Understanding Public Health Adaptation to Climate Change: An Explorative Study on the Development of Adaptation Strategies Relating to the Oak Processionary Moth in The Netherlands
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article does a good job of framing OPM as an emerging and serious public health concern in Europe that is exacerbated by climate change.
However, the authors should clarify how their definition of “adaptation” differs from “mitigation.” The ecology interventions focus on reducing the OPM population, which would be considered “mitigation” in environmental and ecology circles. The “human” interventions, on the other hand, read more like the public health definition of “adaptation” strategies.
The methods section is clear and well organized. The limitations section acknowledges that the study sample was small and under-represented the view of private landowners.
However, it would be helpful to include a table comparing results from major categories of respondents, so that the reader can see whether they frame the problem differently.
It was helpful that the results section was divided into technical, organizational, and normative aspects of OPM adaptation. The normative section in particular would benefit from a few specific examples: maybe an example of disfunction and an example where a normative approach is working (even at a small scale).
There are a few missing words in the manuscript. I would encourage the authors to copy edit prior to issuing the final draft.
Author Response
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Editorial office
Dear Ms. Liang,
We are pleased to submit our revised manuscript entitled "Understanding public health adaptation to climate change: An explorative study on the development of adaptation strategies relating to the oak processionary moth in the Netherlands” for publication in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
We would like to thank you and the reviewers for your valuable comments and the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. All comments are considered with care and we have implemented most suggestions in this revised version. All changes and argumentation are listed below.
We hope to have addressed the comments satisfactorily and look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors address a very important issue. Public adaptation strategies are becoming a very critical discussion regarding the current context and the increasing concern about climate change impacts on human health. The qualitative approach is interesting and many findings deserved our attention.
However some points can be discussed to make this proposition fitting with a scientific paper's criteria.
First, we don't really identify a research question and research objectives in the introduction part. Even if the context is well understandable (with references) it looks a bit hard to know if the authors want to describe, identify or qualify phenomenon, activities, behaviours, dynamics, etc. We know the start point but don't really understand what is the wanted point of arrival.
Methodology : the snowball method is ok for the sample constitution, specialy if networks dynamics are studied. The justification of the sample and method must be more supported by your research objectives.
Results are interesting and well thematically structured, verbatims are well chosen. However some parts of results miss a scientific perspective. For example : "It was ultimately impossible for the landowner to communicate with the contractor, who appeared to be under the influence of alcohol while working." This kind of speech must be transcribed with critical distance. I guess some descriptions about responsability and coopération issues could be improved too in the results.
Discussion is interesting even if it discusses more about a theme (PHA strategy) than a research question. We miss more scientific coherence for the whole paper.
Author Response
We are pleased to submit our revised manuscript entitled "Understanding public health adaptation to climate change: An explorative study on the development of adaptation strategies relating to the oak processionary moth in the Netherlands” for publication in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
We would like to thank the reviewers for your valuable comments and the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. All comments are considered with care and we have implemented most suggestions in this revised version. All changes and argumentation are listed below.
We hope to have addressed the comments satisfactorily and look forward to your response.
|
|
Comments reviewer 2 |
Response of authors |
|
1. |
First, we don't really identify a research question and research objectives in the introduction part. Even if the context is well understandable (with references) it looks a bit hard to know if the authors want to describe, identify or qualify phenomenon, activities, behaviours, dynamics, etc. We know the start point but don't really understand what is the wanted point of arrival. |
Reading the comments, we realized that our aims were not clearly stated. Therefore, we redefined the aims of our study (p.3). “The objective of this study is therefore to explore and describe the dilemmas and complexities involved OPM adaptation by mapping actors, networks, activities and challenges involved in OPM adaptation. The aim is to contribute to a) the development of a conceptual framework to OPM adaptation, b) to map complexities, to improve understanding of OPM adaptation strategies and c) make recommendations for further research.“ (L. 105 – 111) |
|
2. |
Methodology : the snowball method is ok for the sample constitution, specialy if networks dynamics are studied. The justification of the sample and method must be more supported by your research objectives. |
We agree that information provided on the methods must be more supported by the research objectives. We have now added this information in the Method section (L. 123 - 124) “This approach also supported the objective to map actors, networks, activities and challenges involved in OPM adaptation.“ |
|
3. |
Results are interesting and well thematically structured, verbatims are well chosen. However some parts of results miss a scientific perspective. For example : "It was ultimately impossible for the landowner to communicate with the contractor, who appeared to be under the influence of alcohol while working." This kind of speech must be transcribed with critical distance. I guess some descriptions about responsability and coopération issues could be improved too in the results. |
We changed this information in the Results section (L. 322 - 326). “For example, one landowner described having hired a foreign contractor to remove OPM nests which challenged communication due to language barriers. Landowners further noted that there were few professional contractors were available at that time.” |
|
4. |
Discussion is interesting even if it discusses more about a theme (PHA strategy) than a research question. We miss more scientific coherence for the whole paper. |
We agree that scientific coherence could be improved. Therefore we clarified our objective, please see our earlier response concerning the objectives under comment 5. In addition, we adjusted the Discussion to meet the objectives (L. 545 – 547) “This study intended to explore and describe the dilemmas and complexities involved OPM adaptation by mapping actors, networks, activities and challenges involved in OPM adaptation. This exploration showed that there is a complex network of interactions regarding OPM control. There is a range of different public and private landowners. Besides, also other actors are involved with the OPM, such as citizens, contractors, waste operators, actors involved in research, advise, policy and administration and health professionals. At the national level actors such as ministries and the interprovincial counsel influence OPM adaptation. Therefore, the development of PHA strategies to OPM control involves policies of different sectors and actors with various professional backgrounds. Consequently, the actors focus on different themes which can be categorised in the themes: technical, organisational and normative issues.“ |
Yours sincerely,
The authors
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an interesting paper on a very contemporary topic that of public health adaptation and the interaction between climate change and human health.
Using OPM adaptation as a case study is interesting and highlight the complexity of PHA strategies and application.
However, I would like to see a paragraph outlining the conceptual framework around adaptation to climate change, human health and actions such as the SDGs, the EU Green deal, in terms of proposed actions, networks, solutions or mechanisms that could provide support or solutions to the problems detected in the OPM study.
The authors make a very quick reference to West Nile virus as a PHA issue.
It would be interesting to expand a bit on this in order to highlight successful PHA strategies.
Some English editing is required e.g. line 84 On any, line 234 OPM repetition?, line 292 effectiveness, line 448 along etc.
Author Response
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Editorial office
Dear Ms. Liang,
We are pleased to submit our revised manuscript entitled "Understanding public health adaptation to climate change: An explorative study on the development of adaptation strategies relating to the oak processionary moth in the Netherlands” for publication in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
We would like to thank you and the reviewers for your valuable comments and the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. All comments are considered with care and we have implemented most suggestions in this revised version. All changes and argumentation are listed below.
We hope to have addressed the comments satisfactorily and look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for taking into account comments
However, there is an issue but still no research question ?
Objectives of the study are more explicit
