PONE-D-22-22596What can drawings tell us about children’s perceptions of nature?PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Howlett,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 Jan 06 2023 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 plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Daniel de Paiva Silva, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“K.H. is funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (grant number NE/L002507/1).”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“K.H. is funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (grant number NE/L002507/1): https://www.ukri.org/councils/nerc/. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Dr. Howlett,

After this first review round, the reviewers believe your manuscript may be accepted for publication in PLoS One after a thourough revision. Please consider all the issues raised by both reviewers and provide a rebuttal letter until February 21st 2023. Do not hesitate to write me in case you have any doubts. Also, do not hesitate to resubmit earlier in case you are able to.

Sincerely,

Daniel Silva

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Research is very interesting and analyzing drawings is a challenging task. so congratulations on the methodology. It was interesting to know that the students' perception of biodiversity does not depend on the type of school administration, this reveals that the country's educational system is egalitarian. I was curious to know if your result is compatible with other countries or the international context.

Reviewer #2: This research article reports the findings of a study assessing primary school children’s perception of nature via a drawing exercise, whereby participants were asked to draw and label the animals found within either their garden or local green space. This concise article reporting the findings from a simple study is largely written in a clear manner and the analyses performed are appropriate for the obtained data and research questions of interest. However, the article does require stronger framing, theoretical grounding and embedding of relevant existing studies/literature. The rationale for the study needs to be more transparent. Furthermore, the article is missing a critical discussion of the utility of drawing exercises for such research.

1) Currently, the intro and discussion do not acknowledge and incorporate the findings of previous drawing studies that have investigated children’s perceptions of nature. It is not clear why this omission has been made and it needs to be addressed so that your research is grounded within the body of existing studies. I’ve provided several example studies below – in particular, Montgomery et al. (2022) seems particularly pertinent wherein biodiversity perception was assessed by children drawing what they thought was in their school grounds. Children initially perceived few organisms within easily visible taxa, and perceived more vertebrates compared to invertebrate species. After, children were more aware of taxa, resulting in a more reflective biodiversity perception.

Aaron, R.F. and Witt, P.A., 2011. Urban students' definitions and perceptions of nature. Children Youth and Environments, 21(2), pp.145-167.

Drissner, J.R., Haase, H.M., Wittig, S. and Hille, K., 2014. Short-term environmental education: long-term effectiveness? Journal of Biological Education, 48(1), pp.9-15.

Montgomery, L.N., Gange, A.C., Watling, D. and Harvey, D.J., 2022. Children’s perception of biodiversity in their school grounds and its influence on their wellbeing and resilience. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, pp.1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2022.2100801

Morón-Monge, H., Hamed, S. and Moron Monge, M.D.C., 2021. How Do Children Perceive the Biodiversity of Their nearby Environment: An Analysis of Drawings. Sustainability, 13(6), p.3036.

Moula, Z., Walshe, N., & Lee, E. (2021). Making nature explicit in children’s drawings of wellbeing and happy spaces. Child Indicators Research, 14(4), 1653–1675.

Prokop, P., Prokop, M. and Tunnicliffe, S.D., 2008. Effects of keeping animals as pets on children's concepts of vertebrates and invertebrates. International Journal of Science Education, 30(4), pp.431-449.

2) The study doesn’t critically discuss the utility of drawings for understanding children’s perception of nature. Missing a critique of drawing analysis – what are the strengths and what are the weaknesses? See my specific comments in the methods/discussion section below.

3) The rationale for this study is not 100% transparent at the moment. It seems to be the case that you propose understanding children’s perception/knowledge of local species has important consequences for understanding and facilitating nature connection and pro- environmental/conservation behaviours? However, a number of studies/perspective pieces exist which question the importance of ecological knowledge (including species identification) in nature connection/behaviours (e.g. Lumber et al. 2017, below). The paragraph startling Line 72 in the intro is very knowledge focused and it isn’t clear why.

Lumber, R., Richardson, M. and Sheffield, D., 2017. Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection. PLoS one, 12(5), p.e0177186.

Please find below some more specific feedback.

INTRODUCTION

• Line 63: the drivers of the extinction of experience are more nuanced than presented here.

• Line 82: Recommend reading and integrating key associated points from the following papers:

Gaston, K.J. and Soga, M., 2020. Extinction of experience: The need to be more specific. People and Nature, 2(3), pp.575-581.

Soga, M., Gaston, K.J., Yamaura, Y., Kurisu, K. and Hanaki, K., 2016. Both direct and vicarious experiences of nature affect children’s willingness to conserve biodiversity. International journal of environmental research and public health, 13(6), p.529.

Soga, M. and Gaston, K.J., 2020. The ecology of human–nature interactions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 287(1918), p.20191882.

• Line 86: More residential green space or more accessible residential green space? Needs clarifying.

• Near where you first introduce the concept of nature connection, a working definition should be provided.

• Paragraph starting Line 96: Make the distinction between pro-environmental behaviour and pro nature conservation behaviour, as the two are different, but see to be used interchangeable in this parargaph – see: Richardson, M., Passmore, H.A., Barbett, L., Lumber, R., Thomas, R. and Hunt, A., 2020. The green care code: How nature connectedness and simple activities help explain pro‐nature conservation behaviours. People and Nature, 2(3), pp.821-839.

• Sentence starting on Line 97: avoid sweeping statements/contradictions. For example, although there is less evidence for the latter, both direct and vicarious experiences with nature have been found to enhance nature connection and associated behaviours; e.g. Soga, M., Gaston, K.J., Yamaura, Y., Kurisu, K. and Hanaki, K., 2016. Both direct and vicarious experiences of nature affect children’s willingness to conserve biodiversity. International journal of environmental research and public health, 13(6), p.529; and Hughes, J., Richardson, M. and Lumber, R., 2018. Evaluating connection to nature and the relationship with conservation behaviour in children. Journal for Nature Conservation, 45, pp.11-19.

• Citation 38 is for a study focused on adults not children?

• Citation missing to support sentence starting on Line 112.

• Introduction is missing a definition of ecological knowledge and its connection to nature connection and related dimensions such as pro environmental/conservation behaviours.

• Clear aim and questions, but prior to conducting the study did you have any a priori hypotheses?

METHODS

• It seems as if the framing of the drawing task could potentially lead to bias in the results. Some gardens or green spaces will be more biodiverse than others. Furthermore, a child may choose to draw the animals in their garden which might be species poor but actually have higher ecological knowledge than displayed in the drawing? Furthermore, every individual has different drawing abilities – not being able to draw species (clearly) isn’t indicative of poor perception/knowledge? Also, some species are just simply more challenging to draw than others, which could influence inclusion or ability for the researchers to identify?

• In the instructions, were the children told what to include as a label? i.e. to provide the species name of each animal drawn or rather simply to just label their drawing?

• It must have been quite challenging trying to identify a number of the animals/plants drawn, and a number of assumptions consequently made?

• I do question the ecological rigour of some of the study variables. For example, it wasn’t really possible to quantify ‘species richness’; therefore, this variable heading seems a bit misleading – would ‘taxa richness’ be more appropriate? Furthermore, putting fungi in the ‘other plants’ category is also misleading.

• Info missing regarding what spatial maps/images you used to obtain buffer greenness.

• What was the rationale for analysing plants in this study when not explicitly asked for in the drawing task? If you had asked them to draw all of the animals and plants in their garden/local green space, there could have been some nice scope to assess the prevailing issue of plant blindness.

• It seems that domestic species were included in data analysis – what was the reason for this? Related to this, was any exploration undertaken to investigate frequency of exotic/non-native species vs. wild/native species drawn?

• Did you explore/identify any errors in the submitted drawings? E.g. exotic species in drawings that definitely wouldn’t have been seen in someone’s garden or local green space?

RESULTS

• Results presentation is a bit repetitive for Lines 388-391 – integrate stats outputs into s8 fig instead?

• Do you need Fig S9 if just showing non-sig results?

DISCUSSION

• There is currently limited critical discussion of the study protocol and/or potential confounding factors, and I think this does need to be considered and integrated here. For example, the issues/biases with the drawing exercise itself, the fact that the sample is self-selecting, and that the sampling design is not balanced across school type or greenness of surrounding area.

• L418-421: I don’t fully follow the rationale presented here.

• Citation 70 is currently in review? Typically can’t cite such publications until they become in press.

• L425-430: the discussion jumps here to focus on positive/negative sentiment towards species, and it’s not entirely clear why in the context of the study’s scope.

• Be careful throughout to make it clear which cited studies focus on adults and which on children – in some sentences/paragraphs, a combination of both are mixed together.

• Paragraph starting Line 422: I would be cautious here. Including a robin in a drawing doesn’t show preference for it.

• Where you compare you study and its findings to that of Snaddon et al., it needs to be clearly acknowledged that their study was quite different to yours – they asked primary-age children visiting the University Museum of Zoology in Cambridge to draw their ideal/rainforest.

• I don’t follow rationale presented on Lines 445-448.

• Lines 451-470: No citations. Can these conclusions have confidence given uneven sample size across school types, and the small number of schools included in the study?

• Line 492: But the new forthcoming Natural History GCSE also focuses on biodiversity conservation, ecology and natural history - not just sustainability and climate change.

• Last sentence (Line 498): But why is awareness and knowledge important of species biod – what are the mechanisms that link this to conservation? Final bit about climate change also seems tacked on.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? 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.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-22-22596R1What can drawings tell us about children’s perceptions of nature?PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Howlett,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 Jul 13 2023 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 plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Daniel de Paiva Silva, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr. Howlett,

Thank you for your patience and support regarding the indications of potential reviewers for your manuscript. We have finally received three reviews for your manuscript. In general, all of them were quite positive. Still, there are some minor corrections that you need to take care of before the MS is formally accepted for publication in PLOS One. In practice, please consider it as accepted. Still, please solve the raised issues and resubmit it to us so it can be formally accepted. Overall, congratulations for your hard work!

Sincerely,

Daniel Silva

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: A well-written paper that has addressed the questions raised by a previous reviewer and adds to the knowledge base in this field.

Reviewer #5: Dear authors, I congratulate you on this beautiful study. The topic is extremely relevant and important given the threats we face as a society for the conservation of biodiversity. In general, the text is very coherent with all the necessary elements to report the study and provide the necessary information. The analyses are well done and the results are organised and presented in a coherent manner. A few adjustments are relevant, both to conform to the journal's standards and to help the reader understand the text.

Abstract: The journal standard requires an abstract of up to 300 words. In the manuscript the abstract is 502. I suggest you look at https://chemistrycommunity.nature.com/posts/43071-how-to-write-an-abstract.

Line 293 has an incomplete sentence.

Line 453 gives a value of "0%". This definition looks strange in the text and it is better to say that there was no identification until species for invertebrates other than insects.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: 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.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

What can drawings tell us about children’s perceptions of nature?

PONE-D-22-22596R2

Dear Dr. Howlett,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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 onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Daniel de Paiva Silva, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Dr. Howlett,

I am pleased to infomr you that your manuscript has just been accepted for publication in PLoS One!

Congratulations on your hard work!

Sincerely,

Daniel Silva.

Reviewers' comments: