Sweden Backcasting, Now?—Strategic Planning for Covid-19 Mitigation in a Liberal Democracy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find attached the comments and the suggestions for author/s

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the helpful review comments from reviewer 1 that have improved the manuscript at hand significantly. Please see the below for our response:

• The methods used have now been described much more thoroughly. These include, e.g. the quantitative data from the official communication of the government of Sweden, our case study(updated now for May 5th, 2020), projections/scenarios based on the data and bridging the quantitative data to qualitative interpretation of the relevant sustainable development literature sources in strategic planning, complex adaptive systems, resilience science, sustainability policy, sustainability governance/management, environmental and sustainability policy, corporate social responsibility etc.. 
• Paper structure is given in the introduction according to the subsequent sections
• Research objective has now been revised and presented in a more clear manner in the intro.
• Theory used is elaborated more and its presentation is more structured now (see above on the sustainable development sources and sustainability science literature bodies applied).
• We would kindly like to emphasize that this paper is only an early attempt to try and make sense out of the very new, novel and rapidly changing challenge of COVID-19 and its mitigation. Therefore, we feel that at this stage of the evolving situation, we have done our best to try and present a logical account of the many scientific disciplines, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary sources relevant and selected a globally relevant case, the Swedish Experiment, for our article. 
• Thank you very much for the insightful comments, advice and suggestions that have helped our learning a great deal. The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

This is  a fascinating paper on an important topic. I do have reservations about its applicability to environmental sustainability (and hence this journal) and I have communicated these reservations to the editor.

You appear to be making the case either that the COVID situation is a CAS, just like sustainable development. Or possibly that the COVID response is part of sustainable development. You need to make the link clearer and more explicit

In fact, the overall thrust is a little confusing – the question about whether the Swedish experiment is too risky is indeed interesting – and mentioned in a few places – but this does not appear to be your main focus.

I am not sure what the point of figure 1,2,3 is, you make a passing reference to Finland but do not compare the data from the 2 countries in any detailed way, which would be logical if the comparison was a part of your narrative (and if it is not, why include it?).

You say time will tell if you are correct. But I am not sure how? You need to make some kind of testable hypothesis or prediction for this to be the case.

Perhaps you are hinting that backcasting is a superior way of producing sustainable outcomes, and comparing Sweden and Finland as alternate methods – in which case your prediction would be that in the long term the Swedish approach would be better. Of course this does not really tell us whether Sweden really is using backcasting, and indeed they might be using it but sub optimally. In any case this does not appear to be what you are saying.

In fact, I am rather confused about what you are saying. There is little on whether backcasting is an appropriate response, in fact on line 279 you appear to say it might be the wrong choice. On line 337 you say your paper “may help to initiate discussion on the possibility of backcasting as a strategic planning approach in global pandemic mitigation” – if this is your aim you need to critically analyse backcasting as an approach, which doesn’t appear to be what you are doing.

In the section on limitations you mix up limitations with motivation and justification for the topic. This entire section is rather confused.

Finally, on line 448 you come up with something that I guess could be the focus “we argue that Sweden is … balanced in its usage of natural science(e.g. medical science, biology), social science (e.g. sustainability politics, strategic planning, backcasting) and political ideology (e.g. the Palme legacy). “ and you hint that your assertion is that this is a superior approach to covid.

If this is your focus and assertion (I am not sure it is) then this needs to be clear and consistent from the beginning.

There are many places where unsubstantiated assertions are made or evidence is presented without its source – I have tried to pick these up in the comments below.

Overall, the paper reads like it was written in something of a rush - for highly understandable reasons - and might therefore be better as a blog post, which could also be published in a more timely manner. 

Some detailed comments

Line 32 – a result of the “challenges of unsustainable societal development” This assertion should be justified. (particularly as it appears to form the main link to sustainability)

Lines 36-39 – need sources for these stated impacts. Also there is nothing about environmental/ecological sustainability.

Lines 43-44 “The focus system of sustainable development projects in general is a CAS”; this could perhaps be mentioned in the abstract.

Line 48 “Consider the plague, e.g. in the 14thcentury, first world war, second world war etc. (Robert Costanza, 2007).” This is rather vague.

Line 68 “75% of the global energy production relies on non-renewable… “ source please.

Line 112 “It would seem logival …” You need to make the case more strongly that backcasting is suitable for COVID response. You should also make the case for backcasting for sustainable development (this can be done by reference to the literature). I am not sure to what extent you are comparing COVID to sustainable development. (see my comments above)

Line 125-126 “say many in the media” – who? Also reference some of the critical scientists.

Line 132 reference needed

Line 170 check house style. Captions normally go below the figure. Line 174 figure caption? Where does the caption finish?

Line 220 check house style for font for headings.

Line 228 in what way will time tell if you have been correct? What testable hypothesis or prediction are you making?

Line 235 “In the desired situation in 20 26 months, all those in need of COVID 19 vaccination in 235 Sweden are actually receiving the vaccination. The vaccination project of all in need” What is the evidence that this is the desired situation?  Seems to be a bit arbitrary?

Linw 251 source?

Line 278 Sweden would be doing the wrong thing? This makes no sense to me – are you saying the backcasting is not a good thing?

Line 312 – this is in the limitations section but actually talks about the motivation for the study.

Line 334 – ‘torturing’ – I think you are veering off topic here.

Line 363 – 369 – you are repeating yourself here.

Line 461 although I agree with the sentiment, avoid value judgements. Also you need a source.

Line 463-471 evidence?

Line 476 evdience?

 

Author Response

Authors' reply to the review report 2,

First, we want to state that the review report was very thorough, insightful and helpful for us. The review report has made significant changes to our manuscript. Yes, the first version was done in haste and yes necessarily so. All sustainability scientist are now in great hurry. There is a risk that quality is compromised when one feels the time pressure. Such a situation may lead into an outcome: One step forward, two steps back. So now, we have taken the review report two comments thoroughly into account and revised accordingly. Please find in the below our explanation on how we have now revised:

• The case for the relevance for the environmental dimension of sustainability is now much more clear. For example, what happens to climate change mitigation policies, when big industries and major national economies of the world want to rapidly speed up the production and growth after the lock-downs are over? Are we simply going to back to intensive emissions increases and other unsustainable business/policy practices that directly or indirectly created the current crisis? COVID-19 is a very clear example of the interdependency and the mutual feedback loops between environmental, economic and social dimensions of sustainability. 
• On CAS and coronavirus. The COVID-19 situation in the society is an example of the problems that complex adaptive systems always face and the response to the COVID-19 pandemia, e.g. the mitigation policies and strategies, must use CAS understanding in their toolboxes.
• Sweden is only a case study, yet very relevant and achieving lot of international attention as we speak (herd-immunity). We are discussing, throughout the manuscript the many pros and cons in the Swedish Experiment. Regardless of whether herd-immunity is "right or wrong", it is still a very relevant case for COVID-19 mitigation in particular and for sustainability policies and strategies in general.
• The texts on Finland in the Swedish case section have been deleted. We got carried away in the first version of the manuscript because the Finnish case is also very very interesting albeit very different.
• We have a better hypothesis now: Our construction is that herd-immunity, backcasting and the underlying political ideology of a country can work together in a viable way in case of national COVID-19 mitigation. This is interesting, we maintain, as it bridges natural science, social science and basic societal institutions in potential way to combat an acute problem.
• We have clarified our position on Sweden and backcasting: We are merely arguing this based on the available and limited info we have and based on our learning about relevant literature, e.g. strategic planning, CAS, resilience theory, ecological economics, sustainability governance and management, environmental and sustainability policies and politics, corporate social responsibility, circular economy etc.
• Backcasting important, nothing more, for SD is now more clear and better pointed to references.
• We have now explained that we do not mix/confuse in case of our limitations/motives/suggested future research themes. We want to attract falsification, like in the classic Popperian sense. Deconstruction helps, not least in a phenomenon that is very new and unknown to science. Falsification can yield reconstruction in the future, i.e., better arguments that go beyond our initial attempt here.
• The Olf Palme position is now better highlighted and we agree it is very interesting for sustainability policies/governance or for corporate social responsibility in general. It seems clear that the Palme liberal democratic perspective is affecting the Swedish Experiment. In the future, we are sure some social science experts on the Palme position will make much more thorough accounts of this.
• We have carefully gone through the text with your detailed comments in mind. Thank you again for your very important help for our learning. Sincerely, the authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accepted

Author Response

Authors' response to the review report from round two:

• Yes, the language has now been checked.
• Results, conclusions and discussion are improved.
• Thank you for the learning. The Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a much improved paper. The link to sustainability is much clearer now but the word ‘sustainability’ should be explicitly mentioned in the abstract.

Nevertheless, I think your assertion could still be clearer – choose from the following?

• Backcasting is a suitable approach for sustainability challenges like this
• The Swedish example is a good ‘test case’ for the use of backcasting in complex sustainability problems. (how exactly will time tell if they have been using backcasting? How would we know?). I think this is probably what the thrust of the paper is?
• The Swedish approach appears to be working (you state this at one point)
• Something else?

Line 73 – high rate of deaths – not compares to Italy, France and UK but certainly very high compared to Norway, Denmark and Finland (which are perhaps more appropriate comparators). Just clarify that it is high compared to its neighbours.  (line 75 repetition). You mention this again later and I would just use figures from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ or similar to summarize.

P181 drop reference to NZ and Iceland unless you are prepared to say more to justify this.

Fig 2 what is the y axis? (for the red line in particular). I am still not quite sure how much value the figures give unless your argument is to show that the ‘swedish experiment is working’. See above. My original comments about the formatting of the figures should still be checked.

Your 5 levels are a way to apply backcasting in this scenario (again, is this a testable hypothesis? Does it matter?) and the Palme principles are a good way to show how backcasting needs to take account of the cultural/societal context

 

   

Author Response

The format is a tad bit different in between answers. We hope that its discernible all the same.

This is a much improved paper. The link to sustainability is much clearer now but the word ‘sustainability’ should be explicitly mentioned in the abstract. WE HAVE INCLUDED THE WORD SUSTAINABILITY INTO THE ABSTRACT.

Nevertheless, I think your assertion could still be clearer – choose from the following?

Backcasting is a suitable approach for sustainability challenges like this

The Swedish example is a good ‘test case’ for the use of backcasting in complex sustainability problems. (how exactly will time tell if they have been using backcasting? How would we know?). I think this is probably what the thrust of the paper is?
Authors' comment: Yes this is among the main points in the manuscript. Maybe in two-three years the global scientific community will be able to more thoroughly compare the approaches used by different countries in COVID-19 mitigation. We have tried to present the Swedish Experiment as an interesting case for stimulating discussion on the novel corona virus mitigation based on the data available as of now. 

The Swedish approach appears to be working (you state this at one point). YES, THANK YOU. THIS IS AMONG OUR MAIN ARGUMENTS.

Something else?

Line 73 – high rate of deaths – not compares to Italy, France and UK but certainly very high compared to Norway, Denmark and Finland (which are perhaps more appropriate comparators). Just clarify that it is high compared to its neighbours. (line 75 repetition). You mention this again later and I would just use figures from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ or similar to summarize.

P181 drop reference to NZ and Iceland unless you are prepared to say more to justify this. GOOD POINT, DONE.

Fig 2 what is the y axis? (for the red line in particular). I am still not quite sure how much value the figures give unless your argument is to show that the ‘swedish experiment is working’. See above. My original comments about the formatting of the figures should still be checked.

Comment:The Y axis is the amount. We supplied a version of Fig.2 with “total” in the second entity in the title i.e, "total amount admitted to IC". You are correct it gives what you suggest: An indication that the Swedish Experiment seems to be working for the time being. Again, time will tell whether the different national mitigation policies are good or not good. The authors think the figure should be included to ensure transparency. It is possible (and we hope so) that in the future new data and new interpretations of data will become available relevant for our message in this manuscript. COVID-19 and the societal implications it has are still new phenomena in scientific understanding and science is evolving as we speak. We also want to highlight that it seems that the Swedish culture and the individuals therein are taking a responsible attitude toward their role as citizens of a liberal democracy. They are learning.

Your 5 levels are a way to apply backcasting in this scenario (again, is this a testable hypothesis? Does it matter?) and the Palme principles are a good way to show how backcasting needs to take account of the cultural/societal context.

Authors' comment: We think this point is ok. The five levels are only an exercise and this is explained in the paper. This is an interdisciplinary paper, i.e. it adopts a presentation style that is a hybrid constituting of natural science and social science. A "testable hypothesis" is more common in natural sciences.