Growing Inwards: Densification and Ecosystem Services in Comprehensive Plans from Three Municipalities in Southern Sweden
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The overall merit of the conducted research work is very well, based on strong structure and originality potentials. Nevertheless, it slightly lacks applied research methods, where it depended only on theoretical and analytical methods. The manuscript is formulated on a basis of logical coherence with good academic soundness.
The topic of the manuscript is very interesting and important; however, the significance of the study is not properly emphasized in the abstract and within the content of the article. The significance of the research shall be indicated and highlighted accordingly. In addition, it is important that the authors justify the selection of the case studies, where it should be apparently stated and emphasized why they chose these cases in particular.
The content is quite contextualized with respect to previous backgrounds, where the literature review could be deepened in more detail described without repetitive pieces of information.
Moreover, the manuscript contains limited number of specially formulated forms of information, while it could be more graphically and numerically improved through figures and tables, which are inserted to show the data vividly and to highlight or summarize important parts. Furthermore, some research keywords are not meaningful and could be neglected or replaced by more meaningful ones.
The structure and research framework are solid and well-defined. Although research questions are apparent and to the point. The adopted hypothesis is likely missing. In addition, the research problem is not clearly stated, especially in the abstract. The main goal of the research is clear, but the secondary objectives are not specifically defined.
Also, the adopted research methodology could be supported by quantitative approaches in terms of related topics of conducted research.
Results are presented appropriately, nonetheless they may be depicted in a better way. The conclusion is thoroughly demonstrated and furnished research findings, whereas the discussion of results is objective and coherent.
The cited references are considered to be sufficient and most of these are relevant, however, there are several irrelevant references.
The article is written in English in a comprehensive way; however, it could be further developed in a scientific manner in limited parts of the document.
Writing of the manuscript needs to be enhanced, e.g., some sentences should be paraphrased for the purpose of delivering information more precisely.
Accordingly, minor editing of English is required through the article.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1- thank you for the thoughtful concern you have given to our manuscript. We respond to the comments below and demonstrate what we have adjusted:
The overall merit of the conducted research work is very well, based on strong structure and originality potentials. Nevertheless, it slightly lacks applied research methods, where it depended only on theoretical and analytical methods. The manuscript is formulated on a basis of logical coherence with good academic soundness.
The topic of the manuscript is very interesting and important; however, the significance of the study is not properly emphasized in the abstract and within the content of the article. The significance of the research shall be indicated and highlighted accordingly. In addition, it is important that the authors justify the selection of the case studies, where it should be apparently stated and emphasized why they chose these cases in particular.
REPLY: We have made an attempt to better clarify why what is actually written in the comprehensive plans is of importance, and to clarify our aim and objective better to the kind of analysis we found lacking in other research. We have also clarified that the case studies were part of a larger research project, and that choosing them for our study was a purposive sample.
The content is quite contextualized with respect to previous backgrounds, where the literature review could be deepened in more detail described without repetitive pieces of information.
REPLY: This was a tricky one, we have attempted to contextualize it better.
Moreover, the manuscript contains limited number of specially formulated forms of information, while it could be more graphically and numerically improved through figures and tables, which are inserted to show the data vividly and to highlight or summarize important parts. Furthermore, some research keywords are not meaningful and could be neglected or replaced by more meaningful ones.
REPLY: Very true. However, "summarizing" content analysis in a way inspired by quantitative studies carry the risk of being reductionist. We have now added a map for context, and a table containing the relevant and updated figures that may help with gaining some overview. With regards to the keywords, we chose to add sustainable urban development and qualitative content analysis.
The structure and research framework are solid and well-defined. Although research questions are apparent and to the point. The adopted hypothesis is likely missing. In addition, the research problem is not clearly stated, especially in the abstract. The main goal of the research is clear, but the secondary objectives are not specifically defined.
REPLY: We have defined the main goal as well as a secondary goal and refined the connection to these in the Conclusions and Discussions.
REPLY regarding the hypothesis:
Thank you for this comment. This study, however, is a qualitative content analysis, which builds on an inductive research tradition rather than a deductive. Within the frame of the overarching research project on how to densify the three cities (as clarified initially in the Methods section) we choose a field for inquiry, analysed according to established research routine, and found patterns/findings, which are presented in the results section. It is not a hypothesis-testing study.
Also, the adopted research methodology could be supported by quantitative approaches in terms of related topics of conducted research.
REPLY: You are right in this comment. However, the study is focused on how planning is formulated with regards to densification and ecosystem services, rather than the outcome of densification and/or ecosystem services.
Results are presented appropriately, nonetheless they may be depicted in a better way. The conclusion is thoroughly demonstrated and furnished research findings, whereas the discussion of results is objective and coherent.
REPLY: We found this comment a bit tricky - results are presented according to normal qualitative content analysis.
The cited references are considered to be sufficient and most of these are relevant, however, there are several irrelevant references.
REPLY: This was difficult: We looked through the references but couldn't find the irrelevant ones.
The article is written in English in a comprehensive way; however, it could be further developed in a scientific manner in limited parts of the document.
Writing of the manuscript needs to be enhanced, e.g., some sentences should be paraphrased for the purpose of delivering information more precisely.
Accordingly, minor editing of English is required through the article.
REPLY: We have edited language throughout the article. However, we were not able to find where sentences should be paraphrased.
To summarise: Thank you for thoughtful comments!
Reviewer 2 Report
The methodology details why these three cities were chosen. But, in reality, the text of the article is largely descriptive and it is difficult for the reader to independently compare approaches to planning and the results of this planning in these 3 cities. It would be advisable for the authors to provide this comparison (preferably in the form of tables), where they show, for example, what approaches are used in each of the cities, on the one hand, to ensure the urban densification of these cities (in width, due to the expansion of adjacent rural areas or upward - growth number of storeys or other means), on the other hand, to guarantee the improvement of ecosystem services. Otherwise, it is not clear why exactly 3 cities are given as an example (after all, if everything is the same, it was possible to confine ourselves to analyzing documents for just one city). And if there are differences, then it is the role of the authors to show what the advantage of this or that (excellent) method is. And in general, in which city this balance is observed to a greater extent? Where is this concept (line 565-566) “Good built environment” – really applicable (or close to this definition). It would be nice to know the opinion of the authors.
The conclusion of the authors can be considered debatable, who “suggest that when planning for sustainable cities, political decisions should bring the prioritization process to the fore, to clarify and address how to plan for dense, healthy cities with functioning ecosystem services in a more holistic manner (lines 26-27), because in my opinion any political decision should be based on scientific research that underlies changes in planning decisions. In this regard, the purpose of the article was precisely to show the inconsistency between plans for the compaction of cities and plans for the development of ecosystem services.
In this regard, for a complete understanding of the situation, there are not enough figures - the area of territory, the population density in general in cities (from ... to … - for different areas to understand the maximum tension), the area of green zones (their share in urban space, square meters per capita). If the authors could compare these data for 3 cities, it would be interesting to superimpose the descriptive characteristics of urban planning documents on these data. After all, plans for change (planning) and, accordingly, political decisions depend on the starting point (the state of urban ecosystems).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2- Thank you for your interesting and challenging comments which helped us clarify our thinking, and hopefully our writing.
The methodology details why these three cities were chosen. But, in reality, the text of the article is largely descriptive and it is difficult for the reader to independently compare approaches to planning and the results of this planning in these 3 cities. It would be advisable for the authors to provide this comparison (preferably in the form of tables), where they show, for example, what approaches are used in each of the cities, on the one hand, to ensure the urban densification of these cities (in width, due to the expansion of adjacent rural areas or upward - growth number of storeys or other means), on the other hand, to guarantee the improvement of ecosystem services. Otherwise, it is not clear why exactly 3 cities are given as an example (after all, if everything is the same, it was possible to confine ourselves to analyzing documents for just one city).
REPLY: Thank you for this comment. The aim is not to make a comparison of practices to improve ecosystem services in three case cities. The aim was a qualitative content analysis of how planners connect densification and ecosystem services to sustainable urban development and address the conflicts of interest between these. As discussed in the Results section, the municipalities handle the goal conflicts/tensions differently, although there are significant patterns that make planning this way problematic. Details regarding the situations of the three cities are discussed in sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4, and for better overview, we have added a table with statistics.
And if there are differences, then it is the role of the authors to show what the advantage of this or that (excellent) method is. And in general, in which city this balance is observed to a greater extent? Where is this concept (line 565-566) “Good built environment” – really applicable (or close to this definition). It would be nice to know the opinion of the authors.
REPLY: Thank you for this comment. One of our points/conclusions is that the “national environmental objectives”, of which Good built environment is just one, are too vague to fully operationalize. Sweden as a nation and Swedish municipalities normally have high standards regarding sustainability. However, the goal conflicts are seldomly handled constructively.
The conclusion of the authors can be considered debatable, who “suggest that when planning for sustainable cities, political decisions should bring the prioritization process to the fore, to clarify and address how to plan for dense, healthy cities with functioning ecosystem services in a more holistic manner (lines 26-27), because in my opinion any political decision should be based on scientific research that underlies changes in planning decisions. In this regard, the purpose of the article was precisely to show the inconsistency between plans for the compaction of cities and plans for the development of ecosystem services.
REPLY: Thank you for this interesting comment. You point to the fact that political decisions should be based on scientific research, with which we fully agree. However, our point is that comprehensive planning in Sweden is, at present, rather based on a number of “goods” that should, in an ideal world, all function together. We, as researchers, are aware that this is not doable without rigorous prioritizing: i.e. what should come first when planning: densification or ecosystem services. In the Swedish planning context, doing this prioritization is up to the politicians.
In this regard, for a complete understanding of the situation, there are not enough figures - the area of territory, the population density in general in cities (from ... to … - for different areas to understand the maximum tension), the area of green zones (their share in urban space, square meters per capita). If the authors could compare these data for 3 cities, it would be interesting to superimpose the descriptive characteristics of urban planning documents on these data. After all, plans for change (planning) and, accordingly, political decisions depend on the starting point (the state of urban ecosystems).
REPLY: The aim of this research was to study how the municipalities plan for accommodating densification together with ecosystem services, not to evaluate the state of densification and the urban ecosystems as such. However, we found the suggestion to present numbers very constructive, and we have added a table to make an overview of population, area, population density on land and access to green space/inhabitant more easily accessible.
Reviewer 3 Report
Sustainability- 2405993 Growing inwards; Densification and ecosystems services in comprehensive plans from three municipalities in southern Sweden
On the while, this is a well written paper on the conflicting goals with implementation or urban development and sustainability planning. However, there are some English grammar issues, research methods questions and is missing a conclusion section. Detailed comments to authors follow.
Abstract
Line 23- should be – mentioned any in passing?
Introduction
Under background- need a location map of the three cities used in the study
Line 118- suggest – format for Swedish…
Methods and materials
Lines 156-159- Could there be a problem of bias with the manner that sampling, and information was gathered and what methods were used to guard against bias. This could be addressed here or in the missing conclusion.
Results
Line 323- should be – produced results?
Line 360- unclearing meaning at the end of the sentence
Line-413- suggest – where as…
Line 416- suggest – forever..
Line 422- suggest – not to be the cost of losing…
Discussion
Line 525- suggest – focuses on…
Line 545-6-suggest – as well as..
Lines 577-578- unclear meaning?
Line 579 – suggest- there is no way that…
Missing conclusion section?
This section should be added to summarize major findings, generalizability of findings, method limitations, and future research needed. The issue of conflicting sustainability planning and implementation goals is important and should be stressed at this section of the paper.
There are some English language usage issues but these are relatively minor.
Author Response
Reviewer 3:
Dear reviewer 3 – thank you for your constructive and exact comment which helped us improve the manuscript very much.
On the while, this is a well written paper on the conflicting goals with implementation or urban development and sustainability planning. However, there are some English grammar issues, research methods questions and is missing a conclusion section. Detailed comments to authors follow.
REPLY: We read the phrase “research methods question” as a question to what research methods was applied. As stated in the methodology section, lines 158-165 and 175-185, this is a qualitative content analysis performed according to a well-established and commonly applied methodology of reading, categorization, discussion and coding, resulting in four main findings presented in the Results section. We refer to reference 21 & 22 for the method as such. Ref 23 is a good example of another study using this methodology. The narrative structure is the established method to present qualitative content analysis.
Abstract
Line 23- should be – mentioned any in passing? FIXED
Introduction
Under background- need a location map of the three cities used in the study FIXED
Line 118- suggest – format for Swedish… FIXED
Methods and materials
Lines 156-159- Could there be a problem of bias with the manner that sampling, and information was gathered and what methods were used to guard against bias. This could be addressed here or in the missing conclusion.
REPLY: This is an interesting comment: The cities were chosen during the application for funding for the overarching research project on how to create dense, healthy and green cities in Scania, southern Sweden. The collaboration with the public servants was planned in this research project. Choosing the comprehensive plans of the three cities was thus a purposive sampling: We chose them because investigating these plans was part of the overarching research purpose. We have now made attempts to clarify this in the article.
Results
Line 323- should be – produced results? FIXED
Line 360- unclearing meaning at the end of the sentence FIXED
Line-413- suggest – where as… FIXED
Line 416- suggest – forever.. FIXED
Line 422- suggest – not to be the cost of losing… FIXED
Discussion
Line 525- suggest – focuses on… FIXED
Line 545-6-suggest – as well as.. FIXED
Lines 577-578- unclear meaning? FIXED
Line 579 – suggest- there is no way that…FIXED
Missing conclusion section?
This section should be added to summarize major findings, generalizability of findings, method limitations, and future research needed. The issue of conflicting sustainability planning and implementation goals is important and should be stressed at this section of the paper.
REPLY: The Sustainability template stated that a “conclusion section” is voluntary, and we decided to include the conclusions in the section “concluding discussion” where each conclusion is discussed in its context.
There are some English language usage issues but these are relatively minor.
REPLY: We have worked through the text and hopefully eliminated the errors.
Reviewer 4 Report
The topic of the article is quite relevant, especially for large cities, where compacted buildings along the periphery of the city exacerbate the problems of ecosystem services. The authors attempt to characterize the problems in the ecosystem services sector using the example of 3 cities in Sweden. However, there are a number of significant comments in the article: 1) The research methodology is not clear (it is more focused on narration than on descriptions of a specific method or methods);
2) The authors provide a list of ecosystem services, but ecosystem services are not only a qualitative but also a quantitative (economic) factor of sustainable development. Unfortunately, the article does not show how the internal development affects the negative (positive) development of ecosystem services in cities. There are no specific comparisons. To a greater extent, we see critics of the adopted urban development plans, but this is hardly enough. The article in this form is more like a critical note. What is its scientific novelty? In my opinion, the material of the article needs the necessary quantitative studies, on the basis of which it would be possible to draw a conclusion about the impact of compaction on ecosystem services.
Author Response
Reviewer 4
Dear reviewer 4: Thank you for your comments – we appreciate the opportunity to improve our article in relation to this. Below we reply to them and present our thinking/changes:
1.The topic of the article is quite relevant, especially for large cities, where compacted buildings along the periphery of the city exacerbate the problems of ecosystem services. The authors attempt to characterize the problems in the ecosystem services sector using the example of 3 cities in Sweden. However, there are a number of significant comments in the article: 1) The research methodology is not clear (it is more focused on narration than on descriptions of a specific method or methods).
REPLY: Thank you for this comment. As stated in the methodology section, this is a qualitative content analysisperformed according to a well-established and commonly applied methodology of reading, categorization, discussion and coding, resulting in four main findings presented in the Results section. Reference 23 is a good example of another study using this methodology. The narrative structure is the established method to present qualitative content analysis.
2) The authors provide a list of ecosystem services, but ecosystem services are not only a qualitative but also a quantitative (economic) factor of sustainable development.
REPLY: This comment was confusing. We are very much aware that ecosystem services are of economic value (for example, producing food!). We have attempted to clarify this in section 4.2: Scale: and the table where the ecosystem services in the city, which are most often handled in the comprehensive plans, are separated from the ecosystem services for the city.
Unfortunately, the article does not show how the internal development affects the negative (positive) development of ecosystem services in cities.
REPLY: We apologise for being unable to decode what this sentence means.
There are no specific comparisons. To a greater extent, we see critics of the adopted urban development plans, but this is hardly enough. The article in this form is more like a critical note. What is its scientific novelty?
REPLY: Thank you for this comment. Each sub-section in the Results section consists of a comparison between the comprehensive plans of the three cities, pointing out similarities and discrepancies. The goal, however, was not the comparison as such but an analysis of how planners handle and articulate conflicting interests when writing comprehensive plans. In the Introduction, we have tied the aim better to previous research and research needed. The novelty lies in problematising comprehensive planning with regards to densification and ecosystem services.
In my opinion, the material of the article needs the necessary quantitative studies, on the basis of which it would be possible to draw a conclusion about the impact of compaction on ecosystem services.
REPLY: This is an interesting comment. Possibly reviewer 4 has confused densification with compaction (where the ground becomes more compact due to heavy machinery)? If we understand the comment as referring to densification (i.e. building more on urban land), it is still a bit beside the point. The goal of this research project, and thus the goal of the article, was to analyse how planners handle and articulate conflicting interests when writing comprehensive plans. In future development projects in the cities, plans of course direct the impact on the ecosystem services, but it was not the aim of this study to assess that impact itself.
In the Swedish planning context, densification AND ecosystem services are two ideals underscored to support sustainable urban development. Our goal with the article was to analyse how these two are formulated to be “combined” in comprehensive plans and to critically analyse how, and when, there are inbuilt contradictions in the way they are formulated.
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors made changes to the text of the manuscript in accordance with the recommendations, which improved the quality of the material. The article can be accepted in its present form.
