Urban Commons between Ostrom’s and Neo-Materialist Approaches: The Case of Lido Pola in Naples, Southern Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

The work addresses two collective action models based on Ostrom idea of sustainability and the Recent hybrid neo-materialist urban and organizational theoretical path grounded within the Metzger-Barad-Latour analyses using the case study of Lido Pola Living Lab. The work presents a very relevant and in-depth systematization of different intra-actins through the perspective of the two approaches on both theoretical and practical levels. The work can have great importance development of New Bauhaus and Horizon Europe initiatives.

Some structuring issues could nevertheless be addressed. The abstract and introduction should be reorganized to improve readability by explaining the overall structure of the research before its specific details.

The use of 'single' and "double" quotation marks should be revised.

Title and keywords

The paper would benefit from a more concise title and keywords.

Abstract

The field and the objective of the research are not clearly stated in the abstract. The notions of new institutional economics, policy design, and urban theory which appear as keywords could already be introduced in the Abstract.

The notion of “experimental match” (lines 12,13) is unclear.

The “hypothesis” in (line 13) should be specified, otherwise abstract is imprecise.  

 

Introduction

In the lines 51-52, “some studies” should be complemented with the references.

In the line 54 “following these authors”, authors should be specified.

The aim defined in lines 57-59 should already be stated in the abstract.

The text (lines 57-69) is a great explanation of the work and should be placed at the beginning of the Introduction section.

The text (lines 88-96) is an excellent description of the structure of the work and the overall methodology, it could in a more succinct shape already appear in the abstract.   

In lines 154-156 the introduction of the notion of urban atmospheres is interesting but unrelated to the rest of the work.

 

Sections 3-6

The researchers’ epistemological stance is unclear. Are the researchers observing the commons experiences from within?  Do they belong to the community? What was the exact duration of the analysis, how many experiences were observed, and how?

 

Conclusions

The final paragraph of the conclusions should be better explained.  

 

References

 

The introduction of Levinas and his phenomenology of intersubjective can be an interesting addition to the future development of the work.   

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Many thanks for your time and reading, both very precious for the article and, not least, for our personal and professional improvements.

As you suggested we have introduced, in track change, the following improvements:

1. Make more direct and light the title;
2. Changed the abstract. Thanks to your suggestions is now more clear the field and objective of research; we have changed the keywords accordingly.
3. In the Introduction:

• We have included the needed references;
• The explanatory sentences have been moved at the beginning of the introduction;
• We have updated the abstract with the right text lines (88-96) from the introduction;
• In lines 154-156 the introduction of the notion of urban atmospheres has been moved in a footnote

 

4. Sections 2-6:

- Following your suggestions, we have re-thought at the whole paper’s structure to clarify our epistemological stance. Now, the paragraph 2 is entirely dedicated to the “Research protocol” (whose reading is facilitated with a flow chart), while the paragraph 3 is dedicated to the whole “Theoretical setting” (sub-sections: 3.1, “Ostrom and the urban in the making”; 3.2, “Metzger-Barad-Latour discoursing..”; 3.3, Theoretical coding). The paragraph 4 is dedicated to the whole empirical experience and entitled “Testing phase”. It is enriched by a timeline of our position, as researchers, with respect the whole Bagnoli area, in which the Lido Pola commons is located. Sub-sections are: 4.1 Materials and 4.2 Case development. Then, 5 Results and discussion and, finally, 6. Conclusion. 

 

5. In the Conclusion, we have reached a more convincing text and we included your eminent suggestion to refer to Levinas for future research

 

In the hope of having well understand your precious revisions and to have completely included in the text, we send all our best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is very well written and contributes some critical urban theories and experiments for the nature of inter and intra-actioning commons’ relationships, which focuses on the commons "Lido Pola" in Naples, Southern Italy. And the proposed scheme outperforms the state of the arts and can help governments pay more attention to creating urban sustainable-inclusive context. But, there are some minor problems, which must be solved before it is considered for publication. If the following problems are well-addressed, this reviewer believes that the essential contribution of this paper are important for policy design and urban sustainability.

1.     For Section 1 Introduction:

l  What are the research gaps in this paper, please clarify.

2.     For Section 2 Theories:

l  Please add some citations in section 2, especially from line 101 to 114, line 121 to 128, etc. 

3.     For Section 3 Rationale and method:

l  Could you please add a flow chart to clarify your research methods, theoretical and experimental process in this research?

4.     For Section 4 Practice:

l  Figures 1 and 2 are not clear, please increase the resolution of the images.

5.     For Section 6 Conclusion:

l  Please clarify the limitations and future research directions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Many thanks for your review of the article, which is now, we hope, more readable and widely correct.

With regard to your precious suggestions, we have organized the updates as follows:

 

1. We added more pertinent literature items (from 27 to 68);
2. In order to follow your suggestion (to make easier for the reader to analyze and trace the research done), we introduced a dedicated paragraph to the methodology also including the figure 1 about the Research Protocol Scheme;
3. We have further discussed the results of the empirical study to reach a more clear systematization of the research process as a whole.

In the hope of well understood your suggestions, we remain at your disposal for every further paper’s update and corrections

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents an interesting approach to urban social intra-actioning in-between Ostrom's and neomaterialist approaches.
The manuscript shows a current overview of research on Urban commons’ communities’ conceptions and their positioning in contemporary cities as Nepales in Southern Italy in Europe. This topic is described in chapters 1,2,5 of the article as novel and little explored theoretically at present. The paper has a clearly defined purpose of research which is achieved in the result and conclusions of the research. The methods, results, and discussion are also clearly presented.
Some of the results are also illustrated in additional figures and tables which provide background to the discussed issues.

Suggestions and additional comments:

Firstly, I suggest adding more literature items (up to 50 items), the current review of studies in this area is insufficient. However, I leave this issue to the authors’ decision due to topic specification.
The second suggestion concerns methodology. My fervent request is to add a research framework in graph or scheme which, in my opinion, will make it easier for the reader to analyze and trace the research done by the authors.
The third suggestion concerns the application of the presented studies in chapter 5. Perhaps it is worth considering these issues further in the discussion a little wider than at present.

Summing up, the subject ans scope of the manuscript meets the substantive and editorial requirements of the journal. I think that after minor revision, the paper is suitable for publication in Land MDPI journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Many thanks for your attention and eminent revision. We addressed your suggestions as follows:

1. In the Introduction, we clarified the research gaps or the basic motivation of the research (see row 5 and following). The inherent statements are recalled in the final paragraph “Conclusion”;
2. We have made more robust the theoretical background also including more pertinent citations as you suggested;
3. To clarify the research method, theoretical and experimental process, we added a new section (Research protocol) with a dedicated Research Protocol Scheme;
4. We have increased the resolution of the images;
5. Finally, we have updated the conclusion with the future research directions.

 

In thanking you for your suggestion, we give you our best regards