DeveLoP—A Rationale and Toolbox for Democratic Landscape Planning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
(1)figure 1 unclear approaches, step 2 and 3 are needless duplication.
(2) It is suggested that add a case study.
(3) the toolbox now only have a framework, do not open source to all user.
Author Response
We are grateful to the reviewer´s positive review of our manuscript.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
(1)figure 1 unclear approaches, step 2 and 3 are needless duplication.
Regarding steps 2 and 3 in Figure 1, approach 2 refers to learning between individuals of the same group and approach 3 refers to mechanisms polarizing between groups of individuals. The description on how the two approaches differ on p.2 has been clarified.
(2) It is suggested that add a case study.
The paper aims at identifying an approach that is based on a number of case studies made. In so doing it reports on findings on a meta level that has not previously been reported. The findings, in turn, provide a rationale and a toolbox for application on additional cases to those reported here. We think that presenting additional case studies in the manuscript would not further help convey the findings on a meta level.
(3) the toolbox now only have a framework, do not open source to all user.
The paper includes a framework and a toolbox. The toolbox refers to the survey instruments described in Section 3 where information down to individual questions of the survey instruments have been provided. The purpose is to provide useful hands-on information for researchers who want to apply the rationale on other cases.
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented paper is nice and interesting, dealing with the possibilities to involve the publics to the planning processes. There is no major objectives what is written, but there are questions concerning to what should be added to written text.
Basic questions:
- First part of the paper is kind of recherché of the approaches to the basic concepts. In spite of the nicely written text I am not sure what is the authors understanding of the concept „landscape approach“. In this respect, I consider necessary to clarify the author’s position to the very basic term „landscape“. In different understanding and languages the term is alternated, most often with „land“, but also environment, territory, etc. especially when using coupled terms as land resources/landscape resources, land potential/landscape potential/ land-use planning/landscape planning, land management/ landscape management. Even more confusions appear when added the terms „complex“, „integrated“, „holistic“, „sustainable“ etc., as „sustainable land-use management and planning“ used also by authors (rows 12 up to 603), „landscape approach to sustainable land-use management and planning“ (rows 68, 69).
Authors did not mention the (geo)system approach to the landscape (as complex cut from the geographical sphere), e.g. the well-developed German landscape school – Neef, Schmithusen, Haase and others, the Soviet landscape school - Sochava, Isachenko, Preobrazhensky and others, or other similar schools as e.g. Zev Naveh etc. which were applied in the science and practice of land/landscape planning also in other CEE countries. By the way, the authors did not cite not a single literature from these landscape schools circle.
This clarification of the author’s position is especially needed because they accept the statement that „a degree of confusion remains over terminology as well as application and utility (row 40 – 41). The statement that „the interaction between people and their environment is a critical element of the landscape approach“ (row 66, 67) is very common and vague.
Therefore, what is the „landscape approach“ for authors in the context of democratic landscape planning?
- The substantial part of the paper on DeveLoP is also interesting and nicely written. It has logics and rationale, but there remains a basic question, partly expressed also for by authors, namely how to „take both scientific knowledge and the local knowledge of individuals, and indeed aggregates of them“ (row 604, 605 and further). Especially valid when it is obvious that „ It is often difficult for respondents to report on their values. They may not know ...“ (row 452 and further)
Therefore, it is necessary to explain how the authors see the possibilities to implement the described tools – according to authors words „indeed aggregates of them“ ((row 604) – to legally supported an in practice realised planning procedures. Probably the DeveLoP can help to communication, but less to real planning (?)
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The presented paper is nice and interesting, dealing with the possibilities to involve the publics to the planning processes. There is no major objectives what is written, but there are questions concerning to what should be added to written text.
We are grateful to the reviewer´s positive review of our manuscript.
Basic questions:
- First part of the paper is kind of recherché of the approaches to the basic concepts. In spite of the nicely written text I am not sure what is the authors understanding of the concept „landscape approach“. In this respect, I consider necessary to clarify the author’s position to the very basic term „landscape“. In different understanding and languages the term is alternated, most often with „land“, but also environment, territory, etc. especially when using coupled terms as land resources/landscape resources, land potential/landscape potential/ land-use planning/landscape planning, land management/ landscape management. Even more confusions appear when added the terms „complex“, „integrated“, „holistic“, „sustainable“ etc., as „sustainable land-use management and planning“ used also by authors (rows 12 up to 603), „landscape approach to sustainable land-use management and planning“ (rows 68, 69).
Authors did not mention the (geo)system approach to the landscape (as complex cut from the geographical sphere), e.g. the well-developed German landscape school – Neef, Schmithusen, Haase and others, the Soviet landscape school - Sochava, Isachenko, Preobrazhensky and others, or other similar schools as e.g. Zev Naveh etc. which were applied in the science and practice of land/landscape planning also in other CEE countries. By the way, the authors did not cite not a single literature from these landscape schools circle.
We have not aimed at providing a full review of approaches to landscape but rather referred to authors who have provided more extensive reviews of landscape approaches than we have. We have now complemented this with a reference to Carl Troll and his work introducing the concept of landscape ecology in 1939.
This clarification of the author’s position is especially needed because they accept the statement that „a degree of confusion remains over terminology as well as application and utility (row 40 – 41). The statement that „the interaction between people and their environment is a critical element of the landscape approach“ (row 66, 67) is very common and vague.
Therefore, what is the „landscape approach“ for authors in the context of democratic landscape planning?
As stated on page 3 we propose to overcome the shortcomings of the landscape approach described in the literature and propose an individuals oriented landscape approach that draws on empirical results from behavioural decision research and the framework of science and proven experience. We demonstrate the potential of this individuals-oriented landscape approach and show how it can be applied and how its utility can be maximized in pursuit of sustainable development of society.
- The substantial part of the paper on DeveLoP is also interesting and nicely written. It has logics and rationale, but there remains a basic question, partly expressed also for by authors, namely how to „take both scientific knowledge and the local knowledge of individuals, and indeed aggregates of them“ (row 604, 605 and further). Especially valid when it is obvious that „ It is often difficult for respondents to report on their values. They may not know ...“ (row 452 and further)
Therefore, it is necessary to explain how the authors see the possibilities to implement the described tools – according to authors words „indeed aggregates of them“ ((row 604) – to legally supported an in practice realised planning procedures. Probably the DeveLoP can help to communication, but less to real planning (?)
An explanation on how the tools can be implemented in spatial planning has been added to pages 2 and 3, reading:
"The guidelines for effective communications are meant to improve the decision-making competence of the individuals in the landscape, in the terminology of Hägerstrand [4] thereby building spatial competence of the decision-making agents. Hence, fostering spatial competence can be used as a planning instrument. The assessments of vulnerability/opportunities of individuals in the landscape are meant to provide input for authorities´ spatial planning, fostering territorial competence in the terminology of Hägerstrand [4]). Spatial as well as territorial competence are both important vehicles for sustainable development."
The two concepts spatial competence and territorial competence have been introduced into the text: section headings 2.1 and 2.2 and in the Conclusions section, and in Figure 8 as well.
