Reconciling the Mismatch: Creating a Regenerative Framework for Regional Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides an integrated regional regenerative framework using a top-down and bottom-up analysis. I think the study has potential, but as it stands, it needs to be revised and rewritten extensively to be published and make a contribution. While there is merit in the integration of the selected frameworks (although the concluded framework looks complex and not user friendly as it is), how the regions’ mapping exercise was translated into the final framework is unclear and almost disconnected from the results. This contradicts the authors claim of taking a ‘coherent’ and ‘systemic way’ in the analysis (line 575).

It seems that the mapping exercise of 9 regions happened as an add-on to the research design, without methodological coherence and integration. Particularly the link between section 4.2.2 (identifying key qualities linked to SDGs) and the rest of the study remains superficial. It feels like the results could be concluded without the regions analysis. This can be linked to the lack of sufficient details in the method section related to the analytical approach taken for the workshops. The methods section needs to outline a step by step explanation of the analysis (e.g. how the workshop questions/activities were designed, how coding of the content was undertaken and how key themes were extracted and grouped and linked to the integrated framework).

The 13 aspects identified in Figure 10, are these all qualities? How is ‘violence’ a quality? These are not from the same nature, some are positive and others negative, or neutral, and it’s not clear how they were identified. Perhaps 'qualities' is not the appropirate framing here. 

The integrated framework proposed and depicted in Fig 8 is very messy and complex. The aim of an integrated framework should be to reduce complexity while keeping a holistic framing, and I am not sure if this one does this. With the river added on top, if one follows the river (literally) as it is suggested, they will miss out on many aspects that do not overlap with the river line, making the visual less effective than claimed. There are too many concepts in the visual, making it hard to undertsand the logic and relationships between themes. 

Again, some results are not connected to the analysis, for example how did the categories of social regeneration appear in lines 513 to 518?

Interconnected findings (4.2.1 line 384): shouldn’t this be invisible ‘power’ systesm…? Although half of this paragraph is about power, and the other half about invisible ecological systems (water ecologies), and it is not clear what the key message is here.

Section 5.2.2. Analysis of the regions: this reads more like the description of the cases rather than their analysis. It is very descriptive, and could almost be left out in an appendix with the maps in figure 9, as they are not informing the discussion, unless it is rewritten to really discuss the regenerative practices taking place in each regions and detailing the interventions across time and scales (maybe in the form of a table), this information is currently missing from the regions’ analysis, thus making it hard to make the connection to the results.

 

Some minor edits:

Introduction: Line 45 to 46 - the link between these two paragraphs should be improved, before discussing the limitations of existing frameworks for regenerative development, the audience should know (briefly) what RD is and why it is important. A short linking paragraph is sufficient here.

Conclusions: The three themes of time, scale and socio-ecological themes don’t come out strongly in the analysis and method section as underpinning factors for the analysis. In other words, it is unclear if these were concluded from the results, or used as the basis of the analysis?

Figure 11: the river metaphor isn’t working in this figure, as it is unclear why the meanders expand as one moves from the past to present? Why the river thickens? And overall what’s the added value of having the river on top on this visual? It’s just making reading the text more difficult! Additionally, I would question the linearity of the river path in moving along the different dimensions, vase adaptation and regeneration are iterative processes and don’t follow a linear path (lines 614-618).

 Figures:

Generally the text used in figures are not legible and the visuals should be improved (using two font colours – black and white is not working – some texts are too close and confusing where they belong)

 Figure 12: Where does the idea of the transect emerge from? There is no discussion of this in the text, and I don't see the added value of this visual as it remains abstract. Perhaps showing how it can be operationalised in an case study region would be more useful. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive proof reading is required, as there are many typos, including grammatical errors. Some examples are:

Line 132: It unfolds the potential... 

Line 243:...of value is denying the....

Line 244: ...entanglement in the ....

Line 342: ...understanding ....

Line 346: Psychological 

Line 421, 422, 428, 437, 494, 588....

 

Author Response

please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am pleased to have reviewed the thought-provoking article, entitled ‘Developing a Regional Regenerative Framework connecting theory and practice’. The text is engaging and aligns well with the themes and interests of the journal. However, for publication, I believe significant revisions are necessary.

-        Importance and necessity. Please clearly explain the importance and necessity of the research in the paper in Introduction Section.

-        Scientific originality/novelty: The novelty/originality should be clearly justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective. What new things (new theories, new methods, or new policies) can the paper contribute to the existing international literature? This point must be more reasonably justified by a Literature Review, clearly introduced in Introduction Section, and completely discussed in Discussion Section.

-        Theoretical contribution: This paper is much descriptive. The theoretical thinking in the paper should be strengthened. Which theoretical or academic arguments are the authors aiming to examine or discus? What new theories or theoretical knowledge this paper can add in the existing international literature by looking the realities you examined? All these questions must be clearly responded in Introduction, Analysis and Discussion Section.

-        The Figures are difficult to read (and sometime to understand). Please, check all the figures again.

-        Global knowledge contribution: This paper fails to engage with the wider readership of the journal. What new global knowledge can this paper contribute to the existing international literature? How to link the findings and conclusions in this paper with the previous findings and conclusions from other countries?

-        A thorough and criticism-featured Literature Review section is needed. The existing literature review is insufficient.

-        The research methods used in the paper should be clearly described, including research design, representative of the different realities you examined, data sources and collection, analysis process and results presentation. In particular, the methods should provide convincible and reliable evidence for your debates.

-        Takeaway for Practice is also encouraged to be included in this paper. It should be clear enough to present your recommendations for public (and private?) organization, for both local and international practices.

Author Response

please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It was a pleasure reading this paper. It is well-structured, well-written, and insightful. Moreover, it makes a novel contribution to the literature, which one hopes will help to guide current policy and practice. 

 

Author Response

please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am quite impressed with your comprehensive 'framework of frameworks'. All elements of this framework and how they are connected and/or complement each other make sense, and I can't really think of anything important missing in it. It is also good to see that you have tried to combine 'top-down' designing of your framework based on existing frameworks, with 'bottom-up' discussing regional regenerative development in 9 regions.

Still, it is not entirely clear to me yet how the pieces of your manuscript, and of your analysis, come together. Did you try to 'test' the framework in the 9 regions? (to the extent possible with a complex and comprehensive framework like this?) Or was the 'bottom-up' analysis in fact an entirely new analysis, which then afterwards contributed to further improvements of your framework?

The 'framework of frameworks' is on the one hand very impressive, but on the other hand/ at the same time overwhelming. There are so many perspectives, processes, transformations, principles, criteria etc. coming together in it, that it is hard to see the forest through the trees. Also literally, in the figures, I find it hard to get a clear overview of how the pieces fit together, and/or if there is any hierarchy in what is most important (or is at all equally important?). 

The way you start building up the framework, step by step, helps to understand. In the first four steps, you add one framework per step; but then in the fifth step you add five frameworks simultaneously? Isn't that a bit (too) much in one step? Why do you add these five simultaneously?

The complexity of your framework also makes me wonder how this could actually be applied in regional development strategies somehow? Is this really possible? Are people capable of making such comprehensive strategies and make them work in practice? And even if they are, how to make it politically acceptable for those that decide about regional development (and preferably also for the majority of those affected by the strategy)? Or will it rather remain a theoretical 'ideal world' of which most people would agree it is desirable and maybe also necessary, but also a 'mission impossible'?

Next to these larger questions, a few more detailed questions about choices you have made in your methodology and analysis:

- Why and how did you choose 80 x 80 km as the standard size of the regions you wanted to look at? It makes sense of course to have the same area size for all regions, but why 80 x 80 km?

- If I understand correctly, your sample of 9 regions is mostly based on personal networks of people you have collaborated with in earlier projects and/or regions you have studied before in other projects? While it is of course great that these regions are spread across the globe, can you reflect on the potentials and limitations and possible biases of your sample? At first sight it looks quite unbalanced, with regions ranging from metropolitan and densely urbanised to smaller cities surrounded by nature or countryside. Also, out of the 9 regions, 3 are located in the same country, Mexico?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Your manuscript is generally speaking written in clear and proper academic English. But there are still quite some typos, and a few incomplete sentences and/or some other grammar mistakes that need to be corrected. I guess you have finished your manuscript too much in a hurry, so take some time for final editing in the revised version.

Author Response

please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for addressing the comments and suggestions. The methods are much clearer and the added Figure (12) strengthens the contribution. I only have a minor edit suggestion. The introduction is now very long, and it can be reduced to be concise and more upfront with the gaps and aim of the study. Also I suggest removing figure 3 (very small images that are not legible) and instead provide it in appendix or supplementary materials).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor grammatical mistakes. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to express my gratitude to the authors for their efforts in revising the text. It is evident that the text is both interesting and relevant to the aims of the journal. However, I believe that the text would benefit from further revisions before it is published.

1. The images, while intriguing, are complex and difficult to read. In particular, it is challenging to read Figures 6 to 12, with the exception of Figure 10. Furthermore, it is not possible to understand the legends in Figure 11. It is recommended that the individual maps be included as attachments. In general, it is suggested that the pictures be made less information dense, easier to read, and that the use of colours be adjusted to fit a possible greyscale print. Any information removed from the image can be included as text in the manuscript.

2. Review the tables and colours used in Table 1 (e.g. check ‘WHO’ in ‘Shift in relationships’). It is recommended that the text be reviewed for typographical errors, which are present throughout. For example, lines 598-600 should be checked.

4. The bibliography should be checked.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for taking my comments on the previous manuscript version into consideration and for your willingness to substantially revise some parts of your manuscript. You have managed to answer most of my questions well, and the revised version has become clearer and more coherent. The figures and the accompanying text to explain the steps in building up your framework are clearer now, too. Applying your regenerative planning framework in regional planning practice, though already partly based on insights from people representing and knowing that practice, will remain a big challenge. But your framework makes much sense and hopefully there will soon be many regions willing and able to take up that challenge.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language quality is better now; still a final language check would be recommended to take out some new and/or remaining minor language issues (like frequent mismatches between single and plural, and occasionally one or more words missing to make sentences complete). 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx