Socioecological Transition and Community Resilience: Learning from 12 Social Experiences in Seville (Spain)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Regarding the theoretical framework:

there is some confusion in the positioning, interpretation and application regarding the adaptive/evolving socioecological term. While on the one hand the paper refers to it as the human-environment interrelationship, on the other hand it seems authors refer to it as adaptive capacity.
Similarly, the paper evaluates the resilience of the initiatives analyzed exclusively on the basis of their ability to survive over time (success). In this sense, there is abundant literature on the adaptive nature of self-organized processes as a resilient capacity of urban systems. Socio-ecological resilience is deeply described as evolving and changing capacity, not as a goal. In fact, consolidation is just described as a stage of the never-ending evolvong of the adaptive cycle in socioecological resilience approach. Grassroot movement are simpthoms of urban resilience, per se, no matter whether they succeed or not. Besides, from such an adaptive perspective, it is recommended to analyze the evolution of these initiatives as part of larger scale processes, both spatial and temporal, taking place at the urban arena. A question is proposed to the authors: are these initiatives a continuation or the beginning of new/previous urban multidimensional processes?

Regarding the obtective/methodology:

Authors claimed to examine" the potential of a series of experiences which are turning small-scale urban transformation processes into a reality through their proposals for change". Authors propose 12 initiatives based on their "range of objectives and located in different parts of the city were chosen to build a broader vision of the reality and possible problems". "Spatial distribution" is described as one of the twofold criterion for their selection.

Such a targeted selection criteria could keep certain areas of the city in which there is a higher density of socially based initiatives, and thus resilient area, hidden. While the emergence of bottom-up initiatives is a symptom of resilience, have the authors considered the possibility of observing the existence of such initiatives as an indicator of urban resilience, also in socio-spatial terms?

Impact is merely assessed based on permanence, but what about the spatial (architectural/urban) dimension. Considering multi-escalar interaction processes playing at the urban scale, and even the the scope of the journal, how is the paper observing the architectura/urban changes parallel to such initiatives?

Regarding the results/conclusions:

Beyong the description of selected initiatives, there is no clarity and founding of the findings.

Figure 4 shows the "Categorisation and traceability of experiences". It seems to be merely based on success (time maintenance). Again, this appears to be too deterministic and vague. There seems to be some successful/failing predefined pathways based on "coding categories". But, again, what about invention and surprise as main factors of social-based bottom-up movements?

Authors state "these initiatives could move beyond isolated experiments and drive meaningful, scalable socio-ecological transitions". But it is un clear what are the main contributions of the article to the resilience theoretical framework?

Authors also state "The findings revealed that the core motivation driving the initiative in its initial phases is key". However, findings appear to be too self-referential. In the abstract, the identification of common patterns is mentioned as one of the objectives of the study, but it is not clear what these patterns are.

More reflexive approach is needed to confront or support initial positioning. Description of bias and limitations of the research is also left.

 

 

Author Response

FIRST REVIEWER

Regarding the theoretical framework:

Comments 1: there is some confusion in the positioning, interpretation and application regarding the adaptive/evolving socioecological term. While on the one hand the paper refers to it as the human-environment interrelationship, on the other hand it seems authors refer to it as adaptive capacity.

Response 1: Thank you very much for pointing this out. We believe that this possible confusion is since there is a transfer of concepts between academia and social movements that is somehow reflected in the text. In some parts of the text, the concept of socio-ecological transition is referred to as a goal, as a long-term objective that ‘guides’ the motivation of these initiatives. It could therefore be linked both to the transformations that these initiatives bring about on the social and ecological aspects of the city and to the potential of these initiatives to generate adaptive capacity.

To avoid this confusion, we have pointed out that the term functions both as a concept used in academia and urban planning and as a goal for social movements (line 52). We have also highlighted the idea of socio-ecological transition as a ‘political goal’ in line 110.

The first paragraph of the methods section (lines 133-137) has also been reworded to emphasize the idea of socio-ecological transition as a political goal of socio-spatial transformation.

Comments 2: Similarly, the paper evaluates the resilience of the initiatives analyzed exclusively on the basis of their ability to survive over time (success). In this sense, there is abundant literature on the adaptive nature of self-organized processes as a resilient capacity of urban systems. Socio-ecological resilience is deeply described as evolving and changing capacity, not as a goal. In fact, consolidation is just described as a stage of the never-ending evolvong of the adaptive cycle in socioecological resilience approach. Grassroot movement are simpthoms of urban resilience, per se, no matter whether they succeed or not. Besides, from such an adaptive perspective, it is recommended to analyze the evolution of these initiatives as part of larger scale processes, both spatial and temporal, taking place at the urban arena. A question is proposed to the authors: are these initiatives a continuation or the beginning of new/previous urban multidimensional processes?

 

 

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer's observation. As they comment in their assessment, our experience in this area shows that survival, at least for a period and under certain conditions, is a relevant indicator of urban resilience. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, a multitude of bottom-up initiatives emerged to cope with the collapse of the healthcare system. In Seville, as in other cities, these initiatives emerged in neighborhoods where grassroots movements already existed. However, as the reviewer has pointed out, mere survival is not the indicator of urban resilience. Rather, it is an indicator of community empowerment and, therefore, of the capacity of the community to cope with or demand change in the city. Therefore, in this article we have focused on analyzing the internal structure of the initiatives and not so much on their capacity for external influence. This is because these initiatives function at the same time as generators of community and this is fundamental to strengthen the community aspect of urban resilience.

As to whether these initiatives are the result of a new or previous multidimensional process, the short answer is that it depends on the context. Among the cases presented, La Huerta de las Moreras and Los Huertos de San Jerónimo are the result of the urbanisation process of the urban periphery at the end of the 20th century. El Huerto del Rey Moro is an initiative linked to processes of gentrification of the city's historic quarter. These initiatives survive today and coexist with other ‘new’ collectives that respond to current dynamics; for example, the Salva tus Árboles platform is a response to the municipal policies developed in recent years by the city council. Therefore, the chosen social initiatives could be said to have started in different contexts but are currently dealing with similar issues. That is why the perspective of our analysis is still very relevant.

Therefore, we are aware that a full analysis of the contributions of these initiatives on a larger scale would be necessary to better understand their role in urban resilience. However, both our interest in analysing the internal structure of the collectives and the limitations imposed by the project in which the research was carried out have justified this approach.

 

Regarding the obtective/methodology:

Comments 3: Authors claimed to examine" the potential of a series of experiences which are turning small-scale urban transformation processes into a reality through their proposals for change". Authors propose 12 initiatives based on their "range of objectives and located in different parts of the city were chosen to build a broader vision of the reality and possible problems". "Spatial distribution" is described as one of the twofold criterion for their selection.

Such a targeted selection criteria could keep certain areas of the city in which there is a higher density of socially based initiatives, and thus resilient area, hidden. While the emergence of bottom-up initiatives is a symptom of resilience, have the authors considered the possibility of observing the existence of such initiatives as an indicator of urban resilience, also in socio-spatial terms?

Response 3: As outlined in this response document, the analysis focuses on how initiatives of different conditions, motivations, development or challenges show common contingencies and possible lessons based on all of this.

Distribution has been considered as a selection criterion, in addition to the variety of objectives and nature of the initiatives. This is understood on two levels. Firstly, they are located in different areas of the city, from central to more peripheral. Secondly, they are consistent with a range of previous situations and possibilities, depending on the type of neighbourhood. Due to the limitations of our study and its approach, the latter is not developed, although it is presented in section 4.1 in the form of summary interpretation keys.

From a sociospatial perspective, we do not initiate the process with a systematic sampling of the various scenarios identifiable in the city of Seville. Instead, we have identified several socio-ecosystems that are deemed pertinent when addressing local socio-ecological experiences and selecting relevant case studies. As stated on page 5, this is based on the authors’ previous original works.

Comments 4: Impact is merely assessed based on permanence, but what about the spatial (architectural/urban) dimension. Considering multi-escalar interaction processes playing at the urban scale, and even the the scope of the journal, how is the paper observing the architectura/urban changes parallel to such initiatives?

Response 4: It is clear the dominance of space based social movements regarding public space use in many of the initiatives.

Rather than observing the existence of these initiatives as a socio-spatial indicator of resilience, the starting point is that certain socio-ecosystems have been and continue to be spatially favourable for these initiatives.

 

Regarding the results/conclusions:

Comments 5: Beyong the description of selected initiatives, there is no clarity and founding of the findings.

Response 5: The title “4.3 common developments and contingencies” was modified to “DISCUSSION”,  The title “conclusions" was also modified to “findings and conclusions". We think that this title better reflects the content of the section.

The structure of the article has been reorganized to make its content clearer. Thus, there is now a section with the title “results” with a description and analysis/interpretation of the case studies (pages 8-10). A section entitled “findings and discussion” (page 11) that focuses on lessons learned from the detection of common developments and contingencies in the case studies and that presents topics that, in our opinion, are central to a debate that is not merely theoretical but stems from learning based on concrete experiences. Finally, there is a section entitled “conclusions” that summarizes the main lessons learned and lines of reflection.

Comments  6: Figure 4 shows the "Categorisation and traceability of experiences". It seems to be merely based on success (time maintenance). Again, this appears to be too deterministic and vague. There seems to be some successful/failing predefined pathways based on "coding categories". But, again, what about invention and surprise as main factors of social-based bottom-up movements?

Response 6: Besides premises made by the project framework, which were common ground for every partner participating in the project, most of the findings discussed were a matter of how the initiatives evolved over time, and how, not just survival, but also motivations, relationships, conflict management and so on changed and conditioned every initiative analyzed. We think these findings are an important part of the learning process for supporting these kinds of socioecological and transformative initiatives.

Comments 7: Authors state "these initiatives could move beyond isolated experiments and drive meaningful, scalable socio-ecological transitions". But it is unclear what are the main contributions of the article to the resilience theoretical framework?

Response 7: It was not the aim of this article to make a specific contribution to the general resilience framework. Rather, the article aims to analyze initiatives that are usually lumped together in the “bag” of community resilience and are often overlooked when considering that they also play an important role in building urban resilience from below. This is why in the introductory section reference is made to the processual perspective of resilience proposed by Leila M. Harrys.

That is why reference is also made to the importance of this type of initiatives to create community but also to ‘live in the city’ by trying to proactively transform the city.

Comments 8: Authors also state "The findings revealed that the core motivation driving the initiative in its initial phases is key". However, findings appear to be too self-referential. In the abstract, the identification of common patterns is mentioned as one of the objectives of the study, but it is not clear what these patterns are.

Response 8: We identified and specified several common patterns regarding motivations, main actors, support, collaboration, achievements, conflicts and challenges. We even identify several patterns in some categories, i.e., the very hard conflict that the professional initiatives have when they must deal with an unprepared market.

Comments 9: More reflexive approach is needed to confront or support initial positioning. Description of bias and limitations of the research is also left.

Response 9: We assume this observation as a final idea reflecting the before comments and, therefore, we think they have been already responded.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting article whose results may contribute to public policies related to the relationships between diverse communities and how they deal with ecological systems and their motivations for doing so. The authors present 12 cases of communities located in the city of Seville, Spain, whose good practices may contribute to the possible reduction of gentrification and touristification associated with strong local collaboration not only from the community but also from professionals (including architects and urban planners) and the market. The authors also suggest that such practices - experiences of an ecological and social nature - towards sustainability may generate value for the community. The article presents an extensive and up-to-date bibliography. However, some aspects deserve greater detail, namely:

1. Figure 1. Very dark. Improve visibility and include a caption indicating the names of the 12 cases. Also North and graphic scale besides local points of interest would be welcome.
2. Include more information about the 12 communities, such as population, profile (age group, types of services and activities available there, level of green areas and photos illustrating the urban spaces in each case).
3. Regarding the semi-structured interviews, it is understood that they were applied to key people in each community and that they are the core of the research method.But how many interviews were conducted?What are the profiles of each interviewee?What ethical precautions were observed when conducting the interviews? 4. At the end, inform the limitations of the research.Was the method only based on interviews?Was there no prior document analysis (before the interviews)?Were there no systematic visual observations in these locations (walkthroughs) to corroborate or not the questions insert into the interviews?It would be desirable to include in the article in the Methods section a table listing the questions that were part of the interviews. The authors are requested to explain, in the manuscript, in the Method section, in the case of semi-structured interviews, which ethical protocols were followed in accordance with Spanish and/or international regulations and whether the interviewees were asked to sign the Informed Consent Form in advance.

4. Include at the beginning of the Methods section, a flowchart indicating the step-by-step research that originated the article.

5. Make more clear how original / inedit is this kind of study.

Author Response

SECOND REVIEWER

Interesting article whose results may contribute to public policies related to the relationships between diverse communities and how they deal with ecological systems and their motivations for doing so. The authors present 12 cases of communities located in the city of Seville, Spain, whose good practices may contribute to the possible reduction of gentrification and touristification associated with strong local collaboration not only from the community but also from professionals (including architects and urban planners) and the market. The authors also suggest that such practices - experiences of an ecological and social nature - towards sustainability may generate value for the community. The article presents an extensive and up-to-date bibliography. However, some aspects deserve greater detail, namely:

Comments 1: Figure 1. Very dark. Improve visibility and include a caption indicating the names of the 12 cases. Also North and graphic scale besides local points of interest would be welcome.

Response 1: A new distribution map is included (page 5). Despite the mention of some local references, the approach is focused on internal structure and the development of initiatives. Therefore, we consider it preferable to refrain from incorporating unsystematic local points in Figure 1 and focus on the location of case studies.

Comments 2: Include more information about the 12 communities, such as population, profile (age group, types of services and activities available there, level of green areas and photos illustrating the urban spaces in each case).

Response 2: They are initiatives confirmed by groups of people, not towns or neighborhoods. Therefore, the work tries to interpret and find common characteristics of such initiatives.

Comments 3: Regarding the semi-structured interviews, it is understood that they were applied to key people in each community and that they are the core of the research method.But how many interviews were conducted?What are the profiles of each interviewee?What ethical precautions were observed when conducting the interviews? 4. At the end, inform the limitations of the research.Was the method only based on interviews?Was there no prior document analysis (before the interviews)?Were there no systematic visual observations in these locations (walkthroughs) to corroborate or not the questions insert into the interviews?It would be desirable to include in the article in the Methods section a table listing the questions that were part of the interviews. The authors are requested to explain, in the manuscript, in the Method section, in the case of semi-structured interviews, which ethical protocols were followed in accordance with Spanish and/or international regulations and whether the interviewees were asked to sign the Informed Consent Form in advance.

Response  3: The description of the approach and development of the interviews has been completed and clarified (see pages 5-6). In this regard, the format of the interviews, type and number of interviewees, profiles, ethical protocol and examples of key issues addressed are presented.

Comments 4: Include at the beginning of the Methods section, a flowchart indicating the step-by-step research that originated the article.

Response 4: We understand that throughout the manuscript, the process we have carried out can be adequately followed, which has allowed us to arrive at the case studies, their description, and the learning and conclusions obtained. As requested, we have created a flowchart, but ultimately, we believe it is best not to include it in the article so as not to complicate its structure. This is especially true given that the article is part of a larger project and contextualizing it in this sense would require excessive development of the Methods section.

 

 

Comments 5: Make more clear how original / inedit is this kind of study.

Response 5: Paragraph included. (Lines 468-471)

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper “Socioecological transition and community resilience: Learning  from 12 social experiences in Seville (Spain)” is an interesting paper. The growing population of cities, cultural and social diversity,  climatic changes raise interesting issues and solutions in urban development. Different initiatives (some private, community or local authorities)  are proposed around the world to overcome the problems. The study presents 12 cases of socio-ecological transformation initiatives in the Spanish city of Seville. After describing these initiatives, the authors try to draw some directions to establish a methodology to standardize  common elements, identifying different or common patterns, challenges and opportunities.

It is important to have studies like this one to understand the mechanism of changes, urban resilience and to prepare solutions for the new challenges.

A few aspects must be clarified:

 

Figure 1 – increase the font for the text of sites. I suggest the capture of figure 1 as “Distribution map of case studies . Own elaboration.”

Figures 2 and 3 look more like tables, I suggest presenting them as tables and correcting in the article text figure 2 to table 2 and so on.

Figure 4 – correct to figure 2. The first row in the figure is written in Spanish, translate it into English.

It is an interesting way to introduce the references, but in my opinion, it is easier to follow them if there are introduce as number (in order of introduction) in the text.

Author Response

THIRD REVIEWER

The paper “Socioecological transition and community resilience: Learning  from 12 social experiences in Seville (Spain)” is an interesting paper. The growing population of cities, cultural and social diversity,  climatic changes raise interesting issues and solutions in urban development. Different initiatives (some private, community or local authorities)  are proposed around the world to overcome the problems. The study presents 12 cases of socio-ecological transformation initiatives in the Spanish city of Seville. After describing these initiatives, the authors try to draw some directions to establish a methodology to standardize  common elements, identifying different or common patterns, challenges and opportunities.

It is important to have studies like this one to understand the mechanism of changes, urban resilience and to prepare solutions for the new challenges.

A few aspects must be clarified:

 

Comments 1: Figure 1 – increase the font for the text of sites. I suggest the capture of figure 1 as “Distribution map of case studies. Own elaboration.”

Response 1: It has been modified and completed (page 5)

Comments 2: Figures 2 and 3 look more like tables, I suggest presenting them as tables and correcting in the article text figure 2 to table 2 and so on.

Response 1: Modified

Comments 3: Figure 4 – correct to figure 2. The first row in the figure is written in Spanish, translate it into English.

Response 1: Modified

Comments 4: It is an interesting way to introduce the references, but in my opinion, it is easier to follow them if there are introduce as number (in order of introduction) in the text.

Response 1: Modified

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Despite it consists on a descriptive approach, the paper provides valuable contributions by what is named "coding categories" to the resilience arena and as a analytical framework for future research. Besides, it also contributes to practical urban resilience discussion and application by analysing an existing case study in Spain.

Although conclusions reamin vague, some improvements have made to the better understanding and coherence of the paper. Limitations have also been identified and described so to better fit the paper in resilience research context.

 

Author Response

Comments 1: 

Despite it consists on a descriptive approach, the paper provides valuable contributions by what is named "coding categories" to the resilience arena and as a analytical framework for future research. Besides, it also contributes to practical urban resilience discussion and application by analysing an existing case study in Spain.

Although conclusions reamin vague, some improvements have made to the better understanding and coherence of the paper. Limitations have also been identified and described so to better fit the paper in resilience research context.

Response 1: 

Although possible improvements are noted in relation to the description of methods, findings, or conclusions, in line with the reviewer's own comments, it is considered that the nature and objectives of the article are consistent and coherent in the current version of text.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The manuscript was improved a lot. However there are a few adjustments to be done as follow:

1. Figure 1. The yellow colour overlayed on the grease mapping colour it is not  a good option. Please highlight the location of the case studies with a different colour.
2.  L.460. It is not understandable the meaning of "decurrenfly" into the paragragh context. 
3. The last item CONCLUSIONS must be change to CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITS OF THE RESEARCH.

With those minor corrections the article could be published.

Author Response

Comments 1: Figure 1. The yellow colour overlayed on the grease mapping colour it is not  a good option. Please highlight the location of the case studies with a different colour.

Response 1: A new black and white version has been created. Font and symbol size has been also increased. It facilitates easy visualisation and reproduction.

 

Comments 2: L.460. It is not understandable the meaning of "decurrenfly" into the paragragh context.

Response 2: 

Adjustment proposal:

“This causes a structural deficiency in earnings. If their activity is not directly supported by an external agent –such as administration or foundations- or influenced by conjunctural events -such as food price inflation–, market-related experiences tend to reveal precarious conditions for those who promote them”.

We use 'recurrently' to emphasise a tendency to be recognised as consequence of a common process. However, the revised version seems clearer.

Comments 3: The last item CONCLUSIONS must be change to CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITS OF THE RESEARCH.

Response 3: The heading has been modified. We agree that this is clearer in relation to the contents of the section.