Ecological Citizenship and the Co-Design of Inclusive and Resilient Pathways for Sustainable Transitions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This paper, titled "Ecological Citizenship and the co-design of inclusive and resilient pathways for sustainable transitions," offers a comprehensive exploration of ecological citizenship (EC) and its role in facilitating sustainable transitions through a co-design approach. The study's focus on integrating EC with participatory governance and social innovation is both timely and relevant, addressing a significant gap in current sustainability research.

Originality

The paper presents a novel perspective by emphasizing the dynamic and context-dependent nature of EC. The identification of seven key dimensions of EC—place-specific, legacy-focused, web-of-life, diversity, social justice, adaptability, and wider systems—provides a nuanced understanding of how EC can be operationalized in diverse contexts. This multidimensional approach is a significant contribution to the field, as it moves beyond a one-size-fits-all model and acknowledges the complexity of sustainability challenges.

Project Methodology/Design

The research design is robust and well-structured, employing a mixed-methods approach that includes roundtable discussions, "How Might We" workshops, and VCSE sessions. This methodological diversity ensures a rich and varied dataset, capturing insights from industry practitioners, community groups, and third-sector organizations. The use of co-design principles in the workshops is particularly commendable, as it aligns with the paper's emphasis on participatory governance and bottom-up solutions. However, there are a few areas where the methodology could be strengthened:

1. Sample Diversity: While the study includes a range of stakeholders, the geographical focus is primarily on the UK. Expanding the scope to include diverse global contexts could enhance the applicability and generalizability of the findings.
2. Longitudinal Perspective: The study could benefit from a longitudinal approach to assess the long-term impact of EC initiatives. This would provide valuable insights into the sustainability and adaptability of the proposed solutions over time.
3. Data Analysis: The paper could provide more detailed information on the data analysis process, particularly how the seven dimensions of EC were derived from the qualitative data. Including a more transparent and systematic approach to coding and thematic analysis would strengthen the credibility of the findings.

Major Correction Suggestions

1. Clarify Terminology: The term "ecological citizenship" is used extensively, but its definition and scope could be more clearly articulated. Providing a concise yet comprehensive definition at the outset would help readers better understand the concept and its implications.
2. Strengthen Recommendations: The recommendations provided are broad and somewhat general. They could be made more specific and actionable by including case studies or examples of successful implementations of EC initiatives. This would provide practical guidance for policymakers and practitioners looking to adopt similar approaches.
3. Address Potential Limitations: The paper should acknowledge potential limitations of the study, such as the reliance on qualitative data and the potential for selection bias in participant recruitment. Discussing these limitations and suggesting future research directions would enhance the paper's credibility and robustness.

Overall, this paper makes a valuable contribution to the field of sustainability research by highlighting the importance of participatory, people-centered approaches in addressing climate challenges. With some refinements in methodology and presentation, it has the potential to become a seminal work in the area of ecological citizenship and sustainable transitions.

Author Response

Response text to R1;

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful feedback, which has helped us refine our manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed response outlining how we have addressed each concern.

1. Sample diversity: We acknowledge the reviewer’s suggestion to expand the study’s geographical focus beyond the UK. To enhance the applicability and generalizability of our findings, we have revised the discussion to emphasize the potential for broader applicability and have integrated additional perspectives on global contexts. Specifically, we have expanded the discussion in lines 657-690 to reflect how similar stakeholder dynamics may apply across different international settings and have suggested future research directions to explore these variations empirically.
   
   
2. Longitudinal perspective: We appreciate the reviewer’s recommendation regarding the benefits of a longitudinal approach. While our current study is cross-sectional, we now explicitly acknowledge this limitation and discuss the potential advantages of a longitudinal study to assess the sustainability and adaptability of EC initiatives over time. These additions can be found in lines 657-690, where we outline how future research could build upon our findings using longitudinal methods to track the evolving impact of EC initiatives.
   
   
3. Data analysis: We have strengthened the transparency and rigor of our data analysis section by providing more detailed information on how the seven dimensions of EC were derived. Specifically, we have elaborated on the coding process, thematic analysis framework, and the systematic approach used to identify key themes. These revisions, located in lines 274-318, provide a clearer methodological foundation and enhance the credibility of our findings.
   
   

We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful feedback, which has significantly contributed to improving our manuscript. We hope these revisions adequately address the concerns raised.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a highly relevant and critical topic in the context of sustainability transitions. Its multi-method approach adds considerable depth to the study. 

The article is original in its approach, the article is clear and its structure is logical. While the concepts themselves are not entirely new, the way they are integrated within the research offers a fresh perspective. The paper is generally well-written and clear. It uses appropriate academic language, however, there are some instances where clarity could be improved with slight rephrasing. 

There are some further observations for authors, hopefully to improve the understanding of this study:

1. The study could perform a deeper exploration of more recent studies or counter-arguments to balance the discussion. For example, authors could give more attention to emerging critiques of participatory governance frameworks or co-design methodologies, which sometimes face challenges in scaling or guaranteeing equitable outcomes.
2. The methodology's explanation is too superficial. Even though the study is qualitative, authors must detail the approximate size of the groups, and more detail on how the approaches were made. Further, this section could be better connected to the findings to ensure a smoother transition from the research design to the results. 
3. In the findings, the explanation of the seven dimensions of EC is somewhat fragmented, and a more cohesive synthesis of these dimensions would help the reader better grasp how they interrelate. The table is very long and can get confusing while readers try to connect all factors.
4. Some of the recommendations and findings are repetitive, particularly in the latter sections, which could be condensed to enhance readability.
5. Finally, The conclusion could more effectively summarize the key findings without reiterating too many details already covered in the discussion section.

Congratulations on your work. 

Author Response

Response to R2

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback, which has helped us refine and enhance our manuscript. Below, we outline the specific revisions made in response to the comments provided.

1. Exploration of recent studies and counter-arguments: We acknowledge the need for a more balanced discussion by incorporating critiques of participatory governance frameworks and co-design methodologies, particularly their challenges in scaling and ensuring equitable outcomes. To address this, we have integrated relevant counter-arguments and emerging critiques in lines 192-201, which provide a more nuanced discussion and help frame our study within a broader academic discourse.
   
   
2. Methodology explanation: We have expanded the methodology section to provide greater clarity on the research process. Specifically, we have included details on the approximate size of participant groups and provided more information on how different methodological approaches were implemented. Additionally, we have improved the connection between the methodology and the findings to ensure a smoother transition between sections. These refinements can be found in line 271 and help enhance the comprehensibility of the research design.
   
   
3. Synthesis of the seven dimensions of EC: We appreciate the feedback regarding the fragmented nature of the findings. To improve clarity, we have revised the discussion of the seven dimensions of EC to present a more cohesive synthesis, ensuring that the interrelations between these dimensions are more apparent to the reader. Additionally, we have revised the table to enhance readability and make it easier to follow. These changes have been made in lines 320-346 to strengthen the coherence of this section.
   
   
4. Reducing repetition in recommendations and findings: We recognize the concern regarding redundancy in the latter sections of the manuscript. To enhance readability, we have carefully condensed repetitive elements in lines 522-595 while maintaining the integrity and clarity of key insights. This revision ensures a more concise and engaging presentation of our findings and recommendations.
   
   
5. Improving the conclusion: We have revised the conclusion to provide a more effective summary of the key findings while avoiding unnecessary reiteration of details already covered in the discussion. This revision, located in lines 691-713, ensures that the conclusion concisely reinforces the study’s contributions without redundancy.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my concern, and I am happy to suggest acceptance.