How to Capture Place Identity Contents? A Tool for Planning Interventions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Research into place identity has mainly focused on its intensity rather than its contents. The research had a deep literature review. 

Please limit the scope of the research; is the identity in the scale of the neighborhood the same as the city and the country? 

The heritage or the historical dimension does not have adequate weight in it. Please consider in the literature review since you mentioned it in the discussion and Conclusions

 

The researcher (s) must explain how they designed the 62 items in the Place Identity Contents Scale (PICS) in the method. They need to elaborate on it.

Please explain the reason behind the elimination of 12 items from case number 1; why?

 

Author Response

First of all, we really appreciate the positive comments, suggestions and time spent on reviewing the manuscript. We have agreed that their comments and suggestions would improve the manuscript and have taken them into account the revised manuscript. A detailed response we have addressed to reviewer’s comment and suggestions is described below (in bold).

Attached I send the last version of the paper

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Research into place identity has mainly focused on its intensity rather than its contents. The research had a deep literature review. 

The heritage or the historical dimension does not have adequate weight in it. Please consider in the literature review since you mentioned it in the discussion and Conclusions

Answer: A paragraph was added in the introduction on the relevance of the link between heritage and identity.

The researcher (s) must explain how they designed the 62 items in the Place Identity Contents Scale (PICS) in the method. They need to elaborate on it.

Answer: This information has been included in the "instruments and procedures" section and in the "place identity Contents Scale" section

Please explain the reason behind the elimination of 12 items from case number 1; why?

Answer: The reason for deleting the 12 items lies in the following statement “The initial frequency analysis led to the elimination of 12 items that lacked discriminatory power, with 75% agreement.” (p. 7, line 266)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The most immediate observation I wish to make relates to the title. I would suggest rephrasing its latter part, namely the expression “a tool for planning interventions”. My first impression as a reader was that it adds unnecessary confusion (namely about what the term interventions exactly means here) but please take this as a personal opinion and a matter of style, not of content.

Some language revising might be in order as well (e.g. on p. 1: “used in many literatures”, “contents that elucidate with dimensions contribute most to place identity”, and a few similar phrasal constructions along the text). Note: I came back to this at the very end of my comments and must say most of the text is written properly but a fresh rereading will help the final version.

Regarding the substance, place identity as an operational concept has been applied in a multiplicity of contexts, as indeed the paper acknowledges. The introductory part, that is, the state of the art is well outlined and integrates a good number of references on the social interconnections subjacent to (self-)identity.

Innovative elements consist of quantifying and measuring the relevance of place identity in specific case studies. Sampling seems representative and its descriptive analysis allows for some conclusions on the intensity of perceived uniqueness/identity. Overall, this is a fine statistical exercise but I would like to see an extra paragraph or at least a few lines on practical applicability. The conclusions refer to generic advantages for urban planning, and I understand this is the case, but what does this mean in practice? How can a municipality or a public entity make use of these datasets? To conclude that distinctive tangible heritage enhances community coherence, hence place identity (I am paraphrasing here), seems self-explanatory to start with and would need no survey or academic study. I would create some crystal-clear connection between the findings of the study, on the one hand, and their wider practical implications, on the other. A nice study to read in any case.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor reviewing is in order.

Author Response

 

First of all, we really appreciate the positive comments, suggestions and time spent on reviewing the manuscript. We have agreed that their comments and suggestions would improve the manuscript and have taken them into account the revised manuscript. A detailed response we have addressed to reviewer’s comment and suggestions is described below (in bold).

Attached I send the last version of the paper

 

The most immediate observation I wish to make relates to the title. I would suggest rephrasing its latter part, namely the expression “a tool for planning interventions”. My first impression as a reader was that it adds unnecessary confusion (namely about what the term interventions exactly means here) but please take this as a personal opinion and a matter of style, not of content.

Answer: We agree that it may not be the best expression, but we haven't found a better solution. In fact, we want to emphasise the importance of studying the contents of identity for urban planning.

If you have any suggestions, we'd be grateful

Some language revising might be in order as well (e.g. on p. 1: “used in many literatures”, “contents that elucidate with dimensions contribute most to place identity”, and a few similar phrasal constructions along the text). Note: I came back to this at the very end of my comments and must say most of the text is written properly but a fresh rereading will help the final version.

Answer: The text has been proofread by a native English speaker

Regarding the substance, place identity as an operational concept has been applied in a multiplicity of contexts, as indeed the paper acknowledges. The introductory part, that is, the state of the art is well outlined and integrates a good number of references on the social interconnections subjacent to (self-)identity.

Innovative elements consist of quantifying and measuring the relevance of place identity in specific case studies. Sampling seems representative and its descriptive analysis allows for some conclusions on the intensity of perceived uniqueness/identity. Overall, this is a fine statistical exercise but I would like to see an extra paragraph or at least a few lines on practical applicability.

The conclusions refer to generic advantages for urban planning, and I understand this is the case, but what does this mean in practice? How can a municipality or a public entity make use of these datasets? To conclude that distinctive tangible heritage enhances community coherence, hence place identity (I am paraphrasing here), seems self-explanatory to start with and would need no survey or academic study. I would create some crystal-clear connection between the findings of the study, on the one hand, and their wider practical implications, on the other. A nice study to read in any case.

Answer: In the conclusion multiple practical implications were added linked to urban planning and design, heritage management and place branding.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title and the aim of the paper are informative and relevant. The abstract is concise and informative. Reference list is quite relevant.  However, the paper might benefit from a greater inclusion of more recent sources, given that only nine references were published after 2018 to the present day. To enhance the state of the art and the reference base, a broader incorporation of recent sources would be appreciated from my personal perspective.

The Introduction is concise and relevant. The various categories of place identity content are elucidated with appropriate citations. The main recommendation is referring to the need for a more comprehensive and up-to-date set of references.

Research questions and Methods part of the study are detailed and the study area is described into an appropriate manner. The authors collected a big amount of data in three distinct studies. This dedicated effort is much appreciated. Nevertheless, I recommend that the authors provide additional technical insights into their data collection methods. The authors indicated that participants were initially informed about the study's overarching objectives and instructed to focus on the characteristics of their place of residence before completing the questionnaire. Subsequently, participants were debriefed about the specific objectives and expected outcomes of the study and thanked for their participation. It would be beneficial if the authors could specify whether the data collection was conducted through traditional "pen and paper" methods or if electronic data collection tools were employed. Although the authors alluded to a "snowball process," which might imply electronic data collection, it is advisable to clarify this aspect to ensure a comprehensive understanding of their methodology.

The results are presented in an appropriate way. Conclusions are related with aims of the study and presented clearly. However, I feel that the Conclusions section is not enough connected with the purpose of this journal. I was expecting to see at least one idea or a paragraph about the link between place identity and sustainable development. As authors stated that place identity contents can enhance the quality of places, human well-being, and inform decisions on land use and development, I suggest connecting this with possible sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the places where the study was done. A discussion from this perspective might be relevant.

Another observation that I noticed at the conclusion section and later I realized that can be applied for the entire paper: any reference to place branding is missing. Personally I consider that any research on place identity may be later translated in place branding strategies.

Author Response

First of all, we really appreciate the positive comments, suggestions and time spent on reviewing the manuscript. We have agreed that their comments and suggestions would improve the manuscript and have taken them into account the revised manuscript. A detailed response we have addressed to reviewer’s comment and suggestions is described below (in bold).

Attached I send the last version of the paper

 

First of all, we really appreciate the positive comments, suggestions and time spent on reviewing the manuscript. We have agreed that their comments and suggestions would improve the manuscript and have taken them into account the revised manuscript. A detailed response we have addressed to reviewer’s comment and suggestions is described below (in bold).

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title and the aim of the paper are informative and relevant. The abstract is concise and informative. Reference list is quite relevant.  However, the paper might benefit from a greater inclusion of more recent sources, given that only nine references were published after 2018 to the present day. To enhance the state of the art and the reference base, a broader incorporation of recent sources would be appreciated from my personal perspective.

The Introduction is concise and relevant. The various categories of place identity content are elucidated with appropriate citations. The main recommendation is referring to the need for a more comprehensive and up-to-date set of references.

Answer: The references have been updated.

Research questions and Methods part of the study are detailed and the study area is described into an appropriate manner. The authors collected a big amount of data in three distinct studies. This dedicated effort is much appreciated. Nevertheless, I recommend that the authors provide additional technical insights into their data collection methods. The authors indicated that participants were initially informed about the study's overarching objectives and instructed to focus on the characteristics of their place of residence before completing the questionnaire. Subsequently, participants were debriefed about the specific objectives and expected outcomes of the study and thanked for their participation. It would be beneficial if the authors could specify whether the data collection was conducted through traditional "pen and paper" methods or if electronic data collection tools were employed. Although the authors alluded to a "snowball process," which might imply electronic data collection, it is advisable to clarify this aspect to ensure a comprehensive understanding of their methodology.

Answer: The information on the format of the questionnaire was included in all studies

 

The results are presented in an appropriate way. Conclusions are related with aims of the study and presented clearly. However, I feel that the Conclusions section is not enough connected with the purpose of this journal. I was expecting to see at least one idea or a paragraph about the link between place identity and sustainable development. As authors stated that place identity contents can enhance the quality of places, human well-being, and inform decisions on land use and development, I suggest connecting this with possible sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the places where the study was done. A discussion from this perspective might be relevant.

Answer: One paragraph was added in the conclusion linking place identity and sustainable development by drawing on Paul Selman’s book from 2012.

Another observation that I noticed at the conclusion section and later I realized that can be applied for the entire paper: any reference to place branding is missing. Personally I consider that any research on place identity may be later translated in place branding strategies.

Answer: In the conclusions one paragraph was added on place branding with references.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe the paper is very interesting and could be a step forward in research on place place identity for planning interventions.

I would like to make a few recommendations that I think could improve the quality of the paper:

1. The abstract is very long, it should be 200 words maximum.

The abstract should be a single paragraph and should contain: 1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration numbers, and species and strains of any animals used; 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. 

2. The structure of the paper should be reconsidered: The paper has the main sections Introduction, Materials and methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusions. At this point the article presents for each of the studies objectives, method/materials/instruments  and results. The revised paper should include Objectives of the paper and not of the 3 objectives of each of 3 studies, Materials and methods used for the article and not for each study, and Results of the paper and not of each of the 3 studies. 

3. Also the paper should have a clear objective/objectives but the same throughout the paper. At the end the paper should highlight how it has achieved that objective/objectives. 

4. Please briefly place the study in a broad context in Introduction and highlight why the research is important

5. Materials and methods should be described with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on published results. Give the name and version of any software used (e.g. software for processing Survey results) and make clear which version is used. 

6. Please explain how you selected the 3 studies. Are there clear criteria or are they chosen randomly?

7. Can a discussion of the 3 studies lead to a conclusion?

8. please highlight more clearly the limitations of the study and future research. How can this research be introduced into planning interventions, more concretely explained?

 

 

Author Response

First of all, we really appreciate the positive comments, suggestions and time spent on reviewing the manuscript. We have agreed that their comments and suggestions would improve the manuscript and have taken them into account the revised manuscript. A detailed response we have addressed to reviewer’s comment and suggestions is described below (in bold).

Attached I send the last version of the paper

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe the paper is very interesting and could be a step forward in research on place place identity for planning interventions.

I would like to make a few recommendations that I think could improve the quality of the paper:

1. The abstract is very long, it should be 200 words maximum.

Answer: The abstract has been shortened

The abstract should be a single paragraph and should contain: 1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration numbers, and species and strains of any animals used; 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. 

2. The structure of the paper should be reconsidered: The paper has the main sections Introduction, Materials and methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusions. At this point the article presents for each of the studies objectives, method/materials/ instruments  and results. The revised paper should include Objectives of the paper and not of the 3 objectives of each of 3 studies, Materials and methods used for the article and not for each study, and Results of the paper and not of each of the 3 studies. 
3. Also the paper should have a clear objective/objectives but the same throughout the paper. At the end the paper should highlight how it has achieved that objective/objectives. 

Answer: The "Current research" section gives an overview of the objectives of the manuscript and each of the studies.

Given the different characteristics of each study, it was necessary to present the material and methods as well as the results of each study separately.

The discussion and conclusion describe how these objectives were achieved

4. Please briefly place the study in a broad context in Introduction and highlight why the research is important

Answer: In the introduction we tried to answer this question

5. Materials and methods should be described with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on published results. Give the name and version of any software used (e.g. software for processing Survey results) and make clear which version is used. 

Answer: The information about the software used has been added

6. Please explain how you selected the 3 studies. Are there clear criteria or are they chosen randomly?

Answer: We're not sure we understand this reviewer's question. The first study used a sample of residents from different Portuguese cities, through a snowball process. The second study used a sample of residents from the Lisbon metropolitan area, also through a snowball process. And study 3 used a sample of residents from 3 different types of periurban areas.

The choice of these samples is related to the objectives of the studies. Firstly to create a questionnaire and finally in study 3 to show its applicability in different case studies.

7. Can a discussion of the 3 studies lead to a conclusion?

Answer: The conclusion has been improved to answer this question 

8. please highlight more clearly the limitations of the study and future research.

Answer: Study limitations and future studies introduced

How can this research be introduced into planning interventions, more concretely explained?

Answer: The conclusion has been improved to answer this question 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all the observations from the first round of the review. The paper can be published in the present form.

Author Response

First of all, we really appreciate the positive comments, suggestions and time spent on reviewing the manuscript.
In the actual manuscript we improve the english quality and solve some minor typos

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has significantly improved its quality.

However, there is a need for a single section of the paper dealing with the Objectives of the paper, Materials and methods used in the paper and a section on the Results of the whole paper.

At this point there are different case study objectives, methods and results for each case study. There is a need for a single Objectives section, a single Materials and methods section and a single section outlining the results. In this way the paper will have more coherence.

Author Response

First of all, we really appreciate the positive comments, suggestions and time spent on reviewing the manuscript.

Given the different characteristics of each study, it was necessary to present the material and methods as well as the results of each study separately.

In the actual manuscript we improve the english quality and solve some minor typos.