Frontiers in Social–Ecological Urbanism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for addressing very important topic. I appreciate your work, however, I believe that this paper needs improvement. Here are my comments:

Aim of the paper that is described in the introduction is promising. However the contributions of the paper are presented in a very weak way. The motivation for the paper is clear, but the aim “to communicate the approach to the wider audience” lacks a tool that would do that. From the promising introduction it would have been expected that the paper developed a framework or a method that would relate characteristics with directions of research. 

Also it is not clear if figures 3, 4 and 5 present the contribution of the study, and if there is an analysis behind them. If so, the analysis behind them should be clearly explained. Also, figures have very long captions. 

Suggestions:

1. Consider a different structure of the paper where background, methods and contributions are clear. The Method section is especially important to understand the scientific method behind this study. It helps to have a clear discussion before conclusion.
2. Outline the structure of the paper in the final paragraph of the Introduction
3. Be clear with you method applied and what are the contributions of the method
4. Scientific method and rigor should be applied to the study, be clear to use it and clearly state it in the text
5. Consider defining a framework that would outline the methodology of structured implementation of future directions

Author Response

Thanks a lot for really useful and constructive comments on our manuscript! The 5 points addressed by Your thoughtful suggestions have certainly improved the paper.

We have now rearranged the manuscript quite a bit and made a better structure of the content. Accordingly, we now think that the article has become much clearer.

Above all, we have changed the introduction and also created new headings. Unfortunately, our track change file hanged up several times when we used track changes, so it can now be difficult for You to exactly follow and track each change made to restructure the new manuscript version. However, most changes are traceable in the new version, and we have also marked most new text bits in green to help all reviewers see the changes made as well provided line information to each reviewer about texts we have added to meet recommendations and suggestions.

We have also removed chunks of the text to reduce total length of the article, which has increased in order to satisfy reviewers comments. For example, we have entirely dropped much of the content dealing with cities as socio-spatial systems, and entirely removed the former sub-heading, reading “3.1. Cities as socio-spatial systems generating social and ecological services”.  Also, we have entirely removed Section 2.1, dealing with the notion of modernist urban planning to win space and also because Reviewer 2 found some of the arguments made here a bit confusing – in retrospect we agree, so we removed it.

We have also added a new figure (i.e., Figure 1) in the introduction to make our case clearer as well as having improved the figure legends throughout the manuscript.

Below we have, to the best of our ability, answered the comments received from You. We have especially considered the following points:

1. Consider a different structure of the paper where background, methods and contributions are clear. The Method section is especially important to understand the scientific method behind this study. It helps to have a clear discussion before conclusion.
2. Outline the structure of the paper in the final paragraph of the Introduction
3. Be clear with you method applied and what are the contributions of the method
4. Scientific method and rigor should be applied to the study, be clear to use it and clearly state it in the text
5. Consider defining a framework that would outline the methodology of structured implementation of future directions.

ANSWERS TO THE REVIEWER

We have now restructured the whole first part of the paper. Hence, in the introduction we have addressed points 1, 2, 3 and 4 brought forward and having added an entirely new section on methodology and article outline (see lines 71-90). Yet, at the same time and as recognized by Reviewer 3, a rigorous scientific method approach matched by a subsequent result part, is not applicable for the type of perspective paper we have written here. Rather, the paper is a presentation of a new approach used in urban ecological design.

We have also more carefully addressed point 5 above, by more clearly outlining the SEU framework. In fact, we have added a new heading (line 91) and added new informative content regarding the SEU framework in the hope that this substantially will help the reader to more fully understand the basic premises behind the approach. For example, in lines 119-153 we have made it more explicit that the SEU framework draws on both resilience science and space syntax theory. We have also moved text parts in other places to Section 2 and added a new figure here (i.e, FIGURE 1) (see line 189). Hence, by also adding the theoretical departure (see lines 131-146) concerning the development of knowledge that can inform intervention in social-ecological systems (i.e., urban form, institutions and discourse) to part 2, we think that the logic of explaining the SEU framework now has become much clearer. We have also put more effort into referring back to the framework throughout the article and explaining why we have chosen to focus on just a few analytical variables (see argument made in lines 182-188.

We have also clarified how space syntax research has generated new knowledge on urban form (see lines 251-262; 291-297) and to resilience work (see lines 3033-308; 314-318).

Once again: Many thanks for taking Your time and provided us with valuable advise on how to improve the manuscript!!!

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present four research areas that they find critical for achieving social-ecological urbanism, which includes: 1) Urban density and critical biodiversity thresholds; 2) Human and non-human movement; 3) Retrofitting the built environment; and 4) Human-nature connection in cities. This four areas are presented within the context of the proposed SEU framework that highlights the importance of urban discourse, institutions, urban form and eye-level benefits.

The introduced topic of social-ecological urbanism is highly important from the perspective of the environmental and societal challenges of our time. The authors, with their background and experience in this field put forward a compelling argument for why we need it. The paper carries the characteristics of a perspective or opinion article, with the main intention to lay down the foundations and outline for future areas of research that needs to take place. While a consistent and well crafted argument is carried out throughout the article, the manuscript could benefit from improvement in a number of areas:

1. Introduction should provide a more sufficient coverage to better contextualize the work of the authors. Therefore, extending the spectrum of references can be beneficial to highlight the similarities and differences in the approaches (e.g., green city concepts, cities as coupled social-ecological systems as put forward by Heinz Schandl and Anthony Capon etc.) and also provide a better mapping of existing research and results that are related to the topics (i.e., urban density, landscape connectivity) discussed. This can also help clarify issues of urban biodiversity, the assessment of which is not a trivial task.

2. In line 92, the authors identify a knowledge gap, relating urban form to individual perception. Giving some examples could help the readers who are not familiar with the concepts of the eye-level and topodiversity. The topodiversity reference refers to 'nature' only 3 times and the focus there seems to be socio-spatial. Perhaps it is possible to support the argument through additional references that have a strong ecological and human-nature interaction component.

3. In Section 2.1, the modernist urban planning is critiqued but there are various efforts that were/are trying to overcome some of the limitations (such as Howard's green city, agricultural city propositions, multi-species design as in designing for biodiversity RIBA and animal aided design, climate adaptation-mitigation approaches for example), which may be cited. 

4. In line 127, 'general solutions can be used for many things' Can this sentence be rephrased or can the authors be more specific and provide an example?

5. Perhaps figure 3 might be changed to instead include a table of critical parameters and correlations that are being discussed and considered. A lot of work on green facades, green roofs, green cities exist. Can what is discussed in the text not be turned into a table that structures the review of ecosystem service target studies that are being highlighted? Perhaps Figure 5 can be improved by illustrating selected strategies (i.e., common/potentially interesting etc.) from the perspectives of retrofitting design interventions at the road, facade, roof levels.  

Author Response

Thanks a lot for really useful and constructive comments on our manuscript that certainly have improved the paper. We have considered the following answers to the points raised by You below:

1. Introduction should provide a more sufficient coverage to better contextualize the work of the authors. Therefore, extending the spectrum of references can be beneficial to highlight the similarities and differences in the approaches (e.g., green city concepts, cities as coupled social- ecological systems as put forward by Heinz Schandl and Anthony Capon etc.) and also provide a better mapping of existing research and results that are related to the topics (i.e., urban density, landscape connectivity) discussed. This can also help clarify issues of urban biodiversity, the assessment of which is not a trivial task.

Answer to point 1:

We have now restructured the whole introduction. To better contextualize the work of the authors and extending the spectrum of references that deal with space syntax research, resilience science and social-ecological systems (see lines 119-130; 147-153; 303-309; 314-318). We have also added the following references: Barthel et al. 2022 (reference #5 ), Pickett et al. 2004 (#21) and Alberti 2009 (#22); Hillier 2007 (#26), Hillier and Hanson 1984 (#25); Gunder 2011 (#29); Foucault, 1984 (#30); Rockström et al., 2009 (#31);  Colding, Barthel and Samuelsson, 2020 (#33) and made reference to Schandl’s work e.g. #20, and integrated analysis and assessment of cities linked to human health (#67).

2. In line 92, the authors identify a knowledge gap, relating urban form to individual perception. Giving some examples could help the readers who are not familiar with the concepts of the eye-level and topodiversity. The topodiversity reference refers to 'nature' only 3 times and the focus there seems to be socio-spatial. Perhaps it is possible to support the argument through additional references that have a strong ecological and human-nature interaction component.

Answer to point 2: We have now clarified the relationships between eye-level resilience, topodiversity and the knowledge gap, both from the social and the ecological perspective. In the ‘social services’ section, topodiversity is described in more detail and exemplified (lines 322-332). in the ‘ecological services’ section, we have clarified that two already included references relate to eye-level resilience and topodiversity and thus constitute the support that the reviewer is asking for (lines 469-470).

3. In Section 2.1, the modernist urban planning is critiqued but there are various efforts that were/are trying to overcome some of the limitations (such as Howard's green city, agricultural city propositions, multi-species design as in designing for biodiversity RIBA and animal aided design, climate adaptation-mitigation approaches for example), which may be cited.

Answer to point 3: To limit lenght of the paper we have entirely removed Section 2.1 and the parts dealing with the notion of modernist urban planning. In retrospect we also agree with Reviewer 2’s point that the argument made on ‘general solutions’ is a bit confusing.  We think that the removal of these text parts have made the text more focused and improved the overall readability of the paper.

4. In line 127, 'general solutions can be used for many things' Can this sentence be rephrased or can the authors be more specific and provide an example?

Answer to point 4: Se above answer to point 3.  

5. Perhaps figure 3 might be changed to instead include a table of critical parameters and correlations that are being discussed and considered. A lot of work on green facades, green roofs, green cities exist. Can what is discussed in the text not be turned into a table that structures the review of ecosystem service target studies that are being highlighted?

Perhaps Figure 5 can be improved by illustrating selected strategies (i.e., common/potentially interesting etc.) from the perspectives of retrofitting design interventions at the road, facade, roof levels.

Answer to the first point under 5: We believe that the figure that the reviewer is referring to actually is Figure 2. We have not followed the suggestion to make a table. Instead we have now revised the figure legends (see Figure 3 in the new ms) and made it more understandable and so that it better matches the running text in the manuscript.

Answer to the second point under 5: The text in the figure legend to former Figure 5 (now Figure 6) has been improved thanks to the good review suggestion and now reads: “There are a number of retrofitting approaches that can be used in design interventions that can serve both social and ecological ends. Much of the urban infrastructure is aging or designed based on outmoded infrastructure principles. New climate and weather-related disturbance regimes are putting new demands on urban infrastructures to be resilient against extreme weather events and to promote biodiversity. Bioswales, as pictured above, are landscape elements designed to take care of flooding and remove silt and pollution from surface runoff water before releasing it to a watershed or storm sewer.”

Once again: Many thanks for taking Your time and provided us with valuable advice on how to improve the manuscript!!!

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations – the article is well-written and presents a good description of frontiers in social-ecological urbanism, a topic of importance in urbanism that unfortunately has not been sufficiently researched yet. The article in its current form is of quality, the topic is interesting and within the scale of this journal, and I believe it will attract the interest of the scientific community., as it does mine. The references are also very significant, which is appropriate in a manuscript of this kind. I would just like to suggest if you could please add a brief section including your proposed further search. Thanks in advance.

Author Response

Many thanks for taking Your time in reviewing our paper. We are also glad to You found it interesting and a valuable contribution to special issue.  

Thanks to Your advice, we have now tried to make the future research aspirations of the authors clearer in relation to highlighting the four research areas that we regard as being important for advancing the SEU-approach (see e.g., lines 548-550).

All the very best to You!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Figure captions have not been changed. The text below figure shouldn't be the whole paragraph. The figure caption should be short and all relevant information should be in the text of the article referring to the figure.

Author Response

Reviewer’s comments:

I wasn't able to find the file that clearly shows the differences between previous and new versions of the manuscript. Therefore, it was difficult to clearly track the changes.   A Prospective paper should have a new and unique viewpoint on existing problems, fundamental concepts, or prevalent notions on a specific topic. It should propose and support a new hypothesis, or discuss the implications of a newly implemented innovation. In your case this is presented through four frontiers. Therefore, the sections before frontiers should be more clear in stating what is current and what is your perspective on the current. Meaning, what is missing, or what is a problem that would benefit from four frontiers.      A Prospective paper should contain the following: the problem; the standard approach; the new perspective; the key evidence, and the main conclusion. The clear cut between existing and new perspectives are missing.    On page 3, the last three paragraphs start in the same way. The writing should be revised here.   Chapter 3 would benefit from one paragraph before jumping to section 3.1, explaining what is the chapter about and what are sections referred to. In the previous version of the manuscript this was explained in a nice way.  

Figure captions have not been changed. The text below figure shouldn't be the whole paragraph. The figure caption should be short and all relevant information should be in the text of the article referring to the figure. I suggest removing figure 6 as it is only one example of interventions and it is also not clear whether this is the proposal of innovation or the overview of existing.    I suggest revising the second half of the paper according to the suggested aspects of the prospective paper.

ANSWERS TO REVIEWER’S COMMENTS:

• I wasn't able to find the file that clearly shows the differences between previous and new versions of the manuscript. Therefore, it was difficult to clearly track the changes.  

Answer: We are sorry to hear that you could not found the file that clearly showed the difference between the original version of the ms and the restructured and modified version. As pointed out in our previous review response we had problems with the track changes function. We had, however, restructured the ms quite extensively.

• A Prospective paper should have a new and unique viewpoint on existing problems, fundamental concepts, or prevalent notions on a specific topic. It should propose and support a new hypothesis, or discuss the implications of a newly implemented innovation. In your case this is presented through four frontiers. Therefore, the sections before frontiers should be more clear in stating what is current and what is your perspective on the current. Meaning, what is missing, or what is a problem that would benefit from four frontiers.  A Prospective paper should contain the following: the problem; the standard approach; the new perspective; the key evidence, and the main conclusion.

Answer: Thanks for your suggestions here. We have classified the article as a perspective paper based on one of the reviewers, who pointed out that “the paper carries the characteristics of a perspective or opinion article, with the main intention to lay down the foundations and outline for future areas of research that needs to take place.” Hence, we classify the paper as a perspective paper with the purpose of the launching of and elaboration on the SEU-approach as a new tool for analyzing urban systems, and by focusing on the future directions of the approach. To make this clearer for the reader, we have now added a line about this (see line 72-73):

The clear cut between existing and new perspectives are missing.  

Answer: Thanks for pointing this out to us. We have now added a part that spells out the difference between the existing and new perspectives (see lines 72-90), reading:

“Taking into consideration the double crisis of climate change and biodiversity loss that humanity now faces, the SEU-approach stresses that urban research needs to narrow the gap between ecologists and designers when it comes to creating more sustainable cities, with collaboration focusing on the enhancement of social-ecological resilience [1]. Earlier attempts of bridging this gap have traditionally been dominated by relatively static design approaches, ignoring more non-linear and complex understandings of the interconnectedness of the social and ecological systems [3]. Urban designers have used ecologists mainly as consultants and in the collection and classification of data in various design proposals and have traditionally incorporated ecological issues in the prescriptive and preventive aspects of projects. The more dynamic and non-linear understanding of the interconnectedness of urban ecology and urban design that the SEU-approach calls for is a shift of focus where humans become resituated from being outside ecosystems to one being integrated within them, or as stewards ‘navigating’ the system from within [3]. In the SEU-approach, humans become co-creators of nature through the integration and management of ecosystem services in tandem with social services in various urban design projects and by adopting social-ecological resilience thinking as a guiding design principle [1].”

On page 3, the last three paragraphs start in the same way. The writing should be revised here.   

Answer: Thanks for pointing this out. We have now corrected it: “While urban form conventionally belongs…” now reads “Whereas urban form conventionally belongs …”  (see line 201).

Chapter 3 would benefit from one paragraph before jumping to section 3.1, explaining what is the chapter about and what are sections referred to. In the previous version of the manuscript this was explained in a nice way. 

Answer: Thanks again for another good suggestion! We have now added an introductory part (lines 231-255), reading:

“In the following we deal with four characteristics of the SEU-approach. We begin by presenting the analytical scale of SEU, proceeding with how urban form shapes the accessibility to social services and how it can contribute to more resilient urban systems if adequately planned and configured. Next we deal with the importance of planning and designing cities with consideration of ecological ramifications in order to boost climate-change proofing qualities and promoting ecological learning in society. We end by elaborating on the key role that institutions play in the SEU-approach for management of urban ecosystems and for shaping societal change in more sustainable directions.”

Figure captions have not been changed. The text below figure shouldn't be the whole paragraph. The figure caption should be short and all relevant information should be in the text of the article referring to the figure.

Answer: We have now reduced the text in the figure legends of Figure 3 and removed Figure 6.

The text of Figure 3 now reads (lines 587-591): The SEU-approach is striving toward a closer braiding of social and ecological services in the design of cities. This entails that institutional components such as property rights and culture-specific social norms are treated at par with ecological design components to simultanously promote social and ecological services at the micro-scale of cities. Source: Barthel et al. [1].

As suggested by the reviewer, we have instead added information in the running text (lines 551-565):

“The braiding of institutional and spatial components serves to simultaneously support ecological and social services. Erixon Aalto et al. [3] used this idea in the design of a new university campus in Stockholm, Sweden, that involved a transdisciplinary design process, comprising both professionals and researchers from the fields of ecology, urban design and architecture, as well as local interest groups, planners, and developers. The group organized and performed a series of workshops and meetings with civil society groups that had a stake in the new campus area and worked out a design template consisting of key social and ecological services that the new campus should support. Spatial design components included so called ’green arteries’ that promote migration of biological species, including humans, and actively managed green spaces that serve as active ground of which several are managed by staff and students. Also, the campus buildings themselves serve as green facades and green roofs to fulfill ecological functions. Together with institutional components, the design template facilitated a closer braiding of social services and ecosystem services (Figure 3).”

  I suggest removing figure 6 as it is only one example of interventions and it is also not clear whether this is the proposal of innovation or the overview of existing. 

Answer: We see your point here. We have now removed the figure entirely.

I suggest revising the second half of the paper according to the suggested aspects of the prospective paper.

 Answer: We have made more effort in revising the second half of the paper by linking it more closely to the first part of the paper; thus, making the paper more cohesive.

See e.g. on line 647-650:

Part 4.1. “The SEU-approach is helpful for illuminating and gaining knowledge around how a multitude of sometimes conflicting social and environmental sustainability goals relate to urban density. This relates to an ongoing debate in the urban discourse between compact built form and a more dispersed urban settlement pattern [108].”

639-641: “Finding the right density for Jane Jacobs’ ideas of the ‘urban buzz’ which has been key for the New Urbanist movement is no straightforward undertaking. It is, however, true that…”

Part 4.2. lines 722-724: “. A key research gap that the SEU-approach could contribute to bridging is to increase understanding about how urban form can be configured to support social and ecological services by structuring how organisms move and orient themselves in the urban landscape.”

821-824: ”Closing this knowledge gap involves research on how both horizontal and vertical shapes of buildings affect certain key organism groups, such as pollinator species and seed dispersers that are key for sustaining biodiversity and for making urban food production feasible.”

Part 4.3. lines 937-942: ” This requires, however, the existence of and support of locally adapted institutions and property-rights arrangements that can back up such a transition. Institutional arrangements can have an impact not just on retrofitting investments, but on providing management rights to a greater set of urban residents [5, 33], something that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has deemed high on the agenda for climate change adaptation and mitigation [32].

Part 4.4. lines 1097-1100: “Mapping topodiversity in neighborhoods across cities [61] could serve this purpose by identifying key places for intervention in the spatial system where ecological retrofitting and redesign provides the greatest leverage for mitigating further ecological illiteracy among urban residents.”

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the good suggestions in improving this manuscript!