Between Struggle, Forgetfulness, and Placemaking: Meanings and Practices among Social Groups in a Metropolitan Urban Park

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I very much enjoyed reading the article, but my overall criticism is that it is not a study of micro-segregation. It is a great addition to the literature on public space governance and contestation, but I could not see the role of segregation or micro-segregation played. My comments are, therefore, conceptual in nature and will point to specific elements in the text to illustrate what I mean. My hope is that the authors can draw out the link to micro-segregation more explicitly and achieve their stated goal. I will say upfront that I consider exclusion to be a central element of segregation. As such, I understand how some of the changes to the parc rules are exclusionary of some users based on the interdiction of practices like bonfires and camping. But that is not the relationship the authors focus on. They focus on the effect of segregation on how people see and use the parc, not on how the governing rules of the parc create new forms of segregation. These are distinct processes.  

 

From the beginning it is unclear how micro-segregation fits into this study. In the first paragraph, segregation is defined as the spatial separation of people. Micro-segregation in public spaces is then contrasted with other strands of research (line 44). But, the existing research seems to overlap significantly with public spaces (e.g., how people navigate belonging in their neighborhoods, or within the same building). This contrast seems artificial and unnecessary unless the authors specify what they mean by public space and how it differs from what the cited research did.

In the second paragraph, the authors appear to suggest the article focuses on how micro-segregation shaped the governance of a parc, “how it [micro-segregation] influences the process of attributing meanings and the utilization of public spaces.” This is the main issue I have with the article. Micro-segregation is not clearly conceptualized in the context of this paper, and therefore this link between micro-segregation and governance does not come through. What I do see is a process of contestation that cuts across multiple generations of parc users who draw from different experiences and identities to claim ownership of the space. I really like that aspect of the paper. However, there is no evidence that these groups are micro- or macro-segregated (we don’t know where the informants live or much of anything about their background and how they may experience exclusionary processes). The divides seem to be mostly temporal/generational. I didn’t get a sense that exclusionary processes shaped how informants and parc users conceptualized their relationship to the parc. If anything, the main division are societal rather than spatial (e.g., people’s lived experience of the dictatorship contrasted to those who were born after, people who have experiences rooted in a time when Santiago was a much smaller city, etc)   

The paragraph starting on p.3, line 89 captures what I think is the intention of the authors. If I am correct, I think that the main issue is indeed in establishing segregation as the foundation upon which the analysis is developed. In Dixon et al., there is a clear line of division that serves as the foundation for their study (Catholic and Protestant). There is no analog the authors offer in their case. After reading the article, I can’t explain how segregation works into the observed patterns of contestation. What are the dividing lines? What does the map in Fig. 2 d) tell me about how people see the park. Is it the case that people in high vulnerability areas engage with the park differently? Do generational divides map onto space? Educational divide? For that matter, is it the case that education is a factor in explaining how people see the evolution of the parc’s governance as a positive or negative?

In the result section, the lack of attention to segregation is apparent. It doesn’t sound like the new governance paradigm established after 2006 led to exclusion of people, but of practices. The goal was how to ensure the preservation of the commons in a way that balanced environmental resilience and public access. The contestation of the process and outcomes is interesting, but how does it relate to micro-segregation? Is the banning of unrestricted camping and burning a form of exclusion? What does it tell us about governance and achieving the goals of protecting natural assets for the future?  This is the type of question that is relevant to understanding exclusion, but is also a necessary part of democracy. The tension is nicely summarized on lines 750-755. I think this should be foregrounded as the motivating paradigm for the study, but again, it does not emphasize or clarify the role of segregation.

From the beginning of section 4 on p.9, we don’t return to micro-segregation until the paragraph that starts on line 671, p.16. And then, the authors state that there was no focus on segregation as an exclusionary mechanism but reframe it as a form of contestation between uses that, again, does not presuppose exclusion from space, only of uses. This brings me back to my point about the importance of being clear on how segregation is defined, conceptualized, and deployed for the analysis. Without it, this is a study about access and governance and how the outcomes of these processes of contestation can affect segregation.

Minor edits:

·         Peñalolén is described as being in the southwestern part of Santiago but looks like it is in the southeastern (I might even say just eastern) part of Santiago.

·         Line 240 comma vs dot convention for numbers (i.e., does the journal use 147,390?). The text used US spelling, so the numbering should accord with that convention.

·         For the map of vulnerability, indicate that higher numbers correspond to higher vulnerability.

·         Review text in Fig. 4 for typos (e.g., New mayor wons the campaign, should be ‘wins’)

·         Add a footnote to give the reader a bit of background on Villa Grimaldi

·         The literature review is difficult to digest without a context onto which to apply it. A brief introduction to the site up front (i.e., on p.2), why it matters, and main issues to be addressed would help then see how the densely theoretical review is applicable and relevant to understanding this specific case.

·         Does the presence of the University campus next to the park have any significance on how the parc is used? When was the campus developed? The paragraph beginning on line 360 suggests “yes.” I would bring this up as part of the site description in Section 3 and even in the introduction.

·         How were the municipal data collected (for quantitative analysis)?

·         Is the park accessible by walking? By transit? This is a major exclusionary factor. If the parc can only be entered at the main entrance, which is itself mostly accessible by car, then that would exclude many people potentially.

·         Section 3.1 (p.11, should be 4.1; correct numbering throughout the rest of the paper)

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Only minor typos. Overall, well and clearly written.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We very much appreciate your valuable comments and suggested changes to our manuscript, as well as the overall perception of its rational and central thesis in the micro-segregation framework. As we received major suggestion from both reviewers, we decided to address each point in a transversal and integrated way, in order to offer a new version of the revised manuscript in a coherent and clear way. We now have a new draft in which we have carefully addressed almost all the points raised in the review process. In a separate document, we first highlight two main suggestions that are major and common to the two reviewers, so we present this letter of response organized around these major issues. Afterwards, we added a table to provide detail on other addressed reviews.

Overall, we believe that the revisions have strengthened the manuscript and improved its clarity and scholarly contribution. We have also taken the opportunity to update the literature review and provide additional arguments based on our data.We hope that you find the revised version satisfactory for publication in the micro-segregation special issue of Land.

Thank you once again for considering our manuscript for publication. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We very much appreciate your valuable comments and suggested changes to our manuscript, as well as the overall perception of its rational and central thesis in the micro-segregation framework. As we received major suggestion from both reviewers, we decided to address each point in a transversal and integrated way, in order to offer a new version of the revised manuscript in a coherent and clear way. We now have a new draft in which we have carefully addressed almost all the points raised in the review process. In a separate document, we first highlight two main suggestions that are major and common to the two reviewers, so we present this letter of response organized around these major issues. Afterwards, we added a table to provide detail on other addressed reviews.

Overall, we believe that the revisions have strengthened the manuscript and improved its clarity and scholarly contribution. We have also taken the opportunity to update the literature review and provide additional arguments based on our data.We hope that you find the revised version satisfactory for publication in the micro-segregation special issue of Land.

Thank you once again for considering our manuscript for publication. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

 

Sincerely,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for their thorough revisions. In consideration of the approach to the revisions, I read the text without reference to the previous version to see if it addressed the overarching issue I had outlined. It does partially.

What is still missing is a conceptual mapping between inequality and segregation. It is unclear, for example, how the 2005 mayoral election cut across socioeconomic divisions. Were the supporters of the newly elected mayor mostly from the more vulnerable parts of Peñalolén and the incumbent represented the interests of affluent residents or was it the case that residents of Peñalolén were against the privatization of the park regardless of social class (something I can imagine).

Linking inequality and segregation in this context would take considerable empirical work that would send this paper back to the drawing table. What I suggest instead is minor adjustments to the framing to embrace the complexity of the case (what this kind of method is best suited for) and embrace an open-ended definition of segregation, which is, I think, the intention of the authors.

The dividing lines in the case of Quebrada Macul Park cut in ways that don't map easily onto macro-segregation patterns or socioeconomic inequalities. They are generational, interests-based, sometimes reinforce division, sometimes undermine them. The interpretation lands there in the last parts of the paper and the authors do a good job of expressing this complexity. I think the only thing missing (and I apologize for again having a broad comment rather than specific issues) is to foreground this complexity from the beginning and reading the manuscript with an eye toward avoiding linking what we might term conventional segregation and the manifestation of micro-segregation through a public space contestation. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

 

We extend our sincere gratitude for your insightful comments and suggestions during both rounds of review. We firmly believe that these contributions have significantly enhanced the clarity and focus of our manuscript.

We are particularly thankful for your thorough guidance on expanding the manuscript’s discussion of segregation. We believe that this allowed us to more comprehensively address the background of social interactions observed in our study. To this end, we have added a paragraph in lines 88-100 and revised the abstract to better convey our broader understanding of segregation as it pertains to the Chilean context, including its implications for social interactions at the micro-level, meaning-making processes, and spatial practices.

Considering the limited time provided for this noted as minor revisions, we believe the revised manuscript successfully addresses the suggestions made.

 

Should you require any further information or clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

Sincerely,

 

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

   I have read your responses with interest and appreciated your organization of merging the two responses to reviewers.

I have mainly appreciated the new organization of your manuscript; good luck with your research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

 

We extend our sincere gratitude for your insightful comments and suggestions during the first round of review. We firmly believe that these contributions have significantly enhanced the clarity and focus of our manuscript.

We greatly appreciate your feedback and considerations on our revision process on the second round. We are optimistic that the revisions meet the high standards expected for publication.

Considering the limited time provided for this noted as minor revisions, we believe the revised manuscript successfully addresses the suggestions made.

 

Should you require any further information or clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

Sincerely,

 

The Authors