Enabling Relationships with Nature in Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The concept of urban resilience is a major field of study and is dealt with in a limited way in this paper. Except for a few well known statements on resiliency there is no connection made between nature - human connections and urban resiliency. Either build up resiliency as the central theme of this paper or drop it in this paper.

 

I am disappointed that the paper did not at all deal with indicators of human - nature connections or biophilic indicators for designing cities. What has been used their utility etc.

 

Collective actions -- this has all been said in the works by Beatley and his center.

 

The theory section needs to be expanded . We do not know what the key questions are in the paper as a basis for the arguments in the paper.

 

 

Author Response

REVIEWER 1: The concept of urban resilience is a major field of study and is dealt with in a limited way in this paper. Except for a few well known statements on resiliency there is no connection made between nature - human connections and urban resiliency. Either build up resiliency as the central theme of this paper or drop it in this paper.

ANSWER: Thanks for pointing us to this soft spot. We see your point, and have deepened the link between HNC with resilience thinking, but also simultaneously to sustainability transformations (the two legs of our home base, where HNC is the third). It now says Lines: 51-71:

“We assume herein that strengthening HNC among urban populations is pivotal for both urban resilience and for urban sustainability, as green infrastructures may promote general urban resilience building related to a vast array of external disturbances (Barthel et al., 2015; McPhearson et al., 2015), and also specifically related to enabling resilient levels of human wellbeing inside cities (Hartig, Mitchell, de Vries, & Frumkin, 2014; Markevych et al., 2017; Samuelsson et al., 2020). Further we assume that HNC enhances peoples willingness to protect and manage urban green infrastructures of importance for urban resilience (12). Also, HNC is argued to promote general pro-environmental behaviors and hence play part in sustainability transformations (13). We acknowledge however the complexity involved in such assumptions as the knowledge-action gap, value-action gap and the attitude-action gap are still unresolved issues in psychology and in the humanities (Kaaronen, 2017; Hulme, 2020).

Framed by resilience theory, environmental psychology, and learning theory, we here make the argument that policies concerning urban ecosystems to a greater extent need to enable activities that nurture environmental learning in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains, i.e. learning that occurs in the head, heart and hands of individuals.

The resilience approach to sustainability is less about controlling but more about creating conditions of opportunity for navigating transformations toward sustainability (Chapin et al. 2010), where continuous learning is an important feature of ‘the navigation process’ (Gunderson & Holling 2002).” 

REVIEWER 1: I am disappointed that the paper did not at all deal with indicators of human - nature connections or biophilic indicators for designing cities. What has been used their utility etc.

ANSWER: We are not addressing HNC indicators in this paper; it is beyond our scope and would require a totally new paper.

 

REVIEWER 1: Collective actions -- this has all been said in the works by Beatley and his center.

ANSWER: Well, even if collective action might have been dealt with in other papers and by Beatley, the point in this paper is to link Urban Green Commons to the literature on collective action in relation to the work by Elinor Ostrom and collective-choice property rights. We now have made this link clearer by explaining this and also citing Ostrom and Schlager 1996. Lines: 12-13; 304-306.

REVIEWER 1: The theory section needs to be expanded . We do not know what the key questions are in the paper as a basis for the arguments in the paper.

 ANSWER: We do not have a key question for this paper. Rather, it is an overview paper about the importance of HNC for urban resilience building. We have now made this clear in the introduction of the paper. Lines: 10-11.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a good paper and worthy of publication after some minor revision. However it has some failings, being:

• Failure to include key background refs on the issue of human connection to nature such as Louv 2005, 2011; or to a sense of wonder towards nature and in education (Washington 2018, 2019); or in regard to worldview, ecocentrism vs anthropocentrism, and ecological ethics (Curry 2011; Rolston 2012; Washington 2019), or in regard to the anthropocentric nature of ecosystem services (Washington 2020)
• There are some 'given truth' statements that are in fact just one scholars opinion, such as the claim that con bio accepts the need for nature connection (only some scholars in con bio do, sadly many do not).
• There is some use of buzz words and jargon that could be reduced. Much is made of resilience and resilience building when these terms are not defined and mean different things to different people (or often are just added as other scholars talk about them!). Surely sustainability is as worthy of mention as resilience?
• Reference to 'values' often but little reference to the centrality of worldview or ethics.
• Poor discussion of the intrinsic value of nature and of ecocentrism vs anthropocentrism.
• Confused discussion of 'property' in terms of philosophy and ethics or the rights of nature.
• Unwarranted enthusiasm re 'augmented reality' - even though the paper acknowledges there is no evidence of its benefits, and it fails to list critics of this such as Louv 2011.
• attached comments on pdf enlarge on these points

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 2:

Failure to include key background refs on the issue of human connection to nature such as Louv 2005, 2011; or to a sense of wonder towards nature and in education (Washington 2018, 2019); or in regard to worldview, ecocentrism vs anthropocentrism, and ecological ethics (Curry 2011; Rolston 2012; Washington 2019), or in regard to the anthropocentric nature of ecosystem services (Washington 2020)

We thank the reviewer for these comments. We now briefly present the philosophical and ethical backgrounds of HNC alongside the ontological discussion. We also introduced references to the work of Louv within the correct framework: as non-academic initiator of a popular movement (Children & Nature Network) that also stimulated academic investigations.

As suggested by the reviewer, we also further unfold the concept of Human-nature connection and its components to highlight how awe and wonder, sense of place, and ecological literacy are included the very definition of this concept. However, given the focus on the paper on HNC in urban context, the contextual and geographical dimension of HNC has to be prioritized in this paper over other aspects (e.g. sense of wonder).

We have also noted that ecosystem services are based on an anthropocentric view of nature. The changes are evident in section 2.1 starting at line 113:

“Some scholars in academia have recently remarked that cultural human-nature relationships in Western societies are both a root cause of current unsustainable patterns of development, and the crux to embark towards a more sustainable society [22–25]. Simultaneously, the same remarks have been made in popular writing [1]. The ways societies perceive, value, and interact with non-human life forms and natural resources have to transform radically in order to support sustainable lifestyles. In other words, achieving sustainable human societies require a “mind shift at the scale of a ‘Copernican revolution’ [...] to put our minds in harmony with the earth system we depend on” [26].  Despite various normative goals, supporting biodiversity conservation [20], promoting pro-environmental behaviors [27,28], or enabling sustainable development [10], research in a variety of different disciplines aim to promote such a mind shift. However, research that actively promotes the transformation towards more symbiotic relationships with nature is still at its infancy [29,30]. This is because of a variety of factors. First, because human-nature apparent dichotomy is entrenched in Western civilization [1] and academic culture [1,2]. Second, because there is no philosophical agreement of whether nature has intrinsic, extrinsic, or relational value for humankind [1,2]. Third, because these different disciplines rely on different ontological grounds and the integration of their results is very limited[30]. However, in the broadest sense human-nature relationships can be conceived in similar fashion to human-human relationships [31–33]. Some psychometric methods to analyze the psychological inclusion of nature in a human ‘self‘ are indeed a direct modification of those used to measure empathy among people [32,34]. In line with existing literature [1–4], human-nature relationships are considered sustainable in this paper when they enable, promote, or assist lifestyles that progressively lower negative impact on the Biosphere. This is what we consider here to be Human-Nature Connection (HNC). In its very definition [1], HNC describes a relationship with nature that encompasses many attributes already identified elsewhere in academic literature. For example, the ability to be comfortable and curious about nature [1], the capacity to experiences awe and wonder [1], ecological literacy [1], and a connection with natural landscapes [1]. These attributes are aggregated in three distinguished and consecutive abilities: the ability to be in nature, with nature, and for nature [1].”

 

REVIEWER 2: There are some 'given truth' statements that are in fact just one scholars opinion, such as the claim that con bio accepts the need for nature connection (only some scholars in con bio do, sadly many do not).

We have now made appropriate changes to this point at line 117:

“The ways societies perceive, value, and interact with non-human life forms and natural resources have to transform radically in order to support sustainable lifestyles. In other words, achieving sustainable human societies require a “mind shift at the scale of a ‘Copernican revolution’ [...] to put our minds in harmony with the earth system we depend on” [26].  Despite various normative goals, supporting biodiversity conservation [20], promoting pro-environmental behaviors [27,28], or enabling sustainable development [10], research in a variety of different disciplines aim to promote such a mind shift. However, research that actively promotes the transformation towards more symbiotic relationships with nature is still at its infancy [29,30].”

 

REVIEWER 2. There is some use of buzz words and jargon that could be reduced. Much is made of resilience and resilience building when these terms are not defined and mean different things to different people (or often are just added as other scholars talk about them!). Surely sustainability is as worthy of mention as resilience?

ANSWER: We do not agree that resilience building is used as a jargon in this paper.

We have now already in the introduction defined how we use the term. See the comments to reviewer 1 above.

 

REVIEWER 2: Reference to 'values' often but little reference to the centrality of worldview or ethics.

In the paper, we use value as a verb, not as a psychological concept. This is inevitable to explain in plain English what we mean by Human-Nature Connection. However, we don’t unfold the discussion on environmental worldview or ethics beyond what is strictly needed to clarify the concept of human-nature relationships. Also, within this relational framework the psychological concept of value has no reason to exist.

REVIEWER 2: Poor discussion of the intrinsic value of nature and of ecocentrism vs anthropocentrism.

ANSWER: We agree with the reviewer that the distinction and differences between intrinsic, extrinsic, and relational values have not been unfolded. We now mention this distinction in the text, but intentionally we don’t deepen the discussion because we do not intend to create an imbalance in the paper towards theoretical and philosophical considerations. This would also be outside of the aim for this paper.

Changes have been made at lines 125-132:

“However, research that actively promotes the transformation towards more symbiotic relationships with nature is still at its infancy [29,30]. This is because of a variety of factors. First, because human-nature apparent dichotomy is entrenched in Western civilization [1] and academic culture [1,2]. Second, because there is no philosophical agreement of whether nature has intrinsic, extrinsic, or relational value for humankind [1,2]. Third, because these different disciplines rely on different ontological grounds and the integration of their results is very limited[30].”

REVIEWER 2: Confused discussion of 'property' in terms of philosophy and ethics or the rights of nature.

ANSWER: We do not agree that our discussion on property is confused. We are discussing property from an institutional theoretical departure. This means that we are discussing how property-rights arrangements provide different rights to nature in cities for people. We are not addressing different semantic or philosophical notions of property (it is not within the scope of this paper).

REVIEWER 2: Unwarranted enthusiasm re 'augmented reality' - even though the paper acknowledges there is no evidence of its benefits, and it fails to list critics of this such as Louv 2011.

ANSWER: We have now added Louv’s caution about too much screen time. See lines: 470-471.

In addition to the review answers above, we have dealt with most of the points highlighted in the pdf-file that we received from Reviewer 2. Thank you very much for points that really has improved the paper!

Reviewer 3 Report

This article makes the impression of a very general overview of the field. If that is intentional, the article is acceptable. If, however, the article should contribute something new and/or critical, this article needs more direction. I make five suggestions in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 3: Although the article is a pleasure to read – an agreeable writing style, a general tone of moderation with a modicum of idealistic fervor – I am not completely sure how to mentally place this article: (1) is this a research article? If so, what is the research question, and by default, the conclusion? (2) is this an overview of the field? If so, what academic field or fields exactly? (3) if this is a contribution to a Special Issue, what is its specific, unique and innovative contribution? This article makes the impression of a very general overview of the field. If that is intentional, the article is acceptable.

ANSWER: This is an overview paper about HNC and its potential in urban resilience building. We have now made this clear in the introduction. Lines: 10-12.

We have also added a section what academic fields this paper embraces. See Lines: 62-63.

Based on the options given by Reviewer 3, we had the option to improve the manus to bring some ‘zing’ into it by addressing one of the bullet points suggested. We have chosen to address the point reading: By repeatedly relating to ‘cognitive, affective and psychomotor’ skills and modes of interacting there is a disbalance between the attention paid to such interactions by children and by adults living in cities. I would have expected to find at least one photograph of cognitively-affectively-psychomotorically engaged children illustrating the therapeutic effect of ‘symbiotic relationships with nature’, but I merely see adults in Berlin. Children could have been another – and very convincing – focus in this article.

ANSWER: We have now produced an illustration of cognitively-affectively-psychomotorically engaged children elucidating the therapeutic effect of symbiotic relationships with nature (Figure 1) Line 281. Thanks for a really good idea and inspiration for illustration text!

REVIEWER 3: The idea of urban green commons (UGC) is not new, and their relation to the commons-of- old is intriguing, especially in the light of the ‘common property-rights’ to which the authors refer. Their relation to – or rather, contrast with – private projects of roof gardening or utility garden allotments at the margins of cities readily invites going deeper into the ‘Copernican revolution’ of mind shifts about property, stewardship, collectivity and sense of place. This would provide another fascinating direction in this rather directionless article.

ANSWER: Good point! We have now added a part about this at the end of section 4, Lines: 364-367.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I originally rejected the paper but changes were made to it that I think helped significantly.
The authors need to take resiliency out of the title because there is little in the paper that connects nature connections to resiliency of cities. Keeping the word in the title is misleading the readership.

Author Response

We are glad to hear that you find that the changes made have improved our paper. We thank you for your good suggestions, and think it has really made the paper better! 

We see your point regarding the title. It now reads: Enabling relationships with nature in cities.

Once, again, thank you for valuable inputs!!!

Reviewer 3 Report

In general, the authors have made an effort to acknowledge weaknesses ('soft spots') and remediate those, while remaining within the format of an overview article. With remediation I mean changes based on comments by all reviewers.

The result is: an article that is a little more mature and sophisticated: more nuanced where necessary without losing a sense of proportion. The authors are to be lauded that they stuck to their original position when they felt that adding too much of one particular topic (pressed by the expertise of a specific reviewer) would bring imbalance.

My own remarks and suggestions were well-heeded. As an overview article it suffices, and has now enough triggers to further reading. The changes, additions and relocations of passages, however, make the present manuscript a little messy and opaque. Both in the main text body and in the References there are quite a few loose ends. I recommend that the main submitter checks all these minor hiccups before re-submitting.

Two more minor issues: (1) please mention the source/copyright holder for figure 1; and (2) although you did not enter any discussion on concepts of nature/Nature (one of my options), there is a remark that nevertheless merits some nuance: line 475, where it is written 'as nature is vulnerable'. I know this is often the way it is popularly and sentimentally expressed, but in this article it detonates.

Author Response

We thank you for all valuable points for improving this paper and that it now suffices as an overview article! 

We have now addressed the messy and opaque text passages in the main text body and in the reference list and updated the latter. 

Regarding the source to Figure 1, it is our own figure; hence, authors' own original.

We have now also dropped the whole sentence saying 'as nature is vulnerable'.

We thank you for your kind effort and time devoted for helping us improve this paper!!!