Assessing Quality of Life and Walkability for Urban Regeneration: The Piave Neighbourhood in Mestre-Venice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Enter "Venice" in the title, so that it is easier to identify the city where the studied neighborhood is located.

lines 29-39, The authors start from an unclear definition of urban regeneration. They should seek to define what they understand by urban regeneration, based on, for example, the work of Hugh Skykes and Peter Roberts. This is essential for a good understanding of the material and immaterial characteristics of the built environment and the urban social environment that must be better described based on the dimensions of urban regeneration, as understood by the concept.

lines 93-98, the authors need to give examples of the two dimensions of walkability to make it more evident to a non-specialist reader which aspects we are dealing with.

lines 168-181, please support statements about neighborhood characteristics with bibliographical references.

The results and discussion sections seem separate and unrelated. It is necessary that the results section (which is very descriptive) sometimes includes some interpretative and comprehensive/explanatory capacity, facilitating the bridge with the discussion section.

Despite some theoretical-conceptual deficiencies, the article may be published after minor changes introduced by the authors. We believe that this work will have great value, usefulness and relevance for studies of urban regeneration.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Your paper is a well-written piece of work. It demonstrates a mastery of the unique methodology used however; I have some observations to make. First, the conceptual framework of the research lacks key indicators such as the major argument of the research, the core research problem, the core research question, etc. These issues should constitute the ‘Introductory’ chapter. The ‘Introductory’ chapter in its present form reads like a theoretical framework. Second, the paper lacks a thorough literature review. Hence, it is not clear the argument (or debate) the paper is contributing to and the intellectual field. Your indication that there exist studies on the topic is not enough. We need to know what these studies are all about for us to justify the current study and appreciate its contribution to knowledge. Besides these issues, I think the paper is superb.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf