Epistemic Injustices in Disaster Theory and Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSummary:
The paper has attempted at outlining core epistemic issues when dealing with disasters as ‘intercultural events’. The author proposes two kinds of epistemic injustices to be identifies int he case of disasters - testimonial and hermeneutical. CIting the epistemic privileges upheld by the Global North vis a vis the Global South, the paper argues for the exploration of the emerging area of ‘multicultural competencies’ framework to address these problems. There are some points that may need more nuanced deliberation especially in the understanding of the problem and its philosophical imports. General comments are outline below while the specific comments are mentioned alongside the line number where relevant. The arguments in the paper are well placed, relevant and with due revision merits consideration.
General Concept Comments.
-The author is requested to re-evaluate their use of the term ‘victim’ throughout the paper. Ample literature in philosophy and psychology has been developed around the politics of calling subjects as victims or survivors. Author must defend their position in choosing to call someone victim as opposed to survivor , given that the latter affirms a stance that is situated in the Global South discourse where as the former derived from Global North discourses. Please revise based on literature on the ethics of naming in this context.
-There is repeated reference to collective knowledge. What would the author imply by collective knowledge? What does it look like?
-What definition of a cultural community is the author using in this paper?
-What are the parameters of wrongs and injustices assumed in this discussion on epistemic injustice? The term needs to be qualified with relevant literature in moral law/ ethics.
Specific Comments.
29 : The author uses ‘ neutral aspects ‘ to describes ‘acts of providing food and shelter.’ The ‘neutral’ needs to be qualified here. Given the situated nature of the larger arguments any allusion to standpoints need some qualification to lead help the reader understand the author’s positionality.
31: ‘By contrast, experience shows us …’ . The use of the word experience is misleading. Whose experiences and what experiences ? Does the author mean historical accounts ? Please revise.
34: Would recommend a different term instead of using ‘natural’ as it is a contested term especially in disaster ethics.
41: The group identities ‘ local victims ‘ and ‘typically Western practitioners’ are vague . Are these the author’s categories ? or borrowed from existing literature ?
55-57 : ‘It can also help to give a proper name and tackle the seriousness of the wrong… ‘
What is the link between this supposition and the possible redressal of problems or the wrongs mentioned by the author?
60 : ‘Epistemic Injustice ….emerges from the lack of representation’ . Where is this lack of representation to be seen and where should it be addressed ?
72: What is an epistemic wrong?
75-76: This is more an observation than an argument.
163: the idea of ‘social experience’ needs more literature reviewed or frameworks to contextualise it. What is a social experience?
173: It is more the case that the Global North 'assumes' the authority. If the author states that is already 'has' the authority, then there again needs some clarificatory evidence for the same.
Author Response
|
Comments 1: -The author is requested to re-evaluate their use of the term ‘victim’ throughout the paper. Ample literature in philosophy and psychology has been developed around the politics of calling subjects as victims or survivors. Author must defend their position in choosing to call someone victim as opposed to survivor , given that the latter affirms a stance that is situated in the Global South discourse where as the former derived from Global North discourses. Please revise based on literature on the ethics of naming in this context.
|
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. The terms ‘victim’ and ‘survivor’ are used interchangeably in the disaster literature, with ‘victim’ appearing more majoritarily reflected in this literature. Ample literature in philosophy and psychology suggests that the term ‘victim’ is problematic in that victims are ‘typically portrayed as passive, pathetic and backward looking’, while terms like ‘survivor’ would be preferable as they enhance political agency, empowerment and resilience (Schott, 2015). However, other accounts have equally criticized this view recently by arguing that it imposes a redemptive story line in which negative experiences are followed by something positive: ‘the developmental progression from trauma ‘victim’ to empowered public ‘survivor/advocate’ accommodates to dominant American cultural preferences that stories of adversity have a redemptive story line. In a redemptive story, negative experiences are followed by something positive (e.g., personal growth, lessons learned, strength gained)’ (Danzer 2010). Given the absence of references to these specific problematic in the context of disaster literature, I have decided to keep this terminology in the manuscript, while adding an acclaratory note that recognizes the problem addressed here. This change can be found in the revised manuscript in the ‘i’ note of page 18. I have also added a corresponding reference, which can be found in the note number 48 of page 21.
|
|
Comments 2: -There is repeated reference to collective knowledge. What would the author imply by collective knowledge? What does it look like?
|
|
Response 2: Thank you for this comment. When I used ‘collective knowledge about disasters’, I was implicitly relying on Fricker´s (2007) notion of those epistemic resources that are collectively shared by a society, that include the available set of interpretations, concepts, worldviews, that the society shares, and that determine how the members of this society relate, think, and make sense of certain phenomena. It is true, however, that this comment has made me rethink this choice of words and problematize the notion, because, as some criticisms have pointed out at Fricker (Mason 2011, Medina 2013, etc), ‘hegemonic knowledge’ should not be used as a synonym of ‘collective knowledge’, as epistemic communities are always pluralistic and heterogeneous. In the context of disasters, this means that certain subcommunities- namely, those coming from non-Western survivors, indeed do have already a more adequate understanding knowledge and understanding of disasters. The only difference is that these are not hegemonic or sufficiently represented in the hegemonic discussion on disasters. I have accordingly modified the manuscript by substituting the use of ‘collective knowledge’ for ‘hegemonic knowledge’. This change can be found in line 574 of page 14, and in line 650 of page 16. |
Comments 3: What definition of a cultural community is the author using in this paper?
Response 3: I could not find the expression of ‘cultural community’ in the manuscript. However, whenever I have used ‘community’, I have used the term as Marsella and Yamada define the notion of ‘culture’, namely, as ‘shared learned behavior and meanings acquired in life activity contexts that are passed on from generation to another for purposes of promoting survival, adaptation, and adjustment. These behaviors and meanings are dynamic, and are responsive to change and modification in response to individual, societal, and environmental demands and pressures. Culture is represented externally in artifacts, roles, settings, and institutions. Culture is represented internally in values, beliefs, expectations, consciousness, epistemology (i.e., ways of knowing), ontology, and praxiology, personhood, and world views. Cultures can be situational, temporary, or enduring’ (See Marsella & Yamada, 2000, p. 12; Marsella & Yamada, 2007, p. 801). According to this account, the essential point about the concept of culture is that culture constructs our reality and guides our perceptions. Of course, I am aware of the problems and complications that using the notion might have, but I believe that the notion of ‘community’ resists these risks because community can include a heterogeneous, pluralist account. Moreover, in the case of disaster survivors, they constitute a somewhat unified (although never completely homogeneous) community insofar as they are united not just by a shared experience of a traumatic event, but also by a previously shared cultural and liguistical background shapes also how they collectively make sense and face this trauma. I have included an acclaratory note of this in the manuscript, which can be found in note ‘viii’ of page 19.
Comments 4: What are the parameters of wrongs and injustices assumed in this discussion on epistemic injustice? The term needs to be qualified with relevant literature in moral law/ ethics
Response 4: Thank you for the note. When using wrongs and injustices, I am using an specifically epistemic notion of injustice, addressed and defined by Fricker as distinctively epistemic. However, epistemic injustice draws significantly on ethics, for instance, on Kantian ethics, according to which the wrong of epistemic injustice constitutes an insult against someone´s very humanity (Fricker 2007) or as a case of epistemic objectification (Fricker 2007). Epistemic wrongs are also relevant from the point of view of political participation, as they can prevent freedom of speech or defense from oppression (Fricker, Epistemic Contribution as a Central Human Capability, 2005). And also, recently, the wrong of epistemic injustice has been revisited in relation to wrongs of moral recognition, namely, as acts that dismiss an individual or a group´s normative standing (Giladi 2017, Fricker 2018, Hänel 2020).
Comments 5: The author uses ‘ neutral aspects ‘ to describes ‘acts of providing food and shelter.’ The ‘neutral’ needs to be qualified here. Given the situated nature of the larger arguments any allusion to standpoints need some qualification to lead help the reader understand the author’s positionality.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have changed the term ‘neutral’ in the selected area of the text and have substituted it for ‘less culturally-informed’. The change can be found in lines 31 and 32 of page 1.
Comments 6: By contrast, experience shows us …’ . The use of the word experience is misleading. Whose experiences and what experiences ? Does the author mean historical accounts ? Please revise.
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have substituted the sentence with a new one: ‘innumberable examples from practical contexts of disasters show us that failure to grasp the significance of cultural differences in the provision of services is the most common outcome in these contexts’. This change can be found in lines 34-36 of page 1 of the manuscript.
Comments 7: Would recommend a different term instead of using ‘natural’ as it is a contested term especially in disaster ethics.
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have substituted the term ‘natural’ for ‘expected’, as can be seen in line 38 of page 1 of the manuscript.
Comments 8: 41: The group identities ‘ local victims ‘ and ‘typically Western practitioners’ are vague . Are these the author’s categories ? or borrowed from existing literature ?
Response 8: They are borrowed from existing literature in disaster ethics. Moreover, I already address the issue concerning the vagueness of the concepts in lines 69 to 74 (page 2 of the manuscript), when I discuss the use of the categories ‘Global North’ and ‘Global South’ and immediately identify each of these categories to the group of local victims and typically Western practitioners. Such identification makes sense in the context of disasters and, I believe, can be defended even despite its vagueness, which on the other hand is addressed and supedited to the former distinction, as is more extensively discussed in lines 226 to 280 (pages 6 to 7) of the manuscript.
Comments 9: 55-57 : ‘It can also help to give a proper name and tackle the seriousness of the wrong… ‘
What is the link between this supposition and the possible redressal of problems or the wrongs mentioned by the author?
Response 9: Thanks for this note. I include an acclaratory note on this, which can be found on note ‘iii’ of page 18 of the manuscript.
Comments 10: 60 : ‘Epistemic Injustice ….emerges from the lack of representation’ . Where is this lack of representation to be seen and where should it be addressed ?
Response 10: Thank you for this comment. I have included an acclaratory note in the manuscript, which can be found in note ‘v’ of page 19.
Comments 11: 72: What is an epistemic wrong?
Response 11: Thank you for the note. I have added a note to make this idea clearer, which can be found in the text in note ‘vi’ of page 19 and reference [49] of page 21.
Comments 12: 75-76: This is more an observation than an argument.
Response 12: Thank you for the comment. I have therefore substituted the word ‘argue’ by ‘note’, as can be seen in the line 78 of page 2 of the manuscript.
Comments 13: 163: the idea of ‘social experience’ needs more literature reviewed or frameworks to contextualise it. What is a social experience?
Response 13: A social experience is an experience shared by a group of people in a way that is at least partially dependent on their identity qua social types. I.e. a social experience shared by women in the 60s in EEUU could be that of ‘sexual harassment’. The notion of social experience is widely accepted in social epistemology, as clearly manifested in Fricker´s description on hermeneutical injustice (2007). The sentence in the paper already uses this notion in the context of a citation of Fricker (line 166, page 4). Therefore, I have decided not to include an acclaratory note in this occasion.
Comments 14: 173: It is more the case that the Global North 'assumes' the authority. If the author states that is already 'has' the authority, then there again needs some clarificatory evidence for the same
Response 14: Thanks for the comment. I agree with the remark, and have therefore substituted the word ‘possesses’ by ‘assumes’. The change in question can be found in line 174 and page 5 of the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe text deals with a topical issue and does that in an engaging and instructive manner. I especially appreciated the detailed examples that the authors used to support their more general thesis. I do not have significant issues with the text.
One relatively minor concern: at times, it was not altogether clear to me whether the target of the authors' criticism is the broader use (and abuse) of the privilege given by belonging (in various ways) to the Global North, or whether it is the matter of misapplying the norms of Western Modern rationality, relatively narrowly construed, to contexts where this is not suitable, or even whether the problem is in construing (and enforcing) a rather misleading image of what Western Modern rationality is. In other words, whether the authors' issue is with condescending Western politics, with insufficiently self-reflective Western science in its application to practice, or with the theoretical (philosophical) frameworks of Western rationality. These things are obviously not unrelated, but it is not one and the same thing; and occasionally, some clarification would help here - I believe that this can be done easily (formulations, not restructuring of the argument).
For one thing, Western intellectual tradition can clearly be both the source of the problems, very neatly described by the authors, and of their critical reflection, even remedy (despite the authors' qualms about the inequality of academic geopolitics, this very paper is very much seated in the same genre, and it does not detract from its impact). (Consider such traditions as the critical theory; very Western, but by no means blind to or uncritical about this very kind of problems.) Here, there is one clear consequence for the authors' point: that is, it would be helpful to make up their minds as to whether the problems described are often caused by the application of Western standards and accompanied by this application or whether they are intrinsically related to these standards. (The authors seem to be wavering a little in this respect.)
Another related minor issue: it is problematic to claim that a de-contextualised, general approach is generally problematic and that the contextualised, local, particular standpoint is generally more helpful in addressing a difficult, traumatic experience. Distance is not always worse than closeness; the real problem that the stupid and insensitive Western experts have may have to do with their serious lack of judgment (while the temple Master, cited by one of the authors' Taiwanese voices, may have had the advantage of not necessarily being contextually closer to the situation of the afflicted woman, but simply of having more good sense (which, admittedly, is certainly not a non-contextual matter)).
Language: I am not a native speaker of English so I cannot confidently judge that. At times, it seemed to me that I detected minor issues in the authors' language, but it definitely did not create any trouble with intelligibility, and I may have also been wrong. I do not recommend or require a language check.
Overall, this is a good paper, and though I think it may (marginally) benefit from further consideration of the issues outlined above, I do not make this conditional for its possible acceptance for publication. I leave it to the authors' discretion what use they will make of my comments.
Author Response
|
Comments 1: - One relatively minor concern: at times, it was not altogether clear to me whether the target of the authors' criticism is the broader use (and abuse) of the privilege given by belonging (in various ways) to the Global North, or whether it is the matter of misapplying the norms of Western Modern rationality, relatively narrowly construed, to contexts where this is not suitable, or even whether the problem is in construing (and enforcing) a rather misleading image of what Western Modern rationality is. In other words, whether the authors' issue is with condescending Western politics, with insufficiently self-reflective Western science in its application to practice, or with the theoretical (philosophical) frameworks of Western rationality. These things are obviously not unrelated, but it is not one and the same thing; and occasionally, some clarification would help here - I believe that this can be done easily (formulations, not restructuring of the argument). For one thing, Western intellectual tradition can clearly be both the source of the problems, very neatly described by the authors, and of their critical reflection, even remedy (despite the authors' qualms about the inequality of academic geopolitics, this very paper is very much seated in the same genre, and it does not detract from its impact). (Consider such traditions as the critical theory; very Western, but by no means blind to or uncritical about this very kind of problems.) Here, there is one clear consequence for the authors' point: that is, it would be helpful to make up their minds as to whether the problems described are often caused by the application of Western standards and accompanied by this application or whether they are intrinsically related to these standards. (The authors seem to be wavering a little in this respect.) Response 1: Thank you for such an insightful note. I include a paragraph explaining this idea in more detail. The addition can be found in lines 711 to 732 in pages 17-18 of the revised manuscript.
Comments 2: Another related minor issue: it is problematic to claim that a de-contextualised, general approach is generally problematic and that the contextualised, local, particular standpoint is generally more helpful in addressing a difficult, traumatic experience. Distance is not always worse than closeness; the real problem that the stupid and insensitive Western experts have may have to do with their serious lack of judgment (while the temple Master, cited by one of the authors' Taiwanese voices, may have had the advantage of not necessarily being contextually closer to the situation of the afflicted woman, but simply of having more good sense (which, admittedly, is certainly not a non-contextual matter)). Response 2: Thank you for this interesting suggestion. While I agree with it, the main point of this paper is that a decontextualized approach, typical of Western tradition, is in itself generally problematic in contexts of disasters. While this doesn´t mean that a de-contextualised perspective is in itself always unfit or problematic, the literature on disasters seems to have a consensus that the particularly complex and diverse culturally-informed aspects surrounding disasters do generally call for a contextualized framing and response. This is because the solutions to the healing, the lived experiences associated to the trauma, or even the meaning that material resources such as food and shelter can have are inherently dependent on the cultural interpretations of the social media, and there is no way to respond to these questions unless in a culturally (and, thus, contextually)-informed rationality.
|
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGenerally speaking, the article is good; the topic is an important and interesting one. The argument is clear, and the paper is well structured.
I think there are a couple of things the author can do to strengthen their paper. The author does not mention humanitarian ethics at all, which I think could be nicely linked to the epistemic injustices identified. In other words, the problem is not limited to an epistemic one, but also an ethical one. Coupling ethico-epistemic issues would be an interesting way to further the argument but would also give it more depth––even if the literature on disaster theory and management does not include an ethical dimension. And if the author is not interested in pursuing that route then I suggest they include a footnote saying something about it.
The author stated in their abstract that the field of multicultural competencies is recent––it’s been around for decades. What one should question, is why if it has, do we still see the effects as described in the paper. A deeper analysis of hermeneutical injustice might be helpful in that it is much more of a structural injustice, and to address it will require structural changes.
The author has not included any objections to her argument. Doing so, would help their argument.
I think that the author is not a native English speaker; there are several edits required. I think the paper would be best copy-edited. I list below some suggestions according to line number:
Page 1, Line 4, abstract: I think the author means: ‘perpetuates’ rather ‘perpetrate’
Page 1, Line 11: remove ‘of’ after comprised; suggested edit: the second group comprises what I categorise…
Page 1, Line 14: delete ‘recent’
Page 2, Line 55: perpetuate?
Page 2, Line 58: disasters
Page 2, Line 81: delete ‘the’
Page 3, Line 104: defender
Page 3, Line 118: professionals
Page 4: the author talks about the epistemic privilege of patients, but this may not be validated by health professionals or the so-called experts
Page 5: Line 187: insert a footnote stating that the use of ‘first world’ is now redundant. This entire paragraph needs a good copy-edit.
Page 6, Line 242: stemming
Page 6, Line 247-251: needs revision, it is not clear
Page 7, Line 290: less credible than
Page 8, Line 325 and 330: supedited?
Page 9, Line 335: representatives
Page 9, Line 345: root causes
Page 10, Line 384: ‘temple masters instead of the…’
Page 10, Line 406: ‘professionals attributed the victims’ complaints to “lack of education”
Page 11, Line 431: perpetuating?
Page 12, Line 464: I think it’s not so much that victims struggle to make sense of their lived experiences––they know perfectly well what they have experienced; what they do struggle with is with others making sense of this lived experience.
Page 12, Line 471: the author could explain more what they mean by: Hermeneutical injustices constitute structural events, this means they originate at a previous level…….what structural events is the author thinking about; what previous level?
Page 12, Line 492: religious
Page 12, Line 498: Include the year of reference after Sumathipala
Page 13, Line 502: language
Page 13, Line 513-514: required editing
Page 13, Line 514: include the year of reference after Marsella et al
Page 14, Line 552: The sentence starting: As testimonial injustice needs editing
Page 14, Line 557: confusion
Page 14, Line 572: remove the “an” before ‘a development…’
Page 15, Line 581: the author may want to reconsider the use of ‘Palliative’ since it means just responding to the symptoms
Page 15, Line 584-594: could include more on the importance of context
Page 15, Line 591: knowledge
Page 15, Line 597: embeddedness
Page 15, Line 624: testimonial
Page 16, Line 640: confusion
Page 16, Line 661: idiosyncrasies
Page 17, Line 690: As I have argued
Page 17, Line 698: perpetuating
Page 17, Line 707: needs revising
Page 17, Line 707: to the psychological
Page 17, Line 714: How will this happen? (related to the content of allowing victims regain their epistemic agency)
Page 17, Line 716: consecution?
Page 17, Line 721: tyranny
I think one can also add that this injustice will increasingly become a problem in the future because of the climate crisis, and the probability of increased disasters.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I have addressed this aspect in the above comments.
Author Response
Comments 1: I think there are a couple of things the author can do to strengthen their paper. The author does not mention humanitarian ethics at all, which I think could be nicely linked to the epistemic injustices identified. In other words, the problem is not limited to an epistemic one, but also an ethical one. Coupling ethico-epistemic issues would be an interesting way to further the argument but would also give it more depth––even if the literature on disaster theory and management does not include an ethical dimension. And if the author is not interested in pursuing that route then I suggest they include a footnote saying something about it.
Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion. I am not an expert on humanitarian ethics, but I find this comment very useful and interesting. Given that I have no bibliographical references with which to continue exploring this route, I have therefore included a note saying something about this. The note can be found in the note ‘iii’ of page 19 of the revised manuscript.
Comments 2: The author stated in their abstract that the field of multicultural competencies is recent––it’s been around for decades. What one should question, is why if it has, do we still see the effects as described in the paper.
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. I agree with this, and have therefore eliminated the mentions of ‘reference’ from the revised manuscript. I have also included a note addressing this suggestion in note ‘xv’ of page 22.
Comments 3: A deeper analysis of hermeneutical injustice might be helpful in that it is much more of a structural injustice, and to address it will require structural changes.
Response 3: Thank you for this comment. I agree with it, and have therefore added a note in the revised manuscript addressing this suggestion. The note can be found in page 22, note ‘xvi’.
Comments 4: The author has not included any objections to her argument. Doing so, would help their argument.
Response 4: Thank you for this comment. I have now included many objections and my response to them in the revised manuscript, as a result of the consideration of these and other insightful suggestions made by the three editors. These changes can be found in the several of the acclaratory notes added in the revised manuscript, or in paragraphs like that from lines 711 to 733 in pages 17 and 18.
Comments 5: I think one can also add that this injustice will increasingly become a problem in the future because of the climate crisis, and the probability of increased disasters.
Response 5: Thank you for this note. I agree with it and have therefore included a mention to it in lines 754-757 of page 18 of the revised manuscript.
Comments 6: I think that the author is not a native English speaker; there are several edits required. I think the paper would be best copy-edited. I list below some suggestions according to line number.
Page 1, Line 4, abstract: I think the author means: ‘perpetuates’ rather ‘perpetrate’
Page 1, Line 11: remove ‘of’ after comprised; suggested edit: the second group comprises what I categorise…
Page 1, Line 14: delete ‘recent’
Page 2, Line 55: perpetuate?
Page 2, Line 58: disasters
Page 2, Line 81: delete ‘the’
Page 3, Line 104: defender
Page 3, Line 118: professionals
Page 4: the author talks about the epistemic privilege of patients, but this may not be validated by health professionals or the so-called experts
Page 5: Line 187: insert a footnote stating that the use of ‘first world’ is now redundant. This entire paragraph needs a good copy-edit.
Page 6, Line 242: stemming
Page 6, Line 247-251: needs revision, it is not clear
Page 7, Line 290: less credible than
Page 8, Line 325 and 330: supedited?
Page 9, Line 335: representatives
Page 9, Line 345: root causes
Page 10, Line 384: ‘temple masters instead of the…’
Page 10, Line 406: ‘professionals attributed the victims’ complaints to “lack of education”
Page 11, Line 431: perpetuating?
Page 12, Line 464: I think it’s not so much that victims struggle to make sense of their lived experiences––they know perfectly well what they have experienced; what they do struggle with is with others making sense of this lived experience.
Page 12, Line 471: the author could explain more what they mean by: Hermeneutical injustices constitute structural events, this means they originate at a previous level…….what structural events is the author thinking about; what previous level?
Page 12, Line 492: religious
Page 12, Line 498: Include the year of reference after Sumathipala
Page 13, Line 502: language
Page 13, Line 513-514: required editing
Page 13, Line 514: include the year of reference after Marsella et al
Page 14, Line 552: The sentence starting: As testimonial injustice needs editing
Page 14, Line 557: confusion
Page 14, Line 572: remove the “an” before ‘a development…’
Page 15, Line 581: the author may want to reconsider the use of ‘Palliative’ since it means just responding to the symptoms
Page 15, Line 584-594: could include more on the importance of context
Page 15, Line 591: knowledge
Page 15, Line 597: embeddedness
Page 15, Line 624: testimonial
Page 16, Line 640: confusion
Page 16, Line 661: idiosyncrasies
Page 17, Line 690: As I have argued
Page 17, Line 698: perpetuating
Page 17, Line 707: needs revising
Page 17, Line 707: to the psychological
Page 17, Line 714: How will this happen? (related to the content of allowing victims regain their epistemic agency)
Page 17, Line 716: consecution?
Page 17, Line 721: tyranny
Response 6: Thank you very much for this. I agree with all the suggestions, and have incorporated and corrected each of them in the revised manuscript. The changes can therefore be found in the corresponding same pages and lines indicated in the comments above, as can be further seen in red in the manuscript.
