Local Governance Capacity Needs for Implementing Climate Change Adaptation in Seychelles: An Assessment Based on the Capital Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
In this article, using the Capital Approach Framework, the Authors analyse a local governance capacity needs for implementing climate change adaptation in Seychelles.
The article is properly prepared, but I have a few comments:
a) In Introduction, you can expand the description of the results of other authors within the research problem under study and identify the research gap.
b) The Theoretical Framework can extend the description of the results of other studies, also when using methods other than CAF.
c) The discussion can extend the comparative analysis of the research results with the results obtained by other researchers within the scientific problem.
Best regards
Author Response
Manuscript ID: Challenges – 1883607: "Local Governance Capacity Needs for Implementing Climate Change Adaptation in Seychelles: An Assessment Based on the Capital Approach"
Dear Editor,
Please find below, and next to each comment, our detailed response to the comments raised by Reviewer 1, 2, and 3. Track changes has been used to revise the manuscript based on comments received from all three reviewers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reviewers’ comments
Reviewer #1
In this article, using the Capital Approach Framework, the Authors analyse a local governance capacity needs for implementing climate change adaptation in Seychelles.
The article is properly prepared, but I have a few comments:
Comment #1: In Introduction, you can expand the description of the results of other authors within the research problem under study and identify the research gap.
Response: Thanks for your comment and the introduction has been revised in order to provide greater clarity in terms of knowledge gaps. See paragraph number 5, and part of it reads “Several studies have applied the capital approach – an indicator-based governance assessment method, to assess local governance based on five capitals [19,20,32,33,34,35]. However, each local context is different, and the indicators signifying successful adaptation in one region may not necessarily be appropriate in another [36]. Therefore, the need for similar studies is essential, given the vulnerability of Seychelles to the impacts of climate change. More importantly, previous studies did not provide a ranking across the capitals, which is vital in identifying strengths and weaknesses across local governance systems is addressed in the current study”.
Comment #2: The Theoretical Framework can extend the description of the results of other studies, also when using methods other than CAF.
Response: We agree with you comment and paragraph number 5 of the Theoretical Framework now contains the results of studies that address similar topic, but using different methods. The revised text reads “Human resource capacity for climate change adaptation is a challenge even in some developed countries. For example, a study across seven local government in Australia based on a multi-criteria analysis found that their capacity to use available information to develop geographically specific action plans was limited [22]”.
Comment #3: The discussion can extend the comparative analysis of the research results with the results obtained by other researchers within the scientific problem.
Response: Several studies have been used in the discussion section with examples from Mauritius, South Africa, Cambodia, Senegal, and other case study countries.
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of the paper is of great importance and well-grounded within the scope of the scope of the journal. The Authors present the issue of climate change as seen from the perspective of a small island country, possessing limited resources to respond to the challenges.
The text requires minor language revisions such as deleting repeated word "Kenya" (line 96). But generally, the text is of very good quality, easy to read and interesting from the reader's standpoint. Therefore, it is might be accessed not only by scholars but also by general public interested in the problem of climate change.
The Authors based their paper on well selected and thought-through literature. I cannot see any significant omissions. It also important to notice that the Authors referred to all important international conferences on climate change. Thanks to such approach a reader gains broader perspective. The list of references is also a nice invitation for further reading.
The topic is presented in a clear way, following the requirements and tradition of MDPI academic journals. Each part is a well-structured fragment with understandable and logical transition among them.
The question of the role/engagement and activity of local government (of District Administration, DA, as the Authors name it) in climate change management is very important and still calling for extended research. Therefore the paper nicely fills the existing gap in the scholarship.
The method employed by the Authors is innovative and it perfectly suits the purpose. The presentation of the method itself and the result is clear and supports the Authors' arguments.
There is but one minor issue I would recommend to improve. A person with limited knowledge of Seychelles and its political system could not understand the scope of authority and power of local government. It would be advisable to add one paragraph explaining the role and place of local government (e.g. how local authorities are elected/nominated; how the funding of local government is organized and how the goals of local governments' activities are selected). With such knowledge a reader could better appreciate the understating of the capital and sources of the capital examined by the Authors.
Author Response
Manuscript ID: Challenges – 1883607: "Local Governance Capacity Needs for Implementing Climate Change Adaptation in Seychelles: An Assessment Based on the Capital Approach"
Dear Editor,
Please find below, and next to each comment, our detailed response to the comments raised by Reviewer 1, 2, and 3. Track changes has been used to revise the manuscript based on comments received from all three reviewers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reviewers’ comments
Reviewer #2
The topic of the paper is of great importance and well-grounded within the scope of the journal. The Authors present the issue of climate change as seen from the perspective of a small island country, possessing limited resources to respond to the challenges.
Comment #1: The text requires minor language revisions such as deleting repeated word "Kenya" (line 96). But generally, the text is of very good quality, easy to read and interesting from the reader's standpoint. Therefore, it is might be accessed not only by scholars but also by general public interested in the problem of climate change. The Authors based their paper on well selected and thought-through literature. I cannot see any significant omissions. It also important to notice that the Authors referred to all important international conferences on climate change. Thanks to such approach a reader gains broader perspective. The list of references is also a nice invitation for further reading. The topic is presented in a clear way, following the requirements and tradition of MDPI academic journals. Each part is a well-structured fragment with understandable and logical transition among them.
The question of the role/engagement and activity of local government (of District Administration, DA, as the Authors name it) in climate change management is very important and still calling for extended research. Therefore the paper nicely fills the existing gap in the scholarship. The method employed by the Authors is innovative and it perfectly suits the purpose. The presentation of the method itself and the result is clear and supports the Authors' arguments.
Response: Thanks a lot for your complements regarding our manuscript.
There is but one minor issue I would recommend to improve. A person with limited knowledge of Seychelles and its political system could not understand the scope of authority and power of local government. It would be advisable to add one paragraph explaining the role and place of local government e.g.
Comment #2: how local authorities are elected/nominated;
Response: We appreciate your comment and have included some context. Paragraph 4 (method section) of the revised manuscript partly reads “District Administrators were appointed prior to the year 2018. This is now different as the DAs have to apply for their position when advertised and are recruited as public servants irrespective of their political affiliations. The DAs are to serve this purpose by facilitating development initiatives within their districts per the Local Government Act of 2015 [48]”.
Comment #3: how the funding of local government is organized;
Response: This comment is also addressed in paragraph 5 of the method section and it reads “Budget for local government are approved annually by the National Assemble, just as for other ministries. The budget as based on a yearly National Action Plans to be implemented by the MLGCA [48]. The goals of local governments’ activities are selected based on its action plan which must align with national development efforts [50]. Areas for collaboration are sort after with other MDAs to ensure the effective implementation of national development strategies”.
Comment #4: and how the goals of local governments' activities are selected). With such knowledge a reader could better appreciate the understating of the capital and sources of the capital examined by the Authors.
Response: Thanks for another great comment. This comment has been addressed together with the comment #3 – the annual National Action Plans.
Reviewer 3 Report
This research addresses an important issue related to climate change (CC) adaptation and the local governance. However, the first impression that can be seen from this paper is it is quite not well structured at some parts, but still can be considered in this journal. We suggest this manuscript to be accepted to this journal with major revision, particularly after improving the content, particularly mentioned below:
Major Comments
· Abstract: The methodology explained in the abstract is unclear. It mentioned about CAF, but the reader might wonder about the CAF and how it measured. The author also needs to mention how they acquire the data. In the beginning it mentioned about questionnaire-based interview, but later in the abstract they mention about participatory process. How to measure CAF and how many ways and the mode to acquire the data seems unclear. Last, the abstract mention about 10 recommendations, but what the recommendations focused on is also important to be explained.
· Introduction: The introduction only discusses about general climate change conditions on SIDs and the role of local governance. What is important to be mentioned is about the actual problem experienced by the study area, the present condition about the adaptation, and what improvement that has been made. It might be mentioned later in the study area, but it should be in the introduction since it need to be linked with the objective of this study. Last, the first objective explained in the end of introduction is too difficult to understand, and the second objective about the four ranking scale that seems suddenly appear in the text.
· Theoretical Framework: The explanation about CAF is still not detail, and after the author present short introduction about the CAF, it appears that it explains about some part that should be moved to the introduction. The readers might wonder how the CAF is measured in the text, and not as appendix. For example, does CAF was calculated based on the conversion of the 5 capitals to some economic value, conversion to potential damages and losses due to climate change, or it is based on some interview. It is later explained in the text, but since it focuses on the CAF, it should appear in this section. If the CAF is based on the interview, the authors should mention what is the key information to be obtained through the process.
· Study area: Might be integrated in the introduction since it mostly mentions about the climate change impact.
· Methods: Again, how the CAF can be measured is still unclear, although there is an appendix, the key points should be more explained in the text. It is also mentioned that CAF provides baseline for the CC adaptation, but what is the baseline is not mentioned in the paper. Last, the CAF is presented in Figure 4. How the conversion of the interview result becomes percentages shown in the figure is unclear.
· Result: The 10 recommendations are mostly related to local government policy, but how it can be linked to the implementation is still not explained. For example, in the case of increasing risk due to sea level rise, how the funding mentioned as the 9th recommendation will be used? Does the funding will be used for building infrastructures or focused on local people human capital. The other recommendations also need to be linked to the implementation.
· Discussion: The real example how the CAF can boost the CC adaptation should be mentioned, might be from practices in the other country or region. How the CAF can be better than other method is also should be mentioned.
· Conclusion: The author can give insight how the implementation of the CAF and its recommendation will be successful in the future. For example, what is expected by increasing the political capital to some percentage. How much it will reduce the CC risk?
Minor
· L11 & L33: ‘’disproportionately” compared to what?
· L94: “Kenya Kenya”
· L225: What is “DA”
· L308:” The16”
· Figure 5: Most likely a table, not figure
Author Response
Manuscript ID: Challenges – 1883607: "Local Governance Capacity Needs for Implementing Climate Change Adaptation in Seychelles: An Assessment Based on the Capital Approach"
Dear Editor,
Please find below, and next to each comment, our detailed response to the comments raised by Reviewer 1, 2, and 3. Track changes has been used to revise the manuscript based on comments received from all three reviewers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reviewers’ comments
Reviewer #3
This research addresses an important issue related to climate change (CC) adaptation and the local governance. However, the first impression that can be seen from this paper is it is quite not well structured at some parts, but still can be considered in this journal. We suggest this manuscript to be accepted to this journal with major revision, particularly after improving the content, particularly mentioned below:
Major Comments
- Abstract:
Comment #1: The methodology explained in the abstract is unclear.
Response: The abstract has been revised and now provides better clarity in terms of methodology. The revised abstract reads “As a Small Island Developing State, Seychelles is disproportionately affected by climate change, and enhancing her adaptive capacity is a national priority. Identifying and integrating local capacity needs into policy measures can improve multilevel governance and the effective implementation of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), given that local governments have contextual knowledge about their territories and the climate change challenges affecting them. Based on the Capital Approach Framework (CAF), this study carries out a local governance capacity needs for implementing climate change adaptation in Seychelles. Data was collected using two methods; i) a questionnaire-led interviews among twenty-four district administrators (DAs), and ii) an interactive workshop of thirty-one participants of which twenty-six were DAs and five were members of the National Climate Change Committee. The CAF was measured in two ways; i) descriptive statistics such as frequencies based on interview data, and ii) ranking of capitals to assess their weightings across four categories using a consensus approach during the participatory workshop. The findings of this study indicate significant political, financial, and human resource capacity gaps, which collectively hinder local adaptation. Critical needs identified include low participation in national-level decision-making processes, inability to access external funding sources, and lack of technical know-how. Through a participatory approach involving the local government representatives and the National Climate Change Committee, ten recommendations for policy measures that can enhance the effectiveness of local governance in climate change adaptation were co-developed. Seven of these recommendations partly address issues related to political capital. These recommendations highlight that a siloed approach cannot effectively address climate change. For example, one of the recommendations stated that land-use planning should be guided by location-specific vulnerabilities as this differs across districts”.
Comment #2: It mentioned about CAF, but the reader might wonder about the CAF and how it measured.
Response: This comment has also been addressed and part of the abstract reads “The CAF was measured in two ways; i) descriptive statistics such as frequencies based on interview data, and ii) ranking of capitals to assess their weightings across four categories using a consensus approach during the participatory workshop”.
Comment #3: The author also needs to mention how they acquire the data. In the beginning it mentioned about questionnaire-based interview, but later in the abstract they mention about participatory process.
Response: The two methods of data collection have been clarified in the abstract and in the method section.
Comment #4: How to measure CAF and how many ways and the mode to acquire the data seems unclear.
Response: The CAF is measured using descriptive statistics such as frequencies and ranking of the capitals. Data are collected through interviews which has been clarified in the revised manuscript.
Comment #5: Last, the abstract mention about 10 recommendations, but what the recommendations focused on is also important to be explained.
Response: Thanks very much for your comment. Some examples from the political capital have been mentioned as an example. Due to word limit, we cannot provide too much details in the abstract.
- Introduction:
Comment #6: The introduction only discusses about general climate change conditions on SIDs and the role of local governance. What is important to be mentioned is about the actual problem experienced by the study area, the present condition about the adaptation, and what improvement that has been made. It might be mentioned later in the study area, but it should be in the introduction since it need to be linked with the objective of this study.
Response: We appreciate your comment. An entire paragraph regarding key challenges faced by the Seychelles and some adaptation actions have been included in the introduction. See paragraph number 3 in the introduction. Also, we have kept some of the details under the study area because it provides a much better linkage and coherence with the text in that section.
Comment #7: Last, the first objective explained in the end of introduction is too difficult to understand, and the second objective about the four ranking scale that seems suddenly appear in the text.
Response: We have revised the text and the objectives now reads “Therefore, this study carries out a local governance assessment by addressing three objectives as follows: (i) an assessment of local governance capacity needs to implement climate change adaptation across social, political, human, financial, and environmental capitals based on interviews with DAs [32], (ii) a participatory process to provide ranking (high, moderate, low, and very low) of these capital based on a consensus approach, and (iii) a participatory process to co-develop recommendations for policy measures to enhance local governance for climate change adaptation”.
- Theoretical Framework:
Comment #8: The explanation about CAF is still not detail, and after the author present short introduction about the CAF, it appears that it explains about some part that should be moved to the introduction. The readers might wonder how the CAF is measured in the text, and not as appendix. For example, does CAF was calculated based on the conversion of the 5 capitals to some economic value, conversion to potential damages and losses due to climate change, or it is based on some interview. It is later explained in the text, but since it focuses on the CAF, it should appear in this section. If the CAF is based on the interview, the authors should mention what is the key information to be obtained through the process.
Response: Thanks for your comment and this has been clarified in the text. Part of the text in paragraph 2 of the framework section reads “The CAF was based on interviews guided by specific factors and their corresponding indicators for assessment. For example, External Collaboration (S1) was one of three factors for social capital. The authors assessed this factor (S1) based on three indicators as shown in Table A1 and this procedure was same for other factors”.
Due to the size of this table, that’s why it was included as an appendix.
- Study area:
Comment #9: Might be integrated in the introduction since it mostly mentions about the climate change impact.
Response: We see the relevance to keep the study area separately rather than merging it with the introduction. Some of the key information on climate change challenges in Seychelles, however, have been included in the introduction.
- Methods:
Comment #10: Again, how the CAF can be measured is still unclear, although there is an appendix, the key points should be more explained in the text. It is also mentioned that CAF provides baseline for the CC adaptation, but what is the baseline is not mentioned in the paper.
Response: It has been mentioned in the revised text that the governance baseline is to assess progress over time.
Comment #11: Last, the CAF is presented in Figure 4. How the conversion of the interview result becomes percentages shown in the figure is unclear.
Response: Positive responses were depicted in green, varied responses in yellow, and negative responses in red. The frequencies of these responses were converted to percentages as presented in figure 4.
- Result:
Comment #12: The 10 recommendations are mostly related to local government policy, but how it can be linked to the implementation is still not explained. For example, in the case of increasing risk due to sea level rise, how the funding mentioned as the 9th recommendation will be used?
Response: Thanks for your comment. Currently, Seychelles is updating its National Climate Change Strategy and these recommendations have been integrated into the updated strategy. This piece of information have been included in the text before Table 1.
Comment #13: Does the funding will be used for building infrastructures or focused on local people human capital. The other recommendations also need to be linked to the implementation.
Response:
- Discussion:
Comment #14: The real example how the CAF can boost the CC adaptation should be mentioned, might be from practices in the other country or region. How the CAF can be better than other method is also should be mentioned.
Response: We agree with you comment and the first paragraph in the discussion section contains this information.
- Conclusion:
Comment #15: The author can give insight how the implementation of the CAF and its recommendation will be successful in the future. For example, what is expected by increasing the political capital to some percentage. How much it will reduce the CC risk?
Response:
Minor
Comment #16: L11 & L33: ‘’disproportionately” compared to what?
Response: Thanks for this comment and it has been addressed.
Comment #17: L94: “Kenya Kenya”
Response: Thanks for this comment and it has been addressed.
Comment #18: L225: What is “DA”
Response: Thanks for this comment and it has been addressed.
Comment #19: L308:” The16”
Response: Thanks for this comment and it has been addressed.
Comment #20: Figure 5: Most likely a table, not figure
Response: We do agree and Figure 5 is now Table 1 and this has been adjusted in the text accordingly.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have been addressed most of the question in the previous review. Therefore I suggest to accept it in the current form
