Participative Placemaking in Serbia: The Use of the Limitless GIS Application in Increasing the Sustainability of Universal Urban Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- Ddiscussed topic is very important. The authors emphasize that they propose an innovative approach to urban design. The authors should discuss the experience of other countries in the development of GIS android application and e-platform for adaptive placemaking in urban design - there are many such examples around the world (especially  in reference to accessibility and usability of cities for the elderly and the disabled people). How the tested system differs from the existing ones, what new solutions it introduces or whether it has new functionality - this is not clear from the article. An analysis of existing solutions in this area should be presented in the introduction.

- The descriptions in the drawings are mostly in Serbian, which makes it difficult to understand the article.

- The figure 10 is illegible. The figures 2 and 5 are readable only in enlargement.

- The line 124-126 - the font is larger than the rest.

- Link provided in the description of the figures https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=rs.limitless.apk&rdid=rs.limitless.apk  was not found on the server.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, this is a very relevant study, employing relevant concepts and using innovative means (new technology) to assess urban accessibility. It is overall well-written and well-structured. However, certain sections of the article need some enrichment. The following are some general comments and suggestions for your consideration.

 

While the intentions of the study are clear, the article would benefit from articulating clearly the research question(s) and/or hypothesis(es) in reference to research objectives.

 

In reference to lines 69-77 (and throughout the article), it appears that Universal Urban Design is only about accessibility (and users’ dis-ability level), which I trust was not the authors’ intention. Therefore, it is important to provide a brief overview of the principles of universal design in order to position this research in reference to its holistic agenda. Sources included in this article may have already included the discussion on these principles. Otherwise, the following reference may be of useful:

 

Story, M.F. Mueller, J.L., Mace, R.L. (1998). Designing for People of All Ages and Abilities. NC State University: The Center for Universal Design. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED460554.pdf

 

Moreover, the concept of placemaking is introduced suddenly, without explaining what is generally meant by it. This then followed by introducing the more specific term of “Public Participation Placemaking”, again without defining or describing it. Providing such info would potentially show more clearly why and how ‘universal design’ can be seen as a ‘placemaking’ strategy.

 

Assessment method should be explained more clearly. In many aspects, it seems like the criteria for accessibility could be observed on site and assessed even by a single expert. To what extent the participants in the study have contributed to assessment? For instance, did all participants assess all identified sites/public buildings? Did they provide any additional qualitative feedback regarding the assessment criteria and the application itself? If yes, how did this feedback influence the assessment and application development processes? (This is important for any “participatory” study.) If not, this should be mentioned as a limitation. Moreover, how is the scale of assessment decided? Did you consider weighting the criteria? Why yes? Why not? Finally, the criteria were never fully explained, except for mentioning them as part of figure captions (Figures 7, 8 and 9). Instead of “speaking for themselves”, figures need to be properly explained in order to be fully meaningful.

 

Results are mentioned and discussed only in reference to being implemented in the application and how it works (methodological and operational aspects). However, one would also expect that some actual overall results as well as some specific findings for selected sites/public buildings are provided and discussed. There is a premise in this article that public buildings in Serbia may not be well accessible. However, the findings neither confirm nor challenge this premise. Consequently, recommendations are provided in reference to what and how map and evaluate, but not in reference to what the key problems are and how to address them, by what means. Figure 10 attempts to show some of these findings. Lines 330-339 do mention the “existence” of the guidelines, but the information provided in the article is very limited. This is somewhat “frustrating”, despite the clear key intention to present the use of an application. In my opinion, providing some specific findings and recommendations would be more impactful in showcasing the full potentials of the app. It is very plausible though that the app is available online. How are the comments/feedback going to be used in future?

 

The Conclusion would further benefit from addressing the main title of the article “Participative Placemaking” and acknowledge the limitations and challenges of the study.

 

Referencing

-        It is not clear why there are two formats of referencing used in the article, i.e. (Author, Year) vs. [X]. I would suggest to make it consistent.

 

The following are some specific comments.

 

Abstract

It would be good if the abstract provides some key findings, rather than focusing mainly on approach and methods.

 

Line 26: ICT – Please provide the full phrase for any abbreviation when it first appears in the article.  

 

Introduction

Lines 41-43: I personally feel that the meaning of the first two sentences is better expressed in the first sentence of the abstract. I would suggest rephrasing.

Line 55: “University of Belgrade - Faculty of Architecture” – I suggest slight revision: “of the Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade”.

Line 56: “140 city users were trained” – Unclear. Trained for what?

Line 66: “investment cost…)” – I suggest to change to: “investment costs, etc.)”.

Line 88: “‘user-centered’ design” – Reference needed.

Lines 124-126: “In the introductory part the aim of the article and the context of the conducted pilot-project are explained, while the key-concepts, used as a study framework, are presented.” – I find this sentence unnecessary at the end of the introductory chapter. I suggest to simply continue with introducing other 4 parts of the article.

Line 132: “outcomes of the pilot project, applicable by the use of the Limitless application.” – Is applicable the correct term? It needs revision for clarity.

 

Methodology

Lines 135-148: I would strongly suggest to consider explaining the objectives of the study in Introduction or as a separate heading, rather than as part of Methodology section.

Line 162: Figure 1 is not referenced in the text. It should probably be placed in a short introductory sentence before Line 165, when the explanation of the planned activities starts.

 

Results

Line 197: “user-friendly Limitless GIS application” – It is not very clear in what aspects the application is user-friendly. This is particularly important, since the main topic of this article is universal design. Explaining how the users interact(ed) with the application, its interface, etc. regardless of their age, familiarity with the use of new technologies, and other possible conditions could be crucial.

Line 205: “(Fig. 3, 4, 5)” – References to figures need to be consistent throughout, i.e. (Fig. 1) or (Figure 1). I suggest “(Figure 1)”, aligning with the figure captions.

 

Discussion

Lines 247-250: Long and unclear sentence. It needs revision.

Line 265: “6 points” – It should be “checkpoints” for consistency.

Lines 266-270: Why this scale?

 

For other comments, please refer to the general comments. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

With all revisions, this article now reads clearer.

 

There are some minor issues to consider:

 

Lines 55: Remove space before “placemaking”.

Lines 126-131: Language/grammar issues. Needs revision.

Line 149: “criteria which enables” – It should be “enable”

Lines 183: Remove space before “setting”.

References [1], [3], [23], and [25] do not appear in text and in reference list. These should be added. Otherwise, all references should be renumbered throughout the article.

 

Paragraph 4 of Conclusion states that there may be discrepancies between perceived and actual accessibility. In my view, this should not be necessarily treated as an “obstacle”. Users with different motor ability levels (as well as other sensorial abilities – seeing, hearing, grip level, etc.) would certainly have different evaluations, which is valid.

 

The study may in future include more diverse users (specific subgroups), e.g. independent wheelchair users – with different types of mobility devices vs. accompanied users (e.g. with caregivers), as well as beyond the disabled group - e.g. people with baby strollers, etc. Such an application of the app to a wider user group is possible and important and perhaps could be mentioned in conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf