Downscaling Planetary Boundaries: How Does the Framework’s Localization Hinder the Concept’s Operationalization?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Attached please find the comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We sincerely thank you for your thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. We are encouraged by your assessment that our English language quality is appropriate and does not require improvement, and we appreciate your positive evaluation of our work's organization (4/5) and reference quality (4/5). Your ratings of 3/5 for both significance and scientific soundness provide valuable guidance for strengthening our contribution.

Your comments have helped us significantly enhance both the empirical grounding and theoretical depth of our work, directly addressing the areas where you identified potential for improvement. We particularly appreciate your recognition of the operational paradox concept and your suggestions for enhancing its empirical validation, which have allowed us to transform our theoretical contribution into a more robust and practically grounded analysis.

The revisions we have made in response to your feedback specifically target the concerns underlying your ratings: we have strengthened the empirical foundation through concrete case studies, enhanced the theoretical significance through analysis of the mechanisms of operational paradox, and improved the scientific rigor through more systematic presentation of our methodology and findings.

Please find attached our detailed responses to each of your comments. All changes made in response to the three reviewers' comments  are clearly marked in the revised manuscript (red font).

Sincerely,

Damien Rieutor, Gwendoline De Oliveira Neves, Guillaume Mandil and Cecilia Bertozzi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of your manuscript, " Down-Scaling Planetary Boundaries: How Does the Framework’s Localization Hinder the Concept’s Operationalization?” may present interesting knowledge for the field. The paper is well-written; however, we have the following comments and questions for consideration:

 

 

1. Please enhance the abstract section by incorporating the methodology used in this study. Additionally, include more results and limitations of the research to provide a more comprehensive overview of the study's contributions and its potential practical impact. Additionally, could you please clarify the primary objective of this research?
2. In the introduction section, line 35, “Since its introduction in 2009 (….). Where and by who?
3. The introduction of this paper lacks a clear explanation of the concepts of "Planetary Boundaries" and “Operationalization,” as well as their close relationship.
4. In the introduction section, clearly emphasize why this study is critical by highlighting the gaps in existing research and identifying what is currently missing. Explain what is needed to address these gaps and how your study contributes to filling these gaps.
5. 2. Research Objectives and Hypotheses: The presentation of this section is not smooth. Please revise this section to include “Theoretical framework and research hypothesis”. Develop this section, then release the hypotheses after each section. This section should be merged with 1.4.
6. 3. Article Structure: please summarise this section in a concise section.
7. Material: In the section 2.1. Initial Corpus Selection Method: Please provide a clear workflow to indicate the process.
8. The selected focus on literature published between January 2015 and December 2023 lacks justification.
9. Section 4.6. Limitations of the Method: kindly move this section to the final of the discussion section or conclusion, and consider the overall limitations of the study.
10. Why choose “Google Scholar and ScienceDirect” instead of Web of Science?
11. Table 1 lacks an explanation of the values. In addition, what is the meaning of “Previous research”?
12. Table 3 should be moved to the appendix. Then, the text from lines 329 to 384 should be summarized and presented in a table form. This situation is the same with Table 4, etc.
13. What is the difference between points 5 and 6? The paper structures are mixed; therefore, we have not followed your idea well.
14. Section “Analysis of Results and Theoretical Contributions”: Theoretical Contributions should be moved to the discussion section and enhanced by comparing and aligning your results with findings from previous studies. This will help contextualize your research and demonstrate how your outcomes contribute to or diverge from existing literature.
15. In addition, in the discussion section, clarify the research questions and hypotheses in the paper, whether your hypotheses were accepted or rejected based on the study's findings.
16. The presentation of the conclusion is not smooth. For instance, instead of repeating the question on lines 726-728, provide how your study answers this question and its application.
17. The study focuses on “biophysical interpretation” aspects; what are the limits of this study?
18. What is the theoretical significance of this paper?
19. What is the innovation of the study?
20. Please add the potential limits of the study.
21. English is not quite smooth, and I would appreciate it if you could improve it. Avoid the use of “We” etc…
22. In addition, the structure of this paper is one of the most critical issues that should be improved.

 

We hope these comments help.

Best regards

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We express our sincere gratitude for your comprehensive and constructive review of our manuscript. Your detailed feedback has been instrumental in substantially improving the quality, clarity, and scientific rigor of our work. We have carefully addressed each of your comments and implemented significant revisions throughout the manuscript.

Your observations regarding the need for enhanced methodology description, clearer research objectives, and improved structural organization have guided our revision process.

The key improvements made in response to your comments include:

• comprehensive restructuring of the introduction with clearer gap identification and theoretical framework articulation;
• enhanced methodology presentation with improved workflow visualization and temporal scope justification;
• substantial expansion of the limitations section to address overall study constraints;
• complete rewriting of the conclusion;
• complete linguistic revision to achieve formal academic tone and eliminate informal expressions.

We believe that your feedback has transformed our manuscript into a more robust scientific contribution that better serves the academic community. The revised version now provides clearer theoretical foundations, more transparent methodological processes, and more comprehensive acknowledgment of study limitations.

The structural improvements you suggested have enhanced the manuscript's readability and logical flow, making our diagnostic approach to Planetary Boundaries localization challenges more accessible to readers. 

Please find attached our detailed responses to each of your suggestions. All modifications are clearly indicated in the revised manuscript (red font).

We hope that our revised manuscript now meets your expectations and contributes meaningfully to the scholarly discourse on sustainability governance and local operationalization of global frameworks.
Thank you once again for your thorough and constructive review process.

Respectfully,
Damien Rieutor, Gwendoline De Oliveira Neves, Guillaume Mandil, and Cecilia Bertozzi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article makes a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate about whether global sustainability frameworks, such as the Planetary Boundaries concept, can be applied at local and regional scales, where concrete urban policies are formulated and implemented. Through a systematic review of 34 scientific studies, the authors provide a critical analysis of the current localisation efforts of the PBc. Their analysis reveals a dominant methodological approach based on the top-down quantification of biogeophysical variables, which is a logical consequence of the PBc's scientific origins. While this method is useful for defining measurable thresholds for critical Earth system processes (e.g. climate change, biodiversity loss and nitrogen cycles), it is limited and overly technocratic when applied to settings that are territorially diverse, institutionally fragmented and culturally complex. These limitations should at least be acknowledged in Section 7 (Discussion).

One of the article’s most significant theoretical contributions is the concept of an 'operational paradox': the processes designed to localise the PBc generate new barriers that hinder its practical adoption. In other words, the more the technical procedures are refined to 'translate' planetary boundaries to specific territories, the less likely it is that these frameworks will be understood, adopted or implemented by territorial actors such as municipalities, urban agencies or local communities. This is largely because the PBc was not originally conceived to be operationalised within urban planning instruments, land-use regulations or local environmental policies.

The article rightly points out that the dominant logic in the reviewed cases often disregards the social and political aspects of territory. Applications of the PBc usually involve proportional downscaling of global thresholds to subnational levels without meaningfully integrating variables such as socio-spatial inequality, local territorial cultures, land-use conflicts or institutional capacities. In this sense, the article provides a well-founded diagnosis of the limitations of top-down approaches in generating genuinely participatory, democratic and context-sensitive socio-ecological processes, a view supported by other studies (https://doi.org/10.2800/520008). This critique is particularly timely given the growing pressure on urban and climate agendas to conform to global frameworks, such as the SDGs, the Paris Agreement or the PBc, which must be translated into the territory in question if they are to have any real impact.

However, the article remains largely confined to conceptual critique and does not propose alternative methodologies or institutional adaptation strategies with equal depth. While the need for a 'socio-biophysical' reinterpretation of the PBc is mentioned, this idea is not developed further, lacking concrete examples, methods or guiding principles to support it. In this regard, while the article accurately diagnoses the problem, it does not offer any solutions. This more 'negative' analytical stance is understandable given the article's exploratory and systematic orientation, but it ultimately limits its practical relevance for those involved in designing territorial public policy.

For this reason, it would be useful to link the insights in the article with practical methodological developments that have successfully translated ecosystem principles into actionable territorial scales. The methodology proposed in https://doi.org/10.18172/cig.5638, for example, is designed to integrate ecological capacity assessments into urban planning in Europe. It provides an operational tool that addresses many of the challenges identified by the authors, thereby reinforcing the value of their critique while demonstrating viable methodological pathways.

Another significant limitation that warrants emphasis is the article’s lack of critical reflection on the power relations involved in implementing global environmental frameworks at the local level. While the authors mention institutional appropriation challenges, they do not analyse how economic interests, territorial conflicts and interscalar power asymmetries may hinder or distort the application of the PBc in urban policies. Research such as https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.10.003 could help to explain why even technically sound methods often result in weak or symbolic implementation. A more explicit engagement with political ecology would enrich the article’s analytical depth and extend its implications for urban planning.

Finally, it would be valuable for the article to explicitly acknowledge that science is not neutral and that frameworks such as the PBc can hinder progress when applied without adapting them to the local context — a point that is implied throughout the text. In this sense, the article can also be seen as an important contribution to the repoliticisation of sustainability. By making this more explicit, the authors could support a more plural, situated and territorialised reconfiguration of global ecological goals. This would directly impact urban planning, moving it beyond the mere implementation of scientific or technical models towards a space where knowledge, territory and society interact.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your positive, thorough, and insightful review of our manuscript. We are deeply honored by your outstanding evaluations: 5/5 for both significance and scientific soundness, 4/5 for organization and references, and appropriate English quality, requiring no improvement. Your recognition of our work as making "a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate" represents exactly the kind of impact we hoped to achieve.

Your evaluation thus validates our theoretical approach while your constructive suggestions have helped us transform what could have been limitations into significant strengths. Your recognition that our operational paradox concept represents "one of the article's most significant theoretical contributions" encouraged us to develop a reflection on the mechanisms that activate it, based on three examples drawn from the selected review articles.

At the same time, your suggestions regarding power dynamics, political ecology, and the re-politicization of sustainability, has allowed us to add a theoretical and contextual depth to the “scientific diagnosis” of our manuscript.

The revisions we have made in response to your feedback build upon the strong foundation you recognized, adding the critical political analysis and methodological directions you suggested while maintaining the scientific rigor and conceptual clarity you valued in the original manuscript.

Please find attached our detailed responses to each of your suggestions. All modifications are clearly indicated in the revised manuscript (red font).

We believe these revisions significantly strengthen the manuscript while maintaining its essential contribution. Your insights have helped us develop a more politically aware and theoretically sophisticated analysis that we hope will contribute meaningfully to both sustainability science and the local operationalization of global frameworks.

We thank you for your exceptional review that has greatly enriched our work.

Respectfully,

Damien Rieutor, Gwendoline De Oliveira Neves, Guillaume Mandil and Cecilia Bertozzi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for your effort; the paper has been significantly improved. Therefore, we are not entirely satisfied with these comments and require further improvement.

1. The introduction of this paper lacks a clear explanation of the relationship between concepts of "Planetary Boundaries" and “Operationalization.
2. The study focuses on “biophysical interpretation” aspects; what are the limits of this study?
3. What is the theoretical significance of this paper?
4. What is the innovation of the study?
5. Please improve your English writing.

Best regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf