Climate Change Adaption between Governance and Government—Collaborative Arrangements in the City of Munich

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Cooperation in the spatial planning process is fundamental to achieving the goals of sustainability, including those related to adaptation to climate change, and perhaps especially those. For this reason, the evaluation and monitoring  of collaborative arrangements is very important  and should be improved.
In my opinion, the research procedure used is not sufficiently consistent and clear, the tools are described too generally. Conceptual frameworks' criteria (Table 1 and Table 2) do not have a clear application in the study. There are  few interviews. The respondents were selected arbitrarily. The semi-structured interview questionnaire was described too generally (What were the main questions?). How were documents analyzed in MAQODA - was the frequency of codes  examined? Were codes established  solely as a result of the documents review/interpretations? Is there a relationship between the results of the data analysis and the interviews? How were the results of the data analysis used?
The description of the Munich city administration structure belongs to the Materials.  The division of this structure into four categories is a research assumption - conceptual framework -  it cannot be considered as a result. The Conclusions part is missing. The article is too long, it contains elements that add nothing (e.g. Table 7).
The article helps to understand the  functioning problems and conflicts of the spatial planning administration in Munich. It may be interesting for other researchers, but cannot be the sole purpose of the research article. It is too little. The authors should improve the research procedure and the article structure.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you! 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the opportunity to read and review this paper, which is an interesting article on governance in the face of climate change in a significant case study such as the city of Munich. The paper may be published in Land journal.

Before that, I suggest that the authors take into account the following recommendations and, above all, that the authors make an effort to synthesize, since the article is too long (especially the Discussion section, which is very interesting but very long, much more than usual, and must be synthesized):

 

1. The title of the article does not correspond to the text and I suggest two changes. First of all, the article deals more with climate change adaptation than with urban greenery. Therefore, I suggest removing “with urban greenery”. Second, and more importantly, it should be added in the title that it is a case study from Munich. This German city has an interesting municipal organization that the authors explain well, but that is very particular and is not a form of governance that is generalized in all growing cities. Therefore, authors should add the case study in the title.

2. It is essential that all direct quotes from the interviews be assigned to the person who said them. Maintaining anonymity, some form of encryption must be used to know who is saying what.

In addition, textual citations with a length of one or two lines must be integrated into the text and not isolated as is done on page 21 and 22.

3. Regarding the use of acronyms, the following recommendations:

a. Eliminate the acronym UGI for “Urban green infrastructure” and use synonyms or pronouns so as not to repeat the term so much. The acronym is not used much in the article and can be ignored. Also, it is a common acronym that leads to confusion.

b. The acronym CCA is explained on line 39, so it is not necessary to explain it again on line 68.

c. Explain the meaning of the acronym CCS (or even remove it since it is used only once) (line 301).

d. Explain the acronyms AWM and MSE the first time they are cited (line 354).

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you! 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript offers insights into the impact of collaborative arrangements on Climate Change Adaptation in the City of Munich. It addresses an important issue on collaboration that is already critical in the era of climate change and other environmental changes. The main concern is that the paper is very descriptive and long, while I miss more concrete examples of collaborative arrangements for climate change adaptation with urban greenery, as promised in the title.

 There are several issues that need to be clarified before publication:

 

Major issues

- In Tables 8, 9, and 10, the authors have listed several barriers linked to collaborative arrangements. However, it would be very useful for readers to know how these obstacles are ranked or which obstacle has a stronger impact than others.

- Try to make the results less descriptive and shorten the text.

- The conclusion is missing.

Minor issues

- The authors have chosen to use abbreviations for Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA), but they are not used consistently - sometimes they are, sometimes they are not (e.g., lines 50, 68, 69,...).

- It is not clear what is meant by "governance cultures" (see line 115), this should be clearly explained

- It is also not clear what is meant by the statement "We coded individually and then coded each other's interviews" (see line 256). Does this mean that each of the authors coded each interview? It should be also explained how you reach an intercoding agreement in case of disagreement.

- Table 6 - column 2, row 2, there is something missing from the text.

- Figure 1 - there are different shades of the same color, but it is not explained what they mean

- What does CCS stand for? (see line 301)

Finally, I am not sure about word limits. The paper however seems very long. It would also benefit from English proofreading (e.g., line 725, silo- thinking, ...).

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you! 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The title does not precisely reflect the paper content; change it- “governance” can be added.

I see that you have a case study “Munich.” it needs to be presented in title, abstract, and introduction

The study includes description data and information than analysis, which is required for any scientific research “credibility”

I cannot see a relation between section 3 and previous sections (1,2)

The method is not clear

Tables 1,2,  not clear what is the objective of these tables

The title of section 4, “4 Strategies, solutions, and recommendations “Strategy of what ???, the title needs improvement.

 

 Is Section 5 required for your research?

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you! 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has not been improved enough. The structure of the study and its description are unclear and inconsistent, generally unconvincing. In my opinion, the methodology takes time to mature.

 

The methods were not presented in a synthetic and structured manner. The framework, methodology and results are not logically and precisely related. In effect the research cause many doubts. The fundamental changes introduced in new version prove that the uncertainty to the methodology is also shared by the authors.

 

There are many important issues to explain and improve. Here are some example:

  - Is the individual interview method well addressed to the research goal? Its results relate to level 1 rather than level 2 (lines 103-112 in new version) as authors declare. 

- Does coding of interviewees' answers make sense? The codes are obvious because the respondents'  statements depend on a question asked.

- How were documents used in the research? Were they coded?

- Why are the actors defined by two criteria ? Does not the actor's type define his role in planning arena?  Discourses and resources are nowhere defined (tab.1.).

- How were the attributes of collaborative arrangement established  (tab.2)? How were they used in the methodology?

- The new title is not related the content.

- The contents of Results and Method sections are mixed up.

Author Response

Please see the attachment, Thank you for you comments! 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The changes to the manuscript are adequate for acceptance. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your feedback and your first expert opinion! It was a great help to us.

We have revised the article once again. 

Kind regards

The authors

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic can be important for supporting climate change adaptation and it is worth publishing  but the paper still requires minor corrections.

I especially  recommend to shorten the article by for example: linking or simplifying  the management structure figures (fig.1, 2) , moving the departments  and interviewees (tab. 3,4,5,6) descriptions  and the interviewees’ quotations to an annex, removal redundant sections, etc.

Minor comments:

- the content  is repeated in lines171-172 and 193-193

- the content is repeated in line 148-149 and 190-191

 -"4.1. Planning Arenas in the City of Munich: Actors, Collaborative Arrangements, and Conditions" : the part is about planning arenas not about collaborative arrangement. The subtitle  should be improve.

- the part in lines 457-460 should be moved up. It is still about arena B not arena C

- on line 557 there should be "locus", not "loci".

Author Response

Thank you for the review! Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf