Tensions and Invisible Costs in Co-Creating Nature-Based Health Knowledge in Brussels

REVIEWER

OUR RESPONSE

The article has been improved, as the authors have simplified some of the concepts, and cut out some of the confusing content. However, the article still needs substantial improvement, and I think the authors can be capable of that, if they are given sufficient time by the journal editors, and if they also rely on the advice of peer or senior colleagues to read the paper, before it is again resubmitted.

Thank you. Originally we had only 6 days, but we asked for a longer extension. We paid the specialist language editing service of MDPI this time.

The theoretical part is still confusing, and not well tied together with the empirical part. I think you need to spend more time clearly identifying what is the core literature you are trying to address. Are you really trying to add to the discussion of the “depoliticization by eco-logical modernist research and policy priorities in Europe?” Or is that one of your findings and not one of your starting assumptions?

We rewrote the theoretical part. We made it also more clear that “depoliticization by eco-logical modernist research and policy priorities in Europe?”  is indeed our finding, and not our starting assumption.

Perhaps you need to restrict your theoretical focus to co-creation, with a particular attention to knowledge systems/power relations, etc etc? and maybe linking it more strongly with the three spheres of transformations, which seems to be an important piece of your conceptual reasoning?

Thank you for this comment. We focused more on co-creation and the power dynamics. In the theoretical part, there is also now an explicit subsection about tensions and transformation. In the retelling (section 5) and the discussion (section 6), we refer more to the three spheres of transformation..

Now you list and explain a number of concepts in section 3, but the connection between them is still not always clear, and I m not sure that environmental justice literature can really help improve this part.

We revised this version and cut it in smaller subsections that follow a certain narrative, giving insights into out logics of reasoning. We put environmental justice literature more in the background. Only the third author read environmental justice literature. We highlighted that the first and second author were naive and not read in recognising political spheres, especially at the beginning of the project.

Some parts can be integrated, for better flow. For instance, the first set of 3.1 and 3.2 (n.b. they are wrongly numbered, they should be 2.1 and 2.2) – I would integrate these two paragraphs and leave out unnecessary info.

We revised this.

I would also try to create a coherent section where you can explain the case study, the type of stakeholders involved, and the materials and methods. In short, I might consider integrating and combining section 2 with section 4.

We revised this section. We removed some repetitions and the language editor helped to shift some sentences here and there too, so we could remove a whole paragraph in section 2. For us, section 4 is all about the perspective of the first and second author.

Also, some of the content you now have in section 5, at the beginning (including Table 1; paragraph 5.1, etc) , in my view should go when you explain the case study/methods section, so together with section 2/4. They are not the findings! They are the basic info needed for the info to explain your case study.

We moved table 1 to section 3 (where we introduce the case study).

Some thoughts are expressed in this beginning paragraph of the autoethnography that is only the way how the first and second author envisioned the project. We wanted to make clear that there is the basic information that all stakeholders would use (section 3), but then the introduction how the first and second author saw BGB and certain tensions and causes.

3. The empirical part contains some very interesting reflections. However, they are now explained in a rather confusing way. I would try to make the list of tensions more systematic, avoid going back and forth between data, reflections, and references to the literature (which btw, you do by adding even new concepts and theories like in 6.2) – the reader gets confused. Stick to what you experienced/found in the process, and try to tie it better together with the theoretical/conceptual part.

The list of tensions is included in the Appendix. We revised section 4 (the reality according to the first and second author) and section 5 (the reality according to the third author).

Please let us know if this is satisfactory enough. If not, we welcome detailed suggestions where we could have tied the experiences/observations/reflections with the theoretical part.

The discussion is also confusing and too long. It needs to clearly sum up the main findings and how they contribute to the theory.

We restructured and revised the discussion.

Conclusion can also be improved.

We revised the conclusion. We welcome detailed suggestions how the conclusion should be improved.

The article is full of spelling, orthographical and syntax mistakes. As acknowledged by the authors, it was revised in a rush (also due to the extremely fast editing system of MDPI), and therefore there still needs to be done a thorough check of the language, also taking into account specific comments given in the first review, which were not sufficiently checked. I suggest hiring an English mother tongue, not only to check the various mistakes here and there, but also to improve the way many sentences are structured (e.g. some are missing a subject, others are off in terms of verb tenses; adverbs are not always used in an accurate way, etc.), and thus improve clarity of what is explained.

Thanks for mentioning this. We used this comment to ask the editor for at least one more week of revision, so we could send it to the language editor.

189 could you be transparent about the name of the graphic designer

We mentioned her name in this revised version.