Co-Creation of Knowledge for Ecosystem Services Approach to Spatial Planning in the Basque Country

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is very well structured and very clear in its wording. The abstract is informative and provides a succinct summary of the major points of the paper. The results are presented in a detailed, well-structured and comprehensible manner and are discussed appropriately.

However, I have some comments and suggestions to the authors.

Although the manuscript focuses on the milestones achieved for the implementation of ESA in spatial planning actions in the Basque Country, the main concepts on which this work is based should be addressed in more detail. Key concepts such as transdisciplinary knowledge systems, co-learning/social learning, Green Infrastructure and Environmental Services are mentioned, but their origin/development and their contribution to the research question at stake are not discussed. Regarding the concepts mentioned, the authors did not cite the pertinent literature (state of the art).

In my opinion, the introduction lacks an adequate discussion of the Ecosystem Services Approach on the basis of recent academic literature. The methodology is sufficiently described, but lacks a more detailed description of the actual process of co-creation of knowledge in particular (which is the title of the article after all).

Transdisciplinary approaches have played an increasing role in different fields of environmental and social-ecological research. Integration of knowledge of societal actors and scientists is at the core of transdisciplinary research. However, a distinction should be made between system knowledge (knowledge about structures and functions of a complex system, about causes and effects), orientation knowledge (knowledge of justified aims and options for action) and transformation knowledge (knowledge of how to reach an envisioned system state). In transdisciplinary research, participatory processes do not only aim at the production of new knowledge but also at knowledge integration and social learning among the involved stakeholders. As such, a stronger distinction should also be made between co-creation of knowledge and social learning, as these are two different processes and concepts. The concept of social learning is rooted in different social science disciplines, and there are numerous definitions (see for example the work of C. Pahl-Wostl and others). On the basis of the recent academic literature on social learning concepts, social learning can be referred to as a change in mental models by both the accumulation and cognitive integration of new knowledge and the further processing of different points of view from other actors.

Similarly, various definitions of Green Infrastructure have been proposed since its emergence in the 1990s (see Benedict and McMahon 2002, 2006 as well as Davies et. al 2015 for an initial discussion). The concept of GI is based on the principle that nature and natural processes are deliberately integrated into spatial planning and spatial development in order to maintain and enhance the delivery of ecosystem services and therefore of ecological, sociological, and psychological benefits to human society. In European countries, for example, GI is widely recognized as a valuable approach not only for spatial planning of ecosystems, but also to land management as well as to climate and disaster risk management; see e.g. EU Commission’s Green Infrastructure Strategy 2013.

Illustrations:

Figure 1 is blurred/fuzzy, the map frame and the line (connecting Spain and Basque Country) are too thick/strong compared to other lines; scale, authors of the map/source (and possibly north arrow) are missing, the inscription of the map elements is incomplete. "Island maps" (Basque Country) should be avoided.

Figure 3: Maps of ES in Basque Country is too tiny, the contents of the illustrations/maps can hardly be differentiated.

Suggested reading:

• Benedict, M.A.; McMahon, E.T. Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st Century; The Conservation Fund; Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse Monograph Series: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
• Benedict, M.A.; McMahon, E.T. Green Infrastructure: Linking landscapes and Communities; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
• European Commission Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament; The Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Green Infrastructure (GI)—Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2013.
• Davies, C.; Hansen, R.; Rall, E.; Pauleit, S.; Lafortezza, R.; De Bellis, Y.; Santos, A.; Tosics, I. Green Infrastructure Planning and Implementation—The status of European Green space Planning and Implementation Based on an Analysis of Selected European City-Regions. EU FP7 project GREEN SURGE (ENV.2013.6.2-5-603567), Deliverable 5.1, 2015. Available online: https://greensurge.eu/working-packages/wp5/files/Green_Infrastructure_Planning_and_Implementation.pdf (accessed on 12 April 2018).
• Schusler, T. M., D. J. Decker, and M. J. Pfeffer. 2003. Social learning for collaborative natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 15:309-326. doi:10.1080/08941920390178874.
• Truffer, B. 2007. Knowledge integration in transdisciplinary research projects - The importance of reflexive interface management. GAIA 16(1):41-45.
• Zierhofer, W., and P. Burger. 2007. Transdisciplinary research – a distinct mode of knowledge production? Problem-orientation, knowledge integration and participation in transdisciplinary research projects. GAIA 16(1):29-34.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The research on the co-creation of knowledge for ecosystem service (ES) approach to spatial planning is important. While the subject matter is relevant, the manuscript needs to be improved and framed appropriately.

To begin with, the abstract does not reflect the research findings and methodology. It sounded more of a literature review with a conclusion. It is important for the authors to identify the lessons from the knowledge co-creation process of ES in their study area as well as the methods adopted for documenting this co-creation process.

Secondly, the way section 2.3 was introduced in the manuscript makes it seem out of context. If I understood the authors rightly, the planning for a specific green infrastructure in the study area was guided by the ES approach. This needs to be stated clearly and conceived as part of the co-creation process. Here, the authors need to state that in order to describe the co-creation of knowledge based on their case study, they considered the example of how the approach was used to plan for green infrastructure. This statement should also be captured in the introduction to give the research some context. 

The result section is poorly organized. I will encourage the authors to organize their findings under some particular headings and avoid the bullet points. For instance, the subheadings under their findings can relate to

1. Knowledge Co-Creation Process
2. Outcomes of Knowledge Co-Creation Process
3. Application (Uses) of Knowledge Co-Creation Outcomes
4. SWOT Analysis of the Knowledge Co-Creation Process

This can then make the discussion of the findings in relation to available literature much clearer. For instance, how does this process relate to the framework suggested by [18]? Were there challenges in the processes and how were they managed or overcome?

The discussion is also weak and fails to align with the findings. For instance, the authors need to discuss the survey findings in relation to other studies on knowledge co-creation processes as well as how it can help improve the stages suggested by [18].

Lastly, I think the title may need to be reframed. Maybe the suggestion below better reflects your research:

1. Co-creation of knowledge for ecosystem services approach to spatial planning in [Study Area]

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a tremendous improvement to the manuscript. There are some referencing issues in the text that needs to be addressed. For instance, when quoting, the authors do not provide page numbers for the quotes. In addition, the authors need to provide reference numbers to some of their texts instead of placing the web address in the manuscript. 

I have attached suggested edits and comments in the attached file. I hope it helps. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for the suggested changes, I have made all of them.