Qualitative Methodologies for the Analysis of Intra-Urban Socio-Environmental Vulnerability in Barcelona (Spain): Case Studies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic is very important, facing the integration between quantitative and qualitative approaches for the evaluation of the multidimensional dimension of urban vulnerability. The following revisions are recommended.
- Line 46. The word “external” is not necessary.
- Line 288. There is a typo: what is 22 @?
- Lines 208-224; lines 255-264; lines 299-311; lines 333-357. In § 2 the authors declare that the qualitative aspects of socio-environmental vulnerability are divided into two categories: the constructed environment and the social sphere. However, when the authors face with the four case studies these categories or components are too descriptive. I suggest to insert a table for each case study or, in alternative, a table in which it is possible to compare the case studies to understand better the result of the fieldwork. In these tables (or also one final table) it necessary to show the two main evaluation criteria (the built environment and the social environment) and their sub-criteria, highlighting the criticalities for each case study with respect to each criterion. In the discussion it could be also useful to correlate the qualitative results obtained from the field work with those of ISVuSAR, if some relationships can be recognized.
Author Response
The word “external” has been removed from line 46
Next to 22@ has been added Innovation District (which 22@ means)
Regarding the comment: “In the discussion it could be also useful to correlate the qualitative results obtained from the field work with those of ISVuSAR, if some relationships can be recognized”. Correlations between one and the methodologies are impossible because these are two distinct analyses carried out for 4 neighborhoods selected for their high levels of socio-environmental vulnerability. In the quantitative study, certain statistical variables are used, while in the qualitative study, urban and social variables are used for which there is no statistical information. The fieldwork conducted, the interviews with neighborhood associations, and the search for pertinent publications and press are the sources of evidence here.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper proposes an analysis of four districts of the city of Barcelona (ES) trying to highlight the contents of their social and environmental vulnerability.
The authors propose a qualitative analysis (based on a fieldwork) to complete previous quantitative analyzes.
The authors do not describe the methodology, except by indicating the contents of the analysis, which is not structured in any way.
As a consequence, the description of the districts analyzed is not developed according to a scheme that allows the districts to be compared, but merely delineates a picture, very vague, however, in terms of generic characteristics and never supported by data.
The authors cite the GIS tool also among the keywords, but they do not produce any elaboration and their own elaborations are limited to the delimitation of the districts on the satellite photo.
finally, the descriptions do not reflect the concept of vulnerability as the cause-effect relationships between the current state and the possible risks are in no way supported, but only reflect opinions.
Author Response
Regarding the comment: "The authors do not describe the methodology, except by indicating the contents of the analysis, which is not structured in any way”. We have expanded the section on the quantitative methodology used as a starting point for this research, now referring to the publication by Moreno et al. (2018) where more information on this issue can be found. The section corresponding to the qualitative methodology used has also been considerably expanded, as recommended.
The term “SIG· has been replaced from the keywords to “vulnerable neighborhoods”
Regarding the comment: “the descriptions do not reflect the concept of vulnerability as the cause-effect relationships between the current state and the possible risks are in no way supported, but only reflect opinions”. The selection of four neighborhoods (and not districts) was based on prior quantitative analysis, as indicated in both the text and the bibliography. The synthetic index designed includes facets and variables of vulnerability (education, age, income, professional situation, etc.) that have been previously employed by many researchers. With this contribution, we have sought to complement such prior quantitative analysis with a qualitative assessment based on fieldwork, interviews with neighborhood associations, and analysis of pertinent press and publications. This is not a venue for the opinions of the authors, but for presentation of results obtained from the application of qualitative methodologies.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper intends to highlight the complementary role that qualitative methodologies can play in studies on urban socio-environmental vulnerability. The authors develop reflections with regard to four case studies.
The study is well structured and provides useful elements for reflection.
However, research can be improved by considering three aspects:
1) increasing the bibliography and the theoretical framework of reference;
2) providing elements on multicriteria evaluations. In this regard, it is suggested to mention:
Bencardino M., Nesticò A. (2017): Demographic Changes and Real Estate Values. A Quantitative Model for Analyzing the Urban-Rural Linkages. Sustainability, Vol. 9, Issue 4, 536, doi: 10.3390/su9040536. MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland, 2017
Munda G. (2006): Social multi-criteria evaluation for urban sustainability policies. Land Use Policy, 23, pp.86–94. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.012
Nesticò, A., Sica, F. (2017): The sustainability of urban renewal projects: a model for economic multi-criteria analysis. Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 35 (4), pp. 397–409. DOI: 10.1108/JPIF-01-2017-0003
3) comparing with greater clarity the techniques of quantitative analysis and the techniques of qualitative analysis. In fact, in the paper, the authors refer to both techniques, but do not sufficiently explain the differences.
Author Response
1) “Increasing the bibliography and the theoretical framework of reference”. Up to 10 new bibliographical references have been incorporated into the paper, in practically all sections of the document. These now total 32, which seems a reasonable number, given the length and original purpose of the document (presentation at a conference).
2) "Providing elements on multicriteria evaluations".The following suggested reference has been added to the manuscript: Nesticò, A., Sica, F. (2017): The sustainability of urban renewal projects: a model for economic multi-criteria analysis.Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 35 (4), pp. 397–409. DOI: 10.1108/JPIF-01-2017-0003
3) “Comparing with greater clarity the techniques of quantitative analysis and the techniques of qualitative analysis. In fact, in the paper, the authors refer to both techniques, but do not sufficiently explain the differences”.We have expanded the section on the quantitative methodology used as a starting point for this research, now referring to the publication by Moreno et al. (2018) where more information on this issue can be found. The section corresponding to the qualitative methodology used has also been considerably expanded, as recommended.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper provides an interesting study about social and urban vulnerability caring out a mainly descriptive approach.
Nonetheless authors assume this study as a stage of a methodology “complementing analysis of the multidimensionality and growing societal-urban vulnerability from a geographic/territorial perspective rather than a quantitative one”.
As well as in the previous stage the study presents some structural criticality’s that cannot be overcome at this stage:
the explanation of the method used to integrate the statistical analysis in lines 149-180 isn’t supported by an exemplification in which it is shown how to calculate the ISVuSAR index based on the eight criteria listed and explained in lines 134-145;
It isn’t shown how statistical and qualitative analysis was integrated based on the fieldwork providing qualitative aspects;
It said if and how the qualitative aspects have been used to modify the ISVuSAR map: in particular it should be said if the qualitative observations have been translated into numerical scores that integrate those representative of the quantitative variables;
if, instead, it is only descriptive indications that support the conclusive considerations it can not be said that this study complements the statistical analysis, but only that it accompanies it without modifying its structure.
Session 3 provides, for the four neighbourhoods studied, analyses concerning "aspects or qualitative problems from both the constructed environment and the social sphere, but not replicable patterns (tables, logical flowcharts, list of aspects, scores and weight systems ) is provided. The analysis is not carried out by the same indicators allowing readers to share the comparisons and the conclusions.
The conclusions state that decision-making processes must be supported by both quantitative and qualitative perspectives and that urban interventions should be supported by logical and operational methodologies, but no similar method or application seems to be performed in this study.
The paper basically needs to provide the link between fieldwork analysis methodology, model content, results and conclusions.
Nonetheless, in order to allow authors to share their committing research, I suggest to complement this paper with a general table in which the four neighbourhoods (i) (rows) are compared according the same qualitative criteria (columns) (j) reporting in each of the corresponding ij cell (the cross between neighbourhood and criterion) an assessment - using at least a simple linguistic quantifier (poor, medium, high) - attributed to the i-th neighbourhood from the perspective of the j-th criterion.
Author Response
In response to your kind and valuable evaluation, we expressed the following arguments:
We have carried out modifications in the text, trying to adapt it to the indicated. In this sense, we have modified the methodology section to make it clearer that this research has been developed in two clearly differentiated phases. In the first (eminently quantitative) the ISVuSAR index was created. The information on this index is published in the work of Moreno et al. (2018), and it has been presented briefly in this paper, as a justifying framework for the election of the neighborhoods. In the second phase, and based on this indicated quantitative information, the 4 most vulnerable neighborhoods were chosen and, on them, a qualitative analysis was proposed (based on field work, bibliographic and report analysis or websites, as well as on the interviews with the neighborhood associations) in order to detect urban or social problems and non-quantifiable deficiencies. This is the core of this contribution. There are, therefore, two differentiated studies. With this contribution, we have tried to present only the results obtained in the qualitative analysis of these urban areas that confirm, support, test or verify that they are indeed vulnerable neighborhoods. So, qualitative issues do not modify the ISVuSAR map. It is the qualitative analysis that is based on the results obtained in the first phase of the project. What is done in this paper is to go in depth in the non-quantifiable aspects of these neighborhoods.
It could be inferred from that, the qualitative versus the quantitative is being underestimated. And that has not been our intention, but to put both methodologies on the same place. Therefore, in addition to modifying the summary, some paragraphs and conclusions, the title of the contribution has also been modified, eliminating the word "complementary". As indicated in your evaluation, the results do not complement the previous quantitative study, but verify or support the existing vulnerability, but from another perspective, in this case, qualitative.
Following your indications, we have proceeded to incorporate a synthesis matrix, where the qualitative indicators analyzed in the neighborhoods are collected. That way, the simultaneous visualization of the urban and social deficiencies detected by the authors is possible. It has not been possible to incorporate a simple quantifier as proposed, due to the research was not designed with that objective at the beginning. The use of only dichotomous variables was considered (the problem is present or not). However, we collect your suggestion with interest for future research that addresses the analysis of urban socio-environmental vulnerability from this approach.
We deeply express our gratitude for the valuable suggestions made to this contribution and we hope that the result will be satisfactory.
Kind regards
