Can a University Campus Work as a Public Space in the Metropolis of a Developing Country? The Case of Ain-Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article touches on an important question: the significance of public space in the city, especially in Cairo and whether the university campus can offer a solution to this. The method followed is adequate. However, the article can gain in depth if a theoretical framework is developed based on types of urban spaces. Now the discussion is limited to the public-private contrast. In between, however, parochial and institutional space are discussed in literature and should be mentioned here. Especially the concept of institutional space is interesting for the subject. The history of the campus is also very brief.

As a result, the final discussion focuses on a fence or not a fence etc. and the interviews with the experts are no more than opinions. The history of the campus concept is also very brief and focuses on a very specific campus concept. I would recommend supplementing both aspects, the theory of public space and the history and typology of the university campus.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

After reading the manuscript “Can a university campus work as a public open space in the metropolis of a developing country? The case of Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt”, I highlight next major comments:

Since the article was exclusively focused on Ain-Shams University located in Cairo, the misleading title should be reformulated accordingly. The research aim was not defined in the Abstract nor the Introduction.

It is confusing the targeted spaces referred in the study: public spaces (buildings) or public open spaces (green areas, sports zones), because both concepts were alternatively used. This point should be properly clarified. Reasons to underline the relevance of the research were not revealed either. The correlation between public spaces and developing countries / metropolis in a general context and the Cairenes picture was not determined. An in-depth review of recent literature should be oriented towards the integration and the role of university campuses in the urban fabric beyond the few cases presented. Historic references to universities are irrelevant.

Some numbers are suggested to support selection criteria. Limits of the three governorates of Great Cairo are unclear in Figure 4. Characterization of the selected campus is necessary in terms of land area, public spaces and so on, in relation to the other ASU campuses. Pictures of figures 5, 6 and 7 are irrelevant. The three types of open spaces were not fully depicted. It is unclear why a combination of interviews with key members of the university (qualitative survey) and a questionnaire for residents and students (quantitative survey) was used and how results were integrated in the right way.

The sample universe for residents and students is unknown, as well as date of the survey and an accurate characterization of respondents. More information about the content of the questionnaire is recommended, i.e. the fourth set of questions was barely outlined. A description of findings in Tables 2 and 3 should be inserted in the text. The linkage between question of Table 6  (“How university can serve the community?”) and public open spaces is very unclear. In this vein, the connection of interviews to diverse academics and the questionnaire was not determined. Consequently, results are ambiguous and of little value.

Rather than a summary of key conclusions extracted from findings, the last section compiles some preferences of Cairenes and a set of suggestions posed by authors to improve green area ratio and public service. No response to the question that addresses the study was provided.  Research limitations and further lines of work were omitted. The order of appearance of Tables 3 and 6 is wrong.

General comments. English style and visualization of Figures 1 should be enhanced. Literature review is poor, and several contributions are from global institutions, it should be therefore strengthened. Acronyms must be fully defined at first appearance.

A questionnaire and various interviews served to gather views from residents, students and academics in relation to a given ASU campus located in Cairo to suggest diverse proposals to improve green area ratio and public service. The study is descriptive in nature and the methodology cannot be implemented in the analysis of further campuses. Authors are encouraged to accurately consider the contribution of campuses in the urban fabric to define some aspects that could be submitted to the opinion of respondents in the search of effective solutions, for instance, in the frame of developing countries. As stated above, the manuscript presents serious flaws derived from the lack of a clear research aim and a debatable methodology followed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Information provided about the academics who were interviewed enables identifying them, which is not acceptable and should be corrected so that they cannot be identified. Proofreading is needed to correct grammatical errors and typos highlighted in the attached copy of the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is a scholar research focusing on whether a university campus could possibly work as a public open space in the metropolis of a developing country. The research investigates residents’ and students’ opinion on this issue and mainly in the context of public space management and University-community relationship; thus, the research doesn’t refer directly to sustainability issues.

The title is appropriate for the content of the manuscript. The abstract is concise and accurately summarizes the essential information of the paper. The manuscript complies with journal’s guidance in general, but needs to undergo revisions. The research design is appropriate, but can be improved. Weakness are identified in the methodology description, as well as the results need to be presented more clearly.

More specifically there are some points that need to be clarified in the methodology:

• Please explain how you defined the selection criteria of the study area (ex. international literature, national research outcomes, urban & land use regulation, SDGs- Sustainable Development Goals etc.)
• 2.1 Step 1- The analysis seems insufficient and could be enhanced. Please consider also other factors as part of your analysis such as: land uses, movement, built & open space, existing infrastructure-connections, etc.
• 2.2 Step 2 – Analysis on opinions of residents and students. (line226) Please explain how you defined the sample of the questionnaire survey (number, characteristics of participants etc.). It seems no method had been applied and the sample is randomly defined and composed. If this is the case, please take into consideration this could be an important weakness of your methodology.
• 3.1. Step 1 - The analysis. The map in figure 9 could be improved and enhanced with further information (or please consider more maps/diagrams with additional information)
• 3.2. Step 2. Analysis on opinions of residents and students. It would be very useful to add a table with the composition of the sample of the participants and also mention in the text or add a table summarizing the set of questions.
• The information data and the results require to be clearly presented and adequately illustrated with charts/diagrams. For instance, Tables 2&3 (line 290) could be replaced by bar/column charts, thus the reader can easier identify and comprehend the results.

Finally, I am of the opinion that this paper can add knowledge to similar studies aiming to increase public open space in big cities in developing countries. Recommended revisions as cited above could make the paper stronger and a more compelling argumentative case.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

the article is very improved, important topic

Reviewer 2 Report

After reading the new version of the manuscript “Can a university campus work as a public open space in the metropolis of a developing country? The case of Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt”, I highlight next major comments:

Since the Introduction aims at “selling” the study to readers, background / gaps (“what for?”) to support the development of the study and main contributions in the field should be highlighted. An in-depth review of recent literature should be focused on the integration and the role of university campuses in the urban fabric beyond the poor cases presented.

As the objective of the study was not clearly defined, the methodology built upon the question “ whether ASU can work as a public space or not” (line 225)  is very ambiguous. Despite Figure 9, a description of the research methodology to enable its replication in other locations was not provided.

Although the manuscript was significantly improved, serious flaws mentioned in my previous comments still remain unaddressed due to the lack of a specific objective around which the study is properly organized. The contribution of findings extracted from the survey conducted is scarce in terms of the urban and social contexts referred in the two key notions of the title of the article such as “metropolis” and “developing country”. The analysis of the role of campuses in the urban fabric could help to substantiate the research.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript has been undergone major revisions and is notably improved. The literature review has been enhanced, more references have been included in the text, the analysis steps have been enhanced with additional information, and methodology omissions have been further clarified. The information data and the results are more adequately presented.