The author has presented an an important and valuable study of an initiative to educate and engage young people in Bangladesh about environmental issues. I compliment her on her clear and engaging writing which presented the subject logically and made it a pleasure to read. The paper combines the creation of the project to increase awareness of environmental issues in children with an example of how to engage early career scientists in creating such projects, bringing their science to the public.

The two parts of the paper complement each other, and are well referenced. The illustrations show the process of developing the children's book and I found the description of the process and the collaboration interesting and instructive.

I have made a few suggestions but recommend this paper to anyone involved in educational outreach and public engagement with science.

My suggestions relate to the paper's potential readers, in that both suggest clarifying a few points for international readers.

The first is simply to clarify the start of section 2- 1, lines 58-59. I'm not sure I can visualise the size of Iowa, so the author could give a more general indication of the size of Bangladesh. 

The second point relates more generally to a description of the demographic of the children.Line 76 refers to 'primary school' and it would be helpful to clarify the school system, again for international readers.

At section 2.2, could the author clarify the target age range of the children.

At section 2-3, line 141, again just define 'primary 'and 'secondary' briefly for readers who might be familiar with a different school system. Similarly, line 161, clarify American high schools and colleges.

Technical:

One grammatical suggestion: at line 178 'faculty' is singular, so recommend "...faculty develops...".

Please find attached my suggested edits (pretty much entirely grammatical) for the MS - the only further point I might make to the author is that maybe a very slight change of emphasis at some point might be helpful with regard to the difference between such an approach being useful, to perhaps suggesting that it is actually essential: specifically, if children's resources are not being produced by science-based individuals, then the ground is being ceded to other messages and narratives that might run counter to evidence. Although this is a clear imperative for narratives related to climate change, this necessity goes far broader and indeed it is not that much of a stretch of the imagination to envisage it becoming more of a standard requirement as a research outcome for scientific projects. So, as we have moved to learning to do press releases, and infographics to summarise our research, we will more regularly have a requirement to produce a children's digest as well. The Roanoke College model is ripe for emulation across the educational community.