A Methodological Tool to Integrate Theoretical Concepts in Climate Change Adaptation to Spatial Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very interesting paper, with a very innovative approach, based on a massive documentary analysis. Its aim, as I understand it, is to present the development of a methodological tool. Quite a bit of the paper is dedicated to a conceptual analysis, which is the cornerstone of the tool. However, not enough space is dedicated to the tool description and aplication. Because of this, I am a bit unclear about a few aspects of the paper. Please kindly clarify:

- the dataset, by mentioning the reference numbers in the methodology and perhaps by using a tabulation with some basic descriptors (ie academic papers, reports etc.)

-Is the purpose of the analysis to only show that there is a relationship between determinant and concept (dependent variable) or to also describe the nature of that relationship?

- If the latter is the case then what is the relationship between determinants and variables/concepts? are the determinants attenuating or amplifying the dependent variable? Is it a monotone function?

-If the former is the case, then please further explain the usefulness of the paper's premise for urban planning, meaning: of we know two things are related but cannot tell in what way exactly, then how do we use this info for planning purposes?

- The REAd GrIn tool in greater detail. At the moment, the paper dedicates a handful of paragraphs to describing it. I am not sure I can fully understand the key elements of the tool and how it would apply in an actual case. What are the tool's components? How does it work? For what type/scope of planning and at what spatial level? Could you give an example, even a mock-up of how it would work? I realise that this may require you to write quite a bit more but the main focus of the paper is on the methodological tool, and therefore on its composition and application too in my view.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for reviewing our paper and providing your positive and constructive comments and valuable suggestions, which gave us the opportunity to improve our paper. Our responses to each of the comments are as follows.

- the dataset, by mentioning the reference numbers in the methodology and perhaps by using a tabulation with some basic descriptors (ie academic papers, reports etc.)

Thank you for this very useful comment. In the methodology (Section 2) we added Table 2 which presents the type of the documents, their number and the respective references.

 

-Is the purpose of the analysis to only show that there is a relationship between determinant and concept (dependent variable) or to also describe the nature of that relationship?

- If the latter is the case then what is the relationship between determinants and variables/concepts? are the determinants attenuating or amplifying the dependent variable? Is it a monotone function?

-If the former is the case, then please further explain the usefulness of the paper's premise for urban planning, meaning: of we know two things are related but cannot tell in what way exactly, then how do we use this info for planning purposes?

Thank you for these questions which give us the opportunity to clarify further the issues you raise in your questions. As it is mentioned in the paper (penultimate paragraph of Section 2), the aim of the thematic analysis is to identify the determinants of the four individual concepts, compare them and highlight the common determinants In this paragraph we added a phrase stating that the common determinants of the individual concepts should “lead to the objectives to reduce vulnerability and enhance resilience and adaptability of a system by better planning and design of GI”. Moreover, in Section 4.1 it is mentioned that “all the documented GI determinants, are in line with those that enhance resilience and adaptability while reduce vulnerability”. In addition, in Section 4.2 examples were added to showcase how the determinants can be used in the context of spatial planning.

 

The REAd GrIn tool in greater detail. At the moment, the paper dedicates a handful of paragraphs to describing it. I am not sure I can fully understand the key elements of the tool and how it would apply in an actual case. What are the tool's components? How does it work? For what type/scope of planning and at what spatial level? Could you give an example, even a mock-up of how it would work? I realise that this may require you to write quite a bit more but the main focus of the paper is on the methodological tool, and therefore on its composition and application too in my view.

Thank you for these comments which helped us to present the REAd GrIn tool in greater detail. Regarding the REAd GrIn tool its components are the common determinants of the 4 key concepts that were identified by the thematic analysis (vulnerability, resilience, adaptability, and GI). The tool is structured in such a way that it can be implemented for any strategy/plan, from national to local level a point that was added to the third paragraph of Section 5. Examples were also added in Section 4.2 from the Irish planning system, namely the National Planning Framework (national level plan) and the Dublin City Development Plan (DCDP) 2016-2022 (urban level plan), to showcase how the determinants can be used in the context of spatial planning, in different spatial levels.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is a most interesting piece of research, based on a thorough analysis of data from a very large number of scientific sources and official documents. It belongs to a category of studies which develop new tools that could be integrated in the planning process. It is well written and documented. It deserves to be published as it stands, but in the reviewer’s opinion could be improved, it the authors agree, on the basis of the following observations.

 

It would be helpful:

·         If a couple of paragraphs were included before the section on methodology (line 131) to clarify the authors’ understanding of the terms used in the introduction (vulnerability, resilience, adaptation, adaptability, exposure etc), terms which are the common currency of natural disaster studies and which are then investigated in the text through a content analysis of a large number of articles and documents. Further terms are later introduced (persistence, desirability, transformation, transformability, sensitivity), in a way that the conditions of ambiguity, confusion, fuzziness, and/or complexity, which the authors themselves underline, persist to the end. It is therefore important, before the analysis of documents, to provide a compass regarding the authors’ own definitions. Besides, the authors themselves point out that the results of the analysis “were to a certain degree expected” (line 341), which could be interpreted as a confirmation of their own definitions.

·         If the conclusions (line 439) were to acquire a more intense focus on the implications of the previous analysis for spatial planning. The title of the paper (“A methodological tool to integrate theoretical concepts in climate change adaptation to spatial planning”) predisposes the reader to expect special attention to the dual concept “climate change – spatial planning” and this expectation should be confirmed in the conclusions with greater clarity. It is the reviewer’s opinion that this requirement can be fulfilled with a very short addition to the conclusions. Without this, even the role of the new tool the authors propose (REAd GrIn) is not fully comprehensible, in spite of the authors’ contention that “REAd GrIn essentially demonstrates the most important determinants of the concepts for spatial planning and what planning can do to achieve adaptation (and ultimately sustainable development) through GI and based on the concepts of vulnerability, resilience and adaptability”.

 

Three minor mistakes have been detected and must be corrected as follows:

·         Line 125: Through, instead of though.

·         Line 212: Stressed, instead of stress.

·         Line 227: Increasing, instead of increasingly.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for reviewing our paper and providing your positive and constructive comments and valuable suggestions, which gave us the opportunity to improve our paper. Our responses to each of the comments are as follows.

 

It would be helpful:

• If a couple of paragraphs were included before the section on methodology (line 131) to clarify the authors’ understanding of the terms used in the introduction (vulnerability, resilience, adaptation, adaptability, exposure etc), terms which are the common currency of natural disaster studies and which are then investigated in the text through a content analysis of a large number of articles and documents. Further terms are later introduced (persistence, desirability, transformation, transformability, sensitivity), in a way that the conditions of ambiguity, confusion, fuzziness, and/or complexity, which the authors themselves underline, persist to the end. It is therefore important, before the analysis of documents, to provide a compass regarding the authors’ own definitions. Besides, the authors themselves point out that the results of the analysis “were to a certain degree expected” (line 341), which could be interpreted as a confirmation of their own definitions.

Thank you for this very helpful comment. In the Introduction we added Table 1 with the definitions of the terms: vulnerability, resilience, adaptability, and adaptation. In the same Table is also clarified that exposure is the external dimension of vulnerability and sensitivity is part of its internal dimension. In Section 4.1 it is stated that “The incorporation of the concept of exposure in planning documents can be investigated by whether they recognize hazards and risks related to climate change” (lines 431-433), and “Sensitivity is considered an inherent property of systems that depend on their characteristics and properties” (lines 445-446). These mentions also indicate the interpretation of exposure and sensitivity.

Regarding the concepts persistence, desirability and transformability, we don’t provide any definitions but in the paragraphs of lines 275-287, 361-369, and 370-377 we explain how the literature handles these terms. Also, the term “transformation” was replaced with “transformability”, in order to avoid further confusion.

 

 If the conclusions (line 439) were to acquire a more intense focus on the implications of the previous analysis for spatial planning. The title of the paper (“A methodological tool to integrate theoretical concepts in climate change adaptation to spatial planning”) predisposes the reader to expect special attention to the dual concept “climate change – spatial planning” and this expectation should be confirmed in the conclusions with greater clarity. It is the reviewer’s opinion that this requirement can be fulfilled with a very short addition to the conclusions. Without this, even the role of the new tool the authors propose (REAd GrIn) is not fully comprehensible, in spite of the authors’ contention that “REAd GrIn essentially demonstrates the most important determinants of the concepts for spatial planning and what planning can do to achieve adaptation (and ultimately sustainable development) through GI and based on the concepts of vulnerability, resilience and adaptability”.

Thank you for this constructive comment. Following your recommendation, we made some additions in our conclusions (Section 5), so that to demonstrate better the connection between spatial planning and adaptation.

 

Three minor mistakes have been detected and must be corrected as follows:

• Line 125: Through, instead of though.
• Line 212: Stressed, instead of stress.
• Line 227: Increasing, instead of increasingly.

Thank you for detecting the three minor mistakes, we have corrected them.

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting exercise in comparative concepts, but the proclamation of a "tool" seems overreach without at least some demonstrative application verifying that it DOES improve planning or choice between planning alternatives (which is notably lacking).  With regard to presentation, the sentence starting on line 344 needs clarification.  Paragraphs starting on lines 429 and 490 are mostly in nature of hand-waving without some specific demonstrative context.  Lend some actuality to last sentence (lines 473-478).  Minor notes than -> that (line 19) and though -> through (line 125).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you very much for reviewing our paper and providing your positive and constructive comments and valuable suggestions, which gave us the opportunity to improve our paper. Our responses to each of the comments are as follows.

 

This is an interesting exercise in comparative concepts, but the proclamation of a "tool" seems overreach without at least some demonstrative application verifying that it DOES improve planning or choice between planning alternatives (which is notably lacking). 

Paragraphs starting on lines 429 and 490 are mostly in nature of hand-waving without some specific demonstrative context. 

Thank you for this constructive comment. In Section 4.2 we added an explanation for all the determinants that REAd GrIn incorporates. Moreover, we added examples for each of the determinant in Section 4.2 (in which paragraph starting from the line 429 was in the original manuscript). The examples are from the Irish planning system, namely the National Planning Framework (NPF) (national level planning) and the Dublin City Development Plan (DCDP) 2016-2022 (urban level planning), to showcase how the determinants can be used in the context of spatial planning, in different spatial levels.

We note here that in the original manuscript there is not a paragraph starting from line 490, so we are not sure in which part of the paper you are referring to by “line 490”.

 

With regard to presentation, the sentence starting on line 344 needs clarification. 

Thank you for your useful comment. In Line 344 (in the original manuscript) we had omitted “was not”, which created confusion. So we corrected the sentence (lines 361-363 of the revised manuscript). 

 

Lend some actuality to last sentence (lines 473-478). 

Thank you for your constructive comments, Following your and Reviewer’s 2 recommendation, we made some changes in the conclusions of the paper (Section 5), so that lines 473-478 (in the original manuscript) can be more comprehensible.

 

Minor notes than -> that (line 19) and though -> through (line 125).

Thank you detecting the two mistakes, we have corrected them.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I think the paper has improved significantly and could be published.

Reviewer 3 Report

More meaningful with the modifications made.  Make "toll" as "tool" (line 348).