A Systematic Literature Review of Applied Methods for Assessing the Effects of Public Open Spaces on Immigrants’ Place Attachment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research has been found original in this respect and it is thought to contribute to the literature. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for your time and attention in reviewing our paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

Thank you for inviting me to review the paper entitled A systematic literature review of applied methods for assessing the effects of public open spaces on immigrants’ place attachment. Overall, the paper is topical, enlightening and speaks to the literature discussing the effects of public open spaces on immigrants’ place attachment. For a long time, concepts such as place attachment have been a relevant research and discussion topic in architecture, geography, urban planning and spatial design. Therefore, conducting a systematic literature review to construct an encompassing theoretical framework is an excellent idea and suitable for this journal. The paper tries to establish such a framework. However, it shows a range of fundamental theoretical, methodological and analytical weaknesses:

First, the systematic review should be based on a specific research question. To identify this study’s main contribution and addition, researchers must clearly state this question.

Second, the general structure (introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusions) is appropriate. However, the abstract needs to include a problem statement: Why is the topic relevant, and what kind of problem does it address? For whom is it relevant? What is the contribution of this study to the problem? It is observable that different authors in the (urban) design and planning literature use different terminology (e.g., place dependence; place affect; place social bond; place identity) to describe similar phenomena. Therefore, this study provides guidance and definitions regarding the often-confusing interchangeable terminology that falls under the overarching concept of ‘place attachment’.

Third, this study’s aim needs to be clarified: How can the analysis of the methods used to understand the relationship between public open spaces’ effects on immigrants’ attachments is clarified? In addition, I needed to understand the meaning of discovering how immigrants’ place attachments were evaluated in these places.

Fourth, the criteria from 1-10, what do they mean? How was it estimated for each factor? These points need to identify the elements of materiality and explain the computational and methodological rationale by which the scores are determined. Experts may be appropriate for this evaluation.

Fifth: I see a solid literature content analysis, yet the outcome needs to be clarified on architectural practice. This article should have an additional section on how architecture practice could benefit from your analysis. In other words, how does this analysis inform architecture practice (e.g., urban planning and urban design)? 

Sixth, concerning your findings, what is the research’s contribution to architecture science? How can the results of this research be used to develop the study subject? 

For example, (1) the research did not suggest any novel ways to assess the relationship between open spaces and immigrants’ attachment to the place. Nevertheless, this goal should have been achieved. (2) The research did not end with a framework or an action plan that included the essential differences between public place descriptions. This includes immigrants’ association with the place. Finally, he had to describe the factors found in previous studies in order to conclude the theoretical study.

Seventh, the discussion section reiterates the previous section. However, relating the findings to the problem statement would be more valuable. What is the value of the findings? Is it possible to define the analysed terms better than before? How does it increase our (theoretical, practical) understanding of our terminology? Do you need help to use them interchangeably? How does a more detailed distinction between the terms help us analyse, evaluate and design our cities?

Additional notes:

• Figure 5 is incomprehensible.
• The research methods subheading in the Results chapter needs to give a better impression of Table 2 results.
• What is the importance of Table 2’s research questions? How has it contributed to the development of results or research?
• Table 3 elements are confusing and evaluated in a monogamous relationship (each article separately), and no similar, convergent, or similar elements appear in the evaluation. It is preferable to search for points of convergence and unification of the review elements. I mean the Features and Factors box.
• Table 3 dimensions are part of your findings/results, but the reader needs to learn at this stage. It would help if you introduced this better. In other words, where did the dimensions come from in this table? Why was it not mentioned in the methodology section?
• Written and visual communication (diagrams) needs revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for your questions and comments. Our responses are in the attached file.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I have analysed this review article about the effects of public open spaces on immigrant persons.

 

Although slightly biased to the Australian side, the topic is adequate and necessary since there is little information on that matter and in general on the relationship between immigration and architecture. Besides, the article is thoroughly researched and comprehensive.

 

The authors could perhaps press their point by further investigating other languages and perspectives. Also adding more graphs and pictures on the open spaces suggested for the analysis since further explanations matters could prove beneficial for the article. I am curious about the possible evolution of spaces in the cities devoted reception and well-being of the immigrants.

 

However, the article in summary is complete and thoroughly researched, perhaps some dashes here and there would enhance the applicability of the research to urban design policies.

 

The conclusions are consistent and offer potential for decision-making process in the urban design area.

 

 

Summary of evaluation: This article is interesting and promising both from the point of social sciences and architectural design or policy around the world. I suggest that the manuscript be published after small adjustments in the sense referred above.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for your questions and comments. Our responses are attached in the file.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewer made most of the comments made in the first review.