PCLM-D-24-00053

Evaluating Local Climate Policy: Municipal Action Plans through the Lens of Resilience and Environmental Justice

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Graham David Diedrich

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 7, 2024. 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,

Ferdous Ahmed

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: I don't know

**********

3. 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

**********

4. 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

**********

5. 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: 1. Structure of the paper: This manuscript does not follow the structure for the manuscript organization. Submission Guidelines | PLOS Climate.

2. In the current form the Introduction does not contain the necessary information for a scientific paper. A possible solution could be that sections from the literature review are moved to the introduction. Required sections for the introduction:

• Problem formulation

• Possible solutions

- Page 3, line 62: The literature review starts with presenting literature that have developed frameworks to

quantify how plans influence local policymaking. However, the usefulness/ the need of such frameworks has

not been introduced.

- Why there is a need for a new framework to integrate climate resilience and environmental justice (EJ)

indicators? The importance of EJ has to be mentioned. When first time used, EJ has to be introduced with the

full name: Environmental Justice (EJ). The text presented in the abstract does not count. Once introduced and

defined EJ can be used trough the main body of the manuscript.

• What is the aim of the study

• What others do, but can’t answer the problem identified (why others frameworks are not good enough)

• What is the contribution of the study?

3. In the current form the introduction does not contain definitions on the main terms used in the study.

• What is resilience? Also I’m wondering why resilience is not listed among the keywords (but it’s a part of the title).

• What is environmental justice? E.g. see Laurent, E. (2011). Issues in environmental justice within the European Union. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 1846-1853.

• ect.

4. The bibliography style is not harmonized, e.g. (a number from the ref list), or (Author, number from the ref list), but not a mixed, (a number from the ref list) and (Author, year).

5. Page 2, Line 46/47: References can be added for Kyoto protocol and Paris Agreement

6. A separate heading on Data can be added in the method section. In addition, a table listing the documents included in the study can be added in the appendix.

7. Authors claim that the study introduces a comprehensive framework, integrating climate resilience and environmental justice (EJ) indicators. The framework elements are not well introduced.

8. The coding procedure is not well presented. In the current form the manuscript does not contain details on the Qualitative content analysis. What is Qualitative content analysis? If the coding was inductive/deductive or both etc., The coding tree

ect...

Reviewer #2: The article "Evaluating Local Climate Policy: Municipal Action Plans through the Lens of Resilience and Environmental Justice" assesses nine local climate action plans in Michigan in more detail than perhaps quantitative methods may provide. It employs a framework that integrates climate resilience and environmental justice (EJ) indicators to examine the content of these plans. The study reveals a notable gap in localizing analyses and actions, attributing this to inadequate data, minimal coordination, limited funding, and finite policy options. Key issues such as equitable resource distribution, environmental burdens, and community engagement are frequently neglected. This oversight results in local governments lacking the necessary tools to implement just and climate-oriented policies effectively.

In conclusion, the article calls for localities to enhance their efforts by more deeply integrating EJ principles into their climate action plans. It argues that with the right support from state and federal partners, local governments can use their powers more effectively to distribute environmental benefits and burdens equitably, preventing marginalized communities from disproportionately suffering the adverse effects of climate change.

The article is well-written, the main two things need to be:

a) A greater discussion of the methodology. I understand it is subjective and qualitative, but describe what you are doing, discuss additional articles that have used this methodology, and discuss why you consider it important to enhancing our understanding of CAPs among local governments.

b) Justify why your research is important more and why it matters. It almost goes without saying, but I feel more emphasis needs to be given on this aspect.

In conclusion, the article calls for localities to enhance their efforts by more deeply integrating EJ principles into their climate action plans. It argues that with the right support from state and federal partners, local governments can use their powers more effectively to distribute environmental benefits and burdens equitably, preventing marginalized communities from disproportionately suffering the adverse effects of climate change.

**********

6. 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: Yes: Joshua L. Mitchell

**********

[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.

PCLM-D-24-00053R1

Evaluating Local Climate Policy: Municipal Action Plans through the Lens of Resilience and Environmental Justice

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Graham David

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 23 July 2024. 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,

Prof. Ferdous Ahmed, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Thanks, all of my comments were addressed

Reviewer #3: The author(s) have made significant improvements to the manuscript, adequately addressing the comments raised in the previous round of review. The revisions have substantially enhanced the clarity and coherence of the manuscript. Consequently, I find the manuscript now acceptable for publication. However, there are still areas that require further attention to elevate the theoretical contributions of the paper. Despite the improvements, the manuscript remains quite descriptive. While the descriptive analysis is valuable and provides a comprehensive overview of the data, there is a need for a deeper theoretical interpretation of the findings. The discussion section could benefit from a more explicit linkage between the empirical data and the broader theoretical debates in the field of EJ. This could involve contrasting the findings with existing literature, identifying gaps that the study addresses, and proposing new theoretical insights that emerge from the data. Providing concrete evidence of how the findings impact the environmental justice debate will significantly strengthen the paper.

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[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.

Evaluating local climate policy: Municipal action plans through the lens of resilience and environmental justice

PCLM-D-24-00053R2

Dear Dr. Graham David Diedrich

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Evaluating local climate policy: Municipal action plans through the lens of resilience and environmental justice' 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,

Ferdous Ahmed, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate