Public Spaces as Knowledgescapes: Understanding the Relationship between the Built Environment and Creative Encounters at Dutch University Campuses and Science Parks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

By using Volunteered geographic information (VGI) and questionnaire survey, this paper addresses the impact of perceived physical environment and built environment on creativity encounter. This paper provides a deeper understanding of how public space promote creative activities. However, there are several concerns still need to be addressed before publishing:

(1) How to evaluate creativity? The authors explained spatial affordances for creativity in the literature review. But it is not clear how they evaluate "creativity" during the empirical studies. Can it be simply defined as "sharing knowledge and exchanging ideas"?

 

(2) The paper is too long. I suggest to cut down some of explanations on the ways of how this paper carry out analysis. For example, there is a "data preparation and analysis" part. But in the results and discussion, the first paragraph is still explaining the processes of analysis. 

 

(3) Who are those respondents? The paper only indicates that the survey was carried out in the university campuses and SPs, but it is not clear who are those respondents. Their individual characteristics may greatly affect their perceptions about the space.

 

(4) The paper general uses descriptive statistics to show where are the places are mostly used for knowledge exchange. How are the perception of built environment and the spatial arrange of built environment have influenced people's creativity? Maybe some regression models are needed.

Author Response

 Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The discussed topic is very actual, it deals with issues relating to most large cities. The article assumes the probability of an impact on the creativity of space users, but finally it is not supported by the results confirming that this is the case. There is lack of examples of research in other regions, which is missing in the discussion section, and would help in this.

In my opinion, this is a contributory study, constituting a good starting point for further research, however, the presented results should be confirmed by wider research. There was no real discussion of the results obtained in the discussion part.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors apply mixed methods namely i) GIS linked to a survey of perceptions, ii) the linking of the perception data with the built environment and iii) a content analysis of photographs and plans related to the city locations. Although the paper is well written and easy to follow, not a great deal of new information is presented aside from the fact that a variety of research approaches were applied. The conclusions, namely that proximity between multiple urban functions and physical features, such as parks, cafés and urban seating, are important when explaining high frequency of creative encounters, is not unexpected.   I think this paper would be suited more to an urban planning journal rather then a public health jounal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I find this article too general. The conclusions are rather obvious.

I have doubts about the research and the concepts studied - they are not properly explained (e.g. the concept of creativity). In my opinion, this is a contributory study, constituting a good starting point for further research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for taking the time to review my paper. We agree with your observation that this manuscript is a starting point for further research. It is exploratory research that provides a first understanding of the relationship between the spatial environment and creativity which we deemed as an important contribution. We are aware of the complexity of the concept of creativity, however, we did explain the concept in section 2.1.  

Reviewer 3 Report

As this paper was written for a special issue the paper certainly fits the criteria for the special issue

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments.