Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for this analysis. Although I have read this text with great interest (given the very current attention to the diversity of learning environments), after reading it I am left with many questions and I do have some fundamental questions about the design of this literature review.

The final sample of texts you have analysed is relatively small and I also conclude from the analysis that they remain very general in terms of design principles. I'm not totally convinced about the selection criteria of your sample. I miss important information on the selection you have conducted. I miss an analysis of the type of documents you analysed: are they only scientific articles or also policy-oriented documents and very practice-oriented handbooks? Which disciplines are mainly represented in your sample (engineering, humanities, education etc.?)? What conclusions do you want to draw from this? What are your arguments to only include texts that have an explicit reference to SD-goals (what is the relevance of this criterion for your analysis and do you exclude any relevant literature by doing so?) 

I do not understand your very brief argument on the vagueness of concepts such as space and sustainability. Of course, these are complex concepts and cannot be described in a univocal way. They are concepts that need a layer of theory to bring out their full meaning. It seems that such a conceptual layer has completely disappeared from your review. I find the description of the two central concepts (space and sustainability education) extremely short and therefore expect this section to provide an insight into the different theoretical perspectives that show how space and sustainability education are multiple processes.  

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1 (R1)

R1 - Concern #1:

The final sample of texts you have analyzed is relatively small and I also conclude from the analysis that they remain very general in terms of design principles. I'm not totally convinced about the selection criteria of your sample. I miss important information on the selection you have conducted. I miss an analysis of the type of documents you analyzed: are they only scientific articles or also policy-oriented documents and very practice-oriented handbooks? Which disciplines are mainly represented in your sample (engineering, humanities, education, etc.?)? What conclusions do you want to draw from this?

R1- Authors response #1:

Thanks for your revision and comments. The analysis only included scientific articles, conference papers, and academic book chapters in English. The final sample size is the result of a reading process aimed to identify the explicit use of the main concepts presented in section 1.1. Following the PRISMA 2020 flowchart, the articles excluded do not apply to these criteria, referring to space as a timeframe or as a socio-psychological perspective. Then, the final sample was used to identify descriptions of design as a process. Additionally, in some cases, after obtaining the initial sample, it was not possible to access the full works for a proper analysis.

R1 - Authors action #1:

The manuscript has been updated, adding the concept design to clarify what has been considering to identify design principles in the analysis. Section 1.1.3 / Line 119 - 131.

The manuscript has been updated, adding a clarification of the type of documents. Section 2 / Line 136 - 138.

The manuscript has been updated, adding a general analysis of the type of documents and disciplines represented. Section 3 / Line 154 - 157.

The manuscript has been updated, adding a reflection on the disciplines represented in the sample. Section 4.3 / Line 428 - 435.

 

 R1 - Concern #2:

What are your arguments to only include texts that have an explicit reference to SD-goals (what is the relevance of this criterion for your analysis and do you exclude any relevant literature by doing so?).

 

 

R1 - Authors response #2:

Thanks for your revision and comments. In order to establish operative inclusion criteria, the SD-goals, and Education for Sustainable Development competencies were selected. It is considered that these frameworks have been conceived by experts in the field and have becoming relevant to provide a baseline in identifying actions that contribute to sustainable development. 

R1 - Authors action #2:

The manuscript has been updated to clarify the reason to consider the SD-goals as the base for inclusion criteria. Section 1.1.2 / Line 98 - 107.

 

R1 - Concern #3:

I do not understand your very brief argument on the vagueness of concepts such as space and sustainability. Of course, these are complex concepts and cannot be described in a univocal way. They are concepts that need a layer of theory to bring out their full meaning. It seems that such a conceptual layer has completely disappeared from your review. I find the description of the two central concepts (space and sustainability education) extremely short and therefore expect this section to provide an insight into the different theoretical perspectives that show how space and sustainability education are multiple processes.  

R1 - Authors response #3:

Thanks for your revision and comments. The argument refers to how the terms sustainability and space are used in the works analyzed. In order to clarify the focus of this work, Action #3 is proposed.

R1 - Authors action #3:

The manuscript has been updated, expanding the concept of learning space. Section 1.1.1 / Line 79 - 87.

The manuscript has been updated, expanding the concept of education and SD. Section 1.1.2 / Line 98 - 107.

The manuscript has been updated, reflecting on this concern. Section 4.1 / Line 386 - 392.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for this comprehensive literature review. I think you've clearly pointed out what many in this space have felt regarding the context of space and how we can enhance learning for sustainability by better respective and utilizing the space we have access to. I believe you spend too much time setting the table as to what space is and your basis of quality sustainability learning is shallow in support of that. I think if you spend more time integrating best use of learning space with immediate sustainability learning, it will better tie together the recommendations you make. I also think that while you choose the physical/hybrid/digital realms as your three, give more credit to the inter/transdisciplinary and transformative spaces you mention, as I believe that is where a lot of educators want to ultimately be, so give them a path to get to those spaces as a result of best use of the other three. There is some English typos, much toward the beginning and end. Please see my attached PDF scan with my comments for revisions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2 (R2)

R2 - Concern #1:

Thank you for this comprehensive literature review. I think you've clearly pointed out what many in this space have felt regarding the context of space and how we can enhance learning for sustainability by better respective and utilizing the space we have access to. I believe you spend too much time setting the table as to what space is and your basis of quality sustainability learning is shallow in support of that. I think if you spend more time integrating best use of learning space with immediate sustainability learning, it will better tie together the recommendations you make.

R2 - Authors response #1:

Thanks for your revision and comments. This concern has been presented by R1-Concern #3. A new version of the paper looks to expand the analysis of sustainability.

R2 - Authors action #1:

The manuscript has been updated, expanding the concept of education and SD . Section 1.1.2 / Line 98 - 107.

 

R2 - Concern #2:

I also think that while you choose the physical/hybrid/digital realms as your three, give more credit to the inter/transdisciplinary and transformative spaces you mention, as I believe that is where a lot of educators want to ultimately be, so give them a path to get to those spaces as a result of best use of the other three.

R2 - Authors response #2:

Thanks for your revision and comments. As you mention, there has been identified a growing interest in transformative actions toward sustainability. A new version of the paper looks to reflect on this concern.

R2 - Authors action #2:

The manuscript has been updated, highlighting design and policies opportunities. Section 4.3 / Line 412.

 

R2 Concern #3:

There is some English typos, much toward the beginning and end. Please see my attached PDF scan with my comments for revisions.

R2 - Authors response #2:

Thanks for your revision and comments. The PDF attached has been revised, and a new version of the manuscript has included your remarks.

R2 - Authors response #2:

Comments were revised and considered in the new version of the manuscript. An intensive revision was conducted to reduce English typos.

Reviewer 3 Report

The content is relevant nowadays. Some worldwide references could be added. Spanish authors published about this topic this year.

Methods section could be explain in more detail.  Table 1 seem not clear for readers.

Author Response

Question: The content is relevant nowadays. Some worldwide references could be added. Spanish authors published about this topic this year.

Response: Thank you for your opinion of the relevance of this research. The references have been updated and most of them are up-to-date and well approached for the topic of our manuscript.

Question: Methods section could be explain in more detail.  Table 1 seem not clear for readers.

Response: The manuscript has been updated, adding a clarification of the type of documents. Section 2 / Line 136 - 138. In section 1.1 it has been clarified the concepts used as inclusion criteria.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for answering my questions. The overall argument and analysis is much more substantiated, making the whole more focused and coherent.