Multidimensional Assessment for “Culture-Led” and “Community-Driven” Urban Regeneration as Driver for Trigger Economic Vitality in Urban Historic Centers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I believe that the following comments/suggestions will improve objectively your manuscript.

In general, the manuscript is well organised and presents an interesting approach regarding the economic vitality in urban historical centres.

Keywords

The presented keywords are: Cultural values; Culture-led Regeneration; Circular Economy; Circular City; Deliberative multi-criteria analysis; Multi-Stakeholder Decision Analysis (M-SDA); Multi-Criteria Decision Aid (MCDA); Novel Approach to Imprecise Assessment and Decision Environments (NAIADE); Analytic Network Process (ANP); Multidimensional Indicators.

Keywords are very important as they make any paper efficiently searchable. Although a strong set of keywords have been displayed none is related to community involvement or to Urban Regeneration of Historical Centres.

Idem: Historic Center of Catanzaro (?)

Section: Introduction

The 2 pages Introduction section

Every Introductions need a (short) review of the literature relating to the research topic. Despite being a short review, the Introduction presented needs to be strengthened with some more references.

Lines 103-105 – Authors wrote: This paper aims to contribute to the international debate about the role of cities in the achievement of sustainable development and to make operational concepts in the evaluation field driving sustainable transformations of cities and territories “culture-led” and "community-driven". Suggestion: Authors should refer in this sentence, that this “method” takes into account the role of cultural heritage in a systemic landscape perspective (as mentioned in the abstract section), or… it is related to urban regeneration… Something more focused on the kind of urban approach.

Section: 3.2. The integrated decision support system for the choice of alternative scenarios

Line 226 – Error in the end of the line (the references number).

Section: 3.2.5. NAIADE Outcomes

Lines 394-396 – Figure 2 hasn’t enough graphic quality – very difficult to read. Please improve it.

Section: 3.2.6. ANP method implementation

Lines 444-445 – Authors wrote: “The twelve indicators, grouped into four classes, are the indicators considered fundamental for 444 choosing the most suitable scenario for sustainable culture-led regeneration (Table 3).” However, observing Table 3 (The sustainability indicators) thirteen, (not twelve) indicators are presented.

Line 450 – Authors wrote: “Attractiveness: the criterion considers the presence of leisure activities that could contribute to attract both inhabitants and visitors in the area (…)”. Authors should justify why they reduce “attractiveness” to leisure activities only. Literature shows how many other factors contribute to the level of urban attractiveness. Note that the leisure/recreational dimension is also contemplated in criterion number I 22 (lines 462-463).

Lines 475-476 – Authors wrote: “I 42 Liveability: the criterion represents the quality of life delivered by the transformation and it is measured by a quantitative scale (…)”. Whereas “liveability” can be understood as a set of factors associated with the quality of life of communities, including natural and built environments, economic prosperity and social stability and equity, as well as cultural and educational opportunities and opportunities for entertainment and recreation, the term liveability should be replaced by another one more consistent with the chosen criteria I 42.

Lines 493-494 – Figure 3. “ANP: Screen shot from Super decision software” should be improved. It presents very bad graphic quality. Please improve it.

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper proposes a Multi-Stakeholder Decision Analysis (MSDA) to support the decision process for designing urban regeneration “culture-led” and “community-driven” model.

The MSDA is applied, as case study, to four alternative scenarios in Catanzaro (Italy) by applying NAIADE and ANP software.

The issue is interesting and in the current debate. The study is well designed but needs to add some tables and figures to better presented the methodology and the results.

We propose the following suggestions:

Section 3

- the methodological framework should be cleary described by adding short definition of each step of the analysis;

-Since Sustainability is an international journal a map of Italy with the location of the city of Catanzaro would be inserted;

- specify how many questionnaires have been administrated and how the key points have been chosen (frequency statistics).

Rows 324-326- Check the syntax of the sentence.

Row 333 – “Mason 2002” is not present in the reference list.

Rows 421-423- Check

Row 554 – check ‘decisions’

Section 3.2.6

Neverteless the figure 3 is sfocata, the proposed model looks a hierarchic model more than a network one. The are none visible interactions between clusters and/or nodes, that are the main difference between ANP and AHP, moreover it should be asserted that the clusters of the model are five, as the alternatives are one of the clusters of the model.

The structure of this model needs to be accurately revised and/or better described.

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I do not find the author has addressed my concern. The added explanation on the focus of the paper is not enough.   My major concern is that the paper is too big an attempt to do all those in one journal paper. It needs cutting down.

My previous comments still stand. 

The paper needs re-editing to make it focusing on less amount of sub-topics. Not just adding explanation or clarifying some data or points. 

Author Response

For the comments that the auditor believes that the document has too many contents and that the main focus is not clearly identified:

The 'many contents': multidimensional assessment..."culture-led" ..."community-driven"... economic vitality....urban historical centres,

are clearly related to the main focus of the paper:

that is to test a multi-criteria analysis for decision support, starting from a multi-stakeholder decision analysis (M-SDA), in order to help decision-makers in choosing appropriate scenarios for circular activation of development processes, taking into account the role of cultural heritage in a systemic landscape perspective.

Therefore, the methodology described in the paper proposes a paradigm shift on what are the current modes of intervention and the effects of massive real estate development processes on fragile neighborhoods and cities, where regeneration programs profoundly and irreversibly change the urban structure and original social, which in many cases also involve the territory.

Reviewer 3 Report

the author has improved the paper according to the previous suggestions.

Just check the use of commas and points in tables 1, 3 and 5.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.

I checked the commas and the points in tables 1, 3 and 5.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf