I claim tabletop games promote understanding, I will add the following references to back up my claims:

Martindale, R.C. and Weiss, A.M., 2020. “Taphonomy: Dead and fossilized”: A new board game designed to teach college undergraduate students about the process of fossilization. Journal of Geoscience Education, 68(3), pp.265-285.

Pfirman, S., O’Garra, T., Bachrach Simon, E., Brunacini, J., Reckien, D., Lee, J.J. and Lukasiewicz, E., 2021. “Stickier” learning through gameplay: An effective approach to climate change education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 69(2), pp.192-206.

Comment 8: I will reword the sentence on digital games to remove any suggestion they are less effective, focusing only on the relative advantages of tabletop games for certain communication goals.

Comment 9: In Section 3 when stating poetry/games facilitate dissemination, I will add the following references to cite examples of studies that demonstrate this:

Illingworth, S., 2020. “This bookmark gauges the depths of the human”: how poetry can help to personalise climate change. Geoscience Communication, 3(1), pp.35-47.

Fung, M.K., Tedesco, L.R. and Katz, M.E., 2015. Games and climate literacy. Nature Geoscience, 8(8), pp.576-576.

Comment 10: Rather than asserting poetry makes participants "feel equal", I will instead explore in further detail how poetry helps to level hierarchies through creating a safe space for dialogue and experimentation.

Comment 11: Similarly, I will clarify this by referring to my earlier work that demonstrates how this has been done:

Illingworth, S., Bell, A., Capstick, S., Corner, A., Forster, P., Leigh, R., Loroño Leturiondo, M., Muller, C., Richardson, H. and Shuckburgh, E., 2018. Representing the majority and not the minority: the importance of the individual in communicating climate change. Geoscience Communication, 1(1), pp.9-24.

Illingworth, S. and Jack, K., 2018. Rhyme and reason-using poetry to talk to underserved audiences about environmental change. Climate Risk Management, 19, pp.120-129.

Comment 12: I will modify the paper to highlight how this game was playtested with 105 players, of whom 65 participated in formal post-game surveys. The initial playtesting undertaken with friends did not involve formal surveys; instead, we asked informal questions on gameplay and mechanics, using responses to further develop the game. In subsequent playtests, players completed a survey (see Supplementary Material) via Google Forms, which outlined the study and purpose of collecting feedback. In some cases, paper copies were provided, with the authors manually inputting playtester responses into Google Forms. All responses were downloaded for analysis.

Comment 13: I will modify the text to give some specific examples of how the dialogues that are mentioned in these references have led to action e.g., policy changes, training workshops, further collaborations, etc.

Comment 14: I will insert the following text to highlight what I mean by meaningful and surface-level co-creation and rephrase to use this terminology rather than ‘true’:



An example of meaningful co-creation would be a team of geoscientists partnering with an Indigenous community to study climate impacts on local ecology. The collaboration would begin by asking community leaders to shape the research goals based on their priorities, with community members trained to conduct field measurements and interpret findings. All involved would be reminded of the need for any climate adaptation strategies to be firmly grounded in Indigenous knowledge, with any study results co-published to uplift the community's voice.

Likewise, a more surface-level approach might involve a group of geoscientists inviting some local high school students to participate in an ongoing climate change study. Students would be given pre-defined research tasks like data entry and basic sample processing, with limited influence on the study design or goals. Most data interpretation and all major decisions would remain with the lead scientists, with students were recognised in acknowledgements but not credited as co-authors on any published findings.

In the first example, the hypothetical community played an active steering role at all stages, and the project design was shaped by their goals and perspectives. In the second, students had limited influence on key decisions, with the power dynamic skewed towards the scientists' leadership.

Comment 15: I will give more specific evidence of how Carbon City Zero has been used, e.g., by town hall planners to discuss issues of net zero policies with their fellow councillors.

Please let me know if you would like me to expand on any of these responses further, or if there are any other ways I can strengthen the revised manuscript based on your insightful feedback. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to provide such constructive comments.

Many Thanks,

Sam