Institutional and Non-Institutional Governance Initiatives in Urban Transport Planning: The Paradigmatic Case of the Post-Collapse of the Morandi Bridge in Genoa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is not clear major contribution and research question of this work

There is no idea flow around an investigation topic and the paper is hard to follow.

Interview and results analytics should follow a proper methodology

Conclusion must be improved with major achievements 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks to the contribution it is clearer to me what needed to be improved.

 

The review revolves around three main points:

- Research questions

- Flow of the reasoning

- Methodology, discussion and conclusions

 

We mainly worked on the readability of the paper as since all the reviewers (1 and 2) reported the contents as promising, it was necessary to ensure that the reader understands the author's intention.

 

I think one of the reasons why it seems that the research questions did not seem clear is because the paper often refers to what has been observed and the description is rather a “learning moment” rather than a theory to be demonstrated!

But, as argued in section 4, if it is a case study as Rye 2018 argues, it is necessary to trace the fil rouge of experiences that would otherwise be lost when it comes to collaboration between institutions and informal bodies. For this reason -and precisely because it is a paper of this “type”!- an analytical apparatus is needed that supports the description: as already done in numerous papers, this support is provided by interviews and by comparison with plans: it is therefore not a question of mere description, but of a methodology appropriate to the case in question!

The paper wants to trace the facts and propose a key to their interpretation, but in some ways does not want to draw considerations of absolute value: it is explained extensively throughout the paper. In this sense, the conclusions are not the celebrated success of some targets: they are pulling the strings of a learning path from experience.

This does not mean that there cannot be interesting elements under multiple facets, especially in governance and planning practices: these elements are - in fact - discussed in the “discussion”.

 

Considering that - at this stage - the proposed corrections are not timely, I will provide a commented list of the changes made:

 

- first of all, I completed the abstract, specifying the research questions and the "type" of research already starting from there

- Line 57, p. 2: I introduced the definition I am referring to for "institutional" and "non institutional" right from the introduction, so as not to create misunderstandings. Thanks to the reviewers who recommended this reference and made me feel the need to introduce it first because they made me understand that it was not understood!

- Line 74, p. 2: another key point: the “rationale” of the literature review was actually not understood. In this sense, I specified the reason for section 2, but changing its title, which is no longer "literature review" but "Transport field: institutional and non-institutional bodies and major trends" which most responds to the content and intention of the author. The focus is not literature review (tout court) but major trends (clearly supported by current literature) which are then also found in the facts told and in the conclusions (see also line 244, p. 6)

- Line 155, p. 4: the same concept is expressed to make it clearer here too

- Lin 216, p. 5: I have deleted the paragraph here because it seems to distract from the main focus. Perhaps, this helps to correct the lack of readability that reviewers have pointed out: this paragraph is not wrong but it is not necessary to put many things but only what helps to keep the fil rouge

- Section 3: I changed the title, because the “response” is more deepened in section 4 and 5

- Section 5: I changed the title in order to specify what are the main features of the response, in connection with what previously affirmed. This explains why there is a "list" of factors

- Line 749, p. 16: I reversed the order of the sentences and introduced the bulleted list, so that the conclusions can be more clearly highlighted. Italics help to understand what the conclusive elements are.

 

Finally, I understand very well the difficulty of entering into the merits of an article that actually appears a little different from the regular hypothesis-thesis structure. However, I think it is clear what category of "results" it shows: for this reason, in section 5, “results” is written in quotation marks.

Finally, if I may allow myself to express my personal opinion, I think that there will be more and more space for this type of research, as supported by the European Green Deal and by all those - regulatory and non-regulatory- acts that try to introduce more and more shared knowledge creation as a pillar in our sustainable modus operandi. This does not attenuate the scientific elements but instead enrich them in a more comprehensive knowledge framework. This also applies to the transport sector.

 

Sincere thanks for the suggestions and food for thought,

ID

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been changed only very slightly in some places. However, the authors did not really engage with my concerns. My concerns therefore remain unchanged. In principle, I see a promising potential in the paper. However, for the reasons already mentioned in the last review, it definitely needs major revision. Otherwise, the paper should be rejected.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks to the contribution it is clearer to me what needed to be improved.

 

The review revolves around three main points:

- Research questions

- Flow of the reasoning

- Methodology, discussion and conclusions

 

We mainly worked on the readability of the paper as since all the reviewers (1 and 2) reported the contents as promising, it was necessary to ensure that the reader understands the author's intention.

 

I think one of the reasons why it seems that the research questions did not seem clear is because the paper often refers to what has been observed and the description is rather a “learning moment” rather than a theory to be demonstrated!

But, as argued in section 4, if it is a case study as Rye 2018 argues, it is necessary to trace the fil rouge of experiences that would otherwise be lost when it comes to collaboration between institutions and informal bodies. For this reason -and precisely because it is a paper of this “type”!- an analytical apparatus is needed that supports the description: as already done in numerous papers, this support is provided by interviews and by comparison with plans: it is therefore not a question of mere description, but of a methodology appropriate to the case in question!

The paper wants to trace the facts and propose a key to their interpretation, but in some ways does not want to draw considerations of absolute value: it is explained extensively throughout the paper. In this sense, the conclusions are not the celebrated success of some targets: they are pulling the strings of a learning path from experience.

This does not mean that there cannot be interesting elements under multiple facets, especially in governance and planning practices: these elements are - in fact - discussed in the “discussion”.

 

Considering that - at this stage - the proposed corrections are not timely, I will provide a commented list of the changes made:

 

- first of all, I completed the abstract, specifying the research questions and the "type" of research already starting from there

- Line 57, p. 2: I introduced the definition I am referring to for "institutional" and "non institutional" right from the introduction, so as not to create misunderstandings. Thanks to the reviewers who recommended this reference and made me feel the need to introduce it first because they made me understand that it was not understood!

- Line 74, p. 2: another key point: the “rationale” of the literature review was actually not understood. In this sense, I specified the reason for section 2, but changing its title, which is no longer "literature review" but "Transport field: institutional and non-institutional bodies and major trends" which most responds to the content and intention of the author. The focus is not literature review (tout court) but major trends (clearly supported by current literature) which are then also found in the facts told and in the conclusions (see also line 244, p. 6)

- Line 155, p. 4: the same concept is expressed to make it clearer here too

- Lin 216, p. 5: I have deleted the paragraph here because it seems to distract from the main focus. Perhaps, this helps to correct the lack of readability that reviewers have pointed out: this paragraph is not wrong but it is not necessary to put many things but only what helps to keep the fil rouge

- Section 3: I changed the title, because the “response” is more deepened in section 4 and 5

- Section 5: I changed the title in order to specify what are the main features of the response, in connection with what previously affirmed. This explains why there is a "list" of factors

- Line 749, p. 16: I reversed the order of the sentences and introduced the bulleted list, so that the conclusions can be more clearly highlighted. Italics help to understand what the conclusive elements are.

 

Finally, I understand very well the difficulty of entering into the merits of an article that actually appears a little different from the regular hypothesis-thesis structure. However, I think it is clear what category of "results" it shows: for this reason, in section 5, “results” is written in quotation marks.

Finally, if I may allow myself to express my personal opinion, I think that there will be more and more space for this type of research, as supported by the European Green Deal and by all those - regulatory and non-regulatory- acts that try to introduce more and more shared knowledge creation as a pillar in our sustainable modus operandi. This does not attenuate the scientific elements but instead enrich them in a more comprehensive knowledge framework. This also applies to the transport sector.

 

Sincere thanks for the suggestions and food for thought,

ID

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract does not make sense vague sentences like wants

The in- 11 investigation wants to identify  

Contribution still not clear. based on the existing work authors should identify major contribution. Authors use their opinion and that does not count for a scientific work

 

Author Response

It is strange that, although I have explained at length why the choices made in the paper - even as a reply to the reviews - the reviewer did not investigate and argue better the reason for his objections. from the indications sent in the second round no further detailed reasons for the verifications made and the reasons given appear. so it is very difficult to answer.

it seems rather an a priori rejection of what one already expects from a paper.

 

 

Anyway, what was indicated to me by the reviewer made me think about that is the main contribution of the paper and how we can talk about "investigation” -as requested in the revision-. 

As I have already written extensively in my first response to the review, it is an article that proposes the analysis of a case study. In fact, reviewer 2, after asking for explanations, understood perfectly well that the definition of the nature of the paper made reasoning methodologically adequate. Moreover, it does not mean that this type of paper does not have scientific content, it means that it uses different methodologies (and it is strange that the reviewer does not know them!). here again my arguments, because - moreover !! - they are not mine, but those of Tom Rye (to quote one of the most illustrious authors) as explained in an article by Transport Geography of 2018…. perhaps we mean that papers like these do they have no scientific content? With 13 citations?

“I think one of the reasons why the paper seems strange is because it often refers to what has been carried out and the experience is rather a “learning moment” than a theory to be demonstrated! But, as argued in section 4, if it is a case study as Rye 2018 argues, it is necessary to trace the fil rouge of experiences that would otherwise be lost when it comes to collaboration between institutions and informal bodies. For this reason -and precisely because it is a paper of this “type”!- an analytical apparatus is needed that supports the description: as already done in numerous papers, this support is provided by interviews and by comparison with plans: it is therefore not a question of mere description, but of a methodology appropriate to the case in question! 

The paper wants to trace the facts and propose a key to their interpretation, but in some ways does not want to draw considerations of absolute value: it is explained extensively throughout the paper. In this sense, the conclusions are not the celebrated success of some targets: they are pulling the strings of a learning path from experience.

This does not mean that there cannot be interesting elements under multiple facets, especially in governance and planning practices: these elements are - in fact - discussed in the “discussion”.”

 

Furthermore, the suggestion by the reviewer 2 to insert brief notes on methodology token from reply is a good point: I inserted them in section 4. 

This shows how reflecting on the indications given by the reviewer can be useful.

In addiction, I deleted - in the linguistic form - the use of some "wants", in case they were distracting from the definition of the objectives which are not vague “wants"

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been improved. Most of my concerns have been addressed.

In the reply to the review, the authors have explained the choice of the methodological approach very clearly, more clearly than in the paper. I think the author should also justify the choice of method in the paper (section 4) somewhat more thoroughly and in more detail - based on the reply to the review.  

Author Response

Thank you. The suggestion by the reviewer to insert brief notes on methodology token from reply is a good point: I inserted them in section 4. 

In addiction, I deleted - in the linguistic form - the use of some "wants", in case they were distracting from the definition of the objectives

This shows how useful reflecting on the indications given by the reviewer have been.

Thanks again

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The Abstract has information that is not necessary and another that is missing. The abstract must have the following logic: Purpose; Design / methodology / approach; Findings; Practical implications; Originality / value

Study originality
What are the expected results (to captivate the reader)

 

Conclusion

- recall the purpose of the study
- highlight the main contributions of the study
- mention future research steps

Author Response

Thanks a lot for all the remarks.

In details:

• the abstract has been reformulated in accordance with the guidelines and is clearer in this form: some sentences have been simplified to stay within the 200 words. In particular, the incipit specifies the fact that the "The relationship between the institutional (established in law) and non-institutional initiatives (not supported by law) that improves the public transport system is currently a debated topic" -as a sort of background- and that the paper wants to increase the knowledge of this topic through the deepening of the case of the collapse of the Genoa bridge.
• About conclusions, I changed the first sentences as to link the synthesis of the paper to the future research. Other modifications were made in the order of sentences to underline the main purpose that is to verify the interplay of non-institutional and institutional organisms even in an extreme case, showing how the response of citizenship is a crucial element, also from the governance point of view in ordinary circumstances. I think that in this way the main contribution is clearer and also future findings