Wither Adaptation Action

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

“Wither Adaptation Action” is an interesting paper and potentially a valuable contribution to the climate adaptation literature. The topic is important and timely: Why is there so little documented evidence of adaptation actions being successfully carried out, given the increasing concern about climate change, broad recognition of the need for adaptation, and proliferation of commitments and planning?  While one explanation is that the field of study is relatively nascent and thus the literature does not yet capture all that is happening on the ground.  Perhaps there is a grain of truth in this. The more likely explanation—which is presented as more-or-less a fact in this paper—is that adaptation actions are badly needed but not taking place. The authors compare two sets workshops 10 years apart to reveal that many of the same barriers that were identified by community members in 2012 still exist in 2022, despite the fact that the climatic conditions appear to be getting worse. While the barriers identified by workshop participants—e.g.,, lack of funding, poor coordination between different levels of government, lack of performance indicators —will surprise no one who has been involved in this field, that does not diminish the value of this study.  Longitudinally tracking the perceptions of adaptation needs and actions held by community members provides a useful barometer of what is happening on the ground and why (or why not). If anything, these types of workshops should be held more frequently and across more locations to provide deeper insights and more rigorous analyses. This paper provides a useful snapshot of two locations in Victoria, Australia separated by a decade.

While I believe this study and analysis is valuable, I think that there are some issues that, if addressed, could greatly strengthen the paper.

Literature Review- I thought that the literature review was one of the strongest elements of the paper. It did a nice job of summarizing adaptation actions and barriers over several decades, primarily in Australia. It charted how fragmented literature has been slowly coalescing along some consistent themes on actions and barriers (such as in the IPCC report). Indeed, the literature review section could be expanded a bit further (perhaps through more international comparisons) and written up as a stand-alone review paper. 

Assuming that approach is not taken, I think the paper could be improved if the authors more directly drew the comparison between historical trends identified in the literature and findings from the workshop.  For example, in the literature review, there is a discussion of the establishment of new federal units and changes in the federal government’s approach to adaptation after federal elections in 2022. It would be good to present the results from the 2022 workshop in a way that mentions whether such federal changes appear to affect adaptation actions within communities on the ground.  (I assume that they did not—given the comments about the poor coordination with the federal government—but that point could be linked back the context that you described in the literature review).  To do this well, the paper may need to be restructured a bit.

Methodology – The methodology was sparse, leaving me with many questions. For example, exactly what is the Search Conference method? This fundamental element of the methodology is not described. Moreover, basic methodological details are missing, such as who the facilitators were, how long workshops lasted (an hour? A couple days?), how the follow-up conversations were conducted (by phone? In person? Short questions or lengthy discussions?). Because such detail is missing, it is impossible for the reader to fully understand how the sessions functioned and, more importantly, whether the two sets of workshops were similar enough to allow their results to be compared.

Results – Again, there are critical missing details concerning the results that makes it hard to fully assess the findings. Most significantly, there is almost no explanation of how Table 1 – the comparison of major barrier themes across the two workshop series—was created.  How was it decided if a specific major theme was discussed in the workshop? Would it be enough for one person to raise the point? What if the theme was only brought up in the follow-up sessions? Are there clear guidelines for scoring.  And would it be possible to rank or categorize how widespread the support was for these themes? Further explanation is warranted.

As the results are presented now, they are fairly dry. To some degree, the description of the results  seem to repeat some of the barriers already identified in the literature review. One possible suggestion to distinguish the results from the workshops from those in the literature review would be to add specific examples of from workshop discussions. For example, it was mentioned that the 2012 workshop included at least one climate denier. Did that influence others?  Furthermore, the participation of state government officials lilky resulted in interesting conversations about the poor communication among levels of government (as implied by this sentence: “Some participants, particularly those from state government, wished the community would express their views more clearly, while some community members wished their views were acted upon and not blocked by decisions made elsewhere.”).

Discussion- The authors emphasize that many of the barriers and concerns that existed in 2012 were still a concern in 2022. This is a valuable insight that is fully discussed. What is not much discussed, however, are those items that have changed and why. For example, the authors note that workshop participants in 2012 commonly associated the adaptation problems with decision-making in 2012 and with implementation in 2022. Any idea why this is and what its implications are?

 

Author Response

Comment 1: Is the research design appropriate? Can be improved.

Response from authors: Thank you for this comment. We agree that stronger links should have been made between the historical trends identified in the literature review and the workshop findings. Following the reviewer’s more detailed comments suggesting improvements could be made linking the historical trends in the literature review and findings from the workshop, additional text has been added: Line 522, and 565 to 581 – as identified in red.

Comment 2: Are the methods adequately described? Must be improved

Response from authors: As suggested, the method needed to be improved. The requested details have been provided (in red) in the method section.

Comment 3: Are the results clearly presented? Can be improved.

Response from authors: An explanation of Table 1 is provided in the results section. Your comments on Table 1 have been responded to in the method section of the paper lines 297-301. As suggested we have included a couple of quotes from participants, but I’m concerned about the length of the paper.

Comment 4: Can be improved

Response from authors: No specific comments as to possible improvement given, but hopefully the few changes to this section (in red) are what the reviewer was thinking.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the topic to be presented in the manuscript is important and relevant. It well fits the aims and scope of the journal. Generally, the writing structure of the manuscript is logical and coherent. However, by reading the whole manuscript, it is more like a report analysis, particularly in the results and discussion sections, rather than an academic article. To enhance the manuscript's academic rigor, it is suggested incorporating a clearer theoretical framework on “adaptation action” and strengthening the analytical strategies. These should be linked to the presentation of the results as well as provide specific guidance for discussed points.

Author Response

Comment 1: Are the methods adequately described? Can be improved.

Response from authors: As suggested, the method could be improved. Considerable re-writing has been done to hopefully improve this section. The suggestion in relation to a theoretical framework for adaptation action is presented in lines 284 to 290.

Comment 2. Are the results clearly presented? Can be improved

Response from authors: An explanation of Table 1 is provided in the results section. Your comments on Table 1 have been responded to in the method section of the paper lines 297-301. As suggested we have included a couple of quotes from participants, but I’m concerned about the length of the paper.

Comment 3: Are the conclusions supported by the results? Can be improved.

Response from authors: Can be improved: The authors argue that the presentation of results does follow the factors outlined in the adaptation action theory.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-structured, and the findings contribute novel insights to the field. I do not foresee any obstacles to the publication of this work; however, I offer some minor suggestions as follows:

- The composition of the interested citizens' group remains ambiguous, as it is unclear whether its members are representatives or ordinary individuals.

- The quality of Figure 1 is suboptimal and lacks professionalism, as the locations of the workshops are represented by irregular lines.

The introduction section fails to present a robust argument regarding the trends in adaptation policy formulation and implementation within the framework of climate governance, which has significantly influenced this trajectory. Recent literature addressing this issue includes:

- https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2022.2161298

-https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.937388

-https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc8054

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3. Are the results clearly presented? Can be improved: T

Response from authors: The composition of the participant group is outlined in more detail in lines 265-273.We are unclear about how to improve Figure 1 and seek the guidance of the journal editor on this issue. The additional references have been noted, thanks, and an addition made in lines 626-628.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting and relevant piece about how adaptation was addressed at two conferences in Victoria, one in 2012 and one in 2022.  The topic did not gain a lot of attention, familiarity or resources in the intervening years, and the conclusion is that much more work is still needed to make adaptation part of the government "performance management matrix."  The piece is going to make a strong contribution, but I recommend a few changes first.  The circumstances of climate change in Victoria need to be better situated, as do the meetings and the methodology.  I elaborate below.

The reader is told that the research methodology is the "search conference" method but this is not explained.  Does this mean keyword searching conference proceedings?  How parallel were the conferences.  They are treated as identical; meaning that the presence or absence of adaptation discussion in each one has the same degree of relevance and this is high.  But if one group is the National Chess Club and the other is the Koala Rescue from Wildfire NGO, we would expect great differences in attention to adaptation.  How do we know that the conferences are "apples to apples"?  Next, the context of Australian politics and climate events in the intervening years is not given.  The country moved from green to brown to green prime ministers, and in 2019 or so, the huge wildfire scare struck regions of Australia (including Victoria).  Is that the case? If Victoria even had citizens smelling those wildfires on a daily basis and this still did not spur them to adaptation measures, that makes the argument even stronger and more important.  

The conclusions are a little vague and sparse.  What kind of "performance management matrix" should include adaptation.  Should it be mainstreamed in every provincial ministry?  Have a separate ministry?  An inter-ministerial group?  The authors state that there is little scholarly interest in climate finance, but how much was spent in Victoria and did this change over time (readily measurable data)? 

The question is an important one and the leverage of content presented at two conferences offers some good comparative data, and we are well behind in adaptation and the lit review does a good job of stating this (although it might be written a little more directly).  The piece is fully meritous of publication, but could bear some improvements before publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

Comment 1. Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? Can be improved.

Response from authors: Please not the response given in the section relating to improvements in our conclusions.

Comment 2. Is the research design appropriate? Can be improved

Comment from authors: The methods section has been significantly re-written – red text.

Comment 3. Are the methods adequately described? Must be improved

Response from authors: The Search Conference Method is now described in the text, see Lines: 293-299

Comment 4. Are the results clearly presented? Can be improved.

Comments from authors: The participants in both workshops were drawn from the same type of groups of people. They are described further in lines 265 to 273.

Comment 5: Are the conclusions supported by the results? Must be improved.

Response from authors: 

With respect the authors argue that both politics and the increasing climate extreme events have been referred to in the paper. Lines 103-140 discuss the political failures and lines 673-683 discuss the worsening climate environment. In relation to the comments on the bureaucratic structure to undertake adaptation, hopefully what the authors have clarified in the last bit of the conclusions – lines 719-721 improves this section.

 

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an excellent article that addresses urgent global issues effectively. It offers valuable insights not just for professionals in Australia but also for those involved in tackling adaptation challenges worldwide. There are a few minor typographical errors throughout the paper that should be corrected before publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your support of this paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision was a definite improvement over the original submission.  A few issues remain:

In my review I requested that the authors both (1) draw comparison between historical trends (mentioned in lit review) and findings from workshop and (2) distinguish the workshop results from the lit review. This seems to have confused the authors, as the revisions related to this are not particularly illuminating.  Let me try to be clearer: i think that the article would be strengthened if the literature review and the findings/discussion were more aligned. The literature review seems to serve two purposes:  First it provides a chronology of what the Australian governments (at various levels) have done to plan for adaptation over several decades and the actual adaptation actions have been taken as a result (very few). It also reviews the literature as to why these efforts seem to have been ineffectual (that is, it lists the barriers to adaptation action). My concern is that it is still not clear why all this background needed as a lead in to the two workshops discussing barriers of adaptation action.  The first section seems to set up a broad framework, but the workshop results are not interpreted with any reference to this.  A new paragraph was added to the methods section on adaptation action theory by Eisenach and Stecker. In the Discussion, a sentence was added referencing work of Shi and Moser. Such works could help frame the paper's argument, but they should have been introduced in the intro section (not methods or discussion) and then touched upon during the discussion.

If that doesn't make sense, here is another way of thinking about this.  According to the abstract, "The results suggested that, despite the presence of many adaptation plans, the fundamental arrangements needed for the scale of adaptation required, were not in place in 2012, nor 2022. There was a lack of federal and state government action beyond their own institutional structures, responsibility for action being passed down the line to local government, business and community. Yet this devolvement was commonly not accompanied by financial support, supportive and inclusive governance arrangements, expert advice, data, or clear guidance for action. Climate adaptation policy remains not connected into the broader economy, with little progress on how to achieve this task, which is rapidly growing in size and complexity."  When reading this abstract, I don't know if the barriers (lack of coordination, insufficient financial support, etc) were determined through the literature review, or if they were from the observations from workshop participants. Both are meaningful, but they don't seem to connect to each other. 

On a related topic, the authors added some quotations from workshop participants, in response to my request to add specific comments from workshop discussion to help distinguish workshop from literature review.  My comment had been in the context of my paragraph above (better connecting the introduction to the workshop). I don't think that the new quotations (especially the first) added any additional information, so suggest removing them.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your further comments and clarifying your request about the historical trends and workshop findings.

The quotations have been removed as suggested from the first amended version of the article: 

• The quote that was in lines 423 to 425 
• The quote that was in lines 452 to 456

 

In relation to the Methods section where the reference to Eisenach and Stecker, which reviewer 1 believes should be put in the introduction, this was added in the Methods section at the request of another reviewer. The Shi, Moser, 2021 reference has been added into the literature review, as requested.  

Lines 538 to 540 were added to address the reviewer’s concern that it was not clear as to whether the barriers identified in the workshops were determined (or searched for) after being identified in the literature, or identified by the workshop participants.

We have improved connections between the historical trends and the discussion of workshop findings. Hopefully this link is now clearer. The following changes have been made:

• Text in red has now been added in lines 537 to 539:
• Lines 548 to 555 have been added in red.
• Line 696 has words added in red bold.
• Lines 691-703 have been added in red.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have  taken their efforts to address the review comments, and the current form of the manuscript is clearer than the previous version.

I have no further comments.

Author Response

Thank you for re-reading the article

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While a more systematic literature review could still be rendered and perhaps more could be said about who was invited to the conferences and what makes them "comparable" (the two sets of data you use), there is not a lot of information on adaptation, and you are to be admired for finding a way to ask important questions and glean preliminary answers.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. We have added lines 262 to 265 to clarify the smaller groups. The authors are concerned that further identification of participants in the workshops may risk participant confidentiality.