Public City as Network of Networks: A Toolkit for Healthy Neighbourhoods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript does not seem to be a research paper or a review paper, but rather a descriptive document. There is no clear experimental method, no data or results, but rather a discussion of policy.
1. The period "." in the title may not be appropriate. Also, looking at the title alone, it seems to be an introduction to a framework. Additionally, HPNG should be written in full.
2. The author's unit seems to be written in a way that does not conform to the standards of the journal. The name of the unit should not be repeated.
3. The abstract seems to be divided into three sections, but usually there is only one section. Additionally, the content of the abstract is not an introduction to the research content, but an introduction to a project.
4. There are too few keywords (3), and each keyword is too complex, which makes it difficult for the paper to be indexed.
5. The introduction section, the title of the introduction is "Addressing the New Urban Question," but the content does not clearly indicate which problems are being addressed. Instead, it introduces "PNRR."
6. Line 34, [2,3,4,5,6,7,8], too many references are cited, and the format is incorrect.
7. What is meant by "State-of-the-art"? It seems that the subtitle is very specific, which makes the title not comprehensive. This section does not seem to be an overview of the research content, but a discussion of related policies. This further confirms my view that this is not a research paper, but a policy brief. 8. Similarly, in Section 3.Materials, it seems to be a discussion about policies rather than research on materials.
9. Figure 4 is confusing.
10. What does the "e" in "Conclusions e Future developments" refer to?
In summary, I do not think this is a research paper or a review paper, but rather a descriptive document, as evidenced by various parts of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I reviewed the article titled “Urban Welfare and Intersectional Climate Justice in Urban Planning tools. The HPNG Framework”. It is significant as it addresses the contemporary "new urban question," integrating both environmental concerns and socioeconomic issues into urban planning and regeneration. The research contributes to the field by developing a comprehensive methodology for evaluating, designing, and monitoring "ClimaEquitable" urban regeneration strategies, aiming to ensure intersectional climate justice. This involves:

1-     The article redefines urban welfare to incorporate the right to the city, focusing on participation and appropriation. It emphasizes the integration of environmental sustainability and socioeconomic equity, addressing the compounded challenges of climate change and social inequalities.

2-     By proposing the "Healthy and Public Neighborhoods Grid" (HPNG), the research introduces a parametric evaluation model that guides the design and monitoring of public urban spaces. This model goes beyond traditional urban standards, aiming for effective acquisition, maintenance, and management of public spaces.

3-     The methodology will be applied to the Pietralata area in Rome, serving as a case study for the establishment of the Rome Technopole research center. This practical application highlights the exportability and replicability of the proposed urban regeneration strategies.

4-     It integrates interdisciplinary perspectives to address the multifaceted nature of urban crises, combining insights from urban planning, environmental science, and social justice to propose holistic solutions.

5-     By aligning with international guidelines and local legislation, the research provides a robust framework that policymakers and urban planners can adopt to promote sustainable and inclusive urban development. This includes detailed parameters for evaluating the impact of urban regeneration on socioeconomic and environmental factors.

6-     The introduction of the HPNG and the critical analysis of existing methodologies like the Healthy Streets program offer innovative tools for urban planners. These tools facilitate the assessment of public spaces in terms of both their physical attributes and their social impacts, promoting a comprehensive approach to urban welfare.

7-     The article emphasizes the importance of equity and resilience in urban systems, proposing strategies to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their location or socioeconomic status, have access to essential services and public spaces. This focus on intersectional climate justice is crucial for addressing contemporary urban challenges.

Based on the review of the study, below are the overall weaknesses identified which need the author(s) attention:

1-     The study is heavily based on theoretical frameworks and models, with insufficient empirical data to support the proposed methodologies.

2-     The research is focused on the European context, particularly Italy, which may limit its applicability to other regions with different socioeconomic and environmental conditions.

3-     While the article discusses urban regeneration in broad terms, it lacks detailed consideration of local contexts and specific case studies outside of the primary focus areas.

4-     The study proposes various models and frameworks but provides limited examples of practical implementation and real-world applications.

5-     The use of broad indicators without considering the unique characteristics and needs of different urban areas could lead to ineffective or impractical solutions.

6-     The reliance on specific European urban policies and standards may introduce bias, limiting the study's broader applicability and relevance.

7-     The article does not sufficiently address the role of technology and innovation in urban regeneration and climate adaptation.

8-     The study does not provide detailed strategies for engaging various stakeholders, including local communities, in the urban regeneration process.

9-     The research does not adequately consider cultural differences and their impact on urban planning and regeneration strategies.

10-  The metrics for measuring sustainability and climate justice are not clearly defined, making it difficult to assess their effectiveness.

11-  The article does not delve deeply into potential funding mechanisms and financial sustainability of the proposed urban regeneration projects.

12-  The concept of intersectional climate justice is discussed broadly, but specific strategies for addressing environmental justice issues are not thoroughly explored.

13-  The study lacks a clear timeline or roadmap for the implementation of its proposed methodologies and frameworks.

14-  The article does not sufficiently address risk management and mitigation strategies for potential challenges in urban regeneration.

15-  The integration of new policies with existing urban planning frameworks is not adequately detailed, which could lead to implementation challenges.

16-  The research focuses on urban areas without considering the linkages and interactions with rural areas, which are crucial for comprehensive urban planning.

17-  The article lacks specific methods for measuring the outcomes and impacts of the proposed urban regeneration strategies, making it difficult to evaluate their success.

In addition to the weaknesses mentioned above, below are suggested area of improvement divided section by section:

1-     Title: The title is clear but could benefit from being more concise. Consider emphasizing the primary contribution of the HPNG framework for example, "Integrating Urban Welfare and Climate Justice: The HPNG Framework in Urban Planning"

2-     Abstract: Include key methodologies, main findings, and the practical implications of the study.

3-     Introduction: The introduction effectively sets the context but could benefit from a more detailed literature review. The problem statement and research objectives need to be more explicit. Expand the literature review to include recent studies on urban welfare and climate justice. Clearly articulate the research gap and objectives.

4-     Constructing the Public City while Navigating Environmental and Socioeconomic Challenges: This section provides a solid theoretical foundation but is heavily focused on European examples. There is a lack of empirical evidence supporting the theoretical claims. Include examples from diverse geographic regions to increase generalizability. Incorporate empirical data or case studies to support theoretical claims.

5-     State-of-the-Art: The section effectively reviews existing urban regeneration policies but could be more critical. The integration of international guidelines is well done but lacks depth in discussing their implementation challenges. Critically analyze the strengths and weaknesses of current policies. Discuss implementation challenges and provide examples of successful integration.

6-     Healthy Streets in London: The detailed discussion on Healthy Streets is informative but overly focused on London. The applicability of this model to other contexts is not sufficiently addressed. Provide a comparative analysis of similar models in other cities. Discuss the adaptability of the Healthy Streets model to different urban contexts.

7-     Methodology: The methodology section is comprehensive but lacks clarity in some areas. Specific methods for data collection and analysis are not well-defined. Clarify the steps of the methodology, including data collection and analysis techniques. Include a flowchart or diagram to visually represent the methodology.

8-     Discussion: The discussion is well-rounded but could benefit from a deeper analysis of the results. The implications of the findings are not thoroughly explored. Provide a detailed analysis of the results, linking them to the research objectives. Discuss the practical implications and potential impact on urban planning practices.

 

9-     Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the main points but is somewhat repetitive. It lacks specific recommendations for policymakers and practitioners. Summarize the key findings concisely without repetition. Provide clear, actionable recommendations for policymakers and urban planners.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

  Title: The title of the paper would benefit from greater clarity. Generally, subtitles should be separated by a colon or dash. Additionally, the acronym "HPNG" is not widely recognized, making it difficult to convey its intended meaning. I recommend revising the overall title to make it more engaging and easier to understand, thereby enhancing its appeal and reach.

  Author Affiliation: The abbreviation "PDTA" should be spelled out in full to provide a clearer understanding of the authors' academic background and institutional affiliation.

  Abstract: In this journal, the abstract should be presented as a single paragraph without subdivision. I suggest restructuring the abstract to follow a more coherent flow: start by outlining the research background related to Healthy and Public Neighborhoods, identify the existing gaps, and then introduce the specific focus and elements of your study. Clearly state the methods used, the data analyzed, and the conclusions reached.

  Introduction:

• The phrase "Constructing the Public City while Navigating Environmental and Socioeconomic" requires clarification, particularly what is meant by "Public City."
• Ensure proper citation formatting, as seen in Line 34.
• The title mentions "Public City," yet this concept is not elaborated upon in the corresponding section—please address this inconsistency.
• Regarding "Line 50 (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," is this referring to a significant law or planning document in Italy? Typically, the introduction should remain concise and avoid detailing specific regulations or texts.

  Research Questions: The introduction should include clearly defined research questions to guide the reader through the study.

  State-of-the-Art (Chapter 2): Consider adding a research framework in this section to make the logical structure of the paper more transparent to the reader.

  Materials (Chapter 3): It's crucial to clearly explain the subjects, research methods, and data sources in this chapter. This often involves using tables and figures to illustrate the information. The content from Lines 230-262 is uncommon in academic writing and should be reconsidered.

  Methodology and Results: The paper should follow a logical sequence with "Methodology" leading into "Results," followed by "Discussion."

  Figures: Figure 4 was generated using AI, which is generally not acceptable in academic papers. Figures of this nature should be created by the authors themselves.

  Discussion: The absence of clearly defined research questions results in a discussion that may feel disjointed. It's important to establish a clear connection between the discussion content and the research questions.

  References: Many of the cited references are not academic papers, and there are inconsistencies in formatting. Please ensure that all references meet the journal's citation guidelines.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

line 28: [2-5]or [2,3,4,5] Ask authors to check the journal's requirements
line 63: The citations here are rather strange, citing the same document in two consecutive paragraphs. It is suggested to reorganize the structure.

Author Response

Thank you.

Thanks, we corrected line 63, we think line 28 is correct.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have demonstrated a thorough and respectful engagement with the comments, addressing each point in a detailed and methodical manner. They have made significant efforts to enhance the clarity, scope, and structure of the manuscript based on the feedback. The following key improvements are noteworthy:

1-     The authors have responded effectively to suggestions for revising the title and abstract. The new title is more concise and better aligned with the article's content, while the abstract has been restructured to include key methodologies, findings, and practical implications.

2-     Although I expressed concerns about the lack of empirical data, the authors clarified that their research is still in an early phase, with the empirical component to be addressed in future stages. They have removed confusing policy references and restructured sections to focus more on the methodology, making this point of critique less impactful at this stage of the research.

3-     The concerns regarding the study's European focus and limited applicability to other regions were acknowledged. The authors added international references and clarified that their focus on Europe is aligned with the current research framework, though they anticipate applying the methodology to other regions in the future. This response strikes a balance between addressing the concerns and staying true to the research scope.

4-     The authors acknowledged the suggestion to include practical examples and detailed strategies, explaining that the application of the methodology is planned for future research phases, particularly the "Experimentation" phase. They were transparent about the current limitations of the work, which strengthened their response.

5-     The authors have incorporated more visuals, flowcharts, and clarified certain terms and concepts as suggested, further improving the manuscript’s readability and coherence.

 

The authors have responded thoroughly to the key concerns, providing sufficient justification for points that could not be fully addressed at this stage of the research. Their revisions have enhanced the overall clarity and direction of the manuscript, and they have laid out a clear path for how they intend to address the remaining issues in future research. This response demonstrates a strong commitment to improving the quality and impact of the work.

Author Response

Thank you

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript improved a lot. 

Author Response

Thank you