Outdoor Terraces in Barcelona and Milan: Configuration of New Spaces for Social Interaction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editor 

This study sheds light on outdoor Terraces in Barcelona and Milan. The topic is interesting and the following recommendation may increase the paper's readership.

• The research goals and questions should be more highlighted. 
• The research introduction needs to be rewritten as it does not explain the knowledge gap and this paper's significance.
• More information about the data collection and the analytical method used to provide the research results is needed. 
• Authors can provide policy and planning recommendations based on the research findings. 
• They also can provide recommendations for future studies. 

Author Response

The authors wish to thank both reviewers for their comments, as the contributions have helped clarify some aspects of the research that were not yet disclosed. Replies can be found in the attached pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article touches on a very interesting topic - the study of the transformation of public spaces in the face of a pandemic is essential and gives the possibility of application. However, the paper needs thorough revision, especially in the Materials and methods section, to meet the requirements of a scientific article.

The abstract is clear and does not require particular changes. The topic and the scope of the research is well signalised and have an interesting sound.

The Introduction is too long, and I get the impression that not all the threads, e.g. 1.1 Historical content, 1.2 Street and food, have much to do with the article's purpose. Moreover, only 1.3 effectively introduces the reader to the social and spatial background of the problem. 

In addition, it is difficult to determine whether the introduction presented is correct, as the authors did not show real research questions but only the aims and content of the paper (lines 44-55). Maybe the titles of the sub-sections in the discussion section will help here? I also suggest introducing a flow chart of the research procedure or a visual abstract. 

Authors must improve the description of research methods. The method description text presented contains numerous reports of the results, while the method itself, especially in the qualitative part, is described chaotically, mixing description of research and results in it. 

It isn't easy to assess the results of a study when they do not relate to the research questions, as they were not actually asked. Similarly, the discussion contains many interesting humanistic and social themes. Still, it is difficult to say what they refer to specific, i.e., whether they stem from the research carried out.

In summarising, I would say that the text should be rewritten, paying more attention to the clarity of the research process and the description of the different methods and the separation of the description of methods and results.

Please provide a separate chapter with your conclusions

Detailed remarks:

Line 21: was carried out?

Line 48: The materials and methods do not analyse anything. They only preface how the analyses were carried out.

Figures 1-4 are hardly legible. Please provide it on simplified city maps.

Author Response

The authors wish to thank both reviewers for their comments, as the contributions have helped clarify some aspects of the research that were not yet disclosed. Replies can be found in the attached pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors improved the paper slightly but significantly, making it more precise and more understandable now. New conclusions and structure made the text good. I dare say that the authors still do not know what they are looking for, but overall work was impressive. They say: "Starting from the hypothesis that places where people eat collectively are dynamic elements of urbanity, capable of breaking down the boundaries between public and private, the investigation shows the increasing presence and expansion of outdoor terraces since 2020, using the cities of Barcelona and Milan as case studies."

But what are indicators of "breaking down the boundaries between public and private" of being "more private - or more public". It has to be included in the methods and respectively discussed.

Author Response

The authors thank reviewer 2 for his comments and agree with them that the article was not clear on the concept of reinterpreting the boundaries between public and private. All sections have been redrafted to try to distill the text and make this aspect clearer. New and reworded sentences and paragraphs are marked in red.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors significantly improved the paper, and now it is clear and pleasant to read. Nevertheless, it would be nice to formulate direct research questions.

Author Response

The authors want to thank reviewer 2 again for her or his comments, that helped to improve the clarity of the text. As suggested, a new paragraph with direct research questions has been added in section 1.1. Additionally, some grammar and minor spelling errors have been corrected and paragraphs containing redundant information have been removed to make the text lighter