“Take It or Leave It”: From Collaborative to Regulative Developer Dialogues in Six Swedish Municipalities Aiming to Climate-Proof Urban Planning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting paper on an important topic in planning, namely the interactions between collaborative governance and sustainbility related goals. The conclusions of the paper are significant and importatn to have published. That being said there are a few weaknesses with the discussion in the theory section, the methodology and the presentation of results.
Overall language and presentation: While this paper is clearly structured and overall well written, there are some problems with the language. Sentences need to be focused enough that they cannot be interpreted in different ways. There is also a great deal of passive voice which should be re-written. For example: Lines 22-26: Very unclear run-on sentence. Lines 27-29: Sentence structure makes the main point unclear. Passive voice: throughout the paper, 189, 254, 256, 267, 271, 315, 348. 362, 373, 376, 427, 448 ....
Theory: There is some confusion with the concepts used. Development dialogues - constructive dialogues; interactions - interplay. Collaborative interaction - interactive governance - collaborative governance. Are these the same? If not, how do they differ? Define the terms that are used clearly. Lines 187 - 203 are unclear. There are some language issues and passive voice which makes what this list is unclear. The different points also contain both statements and qualities, but not consistently. This is confusing. Lines 200- 2004 add aditional 'things' that arent in the list but noted. What is their role or status? Lines 204 - 217: This paragraph is unclear. The writing needs to be focused and contextualized.
Methods: Were there only 6 interviews Using one person to represent a process needs to be motivated, especially since the there is no possibility for data triangulation. This is a potential weakness so it needs to be motivated.
Results: Dates would be helpful especailly since you talk about first and second generation, which implies dates. Lines 235-237 contain some major typos. Line 248 and throughout the method section when you add 'similar' and then add the names of other cities. I fine this misleading. This point should be made in the text itself, or perhaps add similar quotes to exemplify. You should also reference the quotes with (Municipal coordinator, Uppsala). Line 252: 'from the interviews' - which ones are you referring to?
Section 4,3 needs more context overall. When you use passive voice (315), its hard to know who the subject is. Line 344: You note 'predecessors - which ones? Lines 381-384 are clear!! More like tihs.
The conclusions are well writtne and strong. The results are strong, but the results section needs to be clearer and more contxtualized. Show how the cities, while different, still resulted in similar results. This is significant.
Ovewrall, as my comments suggest, the language needs to be tightened up a bit and made clearer in what you are refering to, the context needs to be added and the sentences need subjects.
Author Response
We are grateful for the review and the constructive comments. The suggestions have helped us substantially in revising the paper.
OVERALL
Comment 1: “There is a great deal of passive voice which should be re-written. For example: Lines 22-26: Very unclear run-on sentence. Lines 27-29: Sentence structure makes the main point unclear. Passive voice: throughout the paper, 189, 254, 256, 267, 271, 315, 348. 362, 373, 376, 427, 448 ...” Response: We have revised the abstract (lines 23-26 and 27-29) to clarify the sentences to work more with an active rather than passive voice. Throughout the paper we have made efforts to reduce the use of passive voice, as suggested by the reviewer.
THEORY
Comment 2: “There is some confusion with the terms Development dialogue-constructive dialogue; interactions-interplay; collaborative interaction-interactive governance – collaborative governance. Are they the same? If not, how do they differ? Define the terms that are used clearly.” Response: We can see that our use of the concepts created confusion. For the development dialogue vs constructive dialogue, we clarify at lines 61-69 that constructive dialogues were the initial dialogues launched in 2004 but that similar collaborative initiatives, termed developer dialogues, have thereafter spread across the country. As for interactions-interplay we have chosen to remove the term interplay to instead consistently speak of interactions. Concerning collaborative interaction-interactive governance-collaborative governance we have made clarifications at lines 161-183 and throughout the text so that collaborative governance is presented as the overarching theoretical perspective/governance paradigm whereas the practical applications are termed collaborative interactions. The Swedish property developer dialogues counts as an example of such collaborative interaction.
Comment 3: “Lines 187 - 203 are unclear. There are some language issues and passive voice which makes what this list is unclear. The different points also contain both statements and qualities, but not consistently. This is confusing. Lines 200- 2004 add aditional 'things' that arent in the list but noted. What is their role or status? Lines 204 - 217: This paragraph is unclear. The writing needs to be focused and contextualized.” Response: We can see that the list in its previous form was unclearly formulated. We have rewritten both how the list is introduced (lines 207-211) and the components (lines 212-223) for clarification, using active rather than passive form and also clarifying that the list is based on previous theoretical efforts to outline frameworks for collaborative interaction where the components function as statements of qualities that are needed for collaboration to work. We can also see that what the reviewer interprets as additional things wasn’t properly introduced in the text. Hopefully it is clearer in this version (lines 224-229) that we wanted to note that the theoretical literature speaks of the components as being self-reinforcing and also that collaboration may be dependent on prehistory. The following paragraph (lines 230-245), which the reviewer also finds unclear, is now introduced as referring to empirical studies of public-private collaborations in urban planning. Further contextualisation of the Swedish examples and the concluding summary of challenges has been added.
METHOD
Comment 4: “Were there only 6 interviews? Using one person to represent a process needs to be motivated, especially since the there is no possibility for data triangulation. This is a potential weakness so it needs to be motivated.” Response: This is also a valid point. We have elaborated the section on interviewees (lines 129-138) stating that research interviewing took the perspectives of key municipal coordinators with extensive experience of working with developer dialogues as starting point. Instead of interviewing several municipal actors involved in planning, to capture actors in different roles/functions and to be able to triangulate data within municipalities, we specifically sought to pinpoint these key actors – their lessons and long-term practical experiences of designing and mediating developer dialogues. Based on their lengthy experience it was possible for us to capture perspectives of changed interactive practices. Seven interviewees from the six municipalities were interviewed between October 2017 and February 2018 (see table 2). During the interviews, a consistent pattern was observed in how developer dialogues were used, leading us to conclude that we had reached a saturation point where the value of adding new interviews was limited.
RESULTS
Comment 5: “Dates would be helpful especailly since you talk about first and second generation, which implies dates.” Response: We can see why dates could be expected. However, the early first-generation dialogues, rather represent the initial attempts of municipalities to engage in public-private interaction. That is why we call them first generation. Lessons drawn of the practical challenges of achieving the goals for collaborative interaction lead the municipal coordinators to gradually revise their approach to public-private interaction. We choose to name this revised version of dialogues the second-generation. In neither case there are sharp distinctions in terms of dates but rather the analysis illustrate changing trends. We have tried to emphasize this more clearly in the introduction to section 4 (lines 250-257).
Comment 6: “Lines 235-237 contain some major typos.” Response: We agree that this quote was poorly translated. The translation (lines 265-268) has been revised.
Comment 7: “Line 248 and throughout the result section when you add 'similar' and then add the names of other cities. I fine this misleading. This point should be made in the text itself, or perhaps add similar quotes to exemplify. You should also reference the quotes with (Municipal coordinator, Uppsala).” Response: We understand that this use of interview quotes and references was unclear in the text. We have consistently rephrased the references, following the suggestion by the reviewer. We have also clarified in the method section (lines 151-53) that the quotes presented function as examples of general analytical patterns. Where similar statements are made by several interviewees this is also systematically noted to increase transparency and validity of interpretations. We have clarified our way of referring to these similar statements throughout the paper.
Comment 8: “Line 252: 'from the interviews' - which ones are you referring to?” Response: The reflection concerned the specific interviews referred to in the recent quote. We have clarified this in the text (line 281).
Comment 9: “Section 4,2 needs more context overall. Show how the cities, while different, still resulted in similar results. This is significant. When you use passive voice (315), its hard to know who the subject is.” Response: This is important. We have revised the writing in section 4.2, using more of an active voice and clarifying the subject. We have also added clarifications of city contexts, where appropriate.
Comment 10: “Line 344: You note 'predecessors - which ones?” Response: This particular quote was removed in the revision, as reviewer 2 wanted us to reduce the number of quotes.
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is important and has a broad interest. It is important to understand the interaction between policymakers in cities and developers. However, the authors do not explain why these cases in the research can enhance cities' climate actions. It would be valuable to explain what projects that municipalities and developers were discussing to enhance cities' climate proofing. Also, this will provide valuable background for how and why the dialogues are valuable or not.
The results are presented in a way like raw data, with too many quotes. Using quotes is one way to present the results, but it might provide a biased view (that the viewpoints are from the authors, instead of the interviewees). The essence of these interviews should be further condensed.
Author Response
We are grateful for the review and the constructive comments. The suggestions have helped us substantially in revising the paper.
Comment 1: “The authors do not explain why these cases in the research can enhance cities' climate actions. It would be valuable to explain what projects that municipalities and developers were discussing to enhance cities' climate-proofing. Also, this will provide valuable background for how and why the dialogues are valuable or not.” Response: We can see the need of clarification here. The importance of developer dialogues in climate-proofing is motivated in the introduction at lines 58-74. In the presentation of cases, at lines 123-127, we also state that several city districts with a high sustainability and climate profile have recently been built or are under construction in the municipalities, where developer dialogues are a key strategy. We have also added, that often such city districts function as municipal learning labs for progressing with innovative green and/or climate-oriented agendas at municipal level. In table 1 (line 128) examples are given of the city districts where property developer dialogues have been/are used.
Comment 2: “The results are presented in a way like raw data, with too many quotes. Using quotes is one way to present the results, but it might provide a biased view (that the viewpoints are from the authors, instead of the interviewees). The essence of these interviews should be further condensed.” Response: We are aware that many quotes are used in the result section. The regular use of verbatim quotes from interviewees allows clarification of what leads us to draw certain analytical conclusions. Methodological literature on how to establish rigor in interview studies states that it is important to use quotes to show the reader how meanings are expressed in the own words of interviewees, precisely to avoid bias in interpretations. This means that in section 4, the quotes come from interviewees themselves whereas the running text in between quotes elaborate what trends/patterns we see in the interviews and what analytical conclusions can be drawn. We see this combination as necessary. Since there are different ways of using interviews, we now clarify in the method section (lines 150-153) our use of quotes, e.g. that many of the quotes presented function as examples of general analytical patterns. Also, by systematically showing where similar statements are made by several interviewees we increase transparency and validity of interpretations. Having said this, we have still removed a number of quotes. The essence of the analysis is further elaborated upon in the concluding section where we highlight conclusions by the comparison in table 3 and by relating empirical findings to theoretical literature.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revision is great. There are a few monor language typos, verb agreement type things.
Lines 541, 551, 652, 659761 (use of ibid in a quote)870, 884, 888 (word choice - downpipes), 891, 899.
Author Response
We are grateful for the constructive second reading of the paper and the suggested improvements. We have made the necessary changes on the lines suggested.
