Towards a Visual Typology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript addressess visual representations of sustainability, their meaning and interpretation, and their consequences for sustainable development, which is considered an interesting topic. However, the work contains numerous weaknesses which need to be addressed before publication.
The article needs a close English editing. Many avoidable mistakes and some sentences are too long.
Authors need to homogenise if there is space before the references or not, sometimes it appears sometimes not.
Abstract
The abstract needs to be reestructured. Likewise, authors need to systematise the main objectives, the methodology and the results in this summary. Moreover, what do authors refer with ‘ the role of agency’?
Section 1.
The definition of sustainability in lines 34-35 requieres a/some references.
In Line 43, ‘the production of what might be’. If the quotation is literal, then it needs the page into the bracketts. In addition, I miss a space between be’ and [.
I miss a reference in line 59, after transformation processes.
In Line 88 I think an ‘and’ is missed between current future representation.
The sentence between Lines 88-91 is too long and it is difficult to understand. Please, revise it and clarify it.
After reading the section 1, I have still the doubt if authors consider sustainability and sustainable development as synonims or not. Please, revise the approach and improve it.
Section 2.
I miss some references in this section. Between line 121 and 144 there is only one. I think it is scarce in this kind of theoretical framework.
Section 3.
If the cite is literal, authors should indicate the page into the bracket (as [36, p. X]).
There is an error in Line 296.
Authors address both Previous taxonomies for envisioning sustainability and visual framework of sustainability and sustainability development. However, I miss the own approach that authors refere to in the abstract. Methods section needs to be improved, particularly, specifying the methodological approach proposed by the authors in this work.
Section 4.
Authors have named discussion to this section, but I would recommend to name it something related to analysis results (or something like this), since I understand that the section responds to it, and also because I really miss a Results section. Please, reorganise the ideas to obtain a results section or analysis results and discussion section.
Moreover, I would add a final discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each typology which supports which would be the best option if readers would like to perform this kind of visual analysis. Is the authors’ bet the hybrid one (I wondered)? It is not clear.
All in all, authors have done a great effort to describe different exameple of visual respresentations; but, at the end, I miss something…. Authors should clarify why their work is important as an approach for the sustainability of socio-ecological systems, discussing it with different references. I think this missed paragraph or paragraphs could strengthen the value of the manuscript to be published.
Conclusions section
A conclusions section is missed. It is compulsory.
Author Response
The responses to all four reviewers are provided in this synthesis table to show overlaps and common issues/responses.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
An excellent paper that addresses a fundamentally important element of the sustainability discourse – that of visual representations, their meaning and interpretation, and their consequences for sustainable development itself. The paper is well written, with appropriate justification, a well-argued theoretical framework, relevant up to date referencing, and a logical discussion and conclusion. I’ve been waiting years for this paper!
I noted only one error at line 296, and Ref 42 cited twice at L405.
My only suggestion for improvement would be to make Figure 3 larger if possible since it ends up being quite a dense diagram (perhaps it can be flipped and presented in landscape?). Well done!
Author Response
The responses to all four reviewers are provided in this synthesis table to show overlaps and common issues/responses.The responses to all four reviewers are provided in this synthesis table to show overlaps and common issues/responses.The responses to all four reviewers are provided in this synthesis table to show overlaps and common issues/responses.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The abstract should include a brief underline of the purpose and objectives of the study and the methods used.
The article should include an introduction section containing a detailed literature review, in which to present the theoretical approaches related to the sustainability concept, how it was put into practice.
The concept of sustainable development must also be detailed, showing when it was introduced, how it was defined and how it was applied. Then, the approach must be directed towards explaining the visual representations in the application of sustainable development, citing the works that detail this practice.
The methodology reviews the approaches different researchers had on sustainability and sustainable development, different taxonomies and models based on visual processes. Basically, the methodology does not propose its own approach or a model of analysis, be it theoretical. The reader cannot understand the ways in which the authors investigate the relationship between visual typology of sustainability and sustainable development.
The Discussion section proposes different examples of visual representation and replaces the Results section. Although the authors state that the article is more than just a systematization of the existing figures and models, the work fails to identify advantages and disadvantages of the typologies presented, in terms of their implementation and functionality for example.
It is mandatory to have a section dedicated to conclusions.
The article presents exclusively a theoretical approach, without pointing out the applied role of visual representations in sustainable development. There is practically no reference to the applicability of visual representations in the evolution of research in science or society, in the past or present, how visual representation have affected development. It is necessary to explain and demonstrate the usefulness of the visually transposing concepts and definitions, what were the effects of this action. Even if the paper does not propose an applied methodology, examples of situations existing at the level of communities, regions or society in general can be discussed, which, through visual exposure, have become more visible or were acknowledged by decision makers, local actors, community (see literature review). It is necessary to better organize the paper, so as to clearly present the usefulness of introducing visual representations, otherwise it remains a synthesized theorizing of the specialized literature.
Author Response
The responses to all four reviewers are provided in this synthesis table to show overlaps and common issues/responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
- You are quoting a definition of sustainability from 1987, but analyzing images from the 1970s that predate this definition.
- The analysis of images purports to be from websites, but websites at best date to 1995 and are not reflective of publications from the 1970s.
- In both the introduction and the abstract that sustainability and sustainable development are different from each other. However, in lines 48 - 50 you brush this aside and declare that you don't actually use this distinction in the paper.
- The section on clear communication in lines 61 - 69 should be cited either from discourse literature of from the field of speech and communication.
- The manuscript suffers from poor word choice that makes this article a very difficult read. For example, in line 68 you state that "Visual representations have been important bearers of these messages since the 1970s." The way this is written in your article "these messages" refer to new pathways of transition or transformation. The sentence structure here results in a factually incorrect statement.
- In lines 82 and 83 you discuss types of images, but omit the most common image of sustainability - the three pillars.
- This paper goes on a tangent in lines 130 - 144 and this paragraph should be deleted.
Author Response
The responses to all four reviewers are provided in this synthesis table to show overlaps and common issues/responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has successfully improved.
However, authors should check punctuation (sentence too long… I miss several commas between lines 13-18. For instance, I suggest: “Using a cross sectional exploratory and descriptive methodology, the fundamental objective…”) and other parts of the paper.
Other some minor suggestions are:
L.59: I miss a full stop before ‘However’
L.210: I do not understand ‘which’ in this sentence (‘however, which moves strongly in this direction’)
L. 254 Is the page correctly expressed? ([39] (p. xxi).)
L. 288. Revise the error message (‘Figure 2Error! Reference source not found.’)
Author Response
However, authors should check punctuation (sentence too long… I miss several commas between lines 13-18. For instance, I suggest: “Using a cross sectional exploratory and descriptive methodology, the fundamental objective…”) and other parts of the paper.
ABSTRACT REVISED IN RESPONSE
L.59: I miss a full stop before ‘However’
CORRECTED
L.210: I do not understand ‘which’ in this sentence (‘however, which moves strongly in this direction’)
TEXT CHANGED
L. 254 Is the page correctly expressed? ([39] (p. xxi).)
IT IS CORRECT
L. 288. Revise the error message (‘Figure 2Error! Reference source not found.’)
CORRECTED
These are the observations of Reviewer 1 with our responses in Capital letters.
Regards
Jonathan Barton and Felipe Gutierrez
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors responded to the requirements by organizing and improving the article, so that the presentation of the research is more structured and more logical.
Author Response
No response required.
Regards
Jonathan Barton and Felipe Gutierrez
Reviewer 4 Report
The current version is significantly improved over the first version. However, there are multiple minor issues with English that should be resolved before publication.
Author Response
No response required.
Regards
Jonathan Barton and Felipe Gutierrez
