PCLM-D-26-00223

Putting children at the heart of climate change adaptation policies via Allyship, Bias Recognition and Child Centeredness: A global qualitative interview study

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Zangerl,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 06 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Diogo Guedes Vidal, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

-->-->1. Please send a completed 'Competing Interests' statement, including any COIs declared by your co-authors. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist". Otherwise please declare all competing interests beginning with the statement "I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests:"-->--> -->-->2. Please ensure that your Ethics Statement is available in its entirety at the beginning of your Methods section, under a subheading 'Ethics Statement'. -->--> -->-->3. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.-->--> -->-->a. Please clarify all sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants (with grant number) or organizations (with url) that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. -->-->b. State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant.-->-->c. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”-->-->d. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.-->--> -->--> -->-->4. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format.-->--> -->-->For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:  LINK-->--> -->--> -->-->https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/figures -->-->https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/figures#loc-file-requirements -->--> -->--> 5. In the online submission form, you indicated that "data used in this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.". -->--> -->-->All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either -->-->1. In a public repository, -->-->2. Within the manuscript itself, or -->-->3. Uploaded as supplementary information.-->--> -->-->This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons by return email and your exemption request will be escalated to the editor for approval. Your exemption request will be handled independently and will not hold up the peer review process, but will need to be resolved should your manuscript be accepted for publication. One of the Editorial team will then be in touch if there are any issues.-->--> -->--> -->-->6.  Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOS’s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOS’s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.-->--> -->-->Please respond directly to this email or email the journal office and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility. -->--> -->-->Potential Copyright Issues:-->--> -->--> -->-->a. "NAPCHA-ABC FRAMEWORK 1.jpg.png": Please confirm whether you drew the images / clip-art within the figure panels by hand. If you did not draw the images, please provide (a) a link to the source of the images or icons and their license / terms of use; or (b) written permission from the copyright holder to publish the images or icons under our CC-BY 4.0 license. Alternatively, you may replace the images with open source alternatives. See these open source resources you may use to replace images / clip-art:-->-->- https://commons.wikimedia.org-->-->- https://openclipart.org/-->--> -->-->b. "NAPCHA-MAP V2.jpg.png": please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC-BY 4.0 license. -->--> -->-->Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.-->--> -->-->If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC-BY 4.0 license.-->--> -->-->Please note that the following CC BY licenses are compatible with PLOS license: CC BY 4.0, CC BY 2.0 and CC BY 3.0, meanwhile such licenses as CC BY-ND 3.0 and others are not compatible due to additional restrictions. -->--> -->-->If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps: -->-->* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov) -->-->* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite “PlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0” in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl) -->-->* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/)-->--> -->--> -->?>

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Overview

The main goal of the study is to identify facilitators for incorporating child health into climate adaptation policies through in-depth interviews with researchers and policymakers. This inquiry was conducted by interviewing 18 stakeholders across 11 countries and 5 continents, representing diverse geographic locations and income levels, all involved in developing National Adaptation Plans (NAPs). The authors analyzed verbatim transcripts thematically, identifying three main themes that frame the inclusion of children in NAPs: Attract Allies (across government sectors and geographic boundaries), Beware Biases (to overcome hesitation about legitimate child needs), and Collaborate with Children.

This study is highly relevant, especially at a time when major questions remain regarding the implementation of climate policies, alongside a persistent inertia in adopting ambitious climate mitigation and adaptation measures. While public discourse often states that "children are the future," children are actually active agents of the present who are already—and will continue to be—disproportionately harmed by climate change. The paper is very clear in presenting this issue from a health perspective. The introduction is well-structured and well-argued, and the visual representations are useful and clearly explained.

However, while the overview of how different countries approach this issue is highly interesting, the study would benefit from a more critical perspective on several aspects. In its current form, the claim that "the ABC framework can guide efforts on how to best incorporate children’s health needs into responsive climate change adaptation policies" feels overly ambitious compared to what is presented (see point 7).

I suggest adopting a more critical approach in the theoretical framework to problematize the (institutional) role of children and youth in climate debates. I highly recommend engaging with the following literature to strengthen this aspect:

• Trott, C. (2024). Ambivalent Adultism: Theorizing Hostile and Benevolent Adultism as Barriers to Intergenerational Climate Justice. PsyArXiv.

• Trott, C. D. (2019). Reshaping our world: Collaborating with children for community-based climate change action. Action Research, 17(1), 42–62.

• Trott, C. D. (2024). “It Can’t Just Be the Younger People”: Exploring Young Activists’ Perspectives on Intergenerational Tensions and Solidarities for Climate Justice. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 34(6).

• Thew, H., Karsgaard, C., Marquardt, J., Rist, C., & Yona, L. (2021). Youth Participation in UN Climate Change Conferences: Challenges and Opportunities.

• Thew, H., Middlemiss, L., & Paavola, J. (2022). “You Need a Month’s Holiday Just to Get over It!” Exploring Young People’s Lived Experiences of the UN Climate Change Negotiations. Sustainability, 14(7).

• Hayes, T., Walker, C., Parsons, K., Arya, D., Bowman, B., Germaine, C., Lock, R., Langford, S., Peacock, S., & Thew, H. (2023). In it together! Cultivating space for intergenerational dialogue, empathy and hope in a climate of uncertainty. Children’s Geographies, 21(5), 803–818.

• Thew, H., Middlemiss, L., & Paavola, J. (2020). “Youth Is Not a Political Position”: Exploring Justice Claims-Making in the UN Climate Change Negotiations. Global Environmental Change, 61.

Specific Comments & Clarifications

1. Regarding climate anxiety (line 55), it is important to expand the explanation beyond a symptomatic, medical/health perspective. The authors should highlight the critical socio-political drivers involved, particularly youth frustration with institutions that fail to implement agreed-upon plans. Framing the issue this way helps restore political agency to children and young people (from “they are ill” to “they are very frustrated and don’t know how to do”).

2. The manuscript would benefit from the inclusion of more direct quotes from the participants. Given that this journal does not enforce a strict word limit, the authors should use this to their advantage by integrating more direct participant testimonies to support their claims.

Lines 185–188: The statement "Stakeholders described how cross-agency dialogues helped to clarify roles..." is currently too vague. What is “cross-agency”? what type of “roles”? If this vague rhetoric is a specific characteristic of the stakeholder discourse itself, this should be explicitly and critically noted in the analysis.

Lines 197–198: "ongoing dialogues with diverse stakeholders were cited..." — Please clarify who these stakeholders are, to know more about which people are talking about those issues.

Lines 373–374: Is there existing empirical work that can back up this specific statement?

Lines 425–427: This claim would benefit from direct support or illustration via participant quotes.

Lines 432–435: Could you provide concrete examples of what made these initiatives "limited in scope and structure"?

3. Given the central (and often problematic) role that political representatives and "experts" hold in defining climate action priorities, their discourses need to be unpacked more critically. Furthermore, omitting civil society organizations from the primary stakeholder pool feels like a missed opportunity. Including them could have provided a much-needed critical counter-perspective to the limited actions of political figures and might have highlighted more inclusive pathways for action. While NGOs are mentioned in the ABC model under "Attract Allies," they were left out of this specific debate, which should at least be acknowledged as a limitation or a direction for future research.

4. How were the 11 included countries selected? What were the specific inclusion criteria? It is vital to briefly acknowledge the varying degrees of climate impacts across these specific countries, and how these different vulnerabilities shape how each nation approaches and articulates its climate policy.

5. The term "empowerment" is used multiple times throughout the paper. I suggest caution here, as it has become a widely used buzzword often stripped of critical reflection. I highly recommend replacing it with more concrete terms, such as "capacity building" or "critical reflection on power dynamics," depending on the exact context. For example, in Lines 223–224, in what precise sense did stakeholders stress the importance of "empowering local governments to (...)"?

6. Lines 389–391: It should be explicitly argued that while meaningful youth inclusion yields long-term benefits, excluding them sends a harmful message that policy is none of their business. This exclusion actively contributes to the internalization of biases regarding children's political agency.

7. The Conclusion feels unfinished and needs to deliver a stronger contribution to the debate. Several nuances from the data deserve much greater emphasis:

The "honesty" of certain participants who admitted that children and youth are often merely "consulted" after decisions have already been made should be underscored as an example of tokenism.

The point made in the text that "While the interviewees did not discuss how these examples further influenced policy development, they did shed light on potential methods for youth engagement" should be expanded.

Instead of remaining diagnostic, the paper should offer guidance on how to mitigate these institutional barriers (eg., discuss Laura Lundy’s work).

The Philippines quote explicitly mentions including "children's groups, children's health groups, children's rights groups, children themselves" (Lines 311–313), and the authors rightly note that "Addressing child health in the context of climate change requires a connected governance approach that moves beyond the fragmented landscape of policymaking" (Lines 413–414).

Therefore, what do the authors concretely propose to bridge these gaps? At present, the data does not fully support the claim that "The findings of this study can serve as a guidance for policymakers and stakeholders worldwide on how to take further action...". To justify this statement, the authors must explicitly articulate the "how-to" aspect of taking further action.

Minor Points

8. Line 71: Please define the acronym "SDG" upon first use.

9. Section removal: I suggest removing the "Patient and Public Involvement" section entirely if it does not directly align with the methodology.

10. Lines 202–205: The quote from Ethiopia (ET18)—"first identify the mass and stakeholder with their issue. If climate change is impacting children, so we have to make them stakeholders first"—does not actually seem to illustrate the authors' claim of "engaging domain experts in child health to develop evidence-based strategies...". Instead, it points toward an intention to involve children themselves from the very beginning. Please provide more context for this quote or realign it with the appropriate theme.

11. Line 386: Please correct the typo in the capitalization of "Hart's Ladder" ("The HART Ladder").

Reviewer #2: The work is relevant and is scientifically well-structured. However, I believe it can and should be improved by including an analysis of the data from the perspective of environmental ethics, with particular reference to the issue of future generations.

It is a pity that a more representative sample was not included, such as Southern European countries, which would have offered slightly different perspectives and could have enriched the dialogue, as well as countries from North America and Asia.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

Putting children at the heart of climate change adaptation policies via Allyship, Bias Recognition and Child Centeredness: A global qualitative interview study

PCLM-D-26-00223R1

Dear Dr. med. univ., M.Sc. Zangerl,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Putting children at the heart of climate change adaptation policies via Allyship, Bias Recognition and Child Centeredness: A global qualitative interview study' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact climate@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Climate.

Best regards,

Diogo Guedes Vidal, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

***********************************************************

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):