Thank you very much for your detailed comments. Please find responses to your comments outlined below.

The study investigates the effectiveness of incorporating geocultural context in the production of short videos to communicate about Quaternary geoheritage. This topic is highly relevant, contemporary and suitable for the readership of ‘Geoscience Communication’. The study area and the type of heritage are relatively underrepresented in the scientific literature, thereby adding further interest to the research.

Thank you very much. This comment is much appreciated and we are very happy to be receiving this comment, as the paper was generated to address the existing gap in the research area.

The article is excessively lengthy, resembling a master's thesis or report. A substantial amount of information in the initial sections lacks direct relevance to the problem framing, methodological approach, or discussion of the results. The introduction needs a critical rewriting and shortening focused on what really matters to the article’s readers. For example, the aims of the study (page 5) could be stated in one or two sentences, the regional setting has too many details (page 5).

We will work on reducing the manuscript length following the comments provided by yourself and other reviewers, in order to improve its focus and cohesiveness. We agree that there was unnecessary information in the regional settings section. It will be revised and refined to streamline the flow of the article. Also, we will consider removing other tangential information in the introduction section. We will also rewrite and condense the aims of the paper as well.

The methodology outlined in Section 3 needs refinement to improve clarity and accuracy, especially Section 3.3. For instance, in the first sentence of Section 3.3, it is stated that “An online experiment was conducted using the videos produced in the second phase of the study,” which is incorrect. The study started in Phase 1 with a focus group—independent of an online format (or was it?). 

The study did proceed from an initial offline focus group, which is outlined in Section 3.1. Section 3.3, cited here, specifically describes the online experimental component of the study which built on the work from the prior phases. We will carefully edit the explanations in this section to ensure that the steps taken in the study can be clearly understood and to avoid any misinterpretation by readers.

Details such as the number of participants in the focus groups, as well as in the pre-test, post-test, and follow-up surveys, should be explicitly included in this section (methods).

Thank you for the suggestion. This information is currently stated in the results section, but we agree that it is more appropriate for it to be presented earlier in the paper in the methodology section.

I strongly recommend that the authors consult peer-reviewed scientific articles where similar analyses are conducted, to learn how to conduct and describe such studies. Just as an example, terminology such as “a wave” to describe the timing of surveys is inappropriate.

The term “wave” is commonly used to describe timed recontact phases in panel surveys, especially in the social science field – for example, see the usage of the terminology “wave 1”, “wave 2” etc. by the European Social Survey (e.g. https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/news/article/new-panel-survey-data-now-available) or Eurobarometer’s reference to six annual waves (https://www.gesis.org/en/eurobarometer-data-service). Since our paper describes a methodology which had multiple research phases, we did not wish to risk confusion by reusing the term “phase” for our recontact studies, and thus opted for the term “wave” instead. Having consulted other papers with similar methodologies, we believe that our use of the terminology is appropriate and should avoid confusion – however, we will add a brief explanation of how we are using the terms in order to improve clarity.

A critical concern is the reason for requesting participants to specify their names in the questionnaires. If the aim is to track individual opinion evolution, participants should be assigned anonymised codes. Furthermore, asking for extensive personal information—such as email addresses, WhatsApp contacts, and study institution—is unnecessary and raises ethical considerations

Thank you for pointing this out. This was a topic mentioned in the ethics review conducted for the study as well. However, given recommendations from local collaborators for continuous engagement in a longitudinal study, the personal data were considered necessary to reach out to the participants effectively for completion of the study. When analysing the data, the participants were assigned anonymised codes, and no personal data were used in this regard. The personal data were safeguarded through dedicated procedure outlined by the Central University Research Ethics Committee of the University of Oxford, from which we have received approval to conduct this study (https://researchsupport.admin.ox.ac.uk/governance/ethics/committees/curec). If necessary, we will add this information in the text for clarity.

Another important limitation is that the sample is not representative of the wider population. The assumption underlying the sampling method (as outlined in...) pertains to random sampling within a homogeneous population. However, the sampling was non-random and based on convenience. Consequently, the results are only applicable to a highly educated subgroup within a specific locale.

We are aware of this limitation in our study, and although we have discussed it in various sections of the paper, we will add further wording to emphasise this point. Our methodology aimed to address the limitations of the sample to the best extent possible, by using a multi-stage approach which allowed us to control for baseline values, but of course the nature of the convenience sample remains an important caveat, and we will work to express that caveat more clearly in the updated text.

To reliably analyse the three survey timings, it is essential to work with the same sample across all phases; employing different samples for each phase is methodologically inappropriate. Variations in sample sizes among the timings means that they constitute different groups, which could account for some of the unexpected results observed in the data displayed on the manuscript figures. Only the data from participants who completed all three surveys (n=82) should be used for the longitudinal analysis. 

Due to the limited size of the survey, we chose to focus on changes within groups rather than within individuals for the primary analysis, but we agree that potentially non-random patterns in survey drop-outs are a concern, and a longitudinal analysis focusing only on those who completed all three waves would be a great addition to the study. We will conduct this additional analysis as a robustness check and include its results in the updated paper, as well as investigating whether it may help to explain some of the discrepancies in the results as the reviewer suggests.

Despite these more specific issues, it is evident that the manuscript requires a major revision and thorough rewriting before a detailed critique of all points can be carried out effectively.

Thank you for pointing out the issues with the paper. We will rewrite elements that require attention and shorten the overall manuscript for better flow, focus, and clarity.

Once again, we appreciate your kind review and look forward to making the suggested edits accordingly.

Thank you very much for your detailed and thoughtful comments. Please find responses to points you have made below on a one-by-one basis. Your comments were all very much appreciated to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Communicating the value of heritage sites worldwide and engaging the public with geosciences is crucial to addressing the climate crisis and the lack of interest in the topic. As such, this study provides important insights into how to connect with the public effectively and communicate the value of preserving geoheritage. 

Thank you very much for this comment and I very much agree that there is increased need for science communication to promote and engage more people with geoheritage sites. We hope this study provides a way forward in strategising how such communication can be conducted.

However, in its present form, the study lacks a lot of structure and provides few details, making it difficult to follow for communicators interested in replicating this experiment.

We will make the revisions based on your inputs along with the inputs provided by the fellow reviewers.

There is insufficient information on how the focus group was performed and how this informed the video. I was expecting much more regarding the criteria to include the Examples in the two videos. Is it because these sites could be candidates for becoming UNESCO Global Geoparks? Or is it because these sites have some well-documented archaeological research attached? Are they critically endangered? This could have been described in the regional setting.

As you pointed out, the focus group results lacked an explanation of how it fed into the contents of the video. We will add more information in this regard. The different sites used as examples were selected to represent a wide array of Quaternary geoheritage sites in the region. We will provide better explanation of why these sites were selected, to highlight the features that makes them distinctive and interesting to be included in the video.

Regarding the influence of the focus groups: did they know what the audience targeted for the videos was?

Yes, indeed, there was comprehensive explanation in the beginning of the focus group. It was one of the first information provided in the introduction of the focus group. However, this information was not explicitly mentioned in the manuscript. We will make revisions so that this information is clearly presented.

Were the videos intended to be screened in museums or universities? Attached to a special exhibition?

No, the videos were not screened in museums or universities, or attached to a special exhibition. The video was design specifically for the research conducted. We will add text in the manuscript to clarify this point.

Currently, both videos have a lot of specialised content that is not explained. Worth mentioning are the following: a) the video does not explain what a facies is, but it is used as an important plot line to say these quaternary geosites are important to understand climate changes; b) the video moves too fast in temporal scale, by including information regarding the 4.56 billion years of geological record but without really explaining much of this geology in southeast Arabia; c) the cultural aspect is glossed over and it is not readily clear if they four sites represent the same ages in the Quaternary or if they are all from different sections. It seems that most participants were very familiar with the jargon and chronologies to understand much of the video, but it is not aimed at outreach to the public; d) non-specialised public is introduced to too many topics in 9 minutes, namely deep-time, several geological scales, archaeological evidence, sedimentation and depositional environments, types of erosion, and names of geomorphological structures. Nevertheless, my comments come from assuming that the video is addressed to the general public. I can see how that long video could be more informative if these topics were explained in an exhibition at a site museum or a geopark.

The video was not produced as a material to provide comprehensive information about geoheritage sites or geology in general. We agree that a lot ofspecialised knowledge was introduced, but the purpose of this video was not to provide full explanations of each structure or concept, but to provide an overview and see if such an overview can interest viewers and change their knowledge level and/or attitude for conservation of Quaternary geoheritage sites. The participants were also given a list of resources that they can use to gain further information about the topics introduced. We will add this point into the manuscript for better clarity. Furthermore, a long video for use at a site museum or a geopark could be interesting to understand its effects, but such a consideration is beyond the scope of this current study.

How was the survey translated into Arabic? Was the difference between the responses given in Arabic and English relevant? 

The survey was translated by one of the authors, Mr Al Rawahi, who is a native speaker of Arabic. This information will be added for clarity in the text. The differences between the languages were considered, but was deemed irrelevant and therefore not mentioned in the manuscript.

How was the quiz compiled? Can the quiz be included as a supplement as well? Currently, it only reports identifying the photos of potential quaternary geoheritage sites. What was the question? How was it produced? Did the focus group also discuss the nature of the quiz? What about questions regarding the archaeological findings?

The details of the quiz were incorporated in the questionnaire. There were two quiz questions in each questionnaire (Q11 and Q18.1 in the first wave, Q3 and Q12.1 in the second wave, Q11 and Q19.1 in the third wave) and they and are outlined in appendix i. The questions were prepared by the authors, and it was not an element discussed in the focus group, as the focus group was conducted with the objective of identifying the most appropriate elements to include in the video. The answers to the Quaternary landscape question were outlined or explained in the video, but the relationship between Quaternary geology and question was only explained in the video with the cultural components. We will rephrase the term “quiz” to “knowledge test questions” to clarify the nature of the question asked, as “quiz” may give an impression that there were many questions asked.

Also missing is a breakdown of the survey answers. This would enable us to understand the demographics of the respondents and the difference between different groupings (non-nationals v nationals, specialists v non-specialists, geoscientists v others, among other combinations). I think all this information could replace most of what is given in the introduction and methods, and many statistical results could be summarised to expand on these details. Breaking it down by groups may yield interesting results.

The results of the study, especially in the statistical analysis, already provides a breakdown of specialists vs non-specialists, as identified in the text and Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Geoscientists vs others would result in a similar composition to the specialists vs non-specialists analysis. Nationals vs non-nationals was not reported as there were insufficient non-nationals in the study to give statistically robust inferences; however, on re-examining the figures we noted that almost all non-nationals were UAE residents, so some limited inferences may be possible on the contrast between UAE nationals and non-nationals specifically. If these analyses can be conducted in a sufficiently robust manner, we will include them in the updated paper.

However, I disagree with the current conclusions that suggest this study is representative of the populations, mostly since I do not think the wider public would be interested in videos relying so much on previous knowledge.

This is a valid perspective, and we have endeavoured to ensure that the limitations of the study and the sample used are clear in the paper. We agree that further work on this topic is required to investigate the efficacy of these kinds of treatments on the general public.

Again, thank you so much for making valuable comments and pointing out ways in which the article can improve. We look forward to making the necessary edits.

Thank you very much for your detailed and thoughtful comments to our paper. I appreciate your insight, both on the quality of the paper itself, and on the technical elements that you have pointed out. Please find our responses on a one-by-one basis to the points you raised below:

I would also expect more detailed information about the production of the videos and the design of quizzes.

This point is well noted, and we will work on adding more details of these two points in the manuscript.

I also have to admit that I did not watch these videos simply because the links did not work when I was going to see them (maybe just today?).

The videos should be available for download and viewing in the link outline in the text. We have tested the link on 26/09/2025 and it was working well. Please kindly check again.

My general impression is that the paper is overlong in the Results sections and the results of different tests are better presented in a synthetic form, with the aid of one composite graph and table rather than split into many. As it is now, it offers a monotonous, not very engaging reading.

We will consider ways to consolidate the graphs and tables to make them more space-efficient, while maintaining the information that we would like to communicate.

The second impression is that not all aims of the study formulated in L227-232 have been finally addressed. This mainly regards the aim #2. This paper does not really offer any recommendations "how effectively the connections between Quaternary geoheritage sites and local culture (i.e. history and archaeology) can be communicated to the public in this region". Perhaps this intended aim can be simply removed.

This is a very important and valid point. We will take it into account and we shall take out aim #2. Thank you for pointing it out.

Third, two limitations are listed in the penultimate paragraph (L1013-1017), but the third important factor is the nature of Quaternary geoheritage itself which varies from one environment to another (as well as its geocultural dimension). In arid lands such as Oman and UAE the sedimentary and landform record of the Quaternary is well visible; it is not so in humid, vegetated environments, where we only have occasional insights. Further, landforms such as dunes or cave speleothems are much more captivating than many other types of relief, equally important to understand the Quaternary. I guess that even non-specialists in Arabia are familiar with dunes, whereas the vast majority of general public in central and western Europe is likely unaware of the existence of large dune fields, now under vegetation.

The point that Quaternary geoheritage sites are visible and apparent in Oman and the UAE is a very important point that we will emphasise more in the regional setting section. Thank you for your suggestion.

Another issue is that while the paper as a whole is quite extensively referenced, there is very little conceptual background provided about the linkages between geoheritage and cultural heritage, which is now explored in different papers from different geomorphological and cultural settings. Multiple themes are addressed within this broader framework (a few review-type papers and book chapters have been published in the recent years) and it would be interesting to have an overview which ones can be developed in Oman/UAE and which ones have been included into the video for the treatment group.

We will include a short review to address this point in the introduction.

L79 It is incorrect to identify a 'geomorphosite' through solely its aesthetic attributes. I fear that Reynard et al. (2009) was misunderstood. Please see his chapter "Geomorphosites: definition and characteristics" (available from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266021163_The_assessment_of_geomorphosites) for the thorough discussion of the concept. Another useful reference source is Coratza and Hobléa (2018), The Specificities of Geomorphological Heritage, included into "Geoheritage" book by Elsevier.

Thank you for your comment, we will revise accordingly.

L97-98 This suggests that Quaternary sites are synonyms of geomorphosites. They are not. Some geomorphosites show landform elements which have roots in the more distant past and were subject to minimal change during the Quaternary, while some Quaternary sites are not really geomorphological sites (e.g., lake sediments).

Thank you for your comment, we will revise accordingly.

L243 How is the difference between "alluvium and gravel" and "fluvial" understood? Alluvium is a fluvial (waterlaid) deposit, whereas adding "gravel" is unnecessary and confusing, as it introduces a component of lithology missing in other categories.

Fluvial describes processes, actions, or systems related to rivers and streams, while alluvial describes the material (sediment) deposited by rivers and streams or the features formed by this material. We will take out “gravel” from the manuscript.

Finally, I think that in L280, L386 and L407 the correct phrasing should be "focus group MEETINGS (were designed)", whereas in L842 it should be "Relationship between Quaternary Geology and Archaeology" (not "Quaternary geoheritage sites" again).

Thank you for pointing this out, we will revise accordingly.

A purely technical comment is that section 1.5 is missing (1.6 should become 1.5).

Thank you for pointing this out, we will revise accordingly.

Again, we very much appreciate your thoughtful and very detailed comments. We look forward to revising the manuscript accordingly.