Callous Optimism: On Some Wishful Thinking ‘Blowbacks’ Undermining SDG Spatial Policy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper does not belong to the sustainability by dy and f knowledge 

Author Response

SDG Review Report 1, 2, 3, 4

 

Review Report 1

Unfortunately this review report offers little comprehensive critique:

 

Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	(x )	(x)	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	(x )	(x)	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	(x )	(x)	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x )	(x)	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	(x )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	(x )	(x)	( )

Accordingly these ‘Must be improved’ ticks are dealt with as they arise in relation Reviewers 2, 3 and 4 concerns.

 

Review Report 2

Reviewer Comment: '....Dear author, the article is very interesting, informative, and above all punctually substantive in terms of addressing the critical points of sustainable urban governance. The writing style and language used underpins the position of critical realism and discussion conclusion points. The analysis method could be more clearly specified.....'

 

Author Response: '....Of course, I like this comment. I believe I answer the point about the 'analysis method' to be 'more clearly specified' in para 2 of the 'Pattern Recognition' insert after the new section after the ending of 'Introduction'.....'

 

Author Insert:  '.....

Throughout this contribution we hold that ‘pattern recognition’ is a useful mode for interrogating the motives, manipulations and mismanagement fallibilities that frustrate citizens when presented policy pledges that often fail to materialise as policy outcomes, even successes on occasions. In the narrative a number of concepts and sub-concepts were introduced to try to explain why so much SDG policy is often seen as ‘callous optimism’ by interested and affected parties. The ‘pattern’ to be discovered is aided by differentiating what psychology advises about contrasting ‘dark’ traits or motivations for action from ‘light’ ones. The former – as we show later contrast characteristics of, for instance, ‘vanity’ from more ‘altruistic’ or ‘accomplishment’ motivated traits. Where pattern-seeking analysis gets even deeper, sub-clinical psychopathy may also be identified as a contributory factor in project mismanagement. But before that, we consult key literature on explanations of policy failure and how to guard against it. ....'

 

Review Report 3

Author Response: Thankfully, these comments from Reviewer 2 are helpful and inspiring. Every effort is made to respond to them as completely as possible.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 3: I confess that this article brings together several aspects that I value a lot:

- The free, adjectival, suggestive language;

- The SDG's as inspiration for fair, balanced and sensible change;

- The criticism of the well-intentioned but naive

In other words, I find the article very pertinent for its focus, for its reflection, for the examples it brought.

Author Response: These comments are well-taken and gratifyingly generous.

Reviewer 3. The problem is that these aspects cannot easily be put together in a scientific paper without additional precautions.  Thus, the two major criticisms of the manuscript come from the excess of adjectivation throughout the article, bringing it closer to an opinion text than to a text with scientific concerns, where the concern with rigor, with the support of the statements and with the connection to knowledge already acquired should dominate.  This problem is mostly felt until line 161.

Author Response: In defence of the adjective. ‘Adjectival’ nuances are used for clarity not obfuscation and are thus consistent with the aims of scientific writing. An example of the use of the adjectival ‘modifier’ as it is known to grammarians, is as follows: the descriptor ‘society’ is general in the extreme as a noun and nearly useless as a point of scientific debate. However, including the adjectival modifier ‘learning’ society opens the door to discussion of testable hypotheses. Is our society learning-friendly? Or does it imply a need to ‘catch-up’ with other superior societies? How to measure that? Is a ‘learning society’ narcissistic (inwardly focused) because ‘learning’ is imitative or is it expressive of ‘ambition’ to surpass the object to be imitated? Accordingly, such arguments are not intrinsically ‘opinionated’ but scientifically testable.

Reviewer 3. In defense of this my position is also the list of references used, where grey literature abounds, devaluing objective, focused, peer-reviewed scientific production. My suggestion is that the text be revised to incorporate more bibliographic support for many of the statements that are left here.

Author Response: Two peer-reviewed references that illustrate the same ‘Learning Society’ empirical research program.

Hughes, C., and M. Tight. 1995. “The Myth of the Learning Society.” British Journal of  Education Studies 43 (3): pp. 290-304. doi: 10.1080/00071005.1995.9974038. 

Coffield, F. (2006) Introduction and Overview: Attempts to Reclaim the Concept of the Learning Society, Journal of Education Policy, 12 (6) 449-455

Reviewer 3. The empirical work is based exclusively on documentary sources and it might have been interesting to explore complementary channels of evaluation of the cases it describes.

Author Response: The Bibliography’s Reference to Westley, F. (2002) The devil in the dynamics; adaptive management on the front lines, in Gunderson, L. & Holling, C. (eds.) (2002) Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, Washington

            DC, Island Press

This article is critical of green project management:

            Zuninga-Teran, A. et al, (2020) Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in         built environment professions, Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 63        (4) 710-732. Doi: 10.1080/09640568.2019,1605890 [34]

This article has a methodology for ‘green roof’ evaluation that proposes higher quality due diligence than current practice:

            McRae, A. M. 2016. “Case Study: A Conservative Approach to Green Roof Benefit Quantification and Valuation for Public Buildings.” The Engineering Economist 61 (3): 190–206. doi:10.1080/0013791X.2016.1186255.[35]

This one has a more general evaluation of policy for green infrastructure:

            Sinnett, D., G. Jerome, N. Smith, S. Burgess, and R. Mortlock. 2018. “Raising the Standard: Developing a Benchmark for Green Infrastructure.” International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 13 (02): 226–236. doi:10.2495/SDP-V13-N2-226-236 [36]

           

Continued: This is an extended exemplification of deeper evaluation of the ‘eutrophication’ case

Reviewer 3. I find the text extraordinary in its lucidity, articulation, and usefulness for the future. However, the questions I raised at the beginning may limit its scope as a scientific article.

However the editor can take the risk, valuing this more reflective, theoretical, philosophical character of the article.

Author Response: Reviewer suggestions definitely bolster the argument with required citations which are now inserted in the article

 

Review Report 4

Reviewer 4. Issue 1-In the article, the article is examined directly on the example of England, and conclusions are drawn. What kind of an international contribution from the experiences obtained from the UK example should be discussed in the introduction and the conclusion section.

1. Author Response: This claim is factually inaccurate. The Heatherwick projects include New York Shanghai and other international locations. The three heating, food waste and plastics report UK parliamentary concerns affecting global sustainability. The final ‘eutrophication’ case is North American

Reviewer 4 Issue 2- In the article, some personal comments and claims seem to be being made. For example

“.......This attests to the developer’s penchant for what Heatherwick’s friend the actress Joanna Lumley, channeling Ayn Rand, described as an ‘extraordinary and brilliant boy’. Heatherwick is a 52-year old father of two. On the ‘dark triads Richter-scale this recognizes a pattern inclining towards narcissism if not psychopathy on the part of the consortium”

“........Heatherwick shifted his perspective towards ‘green design’ after experimenting with the high-tech design of the kind promoted in the Studio’s engagement with Norman Foster and Partners. The stride away from hard metal towards softer horticulture had also been provoked by numerous brushes with design disaster.”

“........Finally, in  2012 a design –the Cauldron – for the London Olympics opening ceremony worked successfully but became mired in controversy over claims of plagiarism from an American contestant firm’s submission to the Olympics design commission.”

These comments seem subjective evaluations rather than objective evaluations. This seems to be done frequently in terms of writing style. In my opinion, this can mean that there is an effort to influence the reader with judgements.

2. Author Response On (1) Heatherwick and Lumley are factually friends and part of the ‘chumocracy’ referred to in the press. Heatherwick was a 52 year-old father at the time Lumley called him an ‘extraordinary boy’ as referencing shows. Since ‘pattern recognition uses scalar categories for psychological testing narcissism versus reserve places expressions of ‘vanity’ to which Johnson is prone, places him on the ‘narcissistic’ end of the spectrum. This is now re-iterated in the text of the article.

On (2) These are factually accurate as verifiable statements in the referenced bibliography to this article.

On (3) The reference to the ‘Cauldron’ is factually true as can be checked by reference to the article’s bibliographic entry for this segment of text.

Author Response (Continued). Accordingly, all the indicated passages of text can be verified not as subjective evaluations but as objective statements

Reviewer 4. Issue 3- In the first paragraph of  “Discussions and Conclusion”, the methodology was written in a clear way. However, the same clarity, there was no under the title of “Theory of Green Management: Methodologies of Pattern Recognition”.  The first paragraph of  “Discussions and Conclusion” should also be given under the title of “Theory of Green Management: Methodologies of Pattern Recognition” in the way of the same clarity. 

3. Author Response. This is a valuable suggestion. It has now been inserted as Reviewer 3 suggests.

Reviewer 4. Issue 4- In the introduction section, the author gives the examples like “Garden Bridges”, "Green Mound",“ Urban Vessel” etc. The author supposes that every reader has to know all of these. However, international readers cannot know these projects or the name of the place. Therefore, maybe, the author/s should use some images. For the names of places, the author should write endnotes.

4. Author Response. Unfortunately it is extraordinarily difficult to get such photo permissions even though this author would love to include such pictures. Endnotes are now provided as Reviewer 3 usefully suggests.

Reviewer 4. Issue 5-The author looks critically. Is there any critical literature, especially related to these projects?   The author should also give other critical views on these projects. 

5. Author Response. Unfortunately most academic literature on this subject is rather uncritical and optimistic, but some is somewhat more balanced or evaluative. I have inserted some relevant examples above and in the revised text.

Reviewer 4. To sum up, I consider that there is a need for a revision for some points stated above.

6. Author Response. Many thanks for your helpful comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author, the article is very interesting, informative, and above all punctually substantive in terms of addressing the critical points of sustainable urban governance. The writing style and language used underpins the position of critical realism and discussion conclusion points. The analysis method could be more clearly specified.

Author Response

Review Report 2

 

Reviewer Comment: '....Dear author, the article is very interesting, informative, and above all punctually substantive in terms of addressing the critical points of
sustainable urban governance. The writing style and language used
underpins the position of critical realism and discussion conclusion

points. The analysis method could be more clearly specified.....'

 

Author Response: '....Of course, I like this comment. I believe I answer the point about the 'analysis method' to be 'more clearly specified' in para 2 of the 'Pattern Recognition' insert after the new section after the ending of 'Introduction'.....'

 

Author Insert:  '.....

Throughout this contribution we hold that ‘pattern recognition’ is a useful mode for interrogating the motives, manipulations and mismanagement fallibilities that frustrate citizens when presented policy pledges that often fail to materialise as policy outcomes, even successes on occasions. In the narrative a number of concepts and sub-concepts were introduced to try to explain why so much SDG policy is often seen as ‘callous optimism’ by interested and affected parties. The ‘pattern’ to be discovered is aided by differentiating what psychology advises about contrasting ‘dark’ traits or motivations for action from ‘light’ ones. The former – as we show later contrast characteristics of, for instance, ‘vanity’ from more ‘altruistic’ or ‘accomplishment’ motivated traits. Where pattern-seeking analysis gets even deeper, sub-clinical psychopathy may also be identified as a contributory factor in project mismanagement. But before that, we consult key literature on explanations of policy failure and how to guard against it. ....'

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I confess that this article brings together several aspects that I value a lot:

- The free, adjectival, suggestive language;

- The SDG's as inspiration for fair, balanced and sensible change;

- The criticism of the well-intentioned but naive

In other words, I find the article very pertinent for its focus, for its reflection, for the examples it brought.

The problem is that these aspects cannot easily be put together in a scientific paper without additional precautions.  Thus, the two major criticisms of the manuscript come from the excess of adjectivation throughout the article, bringing it closer to an opinion text than to a text with scientific concerns, where the concern with rigor, with the support of the statements and with the connection to knowledge already acquired should dominate.  This problem is mostly felt until line 161.

In defense of this my position is also the list of references used, where grey literature abounds, devaluing objective, focused, peer-reviewed scientific production. My suggestion is that the text be revised to incorporate more bibliographic support for many of the statements that are left here.

The empirical work is based exclusively on documentary sources and it might have been interesting to explore complementary channels of evaluation of the cases it describes.

I find the text extraordinary in its lucidity, articulation, and usefulness for the future. However, the questions I raised at the beginning may limit its scope as a scientific article.

However the editor can take the risk, valuing this more reflective, theoretical, philosophical character of the article.

Author Response

Review Report 3

 

Author Response: Thankfully, these comments from Reviewer 2 are helpful and inspiring. Every effort is made to respond to them as completely as possible.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 3: I confess that this article brings together several aspects that I value a lot:

- The free, adjectival, suggestive language;

- The SDG's as inspiration for fair, balanced and sensible change;

- The criticism of the well-intentioned but naive

In other words, I find the article very pertinent for its focus, for its reflection, for the examples it brought.

Author Response: These comments are well-taken and gratifyingly generous.

Reviewer 3. The problem is that these aspects cannot easily be put together in a scientific paper without additional precautions.  Thus, the two major criticisms of the manuscript come from the excess of adjectivation throughout the article, bringing it closer to an opinion text than to a text with scientific concerns, where the concern with rigor, with the support of the statements and with the connection to knowledge already acquired should dominate.  This problem is mostly felt until line 161.

Author Response: In defence of the adjective. ‘Adjectival’ nuances are used for clarity not obfuscation and are thus consistent with the aims of scientific writing. An example of the use of the adjectival ‘modifier’ as it is known to grammarians, is as follows: the descriptor ‘society’ is general in the extreme as a noun and nearly useless as a point of scientific debate. However, including the adjectival modifier ‘learning’ society opens the door to discussion of testable hypotheses. Is our society learning-friendly? Or does it imply a need to ‘catch-up’ with other superior societies? How to measure that? Is a ‘learning society’ narcissistic (inwardly focused) because ‘learning’ is imitative or is it expressive of ‘ambition’ to surpass the object to be imitated? Accordingly, such arguments are not intrinsically ‘opinionated’ but scientifically testable.

Reviewer 3. In defense of this my position is also the list of references used, where grey literature abounds, devaluing objective, focused, peer-reviewed scientific production. My suggestion is that the text be revised to incorporate more bibliographic support for many of the statements that are left here.

Author Response: Two peer-reviewed references that illustrate the same ‘Learning Society’ empirical research program.

Hughes, C., and M. Tight. 1995. “The Myth of the Learning Society.” British Journal of  Education Studies 43 (3): pp. 290-304. doi: 10.1080/00071005.1995.9974038. 

Coffield, F. (2006) Introduction and Overview: Attempts to Reclaim the Concept of the Learning Society, Journal of Education Policy, 12 (6) 449-455

Reviewer 3. The empirical work is based exclusively on documentary sources and it might have been interesting to explore complementary channels of evaluation of the cases it describes.

Author Response: The Bibliography’s Reference to Westley, F. (2002) The devil in the dynamics; adaptive management on the front lines, in Gunderson, L. & Holling, C. (eds.) (2002) Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, Washington

            DC, Island Press

This article is critical of green project management:

            Zuninga-Teran, A. et al, (2020) Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in         built environment professions, Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 63        (4) 710-732. Doi: 10.1080/09640568.2019,1605890 [34]

This article has a methodology for ‘green roof’ evaluation that proposes higher quality due diligence than current practice:

            McRae, A. M. 2016. “Case Study: A Conservative Approach to Green Roof Benefit Quantification and Valuation for Public Buildings.” The Engineering Economist 61 (3): 190–206. doi:10.1080/0013791X.2016.1186255.[35]

This one has a more general evaluation of policy for green infrastructure:

            Sinnett, D., G. Jerome, N. Smith, S. Burgess, and R. Mortlock. 2018. “Raising the Standard: Developing a Benchmark for Green Infrastructure.” International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 13 (02): 226–236. doi:10.2495/SDP-V13-N2-226-236 [36]

           

Continued: This is an extended exemplification of deeper evaluation of the ‘eutrophication’ case

Reviewer 3. I find the text extraordinary in its lucidity, articulation, and usefulness for the future. However, the questions I raised at the beginning may limit its scope as a scientific article.

However the editor can take the risk, valuing this more reflective, theoretical, philosophical character of the article.

Author Response: Reviewer suggestions definitely bolster the argument with required citations which are now inserted in the article

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

REVIEW:  Callous Optimism: On Some Wishful Thinking ‘Blowbacks’ 2 Undermining SDG Spatial Policy

The article examines of ‘seeing like a city’ rather than a ‘sovereign state’ in sustainability policy-pledging and its origins by focussing on five examples of ‘cruelly optimistic’ wishful thinking in SDG proposals for urban and regional climate change moderation.  As a methodology, the article examines ‘pattern recognition'.  The subject of the article contributes to the literature related to a discussion on sustainability. Although the article attempts to present good research, there are some problems. The problems are given in below:        

1-In the article, the article is examined directly on the example of England, and conclusions are drawn. What kind of an international contribution from the experiences obtained from the UK example should be discussed in the introduction and the conclusion section.

2- In the article, some personal comments and claims seem to be being made. For example

“.......This attests to the developer’s penchant for what Heatherwick’s friend the actress Joanna Lumley, channeling Ayn Rand, described as an ‘extraordinary and brilliant boy’. Heatherwick is a 52-year old father of two. On the ‘dark triads Richter-scale this recognizes a pattern inclining towards narcissism if not psychopathy on the part of the consortium”

“........Heatherwick shifted his perspective towards ‘green design’ after experimenting with the high-tech design of the kind promoted in the Studio’s engagement with Norman Foster and Partners. The stride away from hard metal towards softer horticulture had also been provoked by numerous brushes with design disaster.”

“........Finally, in  2012 a design –the Cauldron – for the London Olympics opening ceremony worked successfully but became mired in controversy over claims of plagiarism from an American contestant firm’s submission to the Olympics design commission.”

These comments seem subjective evaluations rather than objective evaluations. This seems to be done frequently in terms of writing style. In my opinion, this can mean that there is an effort to influence the reader with judgements .

3- In the first paragraph of  “Discussions and Conclusion”, the methodology was written in a clear way. However, the same clarity, there was no under the title of “Theory of Green Management: Methodologies of Pattern Recognition”.  The first paragraph of  “Discussions and Conclusion” should also be given under the title of “Theory of Green Management: Methodologies of Pattern Recognition” in the way of the same clarity. 

4- In the introduction section, the author gives the examples like “Garden Bridges”, "Green Mound",“ Urban Vessel” etc. The author supposes that every reader has to know all of these. However, international readers cannot know these projects or the name of the place. Therefore, maybe, the author/s should use some images. For the names of places, the author should write endnotes.

5-The author looks critically. Is there any critical literature, especially related to these projects?   The author should also give other critical views on these projects.  

 

To sum up, I consider that there is a need for a revision for some points stated above.

Author Response

Review Report 4

Reviewer 4. Issue 1-In the article, the article is examined directly on the example of England, and conclusions are drawn. What kind of an international contribution from the experiences obtained from the UK example should be discussed in the introduction and the conclusion section.

1. Author Response: This claim is factually inaccurate. The Heatherwick projects include New York Shanghai and other international locations. The three heating, food waste and plastics report UK parliamentary concerns affecting global sustainability. The final ‘eutrophication’ case is North American

Reviewer 4 Issue 2- In the article, some personal comments and claims seem to be being made. For example

“.......This attests to the developer’s penchant for what Heatherwick’s friend the actress Joanna Lumley, channeling Ayn Rand, described as an ‘extraordinary and brilliant boy’. Heatherwick is a 52-year old father of two. On the ‘dark triads Richter-scale this recognizes a pattern inclining towards narcissism if not psychopathy on the part of the consortium”

“........Heatherwick shifted his perspective towards ‘green design’ after experimenting with the high-tech design of the kind promoted in the Studio’s engagement with Norman Foster and Partners. The stride away from hard metal towards softer horticulture had also been provoked by numerous brushes with design disaster.”

“........Finally, in  2012 a design –the Cauldron – for the London Olympics opening ceremony worked successfully but became mired in controversy over claims of plagiarism from an American contestant firm’s submission to the Olympics design commission.”

These comments seem subjective evaluations rather than objective evaluations. This seems to be done frequently in terms of writing style. In my opinion, this can mean that there is an effort to influence the reader with judgements.

2. Author Response On (1) Heatherwick and Lumley are factually friends and part of the ‘chumocracy’ referred to in the press. Heatherwick was a 52 year-old father at the time Lumley called him an ‘extraordinary boy’ as referencing shows. Since ‘pattern recognition uses scalar categories for psychological testing narcissism versus reserve places expressions of ‘vanity’ to which Johnson is prone, places him on the ‘narcissistic’ end of the spectrum. This is now re-iterated in the text of the article.

On (2) These are factually accurate as verifiable statements in the referenced bibliography to this article.

On (3) The reference to the ‘Cauldron’ is factually true as can be checked by reference to the article’s bibliographic entry for this segment of text.

Author Response (Continued). Accordingly, all the indicated passages of text can be verified not as subjective evaluations but as objective statements

Reviewer 4. Issue 3- In the first paragraph of  “Discussions and Conclusion”, the methodology was written in a clear way. However, the same clarity, there was no under the title of “Theory of Green Management: Methodologies of Pattern Recognition”.  The first paragraph of  “Discussions and Conclusion” should also be given under the title of “Theory of Green Management: Methodologies of Pattern Recognition” in the way of the same clarity. 

3. Author Response. This is a valuable suggestion. It has now been inserted as Reviewer 3 suggests.

Reviewer 4. Issue 4- In the introduction section, the author gives the examples like “Garden Bridges”, "Green Mound",“ Urban Vessel” etc. The author supposes that every reader has to know all of these. However, international readers cannot know these projects or the name of the place. Therefore, maybe, the author/s should use some images. For the names of places, the author should write endnotes.

4. Author Response. Unfortunately it is extraordinarily difficult to get such photo permissions even though this author would love to include such pictures. Endnotes are now provided as Reviewer 3 usefully suggests.

Reviewer 4. Issue 5-The author looks critically. Is there any critical literature, especially related to these projects?   The author should also give other critical views on these projects. 

5. Author Response. Unfortunately most academic literature on this subject is rather uncritical and optimistic, but some is somewhat more balanced or evaluative. I have inserted some relevant examples above and in the revised text.

Reviewer 4. To sum up, I consider that there is a need for a revision for some points stated above.

6. Author Response. Many thanks for your helpful comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper does not follow the scholarly writing for Sustainability.

Reviewer 4 Report

The explanations of the writer related to my evaluations seem sufficient for me.