What about the City? Towards an Urban Post-Growth Research Agenda

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

I congratulate the authors for the detailed, thorough study. Please, see below some comments and minor issues that can contribute to improve your work.

General

·         The abstract is well written and contains the main elements of the paper. The chosen keywords complement the title and abstract, contributing to the study being found by interested researchers.

·         The introduction is well-structured and provides the necessary elements for the reader to understand the research gap and the aim of the authors. The authors show the importance of the theme in an adequate way, citing appropriate references.

·         The method is well explained and is suitable for both the proposed objectives and the existing research gap.

·         The results are consistent with the literature and the methodology.

·         The conclusions are supported by the results.

Minor issues

·    How were sectoral focus defined? Were any framework or previous study used as a basis?

·    Suggestion: Developing a figure or table summarizing the role of cities could enhance the value of the paper's contribution

·     Please consider mentioning the software used to develop figure 3.

·  You have proposed three research questions around which post-growth scholarship can further develop, however only two are highlighted as such, perhaps due to a formatting error.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for your helpful feedback. I have tried to integrate all comments as much as possible. Please find my explanation to all comments and changes below (my responses are underlined): 

 

Reviewer 1:

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

I congratulate the authors for the detailed, thorough study. Please, see below some comments and minor issues that can contribute to improve your work.

General

• The abstract is well written and contains the main elements of the paper. The chosen keywords complement the title and abstract, contributing to the study being found by interested researchers.
• The introduction is well-structured and provides the necessary elements for the reader to understand the research gap and the aim of the authors. The authors show the importance of the theme in an adequate way, citing appropriate references.
• The method is well explained and is suitable for both the proposed objectives and the existing research gap.
• The results are consistent with the literature and the methodology.
• The conclusions are supported by the results.

Minor issues

•   How were sectoral focus defined? Were any framework or previous study used as a basis?

Thank you for pointing this out. The sectors were developed from the literature itself and not from an existing framework or previous study. The reason for taking such an inductive approach is that the urban post-growth literature includes a very wide thematic spectrum. I have made the following changes to avoid misunderstandings and provide a better explanation:

First: I have added an explanation that points toward the limitations of this approach

Second: I have changed the wording from “sectoral focus” to “thematic focus” to emphasize that the categorization refers to different orientations rather than (more clearly or sharply defined) sectors. 

•   Suggestion: Developing a figure or table summarizing the role of cities could enhance the value of the paper's contribution

I have added a table that summarizes the different categories. The table includes the 7 different roles that are attributed to cities and a short explanation for each role

•    Please consider mentioning the software used to develop figure 3.

I have added the name of the software to the caption of figures 1-3

•  You have proposed three research questions around which post-growth scholarship can further develop, however only two are highlighted as such, perhaps due to a formatting error.

Thanks for pointing this out. I was indeed a formatting error, now all three research questions should be highlighted as a numbered list

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting article that undoubtedly contributes to the generation of scientific knowledge.

The methods section is appreciable, as it is well explained and honestly follows the steps to be followed in a systematic literature review.

However, it is not clear what research questions or hypotheses have led to this article and to analyse it in this way. It would be necessary, from the point of view of a qualitative methodology, to justify the research questions or hypotheses. 

Also, a posteriori, the way in which the author explains the 7 roles inductively is remarkable. In this respect, I believe that an explicit justification of why those 7 roles in particular -and not others-, would improve the article.

The writing is clear, which is appreciated. 

The conclusions seem a bit general, which may make sense, given that in reality, new lines of research are proposed. Or rather questions. In this respect, it would perhaps be interesting to give the questions a further twist, to define them more, or to add some more,

The bibliography seems to be quite up to date, it seems sufficient. 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for your helpful feedback. I have tried to integrate all comments as much as possible. Please find my explanation to all comments and changes below (my responses are underlined): 

 

Reviewer 2:

 

This is an interesting article that undoubtedly contributes to the generation of scientific knowledge.

The methods section is appreciable, as it is well explained and honestly follows the steps to be followed in a systematic literature review.

However, it is not clear what research questions or hypotheses have led to this article and to analyse it in this way. It would be necessary, from the point of view of a qualitative methodology, to justify the research questions or hypotheses. 

Thank you for this comment. I have made a number of changes to clarify the paper’s proceedings. The paper’s general research questions are outlined in the introduction.

“First, in what ways do urban spaces and configurations feature in the literature on post-growth-oriented transformations? And second, what are the central (research) questions that delineate the research field of urban post-growth?”

I have highlighted these more clearly in the revised version especially by referring back to the research questions throughout the paper.

Also, a posteriori, the way in which the author explains the 7 roles inductively is remarkable. In this respect, I believe that an explicit justification of why those 7 roles in particular -and not others-, would improve the article.

I have added a paragraph to section 4 explaining how the different roles were developed. Furthermore, I added a footnote that gives some examples of categories that were not included in the analysis. The reasons for exclusion and inclusion are also given in section 4.

The writing is clear, which is appreciated. 

The conclusions seem a bit general, which may make sense, given that in reality, new lines of research are proposed. Or rather questions. In this respect, it would perhaps be interesting to give the questions a further twist, to define them more, or to add some more,

As the paper’s goal is to develop rather general and broad research questions – as a core around which urban post-growth research can cohere – I have not added further questions. However, I have added a paragraph to the conclusion to explain this aim more clearly and also point toward some of its limitations as well as the need for more specific research (and research questions).

The bibliography seems to be quite up to date, it seems sufficient. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic is interesting in principle but the paper lacks enough literature review and writing structure. The authors are encouraged to improve this manuscript. This reviewer has some comments regarding the clarity of the paper:

-Abstract is too general. Please revised it more attractive, including specific seven ways in which cities feature.

-Secondary and tertiary titles should be mentioned, especially in 2nd section and 4th section.

-Introduction. The healthy city and biophilic city literatures should be mentioned. Perhaps some recent refs are, for example: 1) B, El Baghdadi A , and C. D. B . "Conceptualising a biophilic services model for urban areas." Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 27(2017):399-408. 2)Hong, X. C., Wang, G. Y., Liu, J., et al. (2021) Modeling the impact of soundscape drivers on perceived birdsongs in urban forests. Journal of Cleaner Production, 292, 125315; 3) Spotswood, E.N., Benjamin, M., Stoneburner, L. et al. (2021) Nature inequity and higher COVID-19 case rates in less-green neighbourhoods in the United States. Nature Sustainability 4, 1092-1098. 

-Perhaps redrawing Figure 1 and 2. This is a little confusing.

-Others Perhaps research limitations need to be mentioned.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for your helpful feedback. I have tried to integrate all comments as much as possible. Please find my explanation to all comments and changes below (my responses are underlined): 

 

 

Reviewer 3

 

The topic is interesting in principle but the paper lacks enough literature review and writing structure. The authors are encouraged to improve this manuscript. This reviewer has some comments regarding the clarity of the paper:

-Abstract is too general. Please revised it more attractive, including specific seven ways in which cities feature.

I have revised the abstract and added the seven roles of cities that where developed from the literature.

-Secondary and tertiary titles should be mentioned, especially in 2nd section and 4th section.

Section two has secondary titles to facilitate reading. However, I have decided not to use secondary titles in section 2 as this section only consists of 4 paragraphs and additional titles might lead to fragmentation of this section.

-Introduction. The healthy city and biophilic city literatures should be mentioned. Perhaps some recent refs are, for example: 1) B, El Baghdadi A , and C. D. B . "Conceptualising a biophilic services model for urban areas." Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 27(2017):399-408. 2)Hong, X. C., Wang, G. Y., Liu, J., et al. (2021) Modeling the impact of soundscape drivers on perceived birdsongs in urban forests. Journal of Cleaner Production, 292, 125315; 3) Spotswood, E.N., Benjamin, M., Stoneburner, L. et al. (2021) Nature inequity and higher COVID-19 case rates in less-green neighbourhoods in the United States. Nature Sustainability 4, 1092-1098.

Thank you for the additional literature. The paper presents a systematic literature review that is based on the terms outlined on section 2. I have added an explanation why the paper has selected these specific terms (and not others). The sources that you have provided are – while compelling articles – only partially related to the paper’s keywords and the topic of urban post-growth in general. I have thus decided not to include them in the article.

-Perhaps redrawing Figure 1 and 2. This is a little confusing.

Thanks for pointing out that the figures are not well explained. I have added a descriptive caption to all figures as well as more details in the text that help to explain the figures and provide a clearer illustration.

-Others Perhaps research limitations need to be mentioned.

I have added some comments on the limitations of the paper in sections 3 and 4. Also I have added a paragraph to the conclusion that summarizes the paper’s approach and aim and points out some limitations.  

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Very unique research done.

Most of my comments have been clarified in this Revision.

I recommend this publication after one comment:

In principle for this topic, It is necessary to mention important literatures (at least three publications) from Nature / Science group publications, especially Nature Sustainability, Nature Communications and Science Advanced. 

 

Author Response

In principle for this topic, It is necessary to mention important literatures (at least three publications) from Nature / Science group publications, especially Nature Sustainability, Nature Communications and Science Advanced. 

Response:

The paper now includes 3 references to publications from nature (nature sustainability and nature communications). These are:

 

Wiedmann, T.; Lenzen, M.; Keyßer, L.T.; Steinberger, J.K. Scientists’ Warning on Affluence. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 3107, doi:10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y. 

O’Neill, D.W.; Fanning, A.L.; Lamb, W.F.; Steinberger, J.K. A Good Life for All within Planetary Boundaries. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 88–95, doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4.

Keyßer, L.T.; Lenzen, M. 1.5 °C Degrowth Scenarios Suggest the Need for New Mitigation Pathways. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 2676, doi:10.1038/s41467-021-22884-9.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept in present form