Uncovering Engagement Networks for Adaptation in Three Regional Communities: Empirical Examples from New South Wales, Australia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

 

I liked your paper. Nevertheless, I felt disappointed with the discussion: too many words explaining your approach/results, and only 10 words more or less related to climate adaption and 0 word explaining how your results could be applied. Besides, I would appreciate a final synthesis, concluding remark, focused on ADAPTATION. This is a Climate journal, indexed by SCOPUS Earth & Planetary Sciences: Atmospheric Sciences, with 3 sections, including adaptation and mitigation (Climate Managment). This pitentuually very good paper is too much an application of intersting methods and approaches to 3 intersting case studies with strong climate-resource dependecne, but is is a very poor adaptation paper....You can (and need) to improve it....to become a climate management paper

 

Besides, you must check and correct the cites (there are several classical citations without numbers)----and teherefore the whole numbers and the references. Yu have to write all the coauthors in the references (check the guidelines,....6 or 7 minimum...before et al.)  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

Thank you for your thoughtful comments on this paper.

Please see the attached rejoinder document that brings together all reviewers comments, and co-authors response and changes.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study aims to compare and contrast adaptation knowledge networks in three NSW communities to understand how knowledge is dispersed through communities. It is an interesting research topic. But it needs to be further improved for publication

1. Lines 10-22: there are too much information of background and introduction in abstract section. Abstract should summarize the purpose of study, methods used, main results and implication of this study. So abstract need to revise and improve
2. Line 54: To be specific, what do adaptation networks include?
3. Line 63-64: please explain what formal and informal adaptation knowledge networks are
4. Lines 138-140: This is not a method, and it should move to introduction section
5. Lines 146: what kinds of climate adaptation information do different stakeholders need?
6. Line 157: Did authors consider about age and education of participants? This information can affect how participants access and share climate adaptation information since young and old people use different way to obtain information that they need.
7. Lines 419-420: authors may consider other way to collect information, such as well-designed questionnaires online.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

Thank you for your thoughtful comments on this paper.

Please see the attached rejoinder document that brings together all reviewers comments, and co-authors response and changes.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear, author(s)

thank you for writing this interesting article and allowing me to read it.

I hope the following comments and suggestions can help in improving the paper.

(a) Selection Bias

It is not clear to me, how individuals have been selected for this study. It appears that selection has not been random, which could lead to an important selection bias. In the worst case, since selection was not random (from my understanding; please correct me if I'm wrong) it could affect the results, e.g. by interviewing people from an industry (by city) and then finding that this industry matters most in the identified network.

(b) Network Graphs

While I like the graphical representation, the graphs (Figure 2) are very hard to understand. Partially, because legends are not properly introduced, colours can not be distinguished (e.g. for community based org., mass media, mass communication channels, and research centres), and the quality of the figures is not good enough.

(c) Demography

I would expect a paragraph that would highlight any differences in sociodemographic characteristics. Do these cities vary by age distribution, migrant share, gender composition,...? How many schools do these cities have? If people go to school together, it would automatically create a network.

(d) Climate Change

Similarly, it is essential to discuss how climate change impacts vary (if at all) across these three cities. These differences could directly impact network formation.

(e) Number of Sources

I find it hard to believe that people use climate change information from almost 200 different sources. I'm doing research on climate change impacts and I am not using 200 different sources. This needs to be qualified and explained much more detailed. What was the precise question asked?

(f) External Validity

What do we learn from this study that can be applied to other cities (in Australia), the Pacific region, or even other countries/regions? Is there any reason to believe that the findings from these (relatively) small towns hold in large population centers?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

Thank you for your thoughtful comments on this paper.

Please see the attached rejoinder document that brings together all reviewers comments, and co-authors response and changes.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This study is well written and provides an interesting insight into how networks share information on climate change.

There are some minor revisions required which are, however, integral to a better understanding of the scientific approach.

In the following I will address all issues chronologically, line by line or aspect by aspect (if several sections are affected).

1. Please specify if it is Bega Valley (Abstract) or just Bega (line 84) or Bega costal (line 111). It is quite confusing for the reader, particularly if he or she is not from the region.
2. Figure 1: improve quality
3. Line 163-169: explain in detail the nature of a “node” as this is your key variable you use throughout the manuscript to explain your findings and it does not become clear from the very beginning what a node in this context means.
4. Line 177: did you get written consent from the participants? If not, explain how you obtained their consent for recording the interviews!
5. Line 264: within the text you suddenly jump to Table 5 without ever mentioning Table 4. Although Table 4 can be found in the manuscript, it is not referenced in the text. This leads to the question what relevance Table 4 has for the manuscript. Please provide revisions.
6. Table 5: my interpretation is that “Access” needs to be moved one row below, as compared to where it stands right now. Why is SHARE written in capital letters?
7. Table 6: please make sure that in the final version of the manuscript the colors of the nodes will stay in place when transforming the word file into a pdf.
8. Line 290: what is a degree of closure?
9. Line 329: sentence does not make any sense
10. Line 337: -> figure 2b -> Figure
11. Line 368: sentence is unclear
12. Line 375: sentence is unclear
13. Line 372-379: please revise paragraph and provide more clarity, also check for redudancy because of repetition.
14. Line 402-414: strange formatting
15. Line 429: explain NSW OEH

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4

Thank you for your thoughtful comments on this paper.

Please see the attached rejoinder document that brings together all reviewers comments, and co-authors response and changes.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

You have improved the paper. Nevertheless, you have not made all the needed corrections in cites and references, as indicated in my previous review

There are cites without numbers, cites with several authors, references with the first author and et al.

Despite the improvements and the two sentneces added (regrading my commenrs), I still think the paper - discussion and conclusions - needs some more work about adaptation and applicability. 

Author Response

Thank you to the Reviewer for their comments. Please find the response to all reviewers comments in the attached. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have responded all the questions and manuscript was improved for publication. 

Author Response

Thank you to the Reviewer for their comments.

Please find the response to all reviewers in the attached.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please refer to the Editor's letter.

Author Response

Thank you to the Reviewer for their comments.

Please find the response to all reviewers in the attached.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf