PCLM-D-25-00062

Coupling human development and adaptation through enhancing adaptive capacity and equity in climate change adaptation projects: Insights from practitioners in Ghana, Kenya, and South Africa

PLOS Climate

Dear Mrs.Shakelton,

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 15.04.2025. 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,

Maria Manez Costa

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I don't know

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting, competent, and well-presented paper that offers a thorough examination of how climate change adaptation projects can address both climate risk and social inequities. It highlights the importance of integrating local knowledge and practices, ensuring inclusivity, and targeting marginalized groups. The paper provides valuable insights into the processes that contribute to building adaptive capacity and promoting equity, offering a solid foundation for future research and the development of more effective and equitable climate adaptation strategies.

I thought however that,

1. The referencing style could benefit from adjustment, as the use of numbered citations alongside source mentions in the text creates redundancy and can disrupts the flow of the paper.

2. Additionally, on page 6, a continuum is described that could benefit from a diagrammatic representation, which would enhance understanding and make the concept clearer for readers.

3. In the methods section, the paper references 37 online interviews with practitioners from "rural" place-based adaptation projects. However, this rural focus is not introduced earlier in the paper. If this focus is tied to the larger TSITICA project, the introduction should clearly state that the study is centered on rural-based projects otherwise it brings to question if there are implications for urban adaptation projects should be discussed.

4. The quoted texts in the paper could benefit from an identifier that provides context about the project being discussed. While privacy should be maintained by not disclosing the respondent's identity, offering some background on the project would help readers understand the basis for the respondent’s claims.

5. Is there a relationship between the approaches to embedding equity and the overall adaptive capacity of the projects, or does the paper treat equity enhancement and adaptive capacity enhancement as mutually exclusive? Clarifying this connection could provide deeper insights into how equity influences adaptive capacity.

Reviewer #2: I found the manuscript very interesting and relevant. The topics presented here are of primary importance and I think disseminating these results is urgent.

However, the paper needs major revisions in order to be ready for publication.

You will find punctual suggestions and corrections in the form of comments in the attached manuscript PDF.

Please refer to the file attached "Bernardini review" for more general requests of revision to the entire text

**********

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:  Chiara Bernardini

**********

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Bernardini review_PCLM-D-25-00062 (1).pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Bernardini review.pdf

Coupling human development and adaptation through enhancing adaptive capacity and equity in climate change adaptation projects: Insights from practitioners in Ghana, Kenya, and South Africa

PCLM-D-25-00062R1

Dear Dr. Shackleton,

We're pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you'll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you'll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. For billing related questions, please contact billing support at https://plos.my.site.com/s/.

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.

Kind regards,

Pamela McElwee, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS Climate

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have responded to the reviewers comments received. As a new editor stepping in to make a final decision, however, I suggest that one addition be added to the final submission which is that a caveat should be added to the discussion that because the methods were based on interviews, the actual outcomes of improved equity and adaptive capacity were not measured directly, and this could be a source of further research in the future, e.g. to more directly explore how different elements of equity that projects engaged with resulted in adaptive capacity outcomes (both generic and specific)

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

--------------------

publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

--------------------

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

--------------------

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

--------------------

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?<br/><br/>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 #1: N/A

--------------------

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

--------------------