Operationalizing Community Placemaking: A Critical Relationship-Based Typology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The result of this manuscript has some theoretical and practical implications as it offers a framework for further advancements in placemaking. However, there are still some problems needing improvement, which are shown in the following:

1. The innovation of this study is not clear. It is suggested to illustrate the limitations of existing literature, then state the innovation and contribution of the current manuscript.

2. In Section 1, this manuscript introduces different views on the connotation of placemaking according to existing literature, but its definition is unclear in this paper. What does it mean in the current manuscript? Please explain in Section 1.

3. The application process of the methodology adopted in this manuscript is unknown. It is necessary to demonstrate how the whole study was carried out step by step, ensuring the research results' rationality.

4. In Section 3, it is necessary to have clear explanations about four types of placemaking, and the differences among them should also be illustrated. It is suggested to present similarities and differences among them in a table, with their application scenarios added.

5. In Section 3, the first three models describe the placemaker content as a separate section, while the fourth model describes the content of the placemaker mixed with the rest. Please ensure the consistency of the manuscript structure.

6. The question “what relationship drives the implementation of placemaking project” stated in research question is not answeresd in current manuscript. It is suggested to illustrate precisely.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

According to my experience, I find that the article presents a very appropriate and balanced approach. Title and abstract are both of them well written, highlighting the main focus of the article, its framework objective and advancing its main conclusions.

I also find the article very well referenced; theoretical approach to the subject has been addressed well carried out from a broader origin until landing in the field of study, with a very up-to-date and pertinent bibliography. The scope of study is well delimited and general structure of the article seems also right to me.

However, I am missing a series of approaches and results that would serve to have greater solvency in the paper results, in the characterization of the objective typologies researched, and, mainly, in obtaining more interesting, complex and complete conclusions.

First of all, I would include an introduction of the context of the case study, that is, of social characteristics and related to traits of urban spaces from settlements of the area from which all the examples studied and the actors chosen for the interviews are chosen. This despiction or contextualization seems fundamental to me to be able to extrapolate results and generate this typification with the necessary corrections that is needed to make precisely due to the features of the socioeconomic and urban context that is studied.

Secondly, a more concrete and complete presentation of the placemaking projects that exemplify each of the proposed typologies according to Figure 1 is greatly lacking, from my point of view. Thay would mean a more graphic, photographic and cartographic content, which also allows contextualizing the performances in the public space of each of the interventions discussed (we only have the Figure 2 with photographs that are too local and without a cartographic explanation that allows us to understand the specific project).

Lines 159 and 160 describe as a second methodology, beyond the interviews: the observation made to the projected spaces after they have been completed. I honestly believe that this observation is not being made explicit in the article, in any of the four cases.

I would recommend the creation of a Table that lists the actors, the projects that exemplify such types of placemaking, and data referring to these actions: location, budget, size or dimensions, spatial areas involved... This aforementioned table (or several tables) that allow contextualizing the actions and situate them on a same level to be understood, if not in a comparative way, then at least balanced in terms of information in order to be able to refer to them jointly in the same study, as is the case.

In lines 552 and 553, the connection between the different types of placemaking, the spatial product and its effects on the social fabric are described as future researches or subsequent open lines (I would also add the effects on the urban space and those of an economic nature). This reviewer understands that it is in this work where it is necessary to advance in this described as a future line of work, even initially.

This should require that the different types of results of each of the placemaking typified be better and more explained and related to the results, from spatial and social perspective. Otherwise, we run the risk of wasting all the important work that has been done with interviews, failing to evaluate the results that one or another type of placemaking has been producing in the different examples studied (which do not have why be one for each type, it depends on the type, there are several projects that feed the reflection of each type presented/studied).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The idea of ​​Placemaking as a multifaceted construction process is playful and, if well applied, can help places and installed societies to interact towards a common goal. The text is well supported but I would like the authors to include the role of Smart and Sustainable Cities with the development of Placemaking, this would be an innovative contribution that I have not yet looked at in depth in articles on the topic. Finally, even though it is not the authors' primary objective to bring projects such as those implemented in Canada (also in Colombia and Brazil), on Placemaking. Could it be that implementing the idea and disseminating a process would not be a great contribution to world academic society? I hope you have success to publish the most robust work soon.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your support. We agree that placemaking is a good tool for developing Smart and Sustainable Cities. However, as our study shows, placemaking can wear different forms, and we believe it is important to know them to enhance and advance the process. We also hope to publish this work soon.

As you will see, we have made major changes to our paper. You can follow our revisions in the track-changes version of the paper.

Thank you again and best wishes,

Zohar and Nurit

Reviewer 4 Report

A few queries to guide revisions for the authors:

It's unclear until much later in the paper about the nature of the inquiry and the argument. How can the authors share this in the introduction?

Can ideas about placemaking that were generated in the US be applied without issue to Israel?

Each type of placemaking has a supporting empirical example, but the type characteristics transcends the single example. Can the authors explain more about the methods and rationale they use to generalize from a single case?

 

In using expert interviews, some of the respondents are making truth claims about what other people experience. For instance, the expert respondent is quoted as saying that community members in neighborhood b are comfortable in public space. But can this be verified? On what basis? 

The discussion was most interesting and I would like the authors to foreground some of that in the introduction, specifically to share more about the contribution of the paper to broader literature. 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

General opinion

Very interesting topic, fundamental in the current context of increasing calls for greater community involvement in the design and governance of public space projects. And thus to celebrate an article that can help to better understand these projects and evaluate them for proper analysis.

However, several limitations have been identified that require consideration before the article can be published.

Specific comments

One of the major limitations felt in this article is the absence of a clear objective for the article, which limits not only the reading of its development, but above all, the scope and reading of the conclusions.

Another information relevant to the introduction which is the structure of the article is also missing from this manuscript.

The methodology, which is based on a quadrant analysis structure, is lacking in terms of its use and needs to be better explained in terms of its genesis. Why those two axes and not others such as environmental, urbanistic, etc.?

The details provided on the interviews are satisfactory, but the observations made in the public space (lines 159 and 160) deserve only one line. It needs to be clarified what they were about and what they were for. 

Also, in the methodology it should be mentioned that the examples of public spaces chosen are representative of each of the quadrants. 

The authors should reflect on the extent to which the examples of Israeli cities they have considered may be suitable for generalisation of the results and conclusions obtained or whether there are political, cultural, etc. constraints to be taken into account in such replication. For example, in terms of funding public space in Europe, it is virtually always public responsibility. Other spaces may have semi-public characteristics because they have less open public access rules.

In lines 150 to 153, although the proposal is seductive, it appears to be poorly supported. 

In line 460, the chosen formula of Concluding discussion, impoverishes the article. A discussion and results section and a conclusions section should be considered. And in the conclusion part, the articulation with the objective defined for the article should be made.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 6 Report

An interesting and well written paper that presents 4 models of placemaking that could be applied in further research.  The paper does, however, need to problematise what is meant by 'community'.  This is flagged in line 112 where the authors suggest the term is difficult to define and but this needs to be discussed further.  There is also a large literature on 'participation' what it is and how it can be applied in practice.  Reference to this literature is largely absent in the paper.  A good place to start would be the much cited Arnstein's ladder of participation.  'Community' participation id not an easy process and takes time.  In the Traditional Community Placemaking model were all residents involved? 

The methodology requires some discussion of recruitment of interviewees and as the paper suggests data analysis was undertaken using critical discourse analysis some discussion of what this is and how it informed the study needs to be included.   

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 7 Report

There are some studies that developed types of placemaking, and you even have mentioned a few of them. However, you haven't clearly stated in the background why your study is significant. In other words, what other studies are lacking that encourage you to make a new model rather than use those existing models and adapt them to your context? 

Regarding the interviewees, how did you select them? Which sampling method that you use? 

The conclusion part can be improved by providing practical contributions as well. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for the opportunity to review the work and to the authors who made the adjustments requested by the reviewer.

Author Response

We are happy to learn that you feel your remarks were answered and treated by us as part of the revised version.

Reviewer 5 Report

I think many of the suggestions made to the authors have now been integrated and the text is of much higher quality.

Author Response

Thank you for assessing that your remarks were treated by us as part of the revised version.