Methodology for Determining Potential Locations of Illegal Graffiti in Urban Spaces Using GRA-Type Grey Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The main question addressed by the research is about prevention of illegal urban graffiti and tags, as form considered more as vandalism than street art.The topic is original and relevant to the field because methodologically and by research calculations it is not oriented to usual and well known technical methods (cleaning or using anti-graffiti emulsions), but goes beyond this and gives possibility to predict and prevent in advance appearance of tags on walls. It address a specific gap in the field, between theories of urban safety and city management, proposing a new step and method approach? The authors well defined and explained methodological section, but it is possible to improve research and discussion section by adding maps of spatial area of the research, preferably from the urban plan with indicated land uses and characteristic urban parameters (type of construction, density, etc.) and/or GIS database.
The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and addressed to the main question posed, with
The references are appropriate, I would not add any and have a conflict of interest.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
The authors of the article wish to thank you for the review provided and the comments it contains, which have allowed the quality of the paper to be enhanced.
Q1)
The authors well defined and explained methodological section, but it is possible to improve research and discussion section by adding maps of spatial area of the research, preferably from the urban plan with indicated land uses and characteristic urban parameters (type of construction, density, etc.) and/or GIS database.
A1)
This study applied a research methodology to tagged residential walls randomly selected throughout the city. Features surrounding these walls were then identified that indicated a degraded area, and therefore, an attractive target for illegal graffiti artists. Therefore, the study focused primarily on identifying features for analysis, with their specific location being secondary. The analysis determined which features most likely generate illegal graffiti within the studied area. The methodology can be applied to any location, any type of element (bridge, soundproof barrier, vacant building, etc.) tagged and for any features that surround them.
The article also includes a description of the analyzed features.
The content of the article has been supplemented based on the Reviewer’s comments.
--------
Best regards,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents an important and underexplored topic, but it needs substantial rewriting to improve clarity, reduce repetition, and better communicate findings.
- Abstract: Too long and wordy. Should be shortened to focus on key points: aim, method, key results, and implications. The phrase “delimited spatial wastelands” is unclear. The abstract repeats the same idea multiple times (“sequence of strength of relationships…”).
- Section Introduction. The part about early Christian graffiti, Kyselak, and the origins of street art is informative but not essential for this study’s aim.
- 1 – 2.2: Feature Determination and Fieldwork: How were locations chosen? Who were the interviewees (experts, residents, graffiti artists)? What questions were asked? How was inter-observer agreement handled? Using only 5 features may oversimplify a complex issue.
- 2: Table 4 and Table 7 clearly show the stability of the results. However, it's not clearly explained why five features were selected. Were there others considered but excluded?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
The authors of the article wish to thank you for the review provided and the comments it contains, which have allowed the quality of the paper to be enhanced.
Q1)
Abstract: Too long and wordy. Should be shortened to focus on key points: aim, method, key results, and implications. The phrase “delimited spatial wastelands” is unclear. The abstract repeats the same idea multiple times (“sequence of strength of relationships…”).
A1)
The abstract has been improved in accordance with the reviewer's suggestion. The redundant phrase "separated spatial wastelands" has been removed. The repetition of the phrase "sequence of relationship strength..." has been removed.
--------
Q2)
Subsection 2.2: Feature Determination and Fieldwork: How were locations chosen? Who were the interviewees (experts, residents, graffiti artists)? What questions were asked? How was inter-observer agreement handled? Using only 5 features may oversimplify a complex issue.
A2)
Locations were randomly selected within the city under study. Using face-to-face interviews, the authors identified features in the area surrounding the tagged walls that indicated the area was degraded and therefore attractive to illegal graffiti artists. Five characteristic features were identified within the study area.
The content of the article has been supplemented based on the Reviewer’s comments.
--------
Q3)
Table 4 and Table 7 clearly show the stability of the results. However, it's not clearly explained why five features were selected. Were there others considered but excluded?
A3)
In the studied area and scope, 5 characteristic features were identified, which indicated that the area was degraded and therefore attractive to illegal graffiti artists. The analysis determined which features most likely generate illegal graffiti within the studied area. The methodology can be applied to any location, any type of element (bridge, soundproof barrier, vacant building, etc.) tagged and for any features that surround them.
The article has been corrected in line with the Reviewer’s suggestions.
--------
Best regards,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article aims to propose a practical methodology for understanding potential locations of illegal graffiti in a city using grey relational analysis, and it is very useful for comprehending urban phenomenon in a particular aspect. Also, it sheds light on the importance of why and how our urban environment should be improved by looking at the specific event.
It is very interesting and particularly impressed to the process of developing methodologies in order to get substantial findings from the case studies. However, it needs to carefully rectify in order to get a better understanding and clarity, and it is as follows:
Abstract
It is too long, and it does not include significant features which are strongly related to the illegal graffiti. Please shorten the abstract (especially the background of why this study matters, the detailed research methodology), and describe the main results such as poor condition of the pavement and neglected greenery in the finding section. However, it should be clearly stated the purpose of this study.
- Materials and Methods
Authors derived five features which were expected to stimulate the execution of illegal graffiti in the urban space. But it is not clear how these elements have been identified. Also, it is necessary to explain whether other meaningful features would be considered or not.
In line with this, the surrounding conditions can be thought of building heights (i.e., high-rise or low-density), building types (i.e., education, administration, residential, shops, hospitals, and so on), the adjacency of vacant lots or infrastructure (i.e., highway, railroad, bridge, etc.), parks, or neglected buildings, and so on. Therefore, it needs to be explained why those variant conditions would not be considered in this study.
In addition, it should be explained the meaning of “poor conditions” of facades and pavements: in what way the conditions have been defined in this study...
Also, “lack of visibility” from private windows must be explained: how visibility was defined.
- Results and Discussion
The contents of Table 1 and Figure 1 are the same. Figure 1 seems unnecessary.
Is it possible to provide some examples of tagged places? (By using photos and locations on a map) Recommend to describe extra information about the cases.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4
The authors of the article wish to thank you for the review provided and the comments it contains, which have allowed the quality of the paper to be enhanced.
Q1)
Abstract
It is too long, and it does not include significant features which are strongly related to the illegal graffiti. Please shorten the abstract (especially the background of why this study matters, the detailed research methodology), and describe the main results such as poor condition of the pavement and neglected greenery in the finding section. However, it should be clearly stated the purpose of this study.
A1)
The abstract has been improved in accordance with the reviewer's suggestion. The summary includes the main results obtained from the analysis of the studied features and the aim of the study.
--------
Q2)
Materials and Methods
Authors derived five features which were expected to stimulate the execution of illegal graffiti in the urban space. But it is not clear how these elements have been identified. Also, it is necessary to explain whether other meaningful features would be considered or not.
A2)
The authors inventoried the features for analysis using face-to-face interviews. These features indicated that the area around the walls with tags was degraded and therefore attractive to illegal graffiti artists.
--------
Q3)
In line with this, the surrounding conditions can be thought of building heights (i.e., high-rise or low-density), building types (i.e., education, administration, residential, shops, hospitals, and so on), the adjacency of vacant lots or infrastructure (i.e., highway, railroad, bridge, etc.), parks, or neglected buildings, and so on. Therefore, it needs to be explained why those variant conditions would not be considered in this study.
A3)
This study applied a research methodology to tagged residential walls randomly selected throughout the city. Features surrounding these walls were then identified that indicated a degraded area, and therefore, an attractive target for illegal graffiti artists. The analysis determined which features most likely generate illegal graffiti within the studied area. The methodology can be applied to any location, any type of element (bridge, soundproof barrier, vacant building, etc.) tagged and for any features that surround them.
--------
Q4)
In addition, it should be explained the meaning of “poor conditions” of facades and pavements: in what way the conditions have been defined in this study...
A4)
The article also includes a description of the analyzed features. The poor condition of the facades indicates clear signs of technical degradation of the buildings, such as surface dirt, structural cracks, flaking plaster, bulges, traces of mold and moisture, as well as visible defects in insulation materials. Similarly, the poor con-dition of the sidewalks is manifested by numerous damages and deformations of the surface, including cracks, gaps, unevenness, and protruding elements, sometimes overgrown with ruderal vegetation, indicating a lack of systematic maintenance. Ne-glected greenery was also noticeable in the surroundings of the studied buildings, de-fined as areas lacking care and maintenance.
--------
Q5)
Also, “lack of visibility” from private windows must be explained: how visibility was defined.
A5)
Another significant feature was the lack of visibility from private windows, which, in line with the CPTED concept, refers to residents' limited ability to naturally observe public spaces. In the cases studied, this particularly concerned marked walls that were located out of sight of neighboring buildings, reducing the po-tential for social control.
--------
Q6)
Results and Discussion
The contents of Table 1 and Figure 1 are the same. Figure 1 seems unnecessary.
A6)
Figure 1 removed.
--------
Q7)
Is it possible to provide some examples of tagged places? (By using photos and locations on a map)
A7)
The work focused primarily on identifying features for analysis, with their specific location being of secondary importance. The analysis determined which features most contribute to the illegal graffiti phenomenon within the studied area. The methodology can be used to analyze any features, for any location, and for any type of tagged element.
The content of the article has been supplemented based on the Reviewer’s comments.
--------
Best regards,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt can be accepted.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your replay and the revised version. It has confirmed that all comments have been considered well and revised accordingly.
