The Role of Non-Climate Data in Equitable Climate Adaptation Planning: Lessons from Small French and American Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript investigates different climate adaptation plans in US and France, focusing on small cities. It discusses the important impact of non-climatic drivers on social acceptability and success of the plans. The authors considered 12 climate adaptation domains to elaborate the equitable planning. At the end, the authors presented some recommendations for climate adaptation researchers and decision makers. The manuscript is well written, clear and easy to understand. I have only a few minor comments as follows:

-         -  It is recommended to briefly add the results of the study in the abstract.

-           - The text on the title of the last column of Table 1 should be modified.

-          - There should be at least a short explanation about tables in the text (e.g. table 2). The reference may be useful.

-          -The manuscript should be checked for typos (e.g. equable in line 306, offer address line 327, line 348, and line 371: a one, line 375: then).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Our responses are listed point-by-point after each of your comments below:

 The manuscript investigates different climate adaptation plans in US and France, focusing on small cities. It discusses the important impact of non-climatic drivers on social acceptability and success of the plans. The authors considered 12 climate adaptation domains to elaborate the equitable planning. At the end, the authors presented some recommendations for climate adaptation researchers and decision makers. The manuscript is well written, clear and easy to understand. I have only a few minor comments as follows:

-          It is recommended to briefly add the results of the study in the abstract. Added in the last sentence.

-           The text on the title of the last column of Table 1 should be modified. This formatting change has happened when the text was converted into the journal template by the journal staff. I have expanded the height of the title rows to make all column titles clearly visible.

-          There should be at least a short explanation about tables in the text (e.g. table 2). The reference may be useful. We have added a short explanation on p. 6 and references to all 3 sections of table 2 (a, b, and c).

•         The manuscript should be checked for typos (e.g. equable in line 306, offer address line 327, line 348, and line 371: a one, line 375: then). We have corrected these and other typos and checked the text for spelling and grammar. The manuscript has been proofread by a native English speaker.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments- sustainability-2055494
This is an interesting study. However, this study needs some revisions. Moreover, the following queries need to be clarified in this study.

 

1.         What are the objectives and scientific aims of this paper? The description is not very clear, please explain in detail.

2.         What are the limitations of this study? What do these limitations affect the results or conclusions?

3.         The authors should separate “Discussion (Line 237-)” into a section and add more content in this section.

4.         The methods need to be clearly written and explained so that all readers could recreate the study.

5.         The “Theoretical framework (Line 155-224)” need to be clearly written and explained so that all readers could understand.

6.         What is the data source for this study? Please clearly explain it.

7.         The title of Figure 1 needs to be revised.

 

8.         The content of Table 1 needs to be revised

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We greatly appreciate all your thoughtful comments and editorial suggestions. I have listed our point-by-point response to all your comments below:

This is an interesting study. However, this study needs some revisions. Moreover, the following queries need to be clarified in this study.

 

1. What are the objectives and scientific aims of this paper? The description is not very clear, please explain in detail.

We have clarified our objectives as following “The primary objective of our study is to examine climate adaptation data needs from the perspective of small municipalities (defined here as urban areas with population less than 300,000). The U.S. and France provide an especially interesting case due to fundamental differences in their approaches to local climate adaptation planning and provision of climate services, with the French system being highly centralized and a variety of community-driven approaches across the United States. Our secondary objectives are to investigate what information, methods, and tools have been used in local vulnerability assessments and climate adaptation plans in both countries, to identify major gaps, and to synthesize insights from these two different national models of local climate adaptation planning. We do not aim here to compare different national approaches. Instead, our goal is to use this cross-national case study to provide some insights on common challenges faced by small municipalities and emerging solutions in both countries” (lines 126-139).

 

2. What are the limitations of this study? What do these limitations affect the results or conclusions?

We have expanded the section on the limitation of results on page 15 as following: “Our analysis has several limitations. Although rigorous and formal, it is nevertheless based on a small sample of 40 cities and is meant to provide examples of information produced and used in climate adaptation planning. The results should not be extrapolated to generalize patterns and trends of climate adaptation planning. The list of municipalities used as case studies in our study is not exhaustive and is meant to provide insights from the two different national models. It should be noted that, a priori, French plans in our sample are more representative than their U.S. counterparts. Climate plans, including both climate change mitigation and adaptation components are now required in France for all municipalities with populations more than 20,000 people. There are now 307 urban and rural municipalities of various sizes in France, who are following this national requirement, representing about one quarter of French municipalities, with most of them being relatively large cities [34].  Even though many of the U.S. plans have been enabled and supported by federal policies [148], they are voluntary, driven by local and state circumstances and initiatives, and are less typical for the entire nation.” (479-492).

3. The authors should separate “Discussion (Line 237-)” into a section and add more content in this section.

We appreciate the suggestion to separate the “Discussion” from “Results” but would prefer to keep the section titled “Results and Discussion”. Section 3 Results and Discussion includes three subsections: 3.1. Conceptualization and assessment of human vulnerability; 3.2. Consideration of justice in climate adaptation goals; and 3.3. Stakeholders’ role in knowledge development. Each subsection includes a very detailed discussion of the part of the results only specific to it. For example, section 3.1 is fully dedicated to the results and discussion of conceptualization of vulnerability. Creating a separate section “Discussion” would necessitate to have 6 separate subsections, affecting clarity and readability the entire section 3. Instead, we integrated the discussion of results in each of these three separate subsections.

4. The methods need to be clearly written and explained so that all readers could recreate the study.

Section 2 Methodology includes three subsections: 2.1 Climate adaptation plans; 2.2 Theoretical framework; and 2.3 Data analysis. All three sections can be recreated for other datasets. This is a reanalysis of our published datasets. We have provided references to the earlier published and to all individual climate adaptation documents used in this study. To improve the paper readability, we have separated Table 1 into Table 1 a and Table 1b, which provide references for all climate adaptation plans.  The term PCAET is now explained. The methodology is synthesized in Table 2 a, b, and c and the qualitative data analysis is driven by the questions outlined is section 2.4.

5. The “Theoretical framework (Line 155-224)” need to be clearly written and explained so that all readers could understand. This subsection (2.2) is a part of section 2. Methodology. It introduced the key concepts and definitions examined in the paper (vulnerability, equity, and inclusion) and provides a framework for the data analysis. To improve the readability of this section, we have separated it into two subsections” 2.2 Conceptualization of vulnerability and 2.3 Conceptualization of equity and inclusion. Data analysis is now section 2.4.
6. What is the data source for this study? Please clearly explain it. The data source is the authors’ collection of climate adaptation plans of 40 municipalities with population less than 300,000 and related bibliography. Adaptation plans and additional documents cited in Table 1 (now Table 1 and Table 1 b) with complete references in the list of bibliography. We have provided clarifications in section 2.1 Climate Adaptation Plans. (142-158)
7. The title of Figure 1 needs to be revised. We have edited the text in Figure 1 a and b to improve the readability of the chart and improved formatting. We also clearly separated Figures 1a and 1b. The caption has been added Interpretation of vulnerability in U.S. climate adaptation plans. 
8. The content of Table 1 needs to be revised. We revised the title rows of table 1 to make sure that all subtitles are clearly readable. We have separated this table into Table 1 A and Table 1 B.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents a study on the information and methods used by municipal authorities for climate adaptation planning on local scale based on a review of plans developed by small size cities in the USA and France, and identifies existing weaknesses, contemporary challenges and requirements to improve future development. The analysis focuses on the qualitative assessment of key terms of vulnerability, exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity, key principles for climate justice and involved stakeholders’ roles and the classification of information and strategies used in urban climate adaptation plans and concludes with recommendations for researchers and decision makers.

The research is original, coherent, and well referenced through literature review, official reports and municipality planning projects. The methodology is scientifically sound and adequately documented through the theoretical background, the analysis is based on evaluation of data from relevant municipality climate adaptation plans and recent literature, the structure and presentation are clear and the conclusions are effectively supported by the analysis results. The presented study can be considered a useful contribution to assist further research and enrich development of adaptation planning strategies for small cities in practice.   

Some secondary comments are noted below.

In Methodology:

In section 2.1 it would be useful to provide maps to indicate the location of the cities (e.g. one map for the cities in the U.S. and one for the cities in France)

In line 140, please correct the phrase as appropriate e.g. “…assessment reports for urban and rural municipalities…”

In Line 146, please explain the “PCAET” abbreviation e.g. “… PCAETs (Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial)…”. Also please note if this is the national requirement for climate adaptation plans in France.

In line 146, the reference indicated as [33] is the same with reference [28]. Please correct.

In table 1, the indications of different “impacts of climate change addressed” in the second line of the table are not legible, please include the full text for each indication e.g. by changing text orientation. Also please consider separating the data in two tables (one for US cities and one for French cities)

In lines 173-174 please correct the phrase as appropriate e.g. “ … and they do not sufficiently…”

In lines 182-186 please correct the sentence or rephrase as appropriate.

In Results and discussion:

In table 3, in the 1^st column, 4^th row, please note that "adaptive capacity" is referred to as "adaptation capacity" unlike the indications in 3^rd, 5^th, 6^th  and 7^th rows. Please correct if necessary. The same applies to figures 1a and 1b .

In figures 1a and 1b, please see note for table 3.

In line 335, it seems that the word “insolation” (=unobstructed access of solar radiation) should probably be replaced here by “insulation” (=material with low thermal conductivity used to reduce heat transfer through building shell). Please check and correct if appropriate.

In figure 3 please consider removing the “120” value form the horizontal axis (percentage of all plans) to avoid confusion.

In Conclusions:

In lines 502-506 please consider rephrasing, the sentence is unclear and difficult to comprehend.

Please also note some minor typos:

Line 12: “…United States…”

Line 99: “…environmental justice mostly remains…”

Line 366:  “… including 16 cities in high-income countries…”

Line 371: “Air quality is one of the key factors…”

Line 472: correct section numbering

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We greatly appreciate all your thoughtful comments, edits, and suggestions. Below are our point-by-point responses to your comments:

The paper presents a study on the information and methods used by municipal authorities for climate adaptation planning on local scale based on a review of plans developed by small size cities in the USA and France, and identifies existing weaknesses, contemporary challenges and requirements to improve future development. The analysis focuses on the qualitative assessment of key terms of vulnerability, exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity, key principles for climate justice and involved stakeholders’ roles and the classification of information and strategies used in urban climate adaptation plans and concludes with recommendations for researchers and decision makers.

The research is original, coherent, and well referenced through literature review, official reports and municipality planning projects. The methodology is scientifically sound and adequately documented through the theoretical background, the analysis is based on evaluation of data from relevant municipality climate adaptation plans and recent literature, the structure and presentation are clear and the conclusions are effectively supported by the analysis results. The presented study can be considered a useful contribution to assist further research and enrich development of adaptation planning strategies for small cities in practice.   

Some secondary comments are noted below.

In Methodology:

In section 2.1 it would be useful to provide maps to indicate the location of the cities (e.g. one map for the cities in the U.S. and one for the cities in France)

We created the maps with locations of all cities in some earlier publications (Urban Climate, 2020 and Data Brief 2021) but the maps would look extremely busy because many cities with climate adaptation plans are clustered closely together and would overlap at the scale of each country. Many French municipalities have long names, which would require a very lengthy legend.  Visually pleasing mapping of the US would require separate maps for California, Midwest, Rockies, Southeast, and New England considering the size of the country. Instead, we provide a reference to our publication in Data in Brief (2021), which provides a detailed explanation of the dataset design and includes the maps. I fully understand your request but feel that additional maps would overload this article with visuals. This article is not focusing specifically on the spatial patterns of the plans. We hope that all readers would easily locate all municipalities by referring to the list of municipalities in tables 1 A and B and Google Maps.

In line 140, please correct the phrase as appropriate e.g. “…assessment reports for urban and rural municipalities…” Corrected (now line 150).

In Line 146, please explain the “PCAET” abbreviation e.g. “… PCAETs (Plan Climat Air Energie Territorial)…”. Also please note if this is the national requirement for climate adaptation plans in France. Added and explained, provided sources.

In line 146, the reference indicated as [33] is the same with reference [28]. Please correct. We have removed the duplicated reference and updated the list of citations.

In table 1, the indications of different “impacts of climate change addressed” in the second line of the table are not legible, please include the full text for each indication e.g. by changing text orientation. Also please consider separating the data in two tables (one for US cities and one for French cities).

Corrected. Expanded the line with all subtitles. This formatting change has probably happened when the text was converted into the journal template by the journal staff.

In lines 173-174 please correct the phrase as appropriate e.g. “ … and they do not sufficiently…” Edited as “Approaches that conceptualize vulnerability as an outcome often include hazard information and therefore do not sufficiently differentiate between vulnerability and risk”. Now line 197

In lines 182-186 please correct the sentence or rephrase as appropriate. Corrected (now line 189-192).

In Results and discussion:

In table 3, in the 1^st column, 4^th row, please note that "adaptive capacity" is referred to as "adaptation capacity" unlike the indications in 3^rd, 5^th, 6^th  and 7^th rows. Please correct if necessary. The same applies to figures 1a and 1b . We have corrected this discrepancy in table 3 and both figures 1a and b (adaptive capacity).

In figures 1a and 1b, please see note for table 3. Corrected accordingly.

In line 335, it seems that the word “insolation” (=unobstructed access of solar radiation) should probably be replaced here by “insulation” (=material with low thermal conductivity used to reduce heat transfer through building shell). Please check and correct if appropriate. Yes, thank you, corrected.

In figure 3 please consider removing the “120” value form the horizontal axis (percentage of all plans) to avoid confusion. Done!

In Conclusions:

In lines 502-506 please consider rephrasing, the sentence is unclear and difficult to comprehend. Rephrased as “In the absence of national and international standards for vulnerability assessment, municipalities adopt diverse methodological frameworks, definitions, and protocols, or skip the assessment all together.” Now line 515-518

Please also note some minor typos:

Line 12: “…United States…” corrected

Line 99: “…environmental justice mostly remains…”corrected to “In France, the discourse on environmental justice is still mostly remains confined to academia”.- line 103

Line 366:  “… including 16 cities in high-income countries…” edited as “including 16 cities in high-income countries [129] indicated that …line 384

Line 371: “Air quality is one of the key factors…” corrected – line 388

Line 472: correct section numbering- corrected – this is section 4

Many thanks for these very helpful and thorough edits!

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is worthy of publication.