Exploring the Key Factors Influencing Sustainable Urban Renewal from the Perspective of Multiple Stakeholders
Da Silva João Santos Vila
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript entitled "Exploring the key factors influencing sustainable urban renewal from the perspective of multiple stakeholders", in this study, the key factors influencing sustainable urban renewal are examined from the perspective of multiple stakeholders, including local governments, residents, developers, and designers. The SNA-RIM analysis framework was used to analyze the importance of influencing factors. The authors found that regional industrial restructuring, employment opportunities and environmental qualification improvement had the most significant impact on sustainable urban renewal. At the same time, different types of stakeholders value sustainability indicators differently. It is an interesting study. However, there are some points to be revised:
1. In the abstract, point out the research gap to support the significance of the research.
2. It is suggested that add keywords to 7-8.
3. It is better to use literature review as the title of section 2.
4. Several papers should be added in the revised form such as: Land 2023, 12(4), 831; Land 11.2 (2022): 253; Land Use Policy 123 (2022): 106430; Land Use Policy 122 (2022): 106379; Cities 90 (2019): 181-190. These papers are helpful for readers to understand the recent works in this area。
5. Why are the titles of 2.1 and 2.2 the same? It is confusing. Please check the manuscript carefully.
6. Please carefully read through the whole manuscript to double-check the spelling and grammar. Such as: line 231, in“gjk(ni) is the number of paths through node ni between node nj and nk,”, is “ni” in the middle of the sentence with a wrong form?
7. What is the standard of the respondents' choosing? Especially for the residents. How to representative？
8. Could the study area be certain?
9. Would it be more convincing if the sample size varies according to the sample population? For example, the number of residents should be more reasonable.
Please carefully read through the whole manuscript to double-check the spelling and grammar.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I think that this is a well written and structured article.
I have some minor comments that can help further the clarity of the article.
somewhere around page 7, the authors move to talk about a survey and participants. It is not clear how this took place, and where? the authors do not talk about a certain case study or location to understand the background about it, and why this specific area is selected. There is a quick jump between the literature, methodology and results without introducing anything about the questionnaire survey.
Another issue that I find necessary are the political factors. The authors assume that the attributes are only social, economical and environmental, quickly excluding that political issues can lead to certain complications in such large developments. which can also have a an influence on the decision making and even to issues of Gentrification in such areas leading to top-bottom approaches as mentioned by the authors. For this I suggest that the authors look at cases from around the world and relate them. On the political matter I can suggest the articles:
Basarir, et al. A DEBATE ON THE TOP-DOWN APPROACH TO ARCHITECTURAL INTERVENTIONS IN CONFLICTED HISTORIC CITIES: JERUSALEM’S MUSEUM OF TOLERANCE.
Selim, et al. Contested Heritage: An Analysis of the Physical Transformation of Derry/Londonderry’s Siege Monument
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper demonstrates high intellectual observation of the topic. My suggestion to authors to make the study more coherent and relevant is to present a case study example and examine it briefly according to the paper evaluation index weights. This will strengthen the scientific output of the study. As currently it is more of theoretical and literature observation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Abstract – OK
In introduction:
I don't see the need to keep the last paragraph (lines 73-79). I suggest deleting it, with no loss to the understanding of the article.
In: Background; Both items 2.1 and 2.2 have the same title. The title of item 2.2. must be changed.
Suggestion: 2.2. Multiple factors of sustainable urban renewal
In methodology:
On lines 235 and 236, the authors say that "Participants were required to assign a fuzzy grade (1 to 7) to each attribute (Figure 3)".This also appears in the title of Table 1 (line 268): "Table 1. The 1–7 point scale". However, in this table 3 the minimum score is zero and was answered by participants. If this is true then it would be better to change the title to "Table 1. The 0–7 point scale". Authors should rewrite the text of lines 235 and 236 and Figure 3.
In Results: OK
In Discussion: OK
In Conclusions: OK
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The paper is well written, and explores an important area.
I would like to make my suggestion clear that the paper needs recent references to be added into the manuscript as presently it has only 34 references. In addition, the authors also need to compare their findings with previous studies and highlight if there is any difference. This will enhance the discussion and might be the conclusion also.- Compare the findings with previous studies
- Add new references, at leas 30 more
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been improved a lot according to the reviewers' comments. The authors carefully checked the whole manuscript and addressed all the comments seriously. It is suggested that the manuscript can be accepted after minor revision.
1. It is strongly suggested that a Table of Contents (TOC) image describing the authors’ manuscript in a visual format should be added to help the readers understand.
2. Could you add a map of the study area?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
