Climate Change, Adaptation Planning and Institutional Integration: A Literature Review and Framework
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The submitted manuscript is a review or essay about the concepts relating to urban planning and climate change adaptation. First of all, I like to highlight that my review is from the perspective of an urban climatologist. I accepted the review since I was assuming a much more concrete review concerning integrated urban climate adaptation practices. However, I tried my best to provide a review that eventually helps to improve the manuscript given below.
My main critique concerning the article is related to the title and its keyword "institutional void". This gives the impression that a claim that there is an institutional void related to climate change adaptation efforts is at the center of the whole article, however it is mentioned just once more at the very end of Section 4 and seems more like a side note than a central idea. I was further assuming that the institutional void is characterized for certain countries or that there is a description of different degrees between an institutional void or realization in different geographic boundaries or scales. Since this is not the case I would consider changing the title.
Since I am not a typical reader this paper addresses, I cannot give a clear recommendation whether or not the article is publication-ready. However, I added a few more specific remarks below which might help to improve the manuscript.
l. 34: it is not clear to me in what context uncertainty is understood here. The feeling of uncertainty of the general public might increase while modeling improvements might decrease uncertainties for certain climate change related simulations in the future. You might also want to consider exchanging "uncertainty" with "risk"
l. 88: I certainly hope that both mitigation and adaptation will be focussed on in spatial planning now and in the future. I also do not see signs for a paradigm shift in this regard. E.g. in Germany there are stipulations in place or planned by municipilaties and states regarding the installation of photovoltaics on roofs (mitigation) and for green roofs (adaptation).
l. 144: risks certainly shape adaptive capacity but for the definition of this concept more is needed in my view.
l. 156: "important" should be "importance"
l. 289: wording issue
l. 342: wording issue
l. 431: the term "socio-ecological systems" is used already in the introduction and should be defined much earlier
l. 488: this definition does not capture the meaning of capacity in my view - it refers to how much of something can be hold by something else
l. 507: adaptive capacity in my understanding is not the work that has been done but the ability of a system to adapt to changing boundary conditions
l. 705-709: well, I think evaluations of projects through questionnaires and other kinds of measurements are very common
Author Response
Reviewer “#1”,
Thank you for your clear and sharp responses, and helpful guidance. We appreciate the perspectives of professionals from outside our direct field(s) of interest, which was, indeed, one of the upshots of this review: that diverse, overlapping – and sometimes contentious—perspectives, expertise and approaches are all involved in the CCA plight.
We have changed our title in accordance with your observations and think this is a more straightforward framing of our scope -- if slightly less provocative(!).
34: While we seek to evaluate the differences between risk (as a physical or situational condition) and uncertainty (as an epistemological concept), we understand your note on context: in this instance, the uncertainty refers to the concept of decision-making, which is of central concern to planning. We have amended the text in this paragraph to attempt to provide and clarify that context.
88: We have clarified our remarks here to indicate that the paradigm shift being cited is one for the planning profession as it grapples with adaptation efforts – though not at the expense of mitigation efforts. We concur that the integration of mitigation into planning is a core issue of SD; though we maintain our position that the basic shortcomings of mitigation efforts has impelled ever0greater burdens on the fields charged with adaptation.
144: We agree that further disambiguation of the terms risk and uncertainty are useful. As such, we’ve amended the paragraph cited to include the quantifiable (or at least assessable) quality of risk – as opposed to uncertainty. Mack (1971) [economics], Haimes (2004) [Modeling], Abbot (2005) [planning] and Van Der Heijden are cited as helpful notes to differentiate and situate the concepts in the context articulated in the article .
156; 289; 342: All have been addressed and amended.
431: We’ve amended our introductory section to include a definition and brief description of SES for the purposes described. Colding (2019) and Berkes and Folke (1998) are invoked; including a conceptual illustration offered by the latter that frames SES as mediating between institutional (social customs and technologies) and ecological (physical) concepts. Footnotes also provide some historical context for the terminology’s invention and inception.
488: We have amended our text and added some italics to illustrate the relationships we’re interested in considering here which, to your point, might have been worded in a confusing way. On a conceptual level, we think your note actually illustrates that the underlying notion of capacity, which is understood in layman’s terms (what we call ‘intuitively’) may refer to that physical property you’ve flagged (the ability or limits of one ‘thing’ holding another – like a bucket to water) juxtaposed against the much more complex and mysterious notion of adaptive capacity – which I gather to be your interest in terms of how it is defined. One way of explaining how we came to view and understand our task in this paper was through the “picturing” -- literally giving some kind of graphic form and shape to concepts that are so nuanced and complex as to defy that attempt. This is easier when we look at relationships between things (including pictured concepts) because they can appear closer or further; overlapping or disjointed from one another; and/or connected through pathways or processes. Our notion of adaptive capacity here does, to some extent, refer to a similar way of thinking, because we imagine that this potentially impossible-to-define or quantify quality (adaptive capacity) is a function or composed of other qualities. So we felt that, in the interest of collapsing complex concepts to simple language or terms and graphics, it was sometimes useful to invoke the layman’s terms – often (as is the case here) to respond by adding nuance to do the actual content and context justice.
507: This is another really good point and observation, which we’ve added some clauses to address here. I suppose the way that we framed this attempts to point out that the work that, as you say “has been done” is inextricably linked to the capacity of these systems and efforts. That is, some of the changes (ideally, the improvements) that manifest as effects of adaptive governance are themselves intended to build adaptive capacity of the overall system – not just within the context of the project of interest. But to your point, we’ve added the additional and more forward-oriented (but non-gap) category of work that can be done as a function of past work that has been done: these, together, might be understood as the adaptive capacity in a system.
705-709: We agree with your statement, though we were concerned with an overly-long and hypothetical discussion about the application(s) of a framework as presented – something with which our other reviewers are also concerned. One way in which this framework might actually be most useful, to your point, is in its application towards particular and specific projects instead of as a mode of rendering complex concepts in the context of other ones (like SESs, adaptation situations, etc). Our discussion and conclusions have been significantly altered to address this and other concerns.
Thank you again for the thoughtfulness of your questions and critique, your patience and the guidance they have provided and afforded us.
Reviewer 2 Report
The contribution is particularly interesting and well structured. The authors analytically and adequately offered a review of important concepts evident in the literature of spatial planning and climate change adaptation to integrate these into a conceptual framework illustrating their dynamic interplay. Hence, the paper proposes a schema as a conceptual framework to be applied according to contexts’ peculiarities in the role of institutions and situations they have to face. The schema is built on an accurate analysis of the main concepts included in the climate change adaptation process. Whilst each concept is explained deeply and the schema in paragraph 3 is consistent, the conceptualizing climate change adaptation does not explicitly mention the scale issues and the strategy action role. In Europe, for instance, some countries have a national adaptation strategy, and the EU has established the new EU Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change in 2021 to shape a climate-resilient Europe. I suggest making more evident the scale issue and its role in the conceptual framework, and the local vs. National adaptation strategy as well.
Author Response
Reviewer “#2”,
Thank you for your comments and feedback. One of the aspects of generalizing spatial planning – and adaptation applications -- that vexed us during this process was not only the scale issues, complexities and considerations to which you elude, but the interplay of those issues with governance (itself scalar) and national “flavors” of planning emphases and practices. While comparing and surveying samples of various scales and types was not explicitly the focus of our paper, we have amended the paper to reflect the need to further acknowledge and recognize these dynamics. Edits to this effect may be found in the introductory paragraphs of Section 2 (Climate Change Adaptation Planning: Prologue, Practice, Paradigm), specifically with respect to scale and the ‘western’ frame of reference for many of our planning traditions and governance structures considered. Thank you again for the thoughtfulness of your questions and critique, your patience and the guidance they have provided and afforded us.
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript presents a comprehensive review of the climate change adaptation literature, in relation to spatial planning. However, the scientific contribution of the manuscript is not so clear, as noted below.
General comments
- Much of the review is general and useful for a broader audience than urban spatial planning scientists. The Title, Abstract and Introduction do not capture the content very well. Does the manuscript only address the urban subset of spatial planning? How are these (subset and set) presented and related? Please consider adjusting the title and adding a sentence in the abstract. For the Introduction, it would seem more logic to move the first paragraph of Section 2 to the Introduction and explain the urban-spatial planning issue here.
- The Introduction doesn’t seem to have any research questions and the Discussion and Conclusion have too many questions and too few conclusions. As a result, the scientific contribution of the manuscript is not very clear. The questions in the Discussion and Conclusion are not new and should have been brought forward in the Introduction.
Specific comments (noted by ”R:”)
l.44-46: We are concerned here with spatial planning, which frames the landscape as a crucial, dynamic medium – the geographic template - upon and within which effects of climate change will be experienced most acutely by humans.
R: Most as compared to what?
l.51-52: These actions are implicitly ethical, because they generate opportunities and challenges for the future.
R: I don’t understand the logic here.
l.58: applicable frameworks.
R: Or one framework?
l.65: conclusion examining questions framed by the work
R: This is indeed the weakness of the Conclusion. I would expected that the Introduction poses questions and that the Conclusion first and foremost states the conclusions of the presented work.
l.80-81: Goals to achieve SD have become key concerns in the climate change era, especially in urban areas of high development intensity.
R: This is an odd statement, because the majority of the resources used in urban are imported from outside the area.
l.88: a paradigm shift in the field
R: Shift from what to what?
l.101-103: The concept of sustainability may be understood to mean the maintenance of some (economic, social, environmental) entity, process, and/or outcome over time; framed in the environmental context of SESs.
R: Vague sentence. In line 78 sustainable development is about resource management. Please also explain the geographical boundaries of the SESs.
l.107-109: sustainable development (SD) is frequently invoked as a concept to guide both the means and ends of planning-for-sustainability
R: Empty statement
l.111: inherently interrelated concepts
R: Such as? And what happened to the geographic template?
l.116-117: through anticipation or response to climate change impacts
RC: anticipation of potential impacts
l.122: we are concerned primarily
This statement seems more fitting for the Introduction. Also, not clear how this is attributed to reference 57.
l.210: while noting a value agenda
R: Who is noting? And this is ideally?
l.217-218: this is often simplified as public 217 “good(s)”
R: Not clear what “this” refers to.
l.281: Fig 1.
R: I am missing the geographic template, the socio-ecological systems, and the (potential) climate change impacts. Also, resource management and sustainable development have become two boxes, which contradicts with line 78.
l.318-319: “green” stormwater networks to mitigate up-land flooding
R: Adaptation to flooding will also require actions outside the urban area. Please reflect on this.
l.323-325: land use planning (for reclamation, restoration, preservation, conservation aims, for example); natural resource management regimes (for water, for example)
R: Most of this goes beyond the urban area.
l.325: sustainable development projects (for housing, infrastructure, and public amenities)
R: This seems to be the sustainable development referred to in the box in Figure 1. It is a confusing use of terminology and Figure 1 should be able to stand by itself.
l.345: Authors
R: authors
l.384: which are
R: Referring to process or to loops?
l.386: CCAP Planning
R: Getting lost in your own use of acronyms?
l.399: Figure 2.
R: Please improve the graphics. The text is too small to read and when I zoom in, I find it says the same three times! I am again missing the geographic template.
l.431: Defining Socio-Ecological Systems
R: The concept of socio-ecological systems was introduced in l.48, and has been frequently used in the text, but the definition comes here?!
l.543-545: “level(s) of adaptive capacity…that cannot be surpassed” which are defined, to some degree, by acceptable vs intolerable risks
R: Unclear what you are defining here.
l.549-550: both objectively identifiable (as in the case of certain biotic and economic examples)
R: This indeed implies that biotic and economic limits can also be difficult to define and it required consideration of the relations between biotic, economic and societal values. This could be explained more clearly (very briefly!).
l.656-657: A critical question for CCAP and its role in building adaptive capacity seems to concern the scope of its influence and intentions
R: This isn’t a new insight. This question could have been posed in the Introduction and addressed in the manuscript.
l.756-769: This seems a recent afterthought. It would be more fitting to address this in the Introduction and present related concluding and forward-looking reflections in the Conclusion.
Author Response
Reviewer “#3”,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and helpful feedback. Your keen eye and specific notes and ideas were greatly appreciated, and provided some stimulating prompts for further discussion and work; which went into our edits. Interestingly, you intuitively seemed to hone in on multiple idea over-simplification and gaps that were products of our editing process: things that essentially “ended up on the cutting room floor”. It was very useful to reexamine and reconsider some of these in light of your comments; and to attempt to reconcile our explanatory ambitions with editorial discretion. Please see our short response to your general comments below. For our “itemized” re-responses to your particular notes, we’ve cited your original line items to organize our responses regarding edits, amendments and reactions.
General Comment Re-Responses
General comments Responses: Thank you for your comments in and for this section related to the disjunction between the conclusion and introduction especially. We have substantially altered the introduction to address your notes, and have worked to integrate more clear insights into the conclusion while reducing the number of questions therein. We have also amended our title, addressed the questions of scale and urban categorization (which we still emphasize but more clearly articulate why). These overlap and correspond with your notes on l.65, which also helped us reorganize the takeaways and question-framing.
‘Itemized’ Re-Responses
44-46: We have added language to clarify this point. We mean “most” here to refer to the landscape as opposed to other sub-systems of the earth system, namely the atmosphere or hydrosphere. So whereas changes in the atmosphere and oceans may actually represent profound biogeophysical effects of climate impacts, our focus is limited to the landscape as the crucial “geographic template” to which we apply spatial planning. Numerous other authors encountered in our study pointed to the management of the oceans (fisheries, for example) and other non-terrestrial commons (like the atmosphere) as other places to which planning practices of different kinds (resources, wastes, etc) might be applied.
51-52: We have added language to address your note; specifically by pointing to the future generations (not simply the future itself!) impacted by decision making and the planning processes at play in a contemporary context. It seems that the key clarification here is about the future-facing nature of planning; and how land uses and spatial approaches to its management entail ethical dimensions. Our citation here is from Aldo Leopold’s (1929) work concerning the so-called “Land Ethic”, which he surmised was a necessary precondition of responsible management of landscapes and ecosystems – understood as inextricable in his theory. Implicit in his reckoning was the cyclical and cascading and/or concatenating nature of change in the environment; and recognition that processes of human intervention not only have the power to change the shape and function of landscapes but may persist for many generations, or even trigger permanent, irreversible change that necessarily delimit and define future possibilities. Partially. Our view is that, in the same sense that the public good(s) described in the article seeks to illustrate, there is an inherent ethical quality to decision making about complex SESs – prominently at play in the geographic template -- that carry significant implications for intergenerational justice and health.
58: This note has been resolved by edits.
65: See notes above in general comment re-responses. These comments, together, were used to reorganize several sections of the paper; namely the intro and conclusion.
80-81: This is an important observation, which we found a useful prompt for consideration and reflection. From an industrial ecology perspective, it is absolutely the case that cities provision themselves with material stocks that are largely sourced from without – the so-called hinterlands. Likewise, in the “search for the ultimate sink” (Tarr 1996) increasingly dense human settlements have gradually displaced urban landfills and waste repositories of various types from urban centers. These processes entail several effects: they may deplete natural resources and impel negative environmental impacts in non-urban areas (including overharvesting, contamination of waters, etc). However, it is due to the urban growth and provisioning that high-intensity resource sourcing (import), use, turnover and disposal (export) exist in the first place; and urban areas are by-and-large more efficient in terms of resource-use-per-capita (in terms of building materials, transport energy etc) than in lower-density areas. Thus, governance and planning processes of urban areas are of particular importance. Our view is that SD, in this sense, organizes and positions its actual goals (energy and waste footprints, resource allocations, circular economies, etc) in ways that are of particular importance in urban areas because of the share of voters, taxpayers, consumers and citizens therein.
88: We have added language to address your note. The position being cited here is that traditional spatial planning (in the case of our cited reference, the field often generalized as “environmental planning”) is primed to undergo a paradigm shift because of the effects of climate change and the share of the adaptation work that appears to fall into the professional portfolios of environmental planners as a function of the impacts being observed and anticipated.
101 – 103: This is a good distinction to clarify and we have added language to do so. What you seem to be getting at is the relationship between the concept of sustainability, which we view as a very flexible and widely applicable concept; and sustainable development, which is largely concerned with how planning and design processes feed back on systems for establishing the built environment (as you say, largely through resource management improvements). We tried to frame and discuss these in terms that corresponded to their sections: so the (very) brief history of spatial planning (2.1 section) spots SD as a key “stepping stone”, whereas broader circles thinking about (among other things) Climate Change (2.2 section) are contemplating the more general notion of sustainability.
107-109: We think this reflects one of the important shifts being grappled with in planning circles broadly; and certainly in terms of the ways sustainability is framed and addressed by those practices. Here, we are connecting development (a process) with planning (a practice) through its devotion or interest towards sustainability itself (a principle). Again, this is related to the differentiation and disambiguation of sustainability and SD (as previously discussed). Herein, the cited authors recognize that planning and development are not necessarily (and perhaps have traditionally explicitly not) sustainable; this is the root of the SD movement. But planning-for-sustainability is a particular approach; as articulated by the authors cited. In this instance, is also refers to rural communities and issues not generally encapsulated by concerns over urban development and its utilization of (or lip service towards) SD.
111: The inherently interrelated concepts and qualities shared by or “bridged between” SD approaches in the context of SESs include resilience, vulnerability, and adaptability, as articulated by Young (2006), one of our cited authors. Anderies (2004) also points to links and strategic interactions in SESs that extend naturally to decision-making about goals and pathways necessary for SD. The geographic template is used only in the beginning of the paper to describe landscape’s importance in spatial planning; and to make the case for its particular role in the theory and history of those practices (including landscape planning, as an early American example). It is not a central concept in CCA circles, though scholarship by Ndubisi (2002) articulated work by Leopold (1929) that sought to describe this template as the “totality of natural and cultural features on, over and in the land “(Ibid.). Thus, this is a measure of area or space; whereas SESs are defined by the interactive dynamics (systems) that play out in or across some space(s). In other words, the former considers landscape the primary medium of interest (because of landscape ecology, hydrology, and other physiographic features); the latter considers the human-interactive component to be most important, according to Ostrom, among others.
116-117: In accordance with our references, we consider CCA to be both anticipatory and active in nature.
122: Thank you for the structuring advice – it informed our broader reorganization apropos of your overarching comments; especially in “scoping” the consideration of our interests, etc. As to the particular comment here, we have added references and amended language to clarify this segment. It has to do with how Adaptive Capacity is manifested or revealed. The key takeaway and the reason for calling out our primary concern is that events outside of human control/affairs can shape adaptive capacity – even in ways that increase. But because our paper concerns what humans can (and choose to) do, we focus on the steps and processes of decision making that actually alter outcomes; thereby affecting and defining adaptive capacity. Please see Fischer’s 2nd section discussing the role of time and decision-making as forces that shape adaptive capacity.
210: The compound citation format has been edited for clarity and improved attribution (clarifying the ‘noting’ clause). It’s interesting that you note concept (and semantic absence) of “ideally” while noting the value agenda: it was part of our original sentence structure, which we removed to avoid a normative discussions of forms of government; though we think it is an important clarification and useful in this context.
217-218: We have edited this sentence to clarify the definition and distinction.
281: As described in previous responses (see l.111 clarification), our geographic template does not explicitly apply in this schema, which, in turn, does not attempt to capture or convey spatial or contextual information per se (thus the SES is omitted here also). SESs are illustrated in the following framework. The schema is intended as a rendering of the practice CCA planning in an abstract sense, in that it outlines (figurative) areas of interest and application within the broader domain; and illustrates the phases involved on a practical level. In a similar sense, because it is abstracted and generalized, climate impacts are not identified here – these also are attributed to features and forces of the illustrative framework. For example, whereas numerous specific examples could be offered (increased biodiversity; flood risk reduction; heat island mitigation; social awareness, etc.), we focus on the overarching thematic notions of adaptive capacity, the adaptation gap, etc. The literature review is intended to support those concepts and illustrate their connections in the context of climate adaptation broadly. While work explicitly investigating how these applied projects (from the schema) address framework features to produce examples of real-world adaptations, we felt it was outside of the scope of this article to adequately explore and render a typology along these lines. SD is not equivalent to resource management, nor vice versa. As per your note, we have clarified that in the text (78) by indicating that SD may deal with issues like justice or equity – though this was not its original disciplinary intent. Likewise, resource management might be considered as applying in ways that are climate adaptive but have little to do with development per se: coastal restoration and nature preserves are an example of this type of resource-based practice that does not fit well into the SD paradigm.
323-325: Another reviewer has echoed your concerns about articulating the spatial scales of interest or consideration in the paper broadly. We have added language to briefly discuss this dimension of the work, while acknowledging that many of the phenomena of interest are not bounded by hard municipal lines or zones demarcating land uses; but rather fields that blur into one another in linear, cyclical, or episodic fashion as a result of climate impacts generally. We’ve included some language to this effect (the “transboundary issue”) in the final paragraph of the very brief history of spatial planning.
325: We feel that, given the SD descriptions and clarifications undertaken – and particularly those applied to urban development and settings (which are further clarified through our expanded consideration of scale and urban dynamics triggered by this review), the examples provided here are fitting and useful for consideration. Partially, this is to encapsulate and include urban planning and design fields as central to the SD-CCA nexus and challenge; where issues like housing, infrastructure and public amenities are core, constant concerns.
345: Good eye – thank you!
384: We have edited the text to clarify and correct this note.
386: We were afraid and confident this would happen at least once – well-spotted, again.
399: We have uploaded a higher-res version and are experimenting with a vertical layout to enlarge graphics; which we are trying to work with the editors to ‘greenlight’. Please see prior notes on geographic template and its usage/selection rationale as a term of consideration for this paper.
431: The introduction has been amended to provide a more fulsome definition for SESs.
543-545: The language has been amended to improve the grammar and clarity of this statement and definition. One of the characteristics of limits to adaptation described in the literature is a kind of duality — which you get at in your next comment. Briefly, limits may present as definable (if not necessarily wholly conceivable) limits present in the physical world; or those that are products of human conjuring and contemplation: subject to various, subjective and potentially dynamic definition. They may (and do) also represent “blurs” between these (previously starkly-characterized) states.
549-550: This paragraph has been amended in response to your note; partially, this is in accordance with your comment (directly) above, and the prompt it raises.
656-657: This stemmed from an editing error. The intention (towards which the text has been amended) was to draw out these concerns in consideration of broader institutional context and forces.
756-769: As per your note, we agree and have worked to integrate some of these notions into the introduction to both ‘set the scene’ and frame the imperative of the current moment for CCA. This final paragraph, as such, has been removed.
Thank you again for the thoughtfulness of your questions and critique, your patience and the guidance they have provided and afforded us.
Reviewer 4 Report
This is a theory-driven paper for a very interesting topic. However, it is characterized by quite a lot of shortcomings.
The paper’s structure and content are not clearly described neither are contextualized with respect to a theoretical background. It seems that it endeavors to contribute to the theoretical discourse through a literature research while a presentation of similar approaches is missing.
The paper’s research design, questions, hypotheses and methods are not clearly stated and in fact are not stated at all. It is worth mentioning that even though the paper’s objective is mentioned twice in the parts of discussion and conclusions (page 15, lines 701 and 731), it is only indirectly mentioned in the beginning (abstract, lines 15, 16). Methodology is absent while there is no evidence whether a methodological approach is followed. In the same way questions and ways of addressing them are not clearly mentioned. Some evidence is provided in the beginning of part 2 (line 53) which however is in the form of statements without demonstrating what, why and how the desired outcome is going to result. For instance, one could ask how the “important concepts” are selected. Moreover, it is not clear how the diagrams presented in the paper result from the literature review.
One of the paper’s inadequacies is the fact that the same concept appears in different ways. For instance, discussion on spatial planning is made in parts 2.1 and 2.3.
Quite a lot of arguments are presented which however do not constitute a coherent and solid set of thought. Instead, a wide variety of concepts, arguments and ideas are presented one after the other, all with reference to bibliographical sources. However, a link between concepts arguments and ideas is missing, which makes it impossible to understand which the findings are.
Conclusions: Even though it is stated (line 56) that “Our literature review was structured to draw upon important concepts and themes from these fields and areas of interest; and to synthesize and integrate key findings into broadly applicable frameworks” it is not evident which the applicable frameworks are (which is probably the expected outcome). Instead, the part devoted to discussion and conclusions are mostly based on literature review, without highlighting findings.
Empirical research is missing, which makes it difficult to support the paper’s arguments. However, the subject of the paper has practical implications.
There are too many references in the paper while bibliographical sources are much more than usual (258 sources). This is indicative of the inappropriate use of bibliography as well as the absence of a clear argumentation.
Author Response
Reviewer 4; Round 1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is a theory-driven paper for a very interesting topic. However, it is characterized by quite a lot of shortcomings.
Reviewer “#4”,
Thank you for your comments – they were very helpful in re-examining the pacing, sequencing and explication of key aspects of the paper we and other reviewers felt could and have been improved with guidance and feedback like yours.
One item to note is that we received your round 1 feedback after our round 2 edits. This prompted us to review a previous draft to see where overlaps between your comments and those of other reviewers occurred in our 2nd draft. The responses to your comments follow below, and is organized as follows: there are seven sections corresponding to the paragraph breaks in your original review (not counting the initial brief and general comment on the article).
- The paper’s structure and content are not clearly described neither are contextualized with respect to a theoretical background. It seems that it endeavors to contribute to the theoretical discourse through a literature research while a presentation of similar approaches is missing.
Edits have been implemented to improve the structure and logical flow of the paper. Similar approaches include the prominently-cited work from Resilience, Vulnerability and Adaptation in the 2006 Special Issue of Global Environmental Change; which we footnote for emphasis. This collection of highly-cited articles contribute to the theoretical basis of climate change issues and concepts. Our research here is similar in that it is synthetic, and its unique contribution is providing a logical means for integrating important concepts, which is currently lacking in the broader literature. The way in which this is substantiated and formalized in the manuscript is the framework itself (page 10), which provides the basis for further theoretical consideration and discussion of findings in the discussion (pages 16 & 17).
- The paper’s research design, questions, hypotheses and methods are not clearly stated and in fact are not stated at all. It is worth mentioning that even though the paper’s objective is mentioned twice in the parts of discussion and conclusions (page 15, lines 701 and 731), it is only indirectly mentioned in the beginning (abstract, lines 15, 16). Methodology is absent while there is no evidence whether a methodological approach is followed. In the same way questions and ways of addressing them are not clearly mentioned. Some evidence is provided in the beginning of part 2 (line 53) which however is in the form of statements without demonstrating what, why and how the desired outcome is going to result. For instance, one could ask how the “important concepts” are selected. Moreover, it is not clear how the diagrams presented in the paper result from the literature review.
Our paper has been restructured to more clearly connect the research intent and outcomes. Methodologically, our research here is not focused on an experimental approach yielding empirical data that can be hypothesis tested; rather, we surveyed prominent and highly-cited articles that corresponded to the core fields of interest (spatial planning, climate change, institutions). This was done to build a network of other work that could help identify, describe and situate the salient and important concepts that, in turn, generate the conceptual framework. This approach stems from work described by Jabareen (2009)[1], based prominently on some work by Mishler (1990)[2], and a recent well-summarized piece provided by van der Walt (2020)[3] that describe the logic of conceptual framework generation and its linkages to qualitative research, especially those attempting to grapple with multidisciplinary phenomena. We’ve expanded our second section to describe this research approach from a methodological perspective. The intent of the resulting framework is both to clarify concepts and ideally be implemented as a tool in future research that can yield primary data; whereas in our study, the framework represents the data; which is drawn from structuring and organizing the thematic content. The diagrams are being amended for greater graphical clarity and legibility.
- One of the paper’s inadequacies is the fact that the same concept appears in different ways. For instance, discussion on spatial planning is made in parts 2.1 and 2.3.
Our approach here involved framing a brief discussion of planning at the beginning of our second section because it underpins the entire concept of CCAP: a novel and emerging form or field of spatial planning as defined in the paper. We feel it is important to provide this historical background (relating to your 2.1 observation) before a deeper dive into planning theory – but directly proceeded by the discussion of climate change because our planning section (2.3) discusses aspects of climate change for which we feel the reader must first be supplied with relevant concepts of importance for context (in section 2.2).
- Quite a lot of arguments are presented which however do not constitute a coherent and solid set of thought. Instead, a wide variety of concepts, arguments and ideas are presented one after the other, all with reference to bibliographical sources. However, a link between concepts arguments and ideas is missing, which makes it impossible to understand which the findings are.
The wide range in the fields and domains of the concepts approached here necessitates examination of a large variety of sources, both because of the extensive terminology engaged and the complexity produced in combining or comparing concepts between and across subject areas; which is not an uncommon approach in this means of reviewing content of this type. The findings here are embodied by the framework, which emerges out of an approach to organizing and combining information. In that sense the findings are conditional, rather than conclusive, because the intent of the framework is primarily its application rather than serving as data to be referenced, etc.
- Conclusions: Even though it is stated (line 56) that “Our literature review was structured to draw upon important concepts and themes from these fields and areas of interest; and to synthesize and integrate key findings into broadly applicable frameworks” it is not evident which the applicable frameworks are (which is probably the expected outcome). Instead, the part devoted to discussion and conclusions are mostly based on literature review, without highlighting findings.
This comment reflects a misunderstanding generated by a minor but very important spelling error in our original manuscript, which was previously flagged by another reviewer and corrected. Here, we are referring to our framework and its application (singular – hence the typo and confusion).
- Empirical research is missing, which makes it difficult to support the paper’s arguments. However, the subject of the paper has practical implications.
Because this article is not based on empirical research, argumentation is mainly thematic because it engages and approaches various theoretical areas of interest. However, the findings gleaned by the review, and subsequent figures generated, serve as bases for building future research to examine and test the relationships articulated and arguments supporting them.
- There are too many references in the paper while bibliographical sources are much more than usual (258 sources). This is indicative of the inappropriate use of bibliography as well as the absence of a clear argumentation.
The volume and extensive nature of the refences included here speak to the wide range, complexity, and potential confusion generated by the concepts engaged. We deemed our process to be diligent in this respect, and feel that condensing numerous fields and domains of interest into a useful schema and framework hinged on the consideration and citation of complex and varied schools of thought and theory, which, in turn, entailed a broad sampling of these sources. As to the point about clear argumentation, we feel this captures very nicely the general thrust of our recent round of edits and additions, and what they are intended to address. This relates back to your third comment; but forms an underlying challenge and task generally for this work: considerable nuance and case-specific work was sampled that we felt it was diligent to vigorously cite authors whose views, together, define a topic of such richness.
[1] Jabareen Y. Building a Conceptual Framework: Philosophy, Definitions, and Procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. December 2009:49-62. doi:10.1177/160940690900800406
[2] Mishler, E. G. (1990). Validation in inquiry-guided research: The role of exemplars in narrative studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 415–441.
studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 415–441.
[3] Van der Waldt, G., 2020, ‘Constructing conceptual frameworks in social science research’, The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa 16(1), a758. https://doi.org/10.4102/td.v16i1.758
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you very much for the corrections and clarifications.
The issue of what parts of the manuscript are about urban planning or not hasn't become so much more clear. In the second paragraph of the Introduction you introduce urban regions. Then the rest of the Introduction doesn't mention "urban" at all. After the Introduction I am left wondering what this article is about. Scales and urban areas are brought up in a new first paragraph Section 2. In my previous review I suggested to include the first paragraph of Section 2 in the Introduction. You moved a few sentences of this section up, but left the rest and added another paragraph. We usually find "this article is structured as follows:..." at the end of the Introduction, not as the second paragraph of the second section. Please re-read and consider to make l.94-115 part of the Introduction.
l.1247-1251: Not clear to me what is "the latter."
Author Response
Reviewer 3; Round 2:
The issue of what parts of the manuscript are about urban planning or not hasn't become so much more clear.
In the second paragraph of the Introduction you introduce urban regions. Then the rest of the Introduction doesn't mention "urban" at all.
After the Introduction I am left wondering what this article is about. Scales and urban areas are brought up in a new first paragraph Section 2.
In my previous review I suggested to include the first paragraph of Section 2 in the Introduction. You moved a few sentences of this section up, but left the rest and added another paragraph.
We usually find "this article is structured as follows:..." at the end of the Introduction, not as the second paragraph of the second section. Please re-read and consider to make l.94-115 part of the Introduction.
Reviewer “#3”,
Thank you again for your thoughtfulness feedback. We agree with your assessment and have edited and restructured several paragraphs and sections in accordance with your points; and feel these have improved the logical flow of the introduction substantially. One of your overarching comments concerns how we are framing and approaching the scale and suite of issues related directly to the Urban realm. Our restructuring seeks to reposition and parameterize the concept insofar as our review was not conducted to specifically address it in depth. We’ve both removed “urban” from the title and edited and repositioned the brief discussion of why urban dynamics are of particular importance specifically in the context of CCA; while explaining to the reader that this emphasis should be understood as essentially thematic of the paper.
Partially, we made this decision because we avoided a rigorous comparison and survey of urban vs non-urban regions and issues related to climate change. This decision was, additionally, made because of the lack of case studies and comparative analysis; and our interest in avoiding constantly employing the term “urban” when describing adaptation – and, likewise, disclaiming or discerning where non-urban dynamics would potentially be at play and complicate the overarching thrust of the paper. We feel that an early and open recognition of this in our introduction should serve to situate the urban concept and context in a way that is appropriate.
l.1247-1251: Not clear to me what is "the latter."
We weren’t entirely sure which line this related to (there is no text on lines 1247-1251, thank goodness!), so we searched for this word and improved the grammar in several clauses employing the former/latter convention; which, to your point, can be confusing in compound clauses.
Reviewer 4 Report
- Despite improvements, the paper’s structure and content could be improved. Page 10 is not adequate for doing this, an option could be to mention the preparation of this framework from the beginning.
- Reviewer’s questions such as ‘how the ‘important concepts’ are selected as well as how the diagrams result from the literature review’ have not been answered
- Reviewer's comment on how the concept of spatial planning appears is not considered in that it continues to be presented in two parts of the paper
- It seems that the comment “a wide variety of concepts, arguments and ideas are presented one after the other” is not considered, instead writers argue that this is not an uncommon approach.
- Reviewer’s comment that “the part devoted to discussion and conclusions are mostly based on literature review, without highlighting findings” is still valid
- The number of references does not reflect the quality of the work even in a review paper. Despite reviewer’s comments, i the revised paper bibliographical sources increased (from 258 to 275).
Author Response
Reviewer “#4”,
Thank you again for your critical eye and constructive critique. The following paragraphs are numbered corresponding to your review notes.
- We agree that Section 4 on page 10 is not sufficient as an introduction of the framework approach. We have amended the text to reflect our sense of the utility of this approach in the introduction. Our edited draft includes multiple references to this approach in the abstract and introduction, as well as a discussion of its use in the methodological description in section 2.
- To approach this review, we sought to connect spatial planning and institutional aspects relevant in the climate change era by synthesizing and integrating concepts into a schematic rendering that illustrates important relationships, and simplifies or streamlines some of these ideas to be useful components of the proposed framework. In accordance with the Journal of Sustainability’s call for submissions prompt, we selected the special issue of Global Environmental Change focused on Resilience, Vulnerability and Adaptation (2006) to survey and explore concepts of interest that we know to be important in climate adaptation efforts because of their prominence in the field. We built out a network of highly-cited papers/chapters from journals/books relevant to the prompt and interest areas of Journal of Sustainability; and through the exploration of prominent, recurring themes sought to further describe and define concepts of clear relevance to the field of climate adaptation. Our introductory paragraph in Section 2 and our footnotes on page 5 speak to this approach.
- We believe that an audience interested in adaptation planning will naturally be able to grasp how spatial planning’s history and theory is relevant in the paper, and therefor why it bookends the discussion of climate change adaptation’s central concepts of interest.
Section 2.1 explains how modern environmental movements and areas of environmental interest are particularly relevant to practices of spatial planning, even if not explicitly because of issues related to climate change. Section 2.2 demonstrates that emergent climate concerns entail consideration of themes like sustainability and ecological systems, which are mentioned in the previous section, and Section 2.3 explores how planning is, in turn, grappling with these themes.
We feel that the structure is logical because it prompts readers to first consider climate adaptation (Section 2.2) in the context of spatial planning (the preceding section); which then naturally leads to a discussion about how applied theory in planning (the proceeding section) is practiced in order to address concepts like uncertainty, risk, vulnerability, etc.
- Our note from the previous round of responses was not intended as an explanation for the critique cited; instead, we meant that our approach for surveying ideas in the fashion that our literature review employed was not uncommon for this type of paper.
To your point here, our research was intended to serve as a survey of important themes and ideas (relating to your previous point). We did so because climate adaptation planning is revealing theoretical and practical complexities partially as a function of the novel, emergent interaction between domains, sectors and fields of practice. Our approach illustrates the nuanced descriptions and definitions of concepts of interest (those populating the framework) in order to recognize the variety and breadth of work that has been done to define and describe these concepts. We feel this is important work because it draws from diverse sources and disciplines related to concepts of interest; and our ‘wide variety of concepts and arguments’ was assembled to reduce bias emerging from more narrow consideration of ideas.
Grammatically, we’ve incorporated this critique in editing and amending to improve the grammatical and logical flow of the article in general.
- Because our review does not seek to use empirical data to derive confirmation of a hypothesis, the conclusions and central insights of the paper are indeed based on our literature review methodology. We feel that our synthesis of the central insights of the work in our discussion section do adequately summarize the findings of the review. First, we describe that novel forms of planning are emerging largely as a function of the high degrees of uncertainty and complexity for CCAP to confront. Second, our framework organizes, simplifies complex ideas and relates them to one another in a logical way. There are several described ways in which these relationships play out as a function of this organization, which can be useful for those studying coupling or causality between features. Finally, we illustrate that institutional dynamics remain highly complex – and not necessarily easily captured by a simplified framework focused or constructed in the fashion presented. All of these insights are intended, as is common in framework approaches and narrative literature studies, to further consideration and engagement with the themes and ideas that are scrutinized.
- The additional references referred to emerged mostly out of edits conducted after the first round of reviews (we received Reviewers 1-3 comments and produced a second draft before Reviewer 4s first round comments were received). Some of the areas of concern of other reviewers prompted further explanation about the scope of the article and its emphases.
We also worked to incorporate helpful guidance to more explicitly state and describe methodological and research design aspects of the work, which entailed referencing a few papers describing similar approaches.
As previously discussed, the bibliographic section displays both the breadth of the thematic domains explored and the nature of and process for conducting a literature review that seeks to examine, explore and illustrate a large number of complex concepts – of which there is no shortage of existing theoretical consideration and applied work. We feel that the diligently citing the work used in this study is justified by the breadth and complexity of the ideas engaged.
