Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present an interdisciplinary approach to sustainable mobility. One should agree with the authors who present a demand-driven approach to mobility. It is man and his free decisions that are the basis for creating politics. The literature review is extensive and sufficient. The introduction and background are written concisely and clearly. In my opinion, the work needs improvement in the description of the method and a more formal presentation of the goals of the work. I suggest that the key research questions be defined in the introduction and that they be successfully implemented in the content. The whole reasoning will be more readable. If possible, I suggest providing a more quantitative description of the stakeholders involved in the study. Pay more attention to their characteristics. I also suggest emphasizing the challenges facing the improvement of the prepared tool and its critical analysis in terms of possible weaknesses and application possibilities in other environments, e.g. in other European countries or at the level of the entire European Union. This could be an interesting thread.

Author Response

We would like to thank our reviewers for their insightful comments. 

We have chosen to combine our responses to all three reviewers in one document, because suggestions by Reviewer 3 (specifically suggestion 1, highlighted in red) have shaped our response to comments by Reviewer 1 and 2.

Reviewer 3

1. I’ve read your manuscript with big interest. It is internationally important and appealing, and it offers new perspectives for the understanding of the really important sustainability-related problem. I like its strong conceptual frame and certain simplicity. However, if you wish to see this published as a full- scale research paper, it should be strengthened and designed more analytically. Alternatively, you can choose the other label for this contribution (see my comment 5).

We have done a mixture of both, strengthened the presentation of our conceptual analysis, our methodology and analysis and changed the label for this contribution. Rather than ‘Communication’, we think a label of ‘Concept paper’ seems more appropriate, but we would appreciate the editors’ advice on this.

2. Response-ability or responsibility? If you would prefer an unusual combination of the words, I agree, but you have to explain it very clearly in the beginning of Introduction, as well as in the abstract.

We have added definitions in the abstract and elaborated the motivation for using this concept further in the introduction, as well as Section 2.6.

3. Section 2 to be called “Research Background”

Done.

4. I have strong impression that Section 4 looks more as Methodology than Results. If these are results, these resemble outcomes from the project, but not from research. A solution of this issue would be linked to clear definition of some criteria (even simple) for the analysis of your project and its outcomes in the methodological part of your work, whereas Results can report your findings by these criteria, i.e., systematically.

We have relabelled Section 4 ‘Outcomes’ and described the process of our analysis in Section 3.

5. Section 4: I strongly recommend adding a conclusive paragraph summarizing your findings and offering perspectives for further research.

We have added a separate conclusion in Section 5.

6. To me, the type of this contribution seems to be Communication, not Article – so, please, consider the opportunity to change the label indicated on the title page.

We have changed the label to Communication, but wonder whether ‘concept paper’ would be more appropriate. We’ll ask the editors for advice.

Reviewer 1

7. I suggest that the key research questions be defined in the introduction and that they be successfully implemented in the content.
   
   

We have listed the three research questions that drive the research in the introduction and signposted more clearly how the sections of the paper address these questions, as well as summarising this in the conclusion.

8. If possible, I suggest providing a more quantitative description of the stakeholders involved in the study. Pay more attention to their characteristics.
   
   

We have provided a more detailed overview of activities in an Appendix and an indicative quantitative breakdown of participant by types in Section 3.

9. I also suggest emphasizing the challenges facing the improvement of the prepared tool and its critical analysis in terms of possible weaknesses and application possibilities in other environments, e.g. in other European countries or at the level of the entire European Union. This could be an interesting thread.
   
   

We have added a little more detail in Section 3 and a brief discussion of challenges and opportunities to the conclusion. Deeper exploration of these would indeed be interesting, but beyond the remit of this paper. Monika Büscher is writing a book to develop a more comprehensive discussion.

Reviewer 2

10. Line 310 - provide a reference to wicked problem literature and expand on the meaning of “super- wicked” especially as it applies to this policy context.
    
    

We have undertaken a very comprehensive revision, so line numbers no longer match. We have added a more detailed discussion of wicked and super-wicked problems. We explain how they manifest in the challenges of governing net-zero mobility transformation in Section 2.3.

11. Line 314: If these data collection activities are the source of data use in this analysis, more data and a more systematic presentation of the research design is necessary.

We have expanded and clarified the presentation of the research in Section 3. However, adding a full account of the research and analysis process would change the nature of the paper and its argument and make it even longer than it now is, so we have taken on board Reviewer 3’s suggestion to relabel the paper. ‘Communication’ (or ‘Concept paper’) would more accurately reflect more clearly that the focus is on conceptual analysis and outcomes, not empirical research results per se.


This will establish the level of threat for the multiple types of internal validity and will set the stage for your claims related to external validity (for example, Cook & Campbell, and Rossi & Freeman, among others).

Having changed the label of the contribution and chosen not to detail the empirical analysis in favour of strengthening the conceptual argument and documentation of research outcomes, we have only minimally addressed this comment. The discussion of internal and external validity refers to conventional experimental research and is grounded in critical realism. Our work is aligned with science and technology studies and an epistemology of agential realism, which requires attention to the mutually shaping character of investigative methodology and findings, and the need to contextualise validity in contexts of application and implication. The sustained interest from stakeholders throughout our process goes some way towards documenting the validity of our approach.

Specifically, address the selection criteria for participants, # of participants, representativeness of the sampling frame, data collection methods and the differences between each in terms of what the participant’s role was v. that of the DecarboN8 project leaders. You may be able to streamline this discussion with a table.

We have clarified the description of the DecarboN8 project and recruitment of participants. Most participants were invited to self-select, based on an open invitation to the DecarboN8 network, and we have clarified this. We have added a description of selection criteria for the Stakeholder Reference Group and detailed the number and types of participants in Appendix 1 and Figure 2.  

12. Then, describe the analysis process in order to understand the rigor which led to the results being reported.

We have explained our approach to analysis in Section 3.

13. Line 332 separate this out, it seems more like results of the data collection process than research design/methodology.
    
    

We have moved this into the outputs section.

And, this will need to be expanding to systematically present the findings from the data you collected before moving on the Results and demonstrating the connection between the findings and the results.

This will also form the basis for the reader to know what and how the data contributed to the development of the figure at line 353.

Rather than change the character of the paper, we have re-labeled the contribution ‘Communication’ / ‘Concept paper’.

It can also demonstrate the gap(s) that exist for the tools you are promoting from 365-387. Were these used in the interactions reported in 314-323? If they were, think about how you can use the data to justify the need for use.

We have detailed 17 challenges that contribute to the gap between climate commitments and actions in Section 2 and described how SoRA addresses these challenges in Section 4 and 5. This is quite broad, but a more detailed mapping would go beyond the conceptual focus of the paper.

14. The data will also be useful to demonstrate the prevalence and incidence of dissent for the reader to understand why it is being presented at 454 without any prior literature or research data - especially since it is a keyword for the article, but not mentioned until the last page of the manuscript.

We now introduce dissent in the abstract and the introduction, and have significantly developed the discussion of it throughout the paper, including some examples.

15. The discussion is thought-provoking. It is surprising that there is no conclusion to the paper.

We have added a conclusion!

Thank you very much again for your inspiring comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 310 - provide a reference to wicked problem literature and expand on the meaning of “super-wicked” especially as it applies to this policy context.
Line 314: If these data collection activities are the source of data use in this analysis, more data and a more systematic presentation of the research design is necessary. This will establish the level of threat for the multiple types of internal validity and will set the stage for your claims related to external validity (for example, Cook & Campell, and Rossi & Freeman, among others).   Specifically, address the selection criteria for participants, # of participants, representativeness of the sampling frame, data collection methods and the differences between each in terms of what the participant’s role was v. that of the DecarboN8 project leaders.
You may be able to streamline this discussion with a table.
Then, describe the analysis process in order to understand the rigor which led to the results being reported.

Line 332 separate this out, it seems more like results of the data collection process than research design/methodology.

And, this will need to be expanding to systematically present the findings from the data you collected before moving on the Results and demonstrating the connection between the findings and the results.
This will also form the basis for the reader to know what and how the data contributed to the development of the figure at line 353.

It can also demonstrate the gap(s) that exist for the tools you are promoting from 365-387. Were these used in the interactions reported in 314-323? If they were, think about how you can use the data to justify the need for use.

The data will also be useful to demonstrate the prevalence and incidence of dissent for the reader to understand why it is being presented at 454 without any prior literature or research data - especially since it is a keyword for the article, but not mentioned until the last page of the manuscript.
The discussion is thought-provoking. It is surprising that there is no conclusion to the paper.

Author Response

We would like to thank our reviewers for their insightful comments. 

We have chosen to combine our responses to all three reviewers in one document, because suggestions by Reviewer 3 (specifically suggestion 1, highlighted in red) have shaped our response to comments by Reviewer 1 and 2.

Reviewer 3

1. I’ve read your manuscript with big interest. It is internationally important and appealing, and it offers new perspectives for the understanding of the really important sustainability-related problem. I like its strong conceptual frame and certain simplicity. However, if you wish to see this published as a full- scale research paper, it should be strengthened and designed more analytically. Alternatively, you can choose the other label for this contribution (see my comment 5).

We have done a mixture of both, strengthened the presentation of our conceptual analysis, our methodology and analysis and changed the label for this contribution. Rather than ‘Communication’, we think a label of ‘Concept paper’ seems more appropriate, but we would appreciate the editors’ advice on this.

2. Response-ability or responsibility? If you would prefer an unusual combination of the words, I agree, but you have to explain it very clearly in the beginning of Introduction, as well as in the abstract.

We have added definitions in the abstract and elaborated the motivation for using this concept further in the introduction, as well as Section 2.6.

3. Section 2 to be called “Research Background”

Done.

4. I have strong impression that Section 4 looks more as Methodology than Results. If these are results, these resemble outcomes from the project, but not from research. A solution of this issue would be linked to clear definition of some criteria (even simple) for the analysis of your project and its outcomes in the methodological part of your work, whereas Results can report your findings by these criteria, i.e., systematically.

We have relabelled Section 4 ‘Outcomes’ and described the process of our analysis in Section 3.

5. Section 4: I strongly recommend adding a conclusive paragraph summarizing your findings and offering perspectives for further research.

We have added a separate conclusion in Section 5.

6. To me, the type of this contribution seems to be Communication, not Article – so, please, consider the opportunity to change the label indicated on the title page.

We have changed the label to Communication, but wonder whether ‘concept paper’ would be more appropriate. We’ll ask the editors for advice.

Reviewer 1

7. I suggest that the key research questions be defined in the introduction and that they be successfully implemented in the content.
   
   

We have listed the three research questions that drive the research in the introduction and signposted more clearly how the sections of the paper address these questions, as well as summarising this in the conclusion.

8. If possible, I suggest providing a more quantitative description of the stakeholders involved in the study. Pay more attention to their characteristics.
   
   

We have provided a more detailed overview of activities in an Appendix and an indicative quantitative breakdown of participant by types in Section 3.

9. I also suggest emphasizing the challenges facing the improvement of the prepared tool and its critical analysis in terms of possible weaknesses and application possibilities in other environments, e.g. in other European countries or at the level of the entire European Union. This could be an interesting thread.
   
   

We have added a little more detail in Section 3 and a brief discussion of challenges and opportunities to the conclusion. Deeper exploration of these would indeed be interesting, but beyond the remit of this paper. Monika Büscher is writing a book to develop a more comprehensive discussion.

Reviewer 2

10. Line 310 - provide a reference to wicked problem literature and expand on the meaning of “super- wicked” especially as it applies to this policy context.
    
    

We have undertaken a very comprehensive revision, so line numbers no longer match. We have added a more detailed discussion of wicked and super-wicked problems. We explain how they manifest in the challenges of governing net-zero mobility transformation in Section 2.3.

11. Line 314: If these data collection activities are the source of data use in this analysis, more data and a more systematic presentation of the research design is necessary.

We have expanded and clarified the presentation of the research in Section 3. However, adding a full account of the research and analysis process would change the nature of the paper and its argument and make it even longer than it now is, so we have taken on board Reviewer 3’s suggestion to relabel the paper. ‘Communication’ (or ‘Concept paper’) would more accurately reflect more clearly that the focus is on conceptual analysis and outcomes, not empirical research results per se.


This will establish the level of threat for the multiple types of internal validity and will set the stage for your claims related to external validity (for example, Cook & Campbell, and Rossi & Freeman, among others).

Having changed the label of the contribution and chosen not to detail the empirical analysis in favour of strengthening the conceptual argument and documentation of research outcomes, we have only minimally addressed this comment. The discussion of internal and external validity refers to conventional experimental research and is grounded in critical realism. Our work is aligned with science and technology studies and an epistemology of agential realism, which requires attention to the mutually shaping character of investigative methodology and findings, and the need to contextualise validity in contexts of application and implication. The sustained interest from stakeholders throughout our process goes some way towards documenting the validity of our approach.

Specifically, address the selection criteria for participants, # of participants, representativeness of the sampling frame, data collection methods and the differences between each in terms of what the participant’s role was v. that of the DecarboN8 project leaders. You may be able to streamline this discussion with a table.

We have clarified the description of the DecarboN8 project and recruitment of participants. Most participants were invited to self-select, based on an open invitation to the DecarboN8 network, and we have clarified this. We have added a description of selection criteria for the Stakeholder Reference Group and detailed the number and types of participants in Appendix 1 and Figure 2.  

12. Then, describe the analysis process in order to understand the rigor which led to the results being reported.

We have explained our approach to analysis in Section 3.

13. Line 332 separate this out, it seems more like results of the data collection process than research design/methodology.
    
    

We have moved this into the outputs section.

And, this will need to be expanding to systematically present the findings from the data you collected before moving on the Results and demonstrating the connection between the findings and the results.

This will also form the basis for the reader to know what and how the data contributed to the development of the figure at line 353.

Rather than change the character of the paper, we have re-labeled the contribution ‘Communication’ / ‘Concept paper’.

It can also demonstrate the gap(s) that exist for the tools you are promoting from 365-387. Were these used in the interactions reported in 314-323? If they were, think about how you can use the data to justify the need for use.

We have detailed 17 challenges that contribute to the gap between climate commitments and actions in Section 2 and described how SoRA addresses these challenges in Section 4 and 5. This is quite broad, but a more detailed mapping would go beyond the conceptual focus of the paper.

14. The data will also be useful to demonstrate the prevalence and incidence of dissent for the reader to understand why it is being presented at 454 without any prior literature or research data - especially since it is a keyword for the article, but not mentioned until the last page of the manuscript.

We now introduce dissent in the abstract and the introduction, and have significantly developed the discussion of it throughout the paper, including some examples.

15. The discussion is thought-provoking. It is surprising that there is no conclusion to the paper.

We have added a conclusion!

Thank you very much again for your inspiring comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I’ve read your manuscript with big interest. It is internationally important and appealing, and it offers new perspectives for the understanding of the really important sustainability-related problem. I like its strong conceptual frame and certain simplicity. However, if you wish to see this published as a full-scale research paper, it should be strengthened and designed more analytically. Alternatively, you can choose the other label for this contribution (see my comment 5).

1)      Response-ability or responsibility? If you would prefer an unusual combination of the words, I agree, but you have to explain it very clearly in the beginning of Introduction, as well as in the abstract.

2)      Section 2 to be called “Research Background”.

3)      I have strong impression that Section 4 looks more as Methodology than Results. If these are results, these resemble outcomes from the project, but not from research. A solution of this issue would be linked to clear definition of some criteria (even simple) for the analysis of your project and its outcomes in the methodological part of your work, whereas Results can report your findings by these criteria, i.e., systematically.

4)      Section 4: I strongly recommend adding a conclusive paragraph summarizing your findings and offering perspectives for further research.

5)      To me, the type of this contribution seems to be Communication, not Article – so, please, consider the opportunity to change the label indicated on the title page.

Author Response

We would like to thank our reviewers for their insightful comments. 

We have chosen to combine our responses to all three reviewers in one document, because suggestions by Reviewer 3 (specifically suggestion 1, highlighted in red) have shaped our response to comments by Reviewer 1 and 2.

Reviewer 3

1. I’ve read your manuscript with big interest. It is internationally important and appealing, and it offers new perspectives for the understanding of the really important sustainability-related problem. I like its strong conceptual frame and certain simplicity. However, if you wish to see this published as a full- scale research paper, it should be strengthened and designed more analytically. Alternatively, you can choose the other label for this contribution (see my comment 5).

We have done a mixture of both, strengthened the presentation of our conceptual analysis, our methodology and analysis and changed the label for this contribution. Rather than ‘Communication’, we think a label of ‘Concept paper’ seems more appropriate, but we would appreciate the editors’ advice on this.

2. Response-ability or responsibility? If you would prefer an unusual combination of the words, I agree, but you have to explain it very clearly in the beginning of Introduction, as well as in the abstract.

We have added definitions in the abstract and elaborated the motivation for using this concept further in the introduction, as well as Section 2.6.

3. Section 2 to be called “Research Background”

Done.

4. I have strong impression that Section 4 looks more as Methodology than Results. If these are results, these resemble outcomes from the project, but not from research. A solution of this issue would be linked to clear definition of some criteria (even simple) for the analysis of your project and its outcomes in the methodological part of your work, whereas Results can report your findings by these criteria, i.e., systematically.

We have relabelled Section 4 ‘Outcomes’ and described the process of our analysis in Section 3.

5. Section 4: I strongly recommend adding a conclusive paragraph summarizing your findings and offering perspectives for further research.

We have added a separate conclusion in Section 5.

6. To me, the type of this contribution seems to be Communication, not Article – so, please, consider the opportunity to change the label indicated on the title page.

We have changed the label to Communication, but wonder whether ‘concept paper’ would be more appropriate. We’ll ask the editors for advice.

Reviewer 1

7. I suggest that the key research questions be defined in the introduction and that they be successfully implemented in the content.
   
   

We have listed the three research questions that drive the research in the introduction and signposted more clearly how the sections of the paper address these questions, as well as summarising this in the conclusion.

8. If possible, I suggest providing a more quantitative description of the stakeholders involved in the study. Pay more attention to their characteristics.
   
   

We have provided a more detailed overview of activities in an Appendix and an indicative quantitative breakdown of participant by types in Section 3.

9. I also suggest emphasizing the challenges facing the improvement of the prepared tool and its critical analysis in terms of possible weaknesses and application possibilities in other environments, e.g. in other European countries or at the level of the entire European Union. This could be an interesting thread.
   
   

We have added a little more detail in Section 3 and a brief discussion of challenges and opportunities to the conclusion. Deeper exploration of these would indeed be interesting, but beyond the remit of this paper. Monika Büscher is writing a book to develop a more comprehensive discussion.

Reviewer 2

10. Line 310 - provide a reference to wicked problem literature and expand on the meaning of “super- wicked” especially as it applies to this policy context.
    
    

We have undertaken a very comprehensive revision, so line numbers no longer match. We have added a more detailed discussion of wicked and super-wicked problems. We explain how they manifest in the challenges of governing net-zero mobility transformation in Section 2.3.

11. Line 314: If these data collection activities are the source of data use in this analysis, more data and a more systematic presentation of the research design is necessary.

We have expanded and clarified the presentation of the research in Section 3. However, adding a full account of the research and analysis process would change the nature of the paper and its argument and make it even longer than it now is, so we have taken on board Reviewer 3’s suggestion to relabel the paper. ‘Communication’ (or ‘Concept paper’) would more accurately reflect more clearly that the focus is on conceptual analysis and outcomes, not empirical research results per se.


This will establish the level of threat for the multiple types of internal validity and will set the stage for your claims related to external validity (for example, Cook & Campbell, and Rossi & Freeman, among others).

Having changed the label of the contribution and chosen not to detail the empirical analysis in favour of strengthening the conceptual argument and documentation of research outcomes, we have only minimally addressed this comment. The discussion of internal and external validity refers to conventional experimental research and is grounded in critical realism. Our work is aligned with science and technology studies and an epistemology of agential realism, which requires attention to the mutually shaping character of investigative methodology and findings, and the need to contextualise validity in contexts of application and implication. The sustained interest from stakeholders throughout our process goes some way towards documenting the validity of our approach.

Specifically, address the selection criteria for participants, # of participants, representativeness of the sampling frame, data collection methods and the differences between each in terms of what the participant’s role was v. that of the DecarboN8 project leaders. You may be able to streamline this discussion with a table.

We have clarified the description of the DecarboN8 project and recruitment of participants. Most participants were invited to self-select, based on an open invitation to the DecarboN8 network, and we have clarified this. We have added a description of selection criteria for the Stakeholder Reference Group and detailed the number and types of participants in Appendix 1 and Figure 2.  

12. Then, describe the analysis process in order to understand the rigor which led to the results being reported.

We have explained our approach to analysis in Section 3.

13. Line 332 separate this out, it seems more like results of the data collection process than research design/methodology.
    
    

We have moved this into the outputs section.

And, this will need to be expanding to systematically present the findings from the data you collected before moving on the Results and demonstrating the connection between the findings and the results.

This will also form the basis for the reader to know what and how the data contributed to the development of the figure at line 353.

Rather than change the character of the paper, we have re-labeled the contribution ‘Communication’ / ‘Concept paper’.

It can also demonstrate the gap(s) that exist for the tools you are promoting from 365-387. Were these used in the interactions reported in 314-323? If they were, think about how you can use the data to justify the need for use.

We have detailed 17 challenges that contribute to the gap between climate commitments and actions in Section 2 and described how SoRA addresses these challenges in Section 4 and 5. This is quite broad, but a more detailed mapping would go beyond the conceptual focus of the paper.

14. The data will also be useful to demonstrate the prevalence and incidence of dissent for the reader to understand why it is being presented at 454 without any prior literature or research data - especially since it is a keyword for the article, but not mentioned until the last page of the manuscript.

We now introduce dissent in the abstract and the introduction, and have significantly developed the discussion of it throughout the paper, including some examples.

15. The discussion is thought-provoking. It is surprising that there is no conclusion to the paper.

We have added a conclusion!

Thank you very much again for your inspiring comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

accepted in present form

Reviewer 2 Report

  accept with minor english editing

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, I'm fully satisfied with your responses and revisions.