Inundation: A Gaming App for a Sustainable Approach to Sea Level Rise
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Introduction
The article provides an in-depth description of "Inundation," a single-player online game specifically designed for young individuals, particularly those in secondary education, within Mediterranean coastal communities. This game has been created by the SAVEMEDCOAST2 project, which is funded by the European Union. The game aims to educate and raise awareness about the risks associated with sea level rise, thereby fostering a culture of resilience. The article discusses the methodology employed in the development of the game, evaluates its strengths and weaknesses, and assesses its effectiveness in achieving the intended educational and resilience-building outcomes.
2. Content Evaluation
Originality and Scientific Contribution: The game "Inundation" represents an innovative and interesting contribution to the field of climate change education and community resilience. It utilises an engaging and interactive approach to educate young people about the imminent risks posed by sea level rise and the importance of resilience. The originality of the work is evident in its creative approach to a serious global issue. By targeting a younger demographic, the project taps into a crucial audience that will shape future community responses to climate challenges.
Methodology: The methodology described in the article is thorough and well-articulated. The authors have provided a clear rationale for the choices made during the game's development, including the selection of target demographics, the design elements, and the educational strategies employed. The transparency in highlighting both the strengths and the pros and cons of the methodology enhances the credibility of the study. This openness allows for a more nuanced understanding of the game's development process and provides a solid foundation for future improvements.
Results: Considering the game itself as a result, its detailed description of the game "Inundation," is clear and comprehensive. The authors have successfully conveyed how the game functions, its key features, and the educational objectives it aims to achieve. The strengths and weaknesses of the game are discussed transparently. This includes insights into the game's design, the user experience, and the educational outcomes observed during initial trials. Such a balanced presentation of the results is valuable for understanding the game's impact and areas for enhancement. On the other hand, while the overall results drawn are generally sound, there is room for further elaboration. For instance, the inclusion of more detailed findings from the trial conducted in Spain, such as the specific questions from the questionnaire or the interviews conducted with participants, would strengthen the conclusions and provide a richer understanding of the game's effectiveness.
Discussion and Conclusions: Both the discussion and the conclusions section effectively interpret the results and situates them within the broader context of climate education and community resilience. The commentary is insightful and connects the game's outcomes to existing literature and theoretical frameworks, even if it could be expanded.
3. Structure and Style
Organisation of the Article: The article is well-organised and follows a logical structure that facilitates a clear understanding of the content. The flow from the introduction to the methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions is smooth and coherent.
Clarity and Precision of Language: The language used throughout the article is clear, precise, and free from grammatical or punctuation errors. This clarity enhances the readability and accessibility of the article. However, I would recommend revising the use of the term "natural disasters" [line 16] in the abstract. According to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), a disaster is inherently anthropogenic but can be triggered by natural phenomena. Therefore, it would be more accurate to use terms such as "disasters induced by/originated from/linked with natural phenomena."
Use of Figures: The figures included in the article are relevant and well-integrated into the text. They effectively support the narrative and provide visual clarity to the discussed concepts. To enhance the quality of the presentation, I would suggest improving the resolution of the game screenshots. Higher quality images would make the text within the screenshots readable and provide a clearer representation of the game's interface and features.
4. References
The bibliography is relevant and includes a good selection of sources that support the study. However, it could be expanded to incorporate more recent studies and additional references that discuss similar educational tools and resilience-building strategies. This expansion would not only strengthen the theoretical foundation of the article but also situate it more firmly within the current discourse on climate change education and community resilience
5. Final Recommendations
General Comments: Overall, the article presents an original and well-structured piece of research. The methodology is clear, and the results are described in detail. The discussion provides a thoughtful interpretation of the findings, and the article is well-written and organised. There are, however, areas for improvement that could enhance the overall quality of the article. These include expanding the discussion with additional literature references, improving the quality of visual elements, and providing more detailed insights into the evaluation methodologies used.
Review Decision: I recommend acceptance with minor revisions. Specifically, I suggest the following:
i. Expand the references section to include more recent and relevant studies.
ii. Improve the quality of the game screenshots to ensure readability and clarity.
iii. Replace the term "natural disasters" with more accurate terminology, in line with UNDRR guidelines.
iv. Add more details on the evaluation methodologies, such as the specific questions used in the questionnaire or the insights from interviews conducted during the trial.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have carefully read the submitted paper "Inundation: a gaming app for a sustainable approach to sea level rise, although the article explores the interesting and innovative topic of raising public awareness of sea level rise through serious games, after careful evaluation, I do not think the paper meets the criteria for publication at present and therefore recommend rejection. The following are my specific review comments:
1. The article describes the design and implementation process of "Inundation" game in a general way, lacking specific design details and technical implementation steps. There is little mention of key aspects of game development, such as interface design, interaction logic, algorithm implementation, etc., which makes it difficult for readers to fully evaluate the science and effectiveness of the game.
2. The article mentions the use of questionnaires and player feedback to evaluate the effectiveness of the game, but it doesn't go into much detail about the data and the results of its statistical analysis. The lack of concrete quantitative data to support the conclusions of the article makes readers question the assessment of the actual effects of the game. In addition, the size and representativeness of the sample size were not clearly stated.
3. Although the discussion section mentioned the application prospect of serious games in disaster risk education, it lacked in-depth analysis of the specific advantages and limitations of "Inundation" games. For example, the article does not adequately explore how games can effectively increase public awareness and preparedness for sea level rise.
4. While the conclusions highlight the potential of games to improve public awareness, the generalizability and generalization of these conclusions is questionable due to the lack of extensive evidence and data support. In addition, the paper does not mention future research directions or suggestions, which limits the academic contribution and application value of the paper.
5. Authors are strongly advised to thoroughly check for grammatical and spelling errors that may not meet this publication's standards, for example, in line 17, the first letter of "internet" should be capitalized.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI have carefully read the submitted paper "Inundation: a gaming app for a sustainable approach to sea level rise, although the article explores the interesting and innovative topic of raising public awareness of sea level rise through serious games, after careful evaluation, I do not think the paper meets the criteria for publication at present and therefore recommend rejection. The following are my specific review comments:
1. The article describes the design and implementation process of "Inundation" game in a general way, lacking specific design details and technical implementation steps. There is little mention of key aspects of game development, such as interface design, interaction logic, algorithm implementation, etc., which makes it difficult for readers to fully evaluate the science and effectiveness of the game.
2. The article mentions the use of questionnaires and player feedback to evaluate the effectiveness of the game, but it doesn't go into much detail about the data and the results of its statistical analysis. The lack of concrete quantitative data to support the conclusions of the article makes readers question the assessment of the actual effects of the game. In addition, the size and representativeness of the sample size were not clearly stated.
3. Although the discussion section mentioned the application prospect of serious games in disaster risk education, it lacked in-depth analysis of the specific advantages and limitations of "Inundation" games. For example, the article does not adequately explore how games can effectively increase public awareness and preparedness for sea level rise.
4. While the conclusions highlight the potential of games to improve public awareness, the generalizability and generalization of these conclusions is questionable due to the lack of extensive evidence and data support. In addition, the paper does not mention future research directions or suggestions, which limits the academic contribution and application value of the paper.
5. Authors are strongly advised to thoroughly check for grammatical and spelling errors that may not meet this publication's standards, for example, in line 17, the first letter of "internet" should be capitalized.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article describes an attempt to stimulate interest and curiosity about the phenomenon of sea level rise, particularly among younger generations, with a serious digital game presented for the first time. “Inundation” focuses on an overlooked phenomenon despite its impact on coastal areas worldwide. The game aims to complete tests that require knowledge of the phenomenon to protect the assigned territory from sea flooding. The reviewer would like to propose the following comments based on the contents of the manuscript.
1. In 2. Addressing the rise in sea levels through serious gaming: the background. The framework upon which this work is based include the scientific issue of the rise of the sea level and the approach of enhance coping capacity of communities at risk through effective engagement of youth in order to allow a sustainable intervention. What is the relationship between them?
2. In 2.2. The gaming approach. Digital serious games are particularly appealing to the younger, digitally native generation who have grown up surrounded by technology. They offer a potentially effective medium for instilling disaster management skills and their popularity is growing in science and technology education. The digital serious games need further definition.
3. Figure 1. Snapshot of Inundation. The scenario is set from the year 2030 to 2100 (indicated by the top horizontal bar). The map displays the city of Venice in 2030, and the right panel shows the three other possible game locations: Basento (Italy), Chalastra (Greece), and the Ebro Delta (Spain). Initially, all four locations have a flood level of 1%. To progress through the game, the player mustspin the wheel by pressing the button in the lower right corner. The figure name is too long and needs further simplification
4. Some relevant work may be added to make a more complete literature review. E.g. Parameter estimation of grouting pressure and surface subsidence on the reliability of shield tunnel excavation under incomplete probability information. Computers and Geotechnics,2024,173, 106530. Characterizing anisotropic spatial variations of uncertain mechanical parameters for clay layer using incomplete probability data. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics,2024,76, 103623.
5. The conclusion should not only repeat the content of the text, but should sublimate on the basis of the previous text to extract the core views and research results. Make sure that the conclusion section provides new insights and comprehensive answers to research questions, rather than simply rehashing previous content. It is recommended to rewrite the conclusion point by point
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks to the authors for the careful revision and supplement of the article. After reviewing the revised article "Inundation: a gaming app for a sustainable approach to sea level rise", I feel that the article has been significantly improved in several areas, but there are still some areas that need further improvement. The following are my specific review comments:
1. The authors have improved the text based on the comments of the reviewers, making it more concise and incorporating previous and current theoretical background and empirical research. This is reflected in the revision, especially in the references to "theoretical background" and "empirical research".
2. The authors have defined the study design, questions, hypotheses, and methods. However, I suggest that the author further elaborate on the selection and implementation of the research methodology to ensure that readers can fully understand the science and validity of the research.
3. Although the authors have improved the text, I think the discussion section still needs to be strengthened. In particular, more in-depth analysis is needed of the specific advantages and limitations of "submergence" games in increasing public awareness and preparedness for the issue of sea level rise.
4. The authors have improved the way the results are presented. To further strengthen the persuasive power of the article, it is suggested that the author provide more quantitative data to support the study results, such as by adding statistical analysis to show specific data on the impact of the game on the participants.
5. The authors have added 10 references, which help address the issues raised earlier. Authors are advised to ensure that all citations are up to date and closely related to the research topic.
6. The authors have completely rewritten the conclusions and highlighted possible future research directions. This is a good improvement, but authors are advised to ensure that the conclusions are closely linked to the results and discussions presented in the article and to avoid overgeneralization.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThanks to the authors for the careful revision and supplement of the article. After reviewing the revised article "Inundation: a gaming app for a sustainable approach to sea level rise", I feel that the article has been significantly improved in several areas, but there are still some areas that need further improvement. The following are my specific review comments:
1. The authors have improved the text based on the comments of the reviewers, making it more concise and incorporating previous and current theoretical background and empirical research. This is reflected in the revision, especially in the references to "theoretical background" and "empirical research".
2. The authors have defined the study design, questions, hypotheses, and methods. However, I suggest that the author further elaborate on the selection and implementation of the research methodology to ensure that readers can fully understand the science and validity of the research.
3. Although the authors have improved the text, I think the discussion section still needs to be strengthened. In particular, more in-depth analysis is needed of the specific advantages and limitations of "submergence" games in increasing public awareness and preparedness for the issue of sea level rise.
4. The authors have improved the way the results are presented. To further strengthen the persuasive power of the article, it is suggested that the author provide more quantitative data to support the study results, such as by adding statistical analysis to show specific data on the impact of the game on the participants.
5. The authors have added 10 references, which help address the issues raised earlier. Authors are advised to ensure that all citations are up to date and closely related to the research topic.
6. The authors have completely rewritten the conclusions and highlighted possible future research directions. This is a good improvement, but authors are advised to ensure that the conclusions are closely linked to the results and discussions presented in the article and to avoid overgeneralization.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revisions are satisfactory to this reviewer. The manuscript is recommended for publication after spell check and equation editing.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
