Conceptualising the Link between Citizen Science and Climate Governance: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents a systematic review of scientific literature that address the interface between citizen science and climate governance. Based on 44 studies authors analyzed: their temporal and geographical distribution; Governance Scope and Scale; Research Designs and Methods; and Conceptualizing the Link between Citizen Science and Governance. In that sense, the manuscript contributes with an updated state of the art for other researchers.

The methodology is well explained and reproducible. It is striking that without determining a specific period, the number of selected documents seems lower than expected (37 journal articles, 6 book chapters and 1 conference proceeding). Possibly this is because the query search was carried out only in the title, abstract and keywords of the documents. Consequently, studies that address topics related to climate change governance but that do not meet the condition of containing the three key concepts of the search in the selected text (Title, abstract, keywords) are left out. In any case, the number of documents analyzed can be considered a representative sample of the state of the art.

This limitation together with others (language of publication, categories of analysis) are discussed and sustained by the authors in a specific section of the manuscript. Personally, I do not share the decision made regarding not adapting specific climate governance domain, such as mitigation, adaptation, or conservation, as a categories of analysis to be added to the others, because I consider this to be a logical way of approaching. 

The results and discussion are well presented, in a clear and structured way, although in some cases the same issues are repeated in several categories of analysis, for example, the idea “of showing how CS (…) can contribute to addressing wicked problems like climate change, not only through the provision of environmental data, but also through favouring co-management, collective decision-making and sociotechnical innovation (…)” is extensively repeated in different paragraphs and categories of analysis. I suggest authors could address this issue. 

Conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and address the main question posed. References are appropriate with the limitation previously commented regarding the method applied for selecting the analyzed documents. 

Minor comment:

Line 242 says “red” instead of “read.”

Author Response

Please see file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this interesting article. The paper addresses a topical issue concerning the Citizen Science and Climate Governance, so it has great potential to be of interest to a wider audience. The introduction effectively traces the evolution of approaches to climate change governance, giving the reader a clear understanding of their development over time. However, the introduction focuses too much on historical aspects and almost entirely omits the most recent research from the area in which the study is conducted. What is missing here is recent research that points to current approaches to climate change governance.

While the article provides a sound justification for the chosen methodology, it lacks a thorough discussion of how articles were selected and excluded for review. Given the small number of articles obtained for analysis, a more critical examination of the limitations would have increased the credibility and validity of the article. The glaring nature of this problem is particularly evident in Figure 3, indicating a single occurrence of articles in the selected countries, which is not convincing. This section should be supported by a solid justification that the selection process carried out is correct.

Author Response

Please see file attached 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have undertaken a review of the literature that connects citizen science and climate governance. The paper reviews the timescale, geographic location, and key areas of focus of 44 identified studies.

The paper is most useful in summarizing overarching areas of focus of the papers reviewed. Greater clarity and specificity are needed regarding climate governance and how CS fits into it, the methodology of the review, and implications for specific climate governance issues and how CS is operationalized within them.

I note major comments by section and then a few minor points at the end.

Introduction:

1.1 The introduction to climate change governance is okay but it seems overly broad and somewhat vague. Its point appears to be to set up the case for citizen science involvement by noting the complexities involved in the problem and impacts of climate change. It also notes the conventions stating the importance of citizen involvement. Yet, the argument lacks specificity. Is there an example the authors could provide of how the citizen involvement in climate change governance has been fruitful? Furthermore, it would be helpful if the authors would clarify the scope they are speaking to about climate change governance, such as relating to policy systems to mitigate emissions, what levels of governance, etc., to make it clear where in those governance systems the citizen involvement (and science) would best fit.

1.2 I am struggling a little with the definition of CS in this section. The points about local concerns and knowledge, and involvement in priority setting and even data collection, are clear enough. In the final paragraph in this section, however, where examples are provided, the cases are primarily about policy formulation. Since this section of the paper is central in setting up the case for CS in governance, more specificity in concrete examples would be helpful.

Section 2:

The vagueness in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 about the forms of governance and type and scope of CS remain in the two paragraphs in Section 2, and it is challenging to discern the exact problem the authors are addressing.

More minor point in this section: is there a theoretical/framework difference between CS impacts on environmental governance (as Conrad & Hilchey 2010 covers) vs those with a clear reference to climate change impacts? If so it would be helpful to clarify that in this section. Or is this focused primarily just on reviewing the research that focuses on climate impact specifically, separate from other environmental impacts?

Section 3.4: I would appreciate if the authors would provide a little more detail about the thematic analysis approach. Were any of the themes pre-determined? What about the codes listed in Table 1? This part of the methodology is unclear.

Please state what are the principles of analytic abduction (referenced with several sources) and how they translated to the actual review process.

I think it would help provide clarity in the methodology to include a table with a couple of examples of the coding process and accompanying data, i.e., to demonstrate examples of this part of the methodology “Themes were developed through an iterative process of repeated comparisons by noting analogies or relationships between the 274 extracted data and going back and forth across the listed phases.”

Section 4:

The basic data about time, location, scale, all seem fine. I wonder if there would be a way to simplify the presentation of it in fewer figures/tables.

I appreciate Figure 4 as a particularly useful way to convey the research designs.

In Table 4, or elsewhere, a succinct description style definition of the themes would be helpful. It could be beneficial to tie them to concrete examples of how they fit into specific climate governance issues and the way that CS is operationalized within them.

The summaries of the themes are, in my view, the most important part of the paper. Yet, I felt like the introduction, including Sections 1 and 2, and the methodology did not contextualize the importance/purpose of reviewing them and what the literature finds about them.

Section 5:

Given that the paper started off with the broad challenge of climate change and limiting warming, it would be helpful to come back to that in the discussion and how CS and climate change governance fit into it. Furthermore, more specificity in the discussion, as ideally integrated into the introduction, about the science aspect of CS would be helpful. This is also lacking in the Conclusion section.

Minor points:

1. The logic in this sentence is unclear. What does it mean regarding the agreements and instruments are meant to fail to engender...? ". Since international agreements and regulatory instruments are meant to fail to engender a significant reconfiguration without effective incorporation into concrete actions across different arenas and social levels new decentralized and multilevel governance arrangements have become increasingly relevant [Hölscher & Frantzeskaki, 2020; Ostrom, 2014]."

2. Why is this a new social practice of science if it dates to 1993? "This reveals an intrinsic relationship with the paradigm of post-normal science coined by Funtowicz and Ravetz [1993]. This new "social practice of science" [Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993, 103 p. 742] outlines a path of democratization of knowledge..."

3. It would help to clarify what the STS framework is when referenced here: "Moreover, our results uphold the STS framework as a suitable lens for understanding 699 the dynamics related to the cs-governance nexus"

Author Response

Please see file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf