Urban Video Surveillance as a Tool to Improve Security in Public Spaces
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The proposed study is interesting and original with reference to the question of security in public spaces related to the use of video-surveillance tools.
In my opinion, the study should not be published in its present form, since a number of caveats need to be addressed in a proper way.
In a revised version of the study, the authors should carefully address the following points.
i. Section 3 “Materials and Methods.” Although it is conceivable that the choice of Katowice was driven by data and information availability and, perhaps, by the familiarity of the authors as regards this spatial context, a comparison of this spatial context and other international contexts should be implemented, in order to make the reader aware of the reasons which make the submitted manuscript interesting for the vast scientific and technical public of the readers of Sustainability.
ii. A new “Discussion” Section is needed. There is no “Discussion” Section. I would recommend the authors add a detailed analysis of the results in the light of the available studies concerning the use of video surveillance as regards security in public spaces. In particular, I would recommend the authors make reference to the current literature they quote in Section 2 “Urban video surveillance in literature and research.” Moreover, I would recommend the authors analytically discuss the advancements implied by their study as compared to the current literature, in order to make the reader aware of the value added of the submitted manuscript.
iii. “Conclusions.” The concluding section is poor. I would recommend the authors analytically discuss the implications of the outcomes of the study and the exportability of the methodological approach to other national and international contexts different from the Katowice context; in other words, I would recommend the authors make the reader aware of the reasons the study implemented with reference to Katowice is likely to be helpful in addressing similar issues in other urban and metropolitan European and extra-European locations.
Author Response
Below we are sending the information on the corrections made to the original version of the article taking into account the reviewers' suggestions:
- Lines 26-31 – new content.
- Lines 44-54 – new content.
- Lines 134-136 – new content.
- Lines 143-273 – new content.
- Lines 415-444 – new content.
- Section no. 2 was deleted, at the same time introducing section no. 5 „Discussion”, in which the analysis of the results of research on the use of urban monitoring for the safety of public space was carried out. In this section, lines 446-501 contain some of the reflections from former section 2.
- Lines 502-525 – new content.
- Lines 527-545 – new content.
- Lines 502-525 – new content.`
- Lines 567-584 – new content.
- Change of bibliographic references in the entire paper caused by the analysis of 14 new reference titles
- New titles in the bibliography in lines: 586-589,595-602, 605-606, 624, 665-678, 682-683.
- “Section 3 “Materials and Methods.” Although it is conceivable that the choice of Katowice was driven by data and information availability and, perhaps, by the familiarity of the authors as regards this spatial context, a comparison of this spatial context and other international contexts should be implemented, in order to make the reader aware of the reasons which make the submitted manuscript interesting for the vast scientific and technical public of the readers of Sustainability.”
Section 3 "Materials and methods" was expanded, but in the new version of the article the section has number 2, taking into account the broader research context of two cities, i.e. Warsaw and Gorzów Wielkopolski. The changes introduced are contained in lines: 134-136, 143-273 and 275-276. Additional results from empirical research were included in section 4, lines 415-444.
- “A new “Discussion” Section is needed. There is no “Discussion” Section. I would recommend the authors add a detailed analysis of the results in the light of the available studies concerning the use of video surveillance as regards security in public spaces. In particular, I would recommend the authors make reference to the current literature they quote in Section 2 “Urban video surveillance in literature and research.” Moreover, I would recommend the authors analytically discuss the advancements implied by their study as compared to the current literature, in order to make the reader aware of the value added of the submitted manuscript.”
Section no. 2 was deleted, at the same time introducing section no. 5 „Discussion”, in which the analysis of the results of research on the use of urban monitoring for the safety of public space was carried out. In this section, lines 446-501 contain some of the reflections from former section 2. In addition, an analysis of new literature on the subject of research was made, which is presented in lines 502-525. In the context of the research, 14 new papers were analysed, which was included in the bibliography (numbers: 1-2, 8, 10, 22, 41-47, 49-50).
- ““Conclusions.” The concluding section is poor. I would recommend the authors analytically discuss the implications of the outcomes of the study and the exportability of the methodological approach to other national and international contexts different from the Katowice context; in other words, I would recommend the authors make the reader aware of the reasons the study implemented with reference to Katowice is likely to be helpful in addressing similar issues in other urban and metropolitan European and extra-European locations.”
A broader analysis of the conclusions was made in the context of using the obtained research results in future scientific research and the added value of the scientific research was indicated, which was included in the new content, i.e. in lines 527-545 and 567-584.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is full of empirical material and is clearly ambitious in setting some innovative ideas to understand the importance of security in public urban spaces, real and perceptible, through the use of surveillance video cameras.
However, in order to improve the paper and promote its dissemination among the scientific community, I suggest its publication only after some integrations and modifications.
The introduction needs more bibliographical references. Authors often make statements that in scientific articles need references. To give a few examples, there are some statements that need bibliographical references:
- "An increase in population density increases the intensity of the threat, due to greater anonymity and weaker interpersonal ties.";
- "The place, as a part of the crime triangle, can have certain characteristics that may facilitate or impede the perpetration of a crime.".
The methodology used is not very clear in my opinion. The materials and methods paragraph does not set out the methodology but only describes existing technologies. The authors are asked to remedy this.
The results need to be discussed, which could also be included in paragraph 4 of the conclusions.
Author Response
Below we are sending the information on the corrections made to the original version of the article taking into account the reviewers' suggestions:
- Lines 26-31 – new content.
- Lines 44-54 – new content.
- Lines 134-136 – new content.
- Lines 143-273 – new content.
- Lines 415-444 – new content.
- Section no. 2 was deleted, at the same time introducing section no. 5 „Discussion”, in which the analysis of the results of research on the use of urban monitoring for the safety of public space was carried out. In this section, lines 446-501 contain some of the reflections from former section 2.
- Lines 502-525 – new content.
- Lines 527-545 – new content.
- Lines 502-525 – new content.`
- Lines 567-584 – new content.
- Change of bibliographic references in the entire paper caused by the analysis of 14 new reference titles
- New titles in the bibliography in lines: 586-589,595-602, 605-606, 624, 665-678, 682-683.
“The introduction needs more bibliographical references. Authors often make statements that in scientific articles need references. To give a few examples, there are some statements that need bibliographical references:
"An increase in population density increases the intensity of the threat, due to greater anonymity and weaker interpersonal ties.";
Bibliographic reference number 5 (lines 595-596) was made.
"The place, as a part of the crime triangle, can have certain characteristics that may facilitate or impede the perpetration of a crime.".
Bibliographic reference number 5 (lines 599-600) was made.
In addition, a broader analysis of literature was made in section 1, i.e. bibliographic references no. 1-2, 8, 10
“The methodology used is not very clear in my opinion. The materials and methods paragraph does not set out the methodology but only describes existing technologies. The authors are asked to remedy this.”
Section 3 "Materials and methods" was expanded, but in the new version of the article the section has number 2, taking into account the description of the research methods used and the broader research context of two cities, i.e. Warsaw and Gorzów Wielkopolski. The changes introduced are contained in lines: 134-136, 143-273 and 275-276. Additional results from empirical research were included in section 4, lines 415-444.
“The results need to be discussed, which could also be included in paragraph 4 of the conclusions.”
In the context of the research, 14 new papers were analysed, which was included in the bibliography (numbers: 1-2, 8, 10, 22, 41-47, 49-50). On the other hand, the conclusions from the author's research and the implications from this were included in section 6, by introducing the content contained in lines 527-545 and 567-584.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
The article "Urban video surveillance as a tool to improve security
in public spaces " is very interesting.
In order to be recommended for publication, this article needs major improvements, as follows:
- it is necessary to add research hypotheses to the methodology
- it is necessary to include in the research the statistical data on analyzed time series
- it is necessary to add a discussion section of the research results.
- Are the research results confirmed by the analyzed literature?
These are just some of the major research issues included in your article.
Best wishes!
Author Response
Below we are sending the information on the corrections made to the original version of the article taking into account the reviewers' suggestions:
- Lines 26-31 – new content.
- Lines 44-54 – new content.
- Lines 130-132 – new content.
- Lines 134-140 – new content.
- Lines 145-154 – new content.
- Lines 156-157 – new content
- Lines 290-292 – new content.
- Lines 300-329 – new content
- Section no. 2 was deleted, at the same time introducing section no. 5 „Discussion”, in which the analysis of the results of research on the use of urban monitoring for the safety of public space was carried out. In this section, lines 331-386 contain some of the reflections from former section 2.
- Lines 387-410 – new content.
- Lines 412-430 – new content.
- Lines 452-464 – new content.`
- Change of bibliographic references in the entire paper caused by the analysis of 14 new reference titles
- New titles in the bibliography in lines: 466-469,475-482, 485-486, 504, 545-558, 562-563.
“it is necessary to add research hypotheses to the methodology.”
The acquired knowledge and the results of preliminary research on the problem allowed for the formulation of the working hypothesis, were compiled, as shown lines 134-140.
”it is necessary to include in the research the statistical data on analyzed time series.”
Statistical results for individual periods in Katowice were compiled, as shown in Table 1., line 290-292.
“it is necessary to add a discussion section of the research results.”
Section no. 2 was deleted, at the same time introducing section no. 5 „Discussion”, in which the analysis of the results of research on the use of urban monitoring for the safety of public space was carried out. In this section, lines 331-386 contain some of the reflections from former section 2. In addition, an analysis of new literature on the subject of research was made, which is presented in lines 387-410. In the context of the research, 14 new papers were analysed, which was included in the bibliography (numbers: 1-2, 8, 10, 22, 41-47, 49-50).
“Are the research results confirmed by the analyzed literature?”
The research findings have been partly confirmed in the literature, which is reflected in the content of sections 5 -Discussion and 6 – Conclusions (by introducing the content contained in lines 412-430 and 452-464).
Best wishes!
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised version of the study appropriately addresses the points raised in the first place. So, I would recommend Sustainability accept the manuscript for publication in its present form.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Your article has been improved as recommended.
I recommend publishing it in the Sustainability Journal.
Best wishes
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
