Building Resilience through Collaborative Management of Coastal Protection and Restoration Planning in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, USA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The theme of the paper "Building Resilience through Collaborative Management of Coastal Protection and Restoration Planning in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, USA" turns out to be interesting and innovative as it addresses the theme of participation as a coastal regeneration tool. Particularly significant is the ability of experimentation to bring different types of knowledge into contact (common knowledge of the residents with the expert knowledge of researchers). However, the document, despite a virtuous theme, has some considerable gaps in the structure, content and exhaustive explanation of the methodology.

The introduction does not describe the state of the art in which such a significant theme is placed. This section lacks the theoretical background and the widely discussed scenario of the topic on an international scale. The introduction to the present case, coast Louisiana is extremely straightforward and is not supported by the reasons why this case should be representative on an international scale. The document offers a partial and specific vision of a broad and discussed topic, which is why it should justify the choice of giving up an international comparative case study to describe a single national experience. Up to line 61 the text rather than being represents the description of an introductory section of the case and would go to a section dedicated to it. If the topic of the paper is Building Resilience through Collaborative Management of Coastal Protection and Restoration Planning, then you should better explain the issues described in line 68 to line 72.
Furthermore, from the beginning of the reading it is clear that the authors confuse the use of terms which, however, lead not only to different disciplines pertaining to the branch of architecture but also to the operations and tools to which they refer. Specifically, the operations they speak of do not refer to restoration but to the operations of Architecture Technology such as recovery, redevelopment, regeneration, adaptive reuse and maintenance of the site at different scales. In line 76-77 the authors refer to a lack which is not effective as evidenced by the processes for converting quantities into scientific data as provided for by the discipline of the Estimation and the evaluation of Architecture. Similarly with what has already been said previously, the section dedicated to the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) should be inserted in the explanation of the case study or in the terms of choice of the same but not in the introductory section. From lines 92 to 131 the characteristics of the piano are listed and declared without scientific critical support. In a scientific paper that can be published in international scientific journals, this trait represents an unjustified gap. The content of the introduction is not the mere description of existing documents, which will certainly have their importance, but the scientific commentary on these documents to support what the authors want to demonstrate with the writing of the paper to be submitted. In line 155, in the caption of Figure 1. the source must be inserted in accordance with the editorial rules or must be specified if it is a work by the author.The case study is dealt with in an exhaustive way, full of interesting information and details, despite this the content of what is described does not coincide with the title of the paper or is not scientifically commented in relation to the purpose of the writing announced in the abstract. Furthermore, at the end of the introduction, the articulation of the paper should be briefly summarized, which is totally missing and instead should contain the contents of the sections that follow. The methodological approach described between line 200 and line 215 should be better clarified and supported by a methodological scheme with a graphic matrix. From line 218 to line 288 the authors affirm notions known in the literature without a supporting explanation relating to their case and without a scientific reference support. Furthermore, it is not explained how these data have been transformed from qualitative into quantitative or how they have been combined and / or translated into the work plan to which they refer. There is a gap in the methodological description that should be integrated both to make the work done clear and to better express the innovation of the product. Again line 244 the authors to which "All the feedback from the participants was collected in a structured and scientifically valid way." but they do not demonstrate how and if it is actually as much as there are. At least it is a self-congratulatory comment distant from the contents of a scientific paper. On the other hand, the structuring of the workshop is very useful and interesting, the results of which, however, do not help to support common knowledge, beyond local notions, which can concretely help expert knowledge. Often the population, not yet educated, is unable to propose as many proposals for feasible projects. The classes of stakeholders involved in the workshop, as shown in the table, are not really discussed. There is no explanation of the reason for the involvement of that particular sector rather than another (at least, the principles and methods of operation of the decoding aid tool MaxQDA 2018 (Release 18.2.5) should be better clarified). Section 2.3 is instead well structured, clear and exhaustive, which should only be accompanied by an outline of the process carried out. In the results section, the contribution and level of analysis of the community seems clear, while the link between the community and the other actors in the process is completely neglected. Specifically, it is as if there was a break in the paper between what was stated in the first two sections compared to that of the third section. The source of the Figure 3,4,5,6,7 missing or if they are a reworking of the authors as required by the editorial rules of the journal.
Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4 are much closer to journalistic than scientific writing. In addition, the formatting of section 3.1.3 must be corrected according to the editorial rules of the journal. For section 3.1.4. a reading of the recent American government document "RESILIENCE 21 building a nation of resilient Communities" is recommended. In a scientific paper the purpose of its writing cannot be mentioned only in line 522, after the entire development but should be stated in the first introductory section. Section 3.2 is well written but fit into the discussion part of the results. In line 573, correct the formatting error. The discussion section is more like a section of future scenario perspectives and / or conclusions. It should be rewritten in the light of these observations. Furthermore, it should be less trivial than the content of the document which, even if poorly formulated, contains in itself an interesting scientific experimentation. For all these reasons I believe that the paper should be completely rewritten and maybe submitted only when, in the future after a period of reflection, it will be improved in the restitution of the contents. At the moment it is not at the level of Sustainability content. Since the content is interesting, however, I invite the authors to improve it in due time and perhaps to apply again for a subsequent call for paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present a topic of great interest to the readers of Sustainability. The overall quality of the manuscript is very high and it was well organized. The authors present the results of a process to develop an integrated coastal restoration plan consisting of a suite of interlinked natural and nature-based solutions using a combination of local knowledge mapping and participatory modeling.
Although the high quality of the paper I would like to suggest a few corrections:
- The authors could add a flow chart of the used methodology that readily clarify the workflow.
 - Figure 1 The authors should add a map to identify the position of the studied area inside the USA. Not all readers could know where exactly Plaquemines Parish is.
- Figure 2 - The notes written in the two pap are not readable. May the authors improve the quality or add specific comments?
- Figure 3,4,5,6 - The quality is too low. The authors should use the black clour for the text and reduce both the picture and rectangles sizes
- Figure 8- The Figure is not entirely included in the manuscript. The authors should increase also the resolution (600 dpi).

Finally, I suggest to separates the Discussion from the conclusions. The authors should add a conclusion section to help the reader understand why your research should matter to them after they have finished reading the paper. The conclusion should include:
Demonstrating the importance of the author's idea
Summarizing the author's thoughts and conveying the larger implications of your study
describing the author's main points and explaining their significance
Introducing possible new or expanded ways of thinking about the research problem.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the manuscript titled "Building Resilience through Collaborative Management of Coastal Protection and Restoration Planning in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, USA”, the authors discuss a case-study regarding a collaborative planning process to develop an integrated coastal restoration plan in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (USA). To achieve the goal, a broad group of stakeholders was selected and a combination of local knowledge mapping and participatory modeling was employed. The results show that the residents were able to contribute information regarding coastal restoration planning, which could be incorporated during the planning process.

The argument in the manuscript is reasonable and adequate with the topics published in the Sustainability Journal. However, the manuscript in this current form cannot be published and there are some issues to be worked out. Thus, I retain that the manuscript needs a major Revision.

The main criticism of the manuscript is that it does not take adequately into account the international scientific literature about similar topics regarding the coastal management. In my opinion, the authors should make an effort to extend the topic on coastal management to similar international researches as well. Thus, comparison with other international studies and management policies in worldwide are welcomed. In this version the Introduction chapter  is too local and it could be like uninteresting to an international reader. At this regard, hoping to help the authors to improve the discussed topic, I would suggest the reading of the following scientific articles:

1) Cantasano N.;  Pellicone G.; Ietto F.(2017) Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Italy: a gap between Science and Policy. Journal of Coastal conservation 21: 317-325;

2) Cantasano N.;  Pellicone G.; Ietto F.(2020) The Coastal Sustainability Standard method: A case study in Calabria (Southern Italy). Ocean and Coastal Management 183:1-9, DOI: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104962

Another critical aspect is that in addition to a local knowledge on coastal risks from people that live in littoral area (chapter 2.1), a careful description about the real conditions of the coastal protection  and restoration would be useful to the reader in order to better understand the real vulnerability of the area. For example, in my opinion, in the manuscript a careful description about the geomorphological state and the historical evolution of the beaches, as well as the types of coastal protection and restoration  used are needed, Finally, a comparison between the local knowledge on community risks (such as: flooding, coastal erosion, ecological restoration etc.) expressed by selected stakeholders and a deep scientific study of the geomorphological condition of the littoral area, could make more interesting this research.

I wish that my notes can be useful to the authors to improve their manuscript and to bring it up to publication standards.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has improved considerably. The authors have taken on board suggestions from previous corrections and have decisively improved the structure, content and also the graphic representations of the paper. In particular, the first section finally makes clear the work done and the contribution from the scientific point of view that the research gives to the paper. 
I therefore believe that the paper can be accepted.

Reviewer 3 Report

I read the new version of the manuscript titled: “Building Resilience through Collaborative Management of Coastal Protection and Restoration Planning in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, USA”, authors: Scott A. Hemmerling, Christine A. DeMyers, Tim J.B. Carruthers. I would like to thank the authors for the additional work applied to improve the manuscript and also for addressing the points raised in my initial review. The present version of the manuscript is improved, so I retain that the manuscript, in the present form, can be considered for publication in “Sustainability” Journal.