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.

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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

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.