Stimulating Circular Urban Regeneration through Cultural and Sustainable Communities: The Proposal for a Green Blue Youth Vision 2030
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting text based on a practical experience of reflection shared with young people and stakeholders to discuss the objectives of the 2030 Agenda and put into practice a 'culture of sustainability'. The reflection is well founded and the methodology followed in the forum is also very well explained.
From my point of view, I believe that it would be necessary to separate the chapters on the results and respective discussion from the chapter on the conclusions, so that the options considered most appropriate to activate the results could be reflected.
The discussion on the need to rethink/criticize the assumptions on which the modern lifestyle - based on consumption/production (even of it is circular) is based on it is not made. We must have to assume the need to think how we can act differently in an ecosystem in a real risk of extinction as well in a society where the social inequalities and social injustice are growing.
It is also considered that the text is too long, which negatively influences the reader's ability to retain the main messages. In this domain, it would be advisable to reduce the textual part, including graphics, about the characteristics and profiles of the respondents in the survey and with that margin to separate the chapters presenting the results and respective discussion from the conclusions in which the aspects, that I consider are missing, could be discussed.
Some small errors were detected throughout the text that are identified in the commented version that is attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are pleased to submit the revised version of the paper entitled ‘Stimulating circular urban regeneration through cultural and sustainable communities: the proposal for a Green Blue Youth Vision 2030’.
We would like to express our appreciation for the useful comments provided. We have carefully revised the manuscript to improve it according to the reviews received. Detailed responses to all individual comments are provided in the table below.
Along with this detailed response, a version of the manuscript both with and without track-changes has been submitted.
Thank you for your consideration of our manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
From the abstract is not entirely clear what is the primary purpose of this study, whether it is a research article, a review, or a report. Please make sure the abstract satisfies the general write-up conditions.
In the introduction, the authors highlight the concept of “culture of sustainability” and the need to find the meaning of it. However, in the next section of the manuscript, they fail to address the concept and fix it in the context of the empirical literature. It is strongly advisable to revise the manuscript addressing this issue.
The description of the manuscript structure states that section two covers the “literature on the topic of green blue commons and communities”. However, the title of section two refers to the “legal concept of common goods,” which is different. At the same time, the concept of “green blue” commons/communities is not adequately covered. There are only six occurrences of the concept of which four are related to the event promoted in this manuscript (“Green Blue Days”). There are no mentions of “green blue commons” in section two, which is dedicated to literature on this topic. Please revise accordingly.
Please keep a uniform way of plotting the figures along the manuscript. There are different figures' designs for the same type of data across the manuscript.
Please put the interpretation of the results into context. It is not beneficial for the study or the potential readers to notice the results without a comparison basis. Additionally, please extend the interpretation for each figure. It is irrelevant to observe that, for example, “…almost half of the respondents come from Souther Italy…” (lines 820-821).
Please explain the use of the elements in Figure 3. Otherwise, you may exclude it from the final manuscript.
Please emphasize more accurately the originality of this study and the main findings supporting the research's main objective(s).
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are pleased to submit the revised version of the paper entitled ‘Stimulating circular urban regeneration through cultural and sustainable communities: the proposal for a Green Blue Youth Vision 2030’.
We would like to express our appreciation for the useful comments provided. We have carefully revised the manuscript to improve it according to the reviews received. Detailed responses to all individual comments are provided in the table below.
Along with this detailed response, a version of the manuscript both with and without track-changes has been submitted.
Thank you for your consideration of our manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The structure of the article is clear and logical. The methods of the study have been indicated. The literature (more than a hundred bibliographic items) is extensive. Future research fields and current limitations of the study have also been marked.
It could be good to split the last paragraph separately for the discussion and separately for the conclusions. Could you remind the purpose of the study and that it was achieved, and list the findings at the end? The article results from years of extensive research, so such a division would make it easier to read.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are pleased to submit the revised version of the paper entitled ‘Stimulating circular urban regeneration through cultural and sustainable communities: the proposal for a Green Blue Youth Vision 2030’.
We would like to express our appreciation for the useful comments provided. We have carefully revised the manuscript to improve it according to the reviews received. Detailed responses to all individual comments are provided in the table below.
Along with this detailed response, a version of the manuscript both with and without track-changes has been submitted.
Thank you for your consideration of our manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors revised their manuscript considering the reviewer's comments and suggestions. The manuscript is ready to be published in this form.
Author Response
Thank you very much!
