PCLM-D-21-00063

Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation: Results from a South Florida pilot study in two communities

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Harrison,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

As you will see below, both peer reviewers both felt that the study has potential to be a significant contribution to the literature. However, they note several areas where additional critical reference to the literature and more discussion would improve the paper. Specifically, both reviewers would like to see you more clearly identify how the study advances our understanding of photovoice as a tool and hyperlocal adaptation engagements more generally. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 26 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

A.R. Siders

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

JOURNAL REQUIREMENTS:

1. Please note that one or more authors are affiliated to The CLEO Institute and to Catalyst Miami. This information should be added to the Competing Interests statement. Kindly, declare all competing interests beginning with the statement "I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests:"

2. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article, therefore should be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

ii). State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant.

3. Please confirm that either you are the photographer of Figs 1 and 2, or that you will provide written permission from the photographer to publish them under a CC-BY license.

4. Figure 3 and 4 appears to have been previously published/adapted/modified from a previously published figure]. We do not recommend using standard request forms available on Publishers' websites, as they grant single use rather than republication under an open access license. Instead, we recommend replacing the image. 

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: 

Overall, the article has potential to be published and contribute to the literature on Photovoice and local climate adaptation. However, before it is publishable, it needs to address a few major shortcomings. First, it is unclear which gaps in the literature the paper addresses. Therefore, it’s unclear what are the major contributions of the paper. Second, the ICRA, which is central to the paper, is confusing and could be better explained. It could be clearer how it links to photovoice. Third, it’s unclear why these two communities were picked. For example, in terms of climate vulnerability, what risks do they face? Fourth and finally, the research questions do not align well with the introduction and framing of the paper. The paper is framed in response to “an increasing call for new approaches to adaptation that include input at a finer scale” but there is nothing about improving “inputs at a finer scale” in the research questions.

Introduction: the introductory paragraph could be improved.

“The effects of climate change pose threats to communities worldwide with many coastal 57 areas projected to be uninhabitable by 2100 [1-2]. As awareness of this existential threat grows 58 among governments, community organizations, and community members, there is a pressing 59 need to develop and test adaption strategies.”

--If inhabitable, then why adapt? I would rephrase this.

“few governments have developed comprehensive climate plans” – this is not true; maybe they haven’t implemented them fully but there are many comprehensive plans

-not sure if failures arise because definition of vulnerability varies.

-“there is an increasing call for new approaches to adaptation that include input at a finer scale” – not sure how new this call is. It has been going for a while. But there are also critiques of focusing too much on the local level – think you could mention these too so the paper is more nuanced

Photovoice section:

Be good to define photovoice so readers know the authors mean by it. Overall, the discussion is fine but it missing some critiques

Methods:

Unclear why these two communities were picked. For example, in terms of climate vulnerability, what risks do they face? What were the methods used to pick these communities? What do these communities represent in terms of climate vulnerability/adaptation?

The authors need to explain a bit more what a Integrated Climate Risk Assessment (ICRA) model is and I don’t understand the point of ICRA – how does it relate to photovoice?

Could be clearer about how design thinking offers a powerful complement – what are the exact shortcomings it addresses?

Not clear how a photo exhibition enables representations through geospatial mapping –can be better explained

As mentioned, the research questions though don’t lead necessarily to strategies to more closely incorporating local voice. So the research question need to be amended or the introduction revised.

The discussion and conclusion don’t engage the literature at all. What are new about these findings? Unfortunately, currently it seems that they mostly replicate earlier findings in articles on photovoice and community participation. So the authors need to do more to engage this literature and discuss the relevance of the article and what gaps in the literature this article addresses and the overall importance of the article’s findings.

Reviewer #2: 

The authors of “Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation: Results from a South Florida pilot study in two communities” indicate that they have developed a “new” approach to local engagement they term “hyperlocalism.” While it might be a stretch to truly call this approach “novel” (Manuscript Draft, Line 40) in light of the long history of photovoice, design thinking, and local-scale community involvement efforts, the authors are correct in asserting that existing approaches too often focus on “preservation of capital and property” (Manuscript Draft, Line 60-61) and that the community engagement and local approach on which they focus is extremely important—and often overlooked—in the climate adaptation space. We will return repeatedly to this theme.

The article’s English is excellent, and the article is, for the most part, written in a clear and intelligible way. It would be possible—and desirable—to explore the problem addressed more carefully to set the context; for example, while the authors note that “current strategies are often inequitable and focused on the preservation of capital and property,” (Manuscript Draft, Lines 60-61), this is only attributed “in part” to varying definitions of vulnerability. Really? Varying definitions of vulnerability are the most important reason that local government actions are focused primarily on the preservation of capital and property? This stretches credulity. Why not explore this by asking who defines vulnerability? Where does that power reside? Additionally, line 108 references “natural disasters.” Working in this space, the reviewers would expect the authors to use more care in their terminology; “natural disasters” fails to distinguish effectively between natural hazards and the impacts to human communities (see, e.g. www.nonaturaldisasters.com). This failure to distinguish between these then makes even more difficult the already challenging task of addressing human actions and settlement patterns that typically exacerbate the impacts of natural hazards.

Lines 132-34 could use clarification. It sounds as though a process of solution generation that is “organic and unstructured” is considered a bad thing, maybe thus setting up the justification for the “design thinking” component? However, at the local level, it is important to allow for “organic and unstructured” thinking to occur if the processes are truly to be locally driven and bring to light underlying community concerns.

The ethics statement and design appear to at least meet or exceed ethical requirements for experimentation, including Institutional Review Board approval from the appropriate university. Data is freely available at the link provided at the end of the article manuscript.

What is most “novel” in this research is that it tries to consider the strengths and weaknesses of both of its major components: photovoice and design thinking. By interlocking these two methods, the researchers have sought to take advantage of each of their strengths while minimizing the drawbacks of their weaknesses as perceived by the authors. The authors provided context for their approach and work in light of existing related literature. The context provides support for both the authors’ identification of weaknesses and strengths of photovoice and design thinking.

Some concerns with the photovoice critique: It seemed to say that it was a bad thing for residents to shape narratives themselves because they might develop negative perceptions of leaders (line 140) if proposals are not enacted and the narratives might be less meaningful if they are not adopted by decision-makers (line 144). But, is this really just representative of a paternalistic approach that only finds value in what the community has to say if elected leaders in power adopt what the community has to say? What about photovoice as an expression of rebellion and expressions of (potentially justified) frustration?

The reviewers are also concerned about how the integration of policy makers throughout the process could itself affect the process. Line 150 makes a claim that the process will only be meaningful if policy makers are included throughout. There are most certainly power dimensions this raises that are never directly addressed in the paper. The reviewers also understand that the researchers may have been made the decision to do this for the pragmatic reasons of “getting something done.” But community-based methodologies have to deal with power. Again, what is meant by “meaningful” and for whom? Is a community process that gives voice and formation to a community-driven narrative less “meaningful” if it is not adopted by policy makers? Is the community building of a community process less “meaningful” for the community if policy makers are not present? In some sense, taking this approach does sound a bit like acceding to current power dynamics rather than working with a community to empower it challenge existing power dynamics that contribute to marginalization of some segments of the community, all with the idea that this is the only way the process will “accomplish something.” From the perspective of the researchers, who may desire a more immediate, tangible “result” for their research, this is, indeed, a pragmatic approach. But it leaves the question of whether this really is focused on building the internal leadership and self-determination of the community engaged.

This study presents the results of original research. The reviewer most conversant in data analysis agrees that the data analysis appears technically rigorous. While not disputing its technical rigor, the reviewers question whether quantitative data analysis through the coding of extensive qualitative input is itself a worthy endeavor in this case. In its repeated references to “objectivity,” the paper seems to be presenting the data generated as more “objective” merely due to its manipulation through quantitative means. While the reviewers might disagree that such quantitative data can effectively be “objectified” and interpreted by means of quantification, such a critique goes beyond this particular research design to a critique of the institutionalized mindsets that tend to view only quantified data as “important” or “valid.” This left the reviewers wondering if the same points could have been made adequately without coding or quantification through careful analysis and citation to transcripts. This might have actually made the paper more interesting despite those that would argue that it is then not “true science.”

To its credit, this research project dove headfirst in the extremely important, overlooked, and undervalued realm of highly localized, community-oriented interaction to understand perceptions about and desired responses to climate change. The reviewers would have been equally—or even more—satisfied with the research results had the authors prepared “qualitative” data based entirely upon careful review and project-team discussion after each local meeting. While some worry about the “subjectivity” of such an approach, I find the contortions necessary to create contrived methods of “objectivity” just as likely to produce “subjectivity.” In other words, consider the amount of discretion and values-laden judgments and suppositions that go into development of the coding process for the photovoice component (Manuscript Draft, Lines 320-32) and then “determine[ing] patterns within themes and subthemes.” (Manuscript Draft, Lines 331-32)

Along these lines, the research did compare the communities’ perceptions of risk with the “objective” risk measured by the teams through its “Integrated Climate Risk Assessment” (ICRA) model. The reviewers do not dispute or disagree with the 20 factors integrated into the ICRA model, and we them as a better subject for quantification than the words of a small number of community participants. We still see these factors as containing a level of subjectivity: they were selected as a result of human values and decisions. Again, this is not to critique either the criteria selected or the research but the larger obsession that views “objectivity” as freedom from human values, ideals, or thoughts. Rather than attempt to hide such inherent biases, we prefer to acknowledge these and make them part of the discourse rather than try to pretend they did not influence the design. Were the list of 20 factors developed in a U.S. university 20 years ago (or even today by some researchers), it would have contained far less emphasis on issues related to poverty and localized environmental pollution. Including these does not mean the list is more objective; it means that the researchers’ values and thoughts today lead them to include these because they understand the important role they play in determining the ability of populations to respond to acute and chronic stressors, such as those related to climate change.

Another data concern related to objectivity versus subjectivity is sample size. The extremely small sample sizes for the two communities is more appropriate to qualitative than quantitative research. Particularly due to the small sample size, the reviewers would have like to have seen a more discussion about how representative the sample might be—or not be—for the represented communities. For example, how does the educational level of the participants—noted at Manuscript Draft, Lines 284-86—compare more broadly to their communities? Again, this returns to the theme above about whether coding and quantification are necessarily the best methods to analyze the photovoice and design-thinking phases of this project or whether they could have been even more fruitfully—and honestly—portrayed as small-sample-size results that focus on qualitative analysis tightly tied to the words and pictures of the community participants.

Related to the small sample size and educational level issue, we commend the researchers for their relatively quick adaptation of such a complex outreach/research project to the realities of our current pandemic world. Nonetheless, as the authors note in their discussion, “conducting community based participatory research during a global pandemic is not without challenges.” (Manuscript Draft, Lines 551-52) We appreciate that the authors mention challenges and the “digital divide,” but we would welcome even more discussion of the challenges and digital divides as these are important parts of difficulties faced by communities such as those represented here and very likely influenced who participated and how.

The “Discussion” (Manuscript Draft, Lines 523-61) and “Conclusion” (Manuscript Draft, Line 563-580) make some assertions that should be reigned in slightly in their language. For example, the authors write that, as residents of the two neighborhoods developed different strategies, “this underscores the importance of the hyperlocal approach. . . .” (Manuscript Draft, Lines 541-42) I do not see, from the data tables, how really “different” the approaches taken by the two communities really are. I see more differentiation depending on the topic than on the overall strategies. In fact, any “difference” in the strategies seems most likely due to the slight differences in emphasis on different topics and maybe some perceived differences in the most effective, available, and efficacious local resources. But the strategies all involve coordination and outreach and community involvement.

Similarly, the authors might want to reconsider the language stating that “Outcomes can lead to hyperlocal adaptation initiatives that can ameliorate conditions for communities providing climate responsive alternatives to large-scale infrastructure projects.” (Manuscript Draft, Lines 572-74) How are some of the outcomes—such as focus on flooding, water quality/septics, etc.—going to be addressed without “large-scale infrastructure projects? Yes, some really important and useful outcomes that are not large-scale (e.g. better public transit stop infrastructure, more shade for pedestrian/bike/transit stops, etc.). In fact, many of the flooding and other problems (e.g. traffic, lack of other feasible mobility options, etc.) are absolutely “big infrastructure” issues and demonstrate that residents’ basic infrastructure needs are not being met right now. Does this really mean that the communities with whom the researchers engaged are actually in position where their current lack of basic infrastructure services actually contribute to preventing them from thinking about climate adaptation or action? I am not necessarily convinced that more human-oriented, environment friendly tweaks to an existing—and largely inhumane—urban design and environment represent an “alternative” to large-scale infrastructure projects for adaptation to climate change and sea-level rise.

Altogether, the reviewers agree that it is great to see research such as this taking place. The authors integrated two different engagement methods while seeking to account for each method’s strengths and weaknesses. We think the bigger question is how the scientific community responds to such a human-scale and human-centered approach that, in our view, challenges our assumptions about “objectivity,” even as the authors avoided that very issue. As noted above, integrating local government “observers” throughout the process can change dynamics, but the authors never touch on this issue. If the goal of the project is to essentially preserve current power structures by dissipating dissatisfaction with local government from marginalized community segments, this pragmatic approach to helping that community “feel heard” as demonstrated by local government paying attention to some expressed needs, then the project appears successful. However, if broader concepts of social change and social justice—both with regards to climate adaptation and writ large—were to be the objects of this study, then the study has been much less successful as it failed to overtly address the power dynamics of the status quo that determines who is marginalized and how.

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation: Results from a South Florida pilot study in two communities

PCLM-D-21-00063R1

Dear Dr Harrison,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation: Results from a South Florida pilot study in two communities' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact climate@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Climate.

Best regards,

A.R. Siders

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

***********************************************************

Thank you for your work revising the manuscript. I really appreciate the thorough way you addressed the reviewers' concerns.

Reviewer 2 has noted two small areas that you could revise if you choose (an incomplete sentence and a wording revision in research question 4).

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have done a good job addressing my comments - their revisions are thorough. Perhaps though they could do a bit more to make it clearer how their article addresses gaps in the literature and explain how the HyLo method has led to improved community outcomes thus far (which is what they claim in the conclusion). But overall, I think the paper is ready for publication.

Reviewer #2: Line 173: incomplete sentence.

Lines 174-76: yes, maybe youths identified hypocrisy in engagement. But should that mean photovoice failed. Or, on the contrary, is that very identification of hypocrisy an indicator of success of photovoice to inform the community, even if the information gained is that adults are hypocritical in their engagement processes?

This same issue (of who sets the agenda) is now clearly acknowledged in the design-thinking realm when they remark that design thinking processes have usually been driven by experts rather than by community members. Lines 248-51.

Research Question 4 is a great improvement from earlier Question 4. Overall, it would still be better to remove “objective” from the sentence in lines 391-93 as authors later concede that the GIS factors mapped are themselves “subjective choices.” Line 409. And this would fit better with now more clearly articulated objective described in lines 426-32. And removing “objective” does not at all undermine the comparative analysis; rather, it makes clear that the comparison is between two distinct sets of “subjective” inputs: those of the community members and those of policy-makers/academics/experts.

I like that they now added educational level background for each community so that this can now be compared to the educational background for participants. As suspected, the community participants’ educational levels were not at all of their communities in general. Lines 439-40; 451. This lack of representativeness may in part be due to the requirement to participate virtually due to the pandemic.

Overall, I am much more comfortable with the revised version. It presents its methodologies and limitations more clearly even as it utilizes a more careful comparative analysis to bring more value to the distinctions between community expressions and developed GIS data sets.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********