Vulnerated Urban Areas under Regeneration: Strategies to Prevent Neighborhood Expulsion in Barcelona or How to Improve without Expelling?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. This paper needs to clarify further the representativeness of Barcelona's selection in the analysis of gentrification in vulnerated urban areas. At the same time, although this paper explains the use of a multidimensional tool to select five neighborhood communities, there are no specifics on what precisely the multidimensional tool is to determine its representativeness accurately. Therefore, further explanation of how the authors measured and identified vulnerable areas of the city is needed in the research methodology.

2. The characteristics of the neighborhood organizations and housing-related entities interviewed by the authors need to be described to judge the credibility of the results of the qualitative analysis in this paper. Moreover, a more comprehensive analysis of the role of social capital and social infrastructure in preventing evictions of community residents, who are the important targets of gentrification, is needed. 

3. Although the paper indicates how to organize the findings section in Figure 2, it needs an analytical framework encompassing gentrification, local strategies, social capital, and social infrastructure. It is recommended that the authors add this.

Author Response

1. This paper needs to clarify further the representativeness of Barcelona's selection in the analysis of gentrification in vulnerated urban areas. At the same time, although this paper explains the use of a multidimensional tool to select five neighborhood communities, there are no specifics on what precisely the multidimensional tool is to determine its representativeness accurately. Therefore, further explanation of how the authors measured and identified vulnerable areas of the city is needed in the research methodology.

Thank you very much for noticing this key issue. To address this question, information from previous work has been incorporated to justify the selection of the 5 case studies, which were the focus of the framework project within which this manuscript is written (see the beginning of the Materials and Methods section).

2. The characteristics of the neighborhood organizations and housing-related entities interviewed by the authors need to be described to judge the credibility of the results of the qualitative analysis in this paper. Moreover, a more comprehensive analysis of the role of social capital and social infrastructure in preventing evictions of community residents, who are the important targets of gentrification, is needed.

Thank you for noticing this very relevant issue: in this new version of the manuscript, a brief characterization of the entities we worked with was incorporated (see the Materials and Methods section). Still, a full description could not be possible due to anonymity reasons. As for the second part of your concern related to the role of the community in preventing evictions, which is definitely something very relevant, some new evidences were incorporated (both in the newly added theoretical and analytical framework section and also in the results and analysis). We hope their role in enhancing engagement against external threats is now clearer.

3. Although the paper indicates how to organize the findings section in Figure 2, it needs an analytical framework encompassing gentrification, local strategies, social capital, and social infrastructure. It is recommended that the authors add this.

Thank you for this comment. This is, in fact, very important. In the first version of the manuscript, we tried to put most of the debates into the introduction and this was probably a mistake. We did this because we were trying to respect the proposed structure of the journal as much as possible. Also, since this manuscript is part of some ongoing projects, and we have addressed more conceptual discussions in previous work, we thought this would be settled by referencing these. However, in this new version we have incorporated a new section introducing some debates on the key concepts that you suggested (see the newly added theoretical-analytical section). We hope you find this is now clearer and more complete.

Reviewer 2 Report

The research topic of this paper is very interesting. I'm very interested. Gentrification is one of the possible phenomena of social development. It refers to an old area that originally gathered low-income people, but after redevelopment, land prices and rents rose, attracting higher-income people to move in and replace the original low-income people. The study looked at five cases in Barcelona and came to valid conclusions. I think this paper is complete and the conclusion is credible.

I have a few suggestions:

1. The research review is not comprehensive enough. Different countries have different approaches to gentrification, and it is recommended to include this part.

2, the paper structure proportion relationship is not coordinated. The third part is too long. It can be divided into two parts.

3. Some references are unnecessary and not highly related to the article.

To sum up, I think this paper meets the publication requirements and I agree to publish it.

Author Response

1. The research review is not comprehensive enough. Different countries have different approaches to gentrification, and it is recommended to include this part.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We understand the importance of incorporating a comprehensive review of different countries' approaches to gentrification. In response to your recommendation, we have expanded our literature review to include an analysis of how various countries address gentrification. This addition aims to provide a broader context and enhance the comparative aspect of our study.

2. The paper structure proportion relationship is not coordinated. The third part is too long. It can be divided into two parts.

Thank you very much for noticing this. In fact, we also had the same concern while we were doing the final layout in our previous submission. However, from the different ways in which we tried to organize the results section, we found that one was the most accurate one. However, for this new version, we have made an effort to make the whole article clearer and easier to read and thanks to your comment, we decided to split the results section into two different ones: results and analysis. Please, feel free to suggest a different layout if you still find it unclear.

3. Some references are unnecessary and not highly related to the article.

Thanks for noticing this. When we finished the final editing before submitting the manuscript, we also realized that there were probably too many references. For this new version, we had to incorporate some new ones in order to answer to other reviewer’s feedback. Still, we have tried to eliminate some references that may have not been of real added value to our ideas. We hope you find this new version is better oriented.

Reviewer 3 Report

I think this is an interesting paper. Gentrification is indeed a hot research topic. This study highlights the social and economic aspects of urban generation.

My main concern is that the theoretical framework is missing in this paper. The authors are suggested to add a new section following the introduction section. It is important to define important variables clearly and to depict their theoretical relations, for instance, how and why do the socio-demographic characteristics, age, education level of the population, number of living people/years, etc. added up to describe gentrification. More importantly, it is necessary to review existing studies and to identify the knowledge gaps in this section especially from a scientific perspective.

The authors mixed the theoretical framework with result and discussion section. While there are more than one research objectives, the authors are suggested to tailor the theoretical framework and research hypothesis clearly, subject to the main research question.

To keep the authors’ information anonymous, I think it is not necessary to report the origin of this manuscript, such as two research projects and one doctoral thesis. It is less important to introduce where it is from, than to explain how and why.

Empirically, the authors need to explain why to choose the empirical evidence from Barcelona in Spain for this analysis, moreover, the five case studies.

In the research design section, it is suggested to add new paragraphs to describe the quality of research data.

In the discussion section, there are many interesting new findings, while the authors are suggested to engage in the literature debates by using the constructed new analytical framework, especially the social and economic dimensions.

Language editing is necessary.

Author Response

1. My main concern is that the theoretical framework is missing in this paper. The authors are suggested to add a new section following the introduction section. It is important to define important variables clearly and to depict their theoretical relations, for instance, how and why do the socio-demographic characteristics, age, education level of the population, number of living people/years, etc. added up to describe gentrification. More importantly, it is necessary to review existing studies and to identify the knowledge gaps in this section especially from a scientific perspective.

Thank you very much for noticing this. In the previous version of the manuscript, we had tried to compress everything into the introduction and this was probably a mistake, as you very well express. For this new version of the work, we have tried to incorporate some debates in relation to the multi-dimensional concept of gentrification – altogether with some international debates, as was suggested by another reviewer – and also some framework depicting social infrastructure and social capital. We hope that this newly added section is more or less what you thought was missing.

2. The authors mixed the theoretical framework with result and discussion section. While there are more than one research objectives, the authors are suggested to tailor the theoretical framework and research hypothesis clearly, subject to the main research question.

We are sorry to see that the research question, framework and hypothesis were not clear enough. For this new version of the manuscript, we have tried to explain better both the objective of the research and the hypothesis. Also, as was recently mentioned, a new theoretical section has been included following the introduction. Finally, in the results section, the theoretical contributions are taken into account and put into relation.

3. To keep the authors’ information anonymous, I think it is not necessary to report the origin of this manuscript, such as two research projects and one doctoral thesis. It is less important to introduce where it is from, than to explain how and why.

Thank you for your comment; you are absolutely right. Without the full information of these projects, it really does not make much sense to incorporate the fact that this work was written within X framework. The specificities of these projects were not mentioned in order to maintain some degree of anonymity, but you are right that we ended up ‘in between’ (not giving full details, but also saying too little). This information has now been eliminated and will be incorporated in the final version of the manuscript; also, we have tried to make the framework clearer. Hopefully, the how and why are now prioritized in relation to the where this manuscript is written from.

4. Empirically, the authors need to explain why to choose the empirical evidence from Barcelona in Spain for this analysis, moreover, the five case studies.

Thank you for noticing this. We totally agree that there was not enough information on the previous version of the manuscript as to why we focused on these neighborhoods and not others. For this new version of the manuscript, we have incorporated a short explanation that we expect make it clear enough (see Materials and Methods section after Figure 1).

5. In the research design section, it is suggested to add new paragraphs to describe the quality of research data.

The issue concerning the quality of research data is definitely a key topic in all research, so we appreciate that you brought that up. We have included a paragraph at the end of the materials and methods section intended to describe the quality of data.

6. In the discussion section, there are many interesting new findings, while the authors are suggested to engage in the literature debates by using the constructed new analytical framework, especially the social and economic dimensions.

We really appreciate that you found the discussion section especially interesting. We tried very hard to stay as closely as we could to the interviewees’ discourses, whilst incorporating new ideas, based on the literature and conceptual frames. For this new version of the manuscript, besides from incorporating a theoretical section, we have divided the previous analysis section into two new ones: one presenting the results and another one focusing on what we believe are our main findings. We hope that this new scheme is better aligned with what you were proposing in your comments.

7. Language editing is necessary.

Thank you for noticing that there might have been some typos and/or other grammatical issues in the previous version of the manuscript. These have been addressed by an external proofreader. Hopefully, it is now easier to read and our ideas are better understood.