Residents’ Perception of a Collaborative Approach with Artists in Culture-Led Urban Regeneration: A Case Study of the Changdong Art Village in Changwon City in Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript of Beak et al. 2021 studies the impact of artist participation on culture-led urban regeneration, using as case study the Chang-dong Art Village in Changwon City in Korea. The authors use multiple regression to analyze survey data and questionnaire items. The major criticism is that the conceptual framework motivating the work is not sufficiently developed around a particular question. Rather the study seems to examine the effects between the levels of artist engagement and the impacts of culture-led urban regeneration by conducting a comparative analysis between Model 1(high artist participation) and Model 2 (low artists participation) without showing a strong motivating core issue. This is something I would like to see in the abstract (in short) and more detailed in the introduction section, right from the beginning. I would like also to see a definition of what authors perceive as “artists' participation” clearly mentioned in the introduction. The review section is rather verbose with a lack of coherence and focus. Subsections explaining different “terms/topics” using too many direct quotations and generally looking like a collection of definitions without the authors’ voice. Literature review should be coherent placed on the research question that authors try to answer through their work indicating the research gaps that they try to fill. The design of the manuscript should keep a clear and coherent structure of introduction, materials- methods, results, discussion, conclusions. The manuscript under review has too many sections and subsections with misplaced information, creating confusion for the readers. Regarding the methodology applied to this study I couldn’t distinguish its novelty and how authors validate their result, authors should clarify this. I am looking forward to see these main issues addressed.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments. It has helped improve the manuscript.
Based on the review opinion, the thesis has been edited.
Here are more details: 1. The manuscript of Beak et al. 2021 studies the impact of artist participation on culture-led urban regeneration, using as case study the Chang-dong Art Village in Changwon City in Korea. The authors use multiple regression to analyze survey data and questionnaire items. The major criticism is that the conceptual framework motivating the work is not sufficiently developed around a particular question. Rather the study seems to examine the effects between the levels of artist engagement and the impacts of culture-led urban regeneration by conducting a comparative analysis between Model 1(high artist participation) and Model 2 (low artists participation) without showing a strong motivating core issue.
=> Response 1: We developed the aim of the study in the revised paper, Line 68, and the conceptual framework in the revised paper, Line 335 (Figure 3).
2.This is something I would like to see in the abstract (in short) and more detailed in the introduction section, right from the beginning. I would like also to see a definition of what authors perceive as “artists' participation” clearly mentioned in the introduction. The review section is rather verbose with a lack of coherence and focus. Subsections explaining different “terms/topics” using too many direct quotations and generally looking like a collection of definitions without the authors’ voice. Literature review should be coherent placed on the research question that authors try to answer through their work indicating the research gaps that they try to fill.
=> Response 2: We reorganized the literature review focusing on the major notions: “collaborative approach,” (Line 81), ”culture-led urban regeneration,” (Line 106), and “artist participation in culture-led urban regeneration,” (Line 121). Based on previous research and our viewpoint, each notion was defined in the revised paper Line 94, Line 117, Line 178.
3.The design of the manuscript should keep a clear and coherent structure of introduction, materials- methods, results, discussion, conclusions. The manuscript under review has too many sections and subsections with misplaced information, creating confusion for the readers.
=> Response 3: We reorganized the overall structure and simplified subsections, especially section 2 and section 3 of the revised paper.
4. Regarding the methodology applied to this study I couldn’t distinguish its novelty and how authors validate their result, authors should clarify this.
=> Response 4: We reorganized the research significance in methodology. Please see more detail in Lines 210 —Line 244.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an important topic and the authors are encouraged to reshape the paper. Major and minor comments (and several questions) are attached for your consideration.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks for your comments. It has helped improve the manuscript.
Based on the review opinion, the thesis has been edited.
Here are more details:
1. TITLE: Reword the title to accurately reflect the study – change the word “impact” to “perceptions” => Response 1: Thank you for your constructive suggestions. We made the following modifications to the paper in line with them.
We revised the title: Residents’ perception of a collaborative approach with artists in culture-led urban regeneration: A case study of the Changdong Art Village in Changwon City in Korea.
2. ABSTRACT: The abstract focuses on statistics and draws conclusions based on statistical analyses – the abstract should be rewritten to state: the problem leading to the research, central purpose, data collection to address the purpose, research questions and objectives of the qualitative themes, primary statistical results and insights, practical implications of the study.
=>Response 2: We revised the abstract following your comment. Please see more detail in Lines 15 —Line 30.
3.INTRODUCTION: Missing from the introduction is a description of the problem that the research aims to address. => Response 3: We revised the introduction according to your comment. Please see more detail in Line 44—Line 79.
4. PURPOSE: Clearly describe the purpose of the research and how the approach will address the problem and research question. Also, define significant terms – artist participation (weak and strong), degree of artist involvement, culture-led urban regeneration. Why is satisfaction considered the dependent variable? Isn’t positive urban regeneration the expected outcome of the arts program + collective communication system?
=> Response 4: We defined the term “collaborative approach” in Line 94, ”culture-led urban regeneration” in Line 117, and “artist participation” in Line 178. Additionally, we added details on why resident satisfaction is considered as the dependent variable in Line 364—Line 374. 5. LITERATURE REVIEW: The authors need to fully address related theory that the research supports - the creative class and impacts to urban development. This theory is critical to the discussion and very little research has been conducted to support this idea. The authors should discuss this research framework and how the study fills the gap in the research. The authors mention that collecting perceptions fills the literature gap. Lines 182 to 183: Therefore, this study is an attempt to fill the gap by investigating the practical effectiveness of culture-led regeneration projects by focusing on artist participation in statistical analyses. Practical effectiveness and artist participation in statistical analyses are vague. Suggest that this statement be rewritten to clearly reflect the study’s thesis – This study is an attempt to fill the gap by demonstrating that a collective communication system is an important factor (theme) to promoting a successful arts and urban regeneration in a community. => Response 5-1: The literature on “collaborative approach” from Line 81 and ”culture-led urban regeneration” from Line 106 were developed.
Authors should not include opinions (can hardly be applied) such as Section 2.3, first paragraph, lines 124 to 128: Nevertheless, the idea of Western culture-led urban regeneration can hardly be applied to Eastern/Asian cities directly due to the differences in their socio-cultural and political contexts [20,24]. Korea, as an eastern country, however, shows that culture-led regeneration can be considered as a key factor to regenerate old urban centers. This paragraph needs to be expanded to explain the differences in sentence one and the last sentence needs to show how…. can be considered as a key factor….
=> Response 5-2: The part mentioned above was deleted in the revised paper. 6. METHODOLGY
a. This is a qualitative study that is applying a quantitative approach to measure perceptions Qualitative studies do not have variables, they focus on themes. The authors are using quantitative means to measure perceptions and should consider different terms. The “primary theme” for what is described as independent variables should be the collaborative communication system which is defined by the study as resident participation, neighborly relation, and living system.
=> Response 6-1: The aim of the paper was clarified in the revised paper Line 68—Line 79, and the variables according to the collaborative approach were stressed in the revised paper Line 375—Line 386.
(Line 381 —Line 386) To address this gap, this study specified residents' engagement and community building using the following variables: 1) experience (or amount) of participation in urban renewal programs, 2) level of residents’ opinions reflected in the project, 3) residents’ will about urban regeneration projects, and 4) neighborly trust.
Using experiment and control group is confusing as this was not an experimental study Lines 281 and 282: Change experimental to control. (The second model (hereafter Model 2) is estimated to utilize the data from the experimental group where the participation levels of artists are relatively weak.) The authors should describe that the conceptual approach to understanding the difference in perceptions due to a collaborative communication system was examined in the same manner as an approach to an experimental study.
=> Response 6-2: The part mentioned above was developed in the revised paper Line 329.
Model 1 and 2 need clarification on high and low rates and clarify the difference between weak and strong participation. There is not enough information on the cities included in the control group. Please provide tables like Table 1 for each city. There is some information the government’s investment in each city. Are there other factors that make the investment more beneficial or less beneficial? The study appears to treat the investment as an assumption, but the levels appear different.
=> Response 6-3: The part mentioned above was developed in the revised paper Line 350 (Figure 4), Line 352 (Table 4).
Replace the word survey with measurement instrument. There is an imbalance between the measurement instrument’s broad, open to interpretation questions aimed at measuring the study’s themes and the specific detailed analysis. The statistical analysis is somewhat misleading in that using words like – empirical results - implies factual outcomes with statistical significance -certainly the analysis is sound, but the information it is based on is too broad and open to interpretation. Cause and effect cannot be substantiated.
=> Response 6-4: The word ‘survey design’ was replaced with ‘measurement instrument’ in the revised paper Line 354.
There are questions around content, criterion and construct validity and reliability. Describe how the measurement instrument was validated before the study was implemented – by expert panel, the literature. Saying valid survey in the abstract (192 valid survey data) and using statistics to measure perceptions certainly informs mathematics but the analysis is only as good as the data. The questions appear open to interpretation, and there is no other quantifiable information to support the results. Please summarize the many themes that also may influence the residents’ opinions but were not considered in this analysis.
=> Response 6-5: The part mentioned above was developed in the revised paper Lines 197 —Line 209, Lines 356 —Line357.
Describe how the sample population for the questionnaire was determined. Participant confidentiality is not addressed, and steps taken to minimize author bias in face to face data collection is not addressed.
=>Response 6-6: Please check the revised paper Line 358—Line 360.
The populations of five project sites are generally elderly. Thus, we distributed the structured questionnaire and performed the questions face-to-face with all residents. There was no pressure on the participants to respond.
Authors need to state the original level of significance for rejecting the null hypotheses and where the where it was revised to increase the sensitivity.
=>Response 6-7: The above comment was developed in the revised paper Line 523—Line 525.
(Line 523—Line 525) The “need for urban regeneration projects” refers to the extent to which residents feel that urban regeneration projects are needed. The relative effect of this variable was lower in the experimental group (Model 1 β=0.192(p<0.05) < Model 2 β=0.283(p<0.01).
Although the variable(“need for urban regeneration projects”) was significant in both Models 1 and 2, we believe that its relative effect on the dependent variable should be focused in the discussion section.
Assumptions and limitations of the study are not described.
=>Response 6-8: The above comment was developed in the revised paper Line 584—Line 596.
7. DISCUSSION
The discussion for this qualitative study needs to be reshaped. As written, the factual conclusions are made based by statements about variables and statistics. Authors should reflect on the themes and discuss relationships.
=> Response 7-1: Please check our interpretations and viewpoints in the revised paper Line 474—Line 522.
The discussion needs to relate the outcomes and observations back to the research framework/theory, and state that the outcomes are limited to the study.
=> Response 7-2: The above comment was developed in Discussion (section 6) in the revised paper. To follow the research framework, the content was reorganized in Line 474— Line 522.
Recommendations for further study should be noted, such as collecting data through observations, economic analysis, etc..
=> Response 7-3: Please see the section on the limitation of this study in the revised paper Line 584— Line 596. These limitations could be considered and developed in future studies.
Minor Comments
Line 16, eliminate the word “we”
=> Response: The above comment was responded to in the revised paper Line 21.
(Line 21) Multiple regression analysis was conducted utilizing 192 valid survey data in R studio software.
Verb tense needs to be revisited – there are multiple places where past tense instead of present tense should be used. The study should be summarized by stating what the authors or other authors did….
=> Response: The above comment was addressed in the revised paper.
There are multiple places where an adverb is unnecessarily added. Paper should state the facts only, no opinions or broad generalizations.
=> Response: The above comment was addressed in the revised paper.
Line 77, eliminate the word “buzzword”
=> Response: The word “buzzword” was deleted in the revised paper.
Eliminate split infinitives
=> Response: The above problem was addressed in the revised paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review
This paper presents the quantitative analysis of empirical data of culture-led urban regeneration in terms of artist involvement and residents’ satisfaction in case of Chang-dong Art Village in Changwon in South Korea. The Author’s idea to verify their hypothesis comparing the ‘experimental respondents group’ (in case of active artist participation) and ‘control group’ (low artist participation) looks reasonable and well-explained in paper. Although Chang-dong Art Village project is well-known in Korea and presented in literature, this article shows a new perspective for urban regeneration involving art and its outcomes for local residents. In my opinion, this article can be interesting and valuable for Audience of ‘Sustainability’ journal.
There are some minor comments:
Line 59: Typical examples… I think it’s better to be more specific and to add ‘of artist residency’ or anything else, so we can understand what kind of examples Authors are referring to. Is it a typical example of artist residency in terms of architecture? Or in terms of management/ operation?
Line 124: “Nevertheless, the idea of Western culture-led urban regeneration can hardly be applied to Eastern/Asian cities directly due to the differences in their socio-cultural and political contexts [20,24].” From my perspective, this sentence is quite broad/ general, because it is hard to summarize everything in one sentence. If to continue with the comparison of Western/ Eastern cities, it’ll be very interesting to see the particular differences derived through Authors’ analysis.
Line 129: ‘Most culture-led urban regeneration studies [25–34] in Korea deal with the following typical cases…’ I’d suggest to replace a word ‘typical’ (unless Authors do emphasize that all mentioned case studies have some typical features) to another one, for example, notable, key, etc. Additionally, the specifics of each previous study is well-described in the next paragraph.
Line 210, Line 559: As far as I understand, the Changwon Art Village project was selected for research, because it is a typical culture-led urban renewal project in Korea? Or is it a project that implemented an outstanding strategy for artist-community urban regeneration (Line 241)? There can be more clarification.
Line 455, Line 509: ‘merchants’ can be just replaced with a word ‘business-owners’
- Empirical Results
Authors can indicate what kind of software was used to perform the quantitative analysis (besides the analysis methods, like ANOVA or multi-regression).
For a literature review, Authors present sufficient amount of relevant literature on the topic. With that, there seems to be a lot of existing literature about culture-led urban regeneration in Korea, presented by a method of case study. Authors can explain more the selection of the literature selected as a reference for their research paper.
Besides everything, I’d suggest to explain with more details about Author’s view on ‘typical’ approach for culture-led urban regeneration, which can be a great interest for Readers.
The discussion chapter is very important and well-written as it, among all, explains with more details about ‘culture-led’ regeneration facilities and programs (for example, urban regeneration resident council and community schools). These details give a perspective, through which mechanisms and initiatives this culture-led urban regeneration takes place in Changwon in Korea.
Overall, this article can be interesting and valuable for Audience of ‘Sustainability’ journal.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments. It has helped improve the manuscript.
Based on the review opinion, the thesis has been edited.
Here are more details:
1. Line 59: Typical examples… I think it’s better to be more specific and to add ‘of artist residency’ or anything else, so we can understand what kind of examples Authors are referring to. Is it a typical example of artist residency in terms of architecture? Or in terms of management/ operation?
=> Response 1: The above issue was clarified in the revised paper Line 151— Line 157.
(Line 151— Line 157) Pratt [3] explored a representative example of the Tashanzi 798 Art Zone in Beijing, China. During the 1970s, the military factory, which produced military supplies, moved to the outskirts of the city, and the factory building in the city was abandoned. Huge factory buildings are transformed from industrial spaces to art spaces as artists who need a large space at a low rent begin to use them as studios. In 2004, the Chinese government allocated a huge budget and officially designated it as a special art zone, establishing it as a symbolic place for contemporary Chinese art, not just a space for artists.
2. Line 124: “Nevertheless, the idea of Western culture-led urban regeneration can hardly be applied to Eastern/Asian cities directly due to the differences in their socio-cultural and political contexts [20,24].” From my perspective, this sentence is quite broad/ general, because it is hard to summarize everything in one sentence. If to continue with the comparison of Western/ Eastern cities, it’ll be very interesting to see the particular differences derived through Authors’ analysis. =>Response 2: The above part was deleted in the revised paper.
3. Line 129: ‘Most culture-led urban regeneration studies [25–34] in Korea deal with the following typical cases…’ I’d suggest to replace a word ‘typical’ (unless Authors do emphasize that all mentioned case studies have some typical features) to another one, for example, notable, key, etc. Additionally, the specifics of each previous study is well-described in the next paragraph. => Response 3: The word ‘typical’ revised as the word ‘notable’ in the revised paper Line 50.
4. Line 210, Line 559: As far as I understand, the Changwon Art Village project was selected for research, because it is a typical culture-led urban renewal project in Korea? Or is it a project that implemented an outstanding strategy for artist-community urban regeneration (Line 241)? There can be more clarification. => Response 4: The above subject was developed in the revised paper Line 298— Line 3076
(Line 298— Line 306) In sum, the policy of creating a cultural district using artists corresponds to a representative culture-based urban regeneration strategy. It stimulates creative activities by attracting artists to stagnant downtown areas. It is a strategy to revitalize the region by operating educational programs and holding festivals. Recently, many artists are participating in urban regeneration projects. The case of Changdong Art Village actively participated in the urban regeneration project by providing both a residence and a studio for artists to live in, so that they could work while staying in the area, and relocated artists to live in the area. In this case, artists participated in urban regeneration to actively encourage environmental improvement and residents’ participation in the project.
5. Line 455, Line 509: ‘merchants’ can be just replaced with a word ‘business-owners’ => Response 5: The above part was addressed in the revised paper. The word 'merchants' is replaced with the words word 'business-owners. For example, Line 219, Line 224, Line 241, etc.
6. Empirical Results Authors can indicate what kind of software was used to perform the quantitative analysis (besides the analysis methods, like ANOVA or multi-regression).
=> Response 6: The above part was developed. Please see the revised paper Line 431. (Line 431) Multiple regression analysis is performed using R Studio software, …
7. For a literature review, Authors present sufficient amount of relevant literature on the topic. With that, there seems to be a lot of existing literature about culture-led urban regeneration in Korea, presented by a method of case study. Authors can explain more the selection of the literature selected as a reference for their research paper. => Response 7: The above part was further developed. Please see for example, the literature review section in revised paper Line 80—Line 181.
8.Besides everything, I’d suggest to explain with more details about Author’s view on ‘typical’ approach for culture-led urban regeneration, which can be a great interest for Readers.
=> Response 8: The above part was further developed in the revised paper Line 68—Line 79.
(Line 68—Line 73) According to the collaborative approach developed by Habermas et al. (1984) and Healey (1996), this study posited that the higher the level of participation of the residents, the higher their satisfaction. Artists participate in urban regeneration projects and program operations, the level of participation of residents increases through communication and cooperation with residents. Therefore, artist participation has a positive effect on resident satisfaction. … 9. The discussion chapter is very important and well-written as it, among all, explains with more details about ‘culture-led’ regeneration facilities and programs (for example, urban regeneration resident council and community schools). These details give a perspective, through which mechanisms and initiatives this culture-led urban regeneration takes place in Changwon in Korea. => Response 9: Thank you for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript of Baek et al. 2021 has been improved significantly. All the issues I pointed out have been addressed.
Author Response
thank you for reviewing the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors - Your revisions are appreciated. I commend your approach but still recommend that you clearly explain that you are using an experimental methods and variables represent qualitative themes and hypotheses represent the relationships that you are examining. There is a distinct difference between qualitative and quantitative research. While you are using a mixed method approach, the measurement instrument only represents qualitative survey information.
It is important to communicate "statistical significance" as - based on statistical significance the study shows that as proposed there is a high level or strong relationship between the qualitative themes.
Author Response
Response 1: We have developed the quantitative content of the study in the revised paper. Please check Line 416 ― Line 429 and Table 7(Line 430).
(Line 416 ― Line 429) Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted for major variables; the outcomes are presented in Table 7. The descriptive statements about the key variables were rated on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = extremely disagree to 4 = extremely agree. The average score of variables representing “resident satisfaction and the expectation with urban renewal project” was relatively high as follows: “expectations for improving living environments” was 3.1, “expectations for improving the local economy” was 3.0, “expectations for improving neighborly relations” was 3.0, “expectations for the result of the renewal project” was 3.0, and “satisfaction with urban renewal projects” was 2.7. In addition, the average score of variables representing “resident perception with urban renewal project” showed relatively high value, for example, “level of satisfaction with living environments” was 3.7, “need for urban renewal projects” was 3.5, “level of the resident’s opinions reflected in the project” was 2.8, “neighborly trust” was 2.8. The average “experience (or amount) of participation in urban renewal programs” was 1.4, which stated that the respondents participated in at least a program for the resident on average.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
