Scale Compromise: Three Challenges of Large-Scale but Citizen-Driven Urban Planning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is better to express the innovation of the article very clearly and relying on previous sources.
It is better to bring the previous literature of the subject in the form of a table.
1- ​This article has not stated its research question very clearly. But he has clearly stated the purpose of his study.
2- The topic of the article is relevant and original and has innovation.
3- This article conceptualizes the concept of scale compromise and it is a good start to understand some related issues of urban space.
4- It is better for the researcher to clearly express his conceptualization method.
5- The conclusion is in line with the discussion and the main question of the article.
6- The resources are relevant and sufficient.
7- Tables and figures are good and clear.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments. Even though I decided to keep the main structure of the paper as it was, I find your advice regarding how to present the broad scope of literature very helpful for my further work. Please, find the final version of the paper submitted -- few minor changes have been made.
Yours sincerely
Reviewer 2 Report
A rarely addressed helpful topic for planning. There is a potential for the article to generate interest in the topical area. if the author can introduce more examples and cases to exemplify theoretical explanation, the value of the article can be improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments. The length of the paper imposes a rigid restriction to adding more detailed case-study descriptions, therefore I'm going to work on another paper in which I will employ the "scale compromise" concept with regard to specific cases.
Please, find the final version of the paper submitted -- few minor changes have been made.
Yours sincerely
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper examines such a recurring belief—here termed the “scale compromise”—and conceptualizes it across two essential dimensions of urban planning: spatial and political. Novel concept presented with logical arrangement. Very much useful paper for planning professions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments. Please, find the final version of the paper submitted -- few minor changes have been made.
Yours sincerely
Reviewer 4 Report
The reviewed work is of an overview and clearly debatable theoretical character and is devoted to an applied and at the same time academically important topic - the discussion of problems arising from the projection of the fundamental concept of "scale" into the practice of urban planning ("to raise the issue of the scale compromise"). The topic of the research is undoubtedly in line with the theme of the journal. The organisation of the paper is quite original (for example, no "introduction" or "conclusion" sections), but in the same time it is well structured, written in clear language, and presented in a logical and consistent manner. It has only two illustrations and one table, it is pity. The list of references is quite comprehensive. The three dimensions of scale (socio-economic, organisational, technical) are formulated and discussed.
The strength of the article is the detailed and well-described dialectical presentation of the evolution of views on the optimal urban management architecture. The author also clearly addresses the article to discuss the problem of scale in the widest possible interdisciplinary context, which is quite in line with the latest trends in the discussion of prospective, post-mapping approaches to dealing with spatial information. Unfortunately, the notion of 'scale' has not been addressed in the paper from its most natural mapping perspective.
The work may be published as presented, bearing in mind that it is not research, but rather of discussion and review nature. However, it can be recommended to the author to bring the text in line with a generally accepted structural scheme, which will improve its perception by the readers.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments. Even though I decided to keep the main structure of the paper as it was, I admit that the paper lacks a typical conclusion part. Still, I believe the "greenway" part wraps up the paper argumentation well.
As to the "natural mapping perspective" -- I believe providing a clear-cut "mapping scale" definition could distract the reader from understainding the key argument of the "scale compromise" concept.
Please, find the final version of the paper submitted -- few minor changes have been made.
Yours sincerely
