Bottom-Up Resilience: A Living Lab Approach to Strengthen Ecosystem Services and Climate Resilience with Local Communities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript analyses the role of Living Labs as collaborative governance mechanisms aimed at strengthening socio-ecological resilience in local contexts. Particular emphasis is placed on co-creation processes, situated learning and trust-building among diverse stakeholders. Drawing on experiences primarily from Austria, the study proposes an approach combining scientific and local knowledge with practical experimentation through participatory activities such as 'walkshops'. The study's main contribution is its integration of ecosystem service assessment with social and emotional processes. It suggests that the transition towards more resilient territories depends on the progressive construction of shared knowledge through concrete, visible actions. While the approach is relevant and aligned with current debates on nature-based solutions and transdisciplinary governance, weaknesses in the definition of objectives, methodological systematisation and explicit presentation of results limit its analytical scope.

The introduction appropriately establishes the relevance of a bottom-up approach to building resilience, as well as the need to integrate different forms of knowledge to address complex socio-ecological challenges. However, this section mixes conceptual elements, descriptions of previous projects and methodological justifications without a clear structure, making it difficult to identify the precise research question. Although key concepts such as resilience, ecosystem services, and placemaking are introduced, they are not critically positioned within the existing academic debate. Furthermore, one of the study's most interesting aspects — the incorporation of emotional, cognitive, and experiential dimensions in participatory processes — is not explicitly linked to well-established theoretical frameworks in education and social transformation. To improve this section, the research problem should be more clearly defined, the study objectives clarified, and the theoretical framework strengthened through a more structured literature review. It would also be helpful to distinguish more clearly between the study context and the specific contributions of the work.

The manuscript describes a methodological approach in the Materials and Methods section. This approach is based on direct interaction with local stakeholders, participatory observation and the use of environmental assessment tools, such as ecosystem service matrices and remote sensing-derived indicators. However, this description is not systematic enough. Key aspects such as the criteria for selecting cases, the number of participants, the duration of processes and the procedures for collecting and analysing data are not specified. Furthermore, the integration of qualitative data (e.g. experiences and perceptions) and quantitative data (e.g. temperatures and NDVI/NDWI indices) is presented more descriptively than analytically.

To strengthen this section, the authors should draw on Córdoba Hernández & Camerin's article, 'The application of ecosystem assessments in land use planning: A case study for supporting decisions towards ecosystem protection' (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2024.103399), as it proposes a clearly structured, phase-based methodology aligned with the MAES framework (ecosystem and service identification, planning-scale assessment, and impact analysis). Incorporating this approach would enable a more rigorous organisation of the manuscript's methodology, thereby facilitating its replicability and clarity. When introducing the use of ecosystem service matrices and assessment tools, it would be useful to explicitly explain how these are integrated within a sequential methodological process, specifying the phases, inputs, outputs and validation criteria. Referring to this work would also justify the choice of instruments and clarify how qualitative and quantitative data are integrated, shifting the focus from a general description to a coherent analytical framework. This would significantly strengthen the study's methodological robustness and align it with established European approaches to ecosystem assessment in spatial planning.

The 'Project Examples' section provides detailed descriptions of experiences, particularly with regard to walkshops and other participatory activities. While this section is valuable for understanding how the approach operates in practice, it is overly narrative. For instance, the case studies concentrate on the sequence of activities and interactions between participants, yet they fail to systematise the results or explicitly link them to the study objectives. Furthermore, including multiple examples without a common comparative framework makes it challenging to draw general conclusions.

To improve the section, the cases should be reorganised based on shared analytical criteria to identify patterns, results and lessons learned. In this regard, it would be particularly useful to incorporate the work of Reed et al. (2010) entitled 'What is social learning?' (https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268235), which is widely used in environmental governance and participatory studies. This article provides a conceptual and operational framework for analysing social learning processes through dimensions such as stakeholder interaction, changes in knowledge, and transformations in practices or decisions. Integrating this reference would enable the authors to present the examples as both experiential narratives and analytically evaluable cases. Specifically, this reference could be introduced when describing walkshops, proposing a systematisation based on social learning indicators (e.g. evolution of perceptions, generation of shared knowledge and adoption of collective actions). This would enable comparison across cases within a shared interpretative framework, strengthening the manuscript's capacity to derive generalisable conclusions and transform descriptive narratives into structured, analytically consistent evidence.

The Results section of the manuscript suggests that trust-building occurs through shared experience, the implementation of small-scale actions and the gradual development of common knowledge. However, the results are not presented with sufficient clarity, nor are they supported by well-defined indicators. Although the ecosystem services assessment matrix is introduced as a central tool, its concrete application and results are not sufficiently developed. The observed changes are not quantified, and comparative evidence is lacking. To strengthen this section, clear outcome indicators should be defined (e.g. changes in perceptions, number of interventions implemented, improvements in specific environmental variables) and concrete examples illustrating the impact of the approach should be presented. It would also be useful to distinguish clearly between observed results and the authors’ interpretations.

The Discussion section highlights the importance of transdisciplinary collaboration and the integration of scientific and local knowledge, and emphasises the potential of Living Labs to facilitate collective learning and adaptive governance processes. However, the section tends to reiterate ideas already presented and lacks critical engagement with the existing literature. Key aspects such as implementation challenges, potential conflicts among stakeholders, and institutional constraints are also not sufficiently addressed. To improve the section, the discussion should be structured around the study's specific contributions, compared with similar approaches, and the strengths and limitations of the proposed model analysed. The transferability of the approach to other territorial contexts should also be addressed.

The Limitations section is underdeveloped, which is a significant shortcoming. Given the contextual and experimental nature of the approach, it is important to explicitly acknowledge limitations such as dependence on the local context, replication challenges, potential subjectivity when interpreting results and the absence of a longitudinal analysis. Including this reflection would enhance the study's transparency and help to properly frame its contributions.

In the conclusion, the manuscript summarises the importance of participatory processes and shared knowledge-building in advancing towards more resilient territories. However, the conclusion is somewhat general and does not precisely summarise the main findings. It also fails to provide concrete recommendations or clearly identify future research directions. To improve this section, the conclusion should be structured around the main results of the study, their practical implications and the potential application of the approach in other contexts. It should also outline future lines of research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research, as the manuscript presents several issues related to clarity, grammar, and sentence structure that at times hinder comprehension. In particular, some sentences are overly long and complex, with multiple ideas combined without sufficient syntactic organization, which makes the argument difficult to follow. Additionally, certain passages appear to follow a structure closer to literal translation, resulting in awkward phrasing and reduced readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper describes a bottom-up resilience approach using Living Labs for the integration of local knowledge, ecosystem services assessment and participative practices to address climate change issues. The paper provides practical insights supported by case studies, but remains descriptive and lacks deeper scientific structuring.

The abstract is clear but overly descriptive. It should explicitly state the research gap, method, key findings, and contribution, and anchor the resilience definition in established literature.

The introduction provides the relevant context, but it does not clearly establish the research gap or relate the study to current debates in the field. Implicit within the text are the research aim and the research objectives; however, these are not clearly articulated. The introduction would benefit from a clear identification of the research gap concerning LL and resilience within the current discourse, a concise statement of the research aim, and well-defined research questions or objectives.

The manuscript shows sufficient basic understanding of core concepts related to resilience, CICES, Living Labs etc. However, the comments are scattered throughout the text and are not compiled in a literature review section where recent literature (from the last 5 years) is critically discussed including comparisons of different approaches to Living Labs and NbS to name a few.

The methodology is largely descriptive and has not been supported by appropriate scientific rigour. Although a participatory approach has been undertaken, the research study lacks a clear research design, data collection and analysis strategy that has been followed throughout the study. Clearly outlining the research design (qualitative case study, action research etc), the participants involved in the study (how they were selected and characteristics of the sample), data collected (observations, recordings, measurements etc) and how these data have been analysed (thematic analysis, comparative analysis etc) is necessary.

The paper provides a rich source of descriptive information and practical examples. The results however are largely narrative and need to be organised under a number of thematic or categorical headings, supported by appropriate analytical evidence and discussed in the light of relevant literature and research objectives.

The paper has a lot of potential for practical and policy relevance, but this is not explored. It could be very useful in participatory planning and climate change adaptation processes and scenarios. To take this potential a step further, it would be useful to dedicate a section to elaborating on practical applications for planners and local governments, policy implications and potential scalability, and academic contributions to the field as well as broader societal implications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Following the revision, improvements can be observed in the manuscript, particularly with regard to the clarification of objectives, the expansion of the discussion and the explicit acknowledgement of limitations. While these modifications are positive, they do not fully address some of the structural weaknesses identified in the initial review, particularly with regard to the systematisation of methodology and the formalisation of analysis.

In the Materials and Methods section, the authors have provided additional information on the number of participants, process duration and data integration logic, representing progress compared to the previous version. Nevertheless, the response reflects a methodological stance that is deliberately distanced from more structured approaches, maintaining a certain degree of ambiguity in terms of replicability and process traceability. While the justification that the approach is not strictly aimed at land protection, but rather at broader socio-ecological co-construction processes, is valid, this does not preclude the need for greater rigour in specifying phases, instruments and validation mechanisms. In this regard, incorporating the article 'The application of ecosystem assessments in land use planning' (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2024.103399) as a methodological reference would be highly advisable, as it could help to structure the process more clearly by defining inputs, outputs, and key stages of data integration, without necessarily providing a normative framework. Including it would not imply a shift in approach, but rather enhance methodological clarity and scientific readability.

In the 'Project Examples' section, the authors acknowledge the relevance of the social learning framework, yet choose not to fully integrate it. They argue that their focus lies in the embodied experience of walking. While this position is conceptually interesting and consistent with phenomenological and relational approaches, scientifically, it maintains the previously identified weakness of a lack of analytical systematisation of the cases. For this reason, using alternative frameworks — such as the one proposed in the aforementioned article — could be strategically valuable, even in this section. This would enable the examples to be presented not only as experiential narratives, but also as processes that can be evaluated in terms of their contribution to decision-making and territorial management. In this sense, the value of the recommended reference extends beyond methodology, serving as a bridge between the experiential dimension emphasised by the authors and the need to structure evidence that can be transferred.

Regarding the results, the authors clarify that their objective is not to quantify changes or measure perceptions, but rather to facilitate situated processes of collective experimentation. While this clarification is important and coherent with their approach, it does not fully address the need to present results in a more structured manner. Even when dealing with relational or process-based outcomes, these can — and should — be systematised through analytical categories, an aspect that the manuscript still does not fully develop.

The improvements are more substantial in the Discussion and Limitations sections. The authors provide a clearer reflection on contextual specificity, limited replicability and the approach's inherent subjectivity. This strengthens the transparency of the work and appropriately positions it as an exploratory, process-oriented contribution. Nevertheless, it would be desirable for them to engage more explicitly with comparable literature, moving beyond the internal justification of the approach.

Finally, the conclusion clearly demonstrates an effort to structure the findings and implications more effectively, incorporating elements such as science–society interaction, procedural equity and the use of the SPAC framework. While this represents a meaningful improvement, it could benefit from greater synthesis and a clearer articulation of the key contributions and future research directions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments. 

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our revised manuscript and providing suggestions.