A Systematic Review for Urban Regeneration Effects Analysis in Urban Cores

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have compared the old and new version, in the light of the review. In my view, the paper has significantly been improved. The conceptual framing is now more clear. The reason for the comparison of the two cities is still feeble, mainly as a consequence of the absence of a solid and testable methodology. It is a pity that the authors have missed this chance. Finally, before publication the paper might need a linguistic check by a native English speaker; the English is not bad, but by no means perfect. So, with some hesitation, I vote for acceptance if the above concerns are addressed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1- the introduction is way better and clear.

line 96- I suggest to mention the impact of the socio-economic problems on peoples' lives. 

 

line 158- I highly recommend you to show that the process of quantification of these items can be done through a valid method by mentioning relevant references (if in fact there is any) or if this is a new method you have to describe it thoroughly.

 

line 165- I guess a diagram of the quantification method also would be useful. Moreover the whole method could be presented through a flow chart which helps reader to understand the process. 

 

line 204- Are you just talking about GIS? or all Geographical based soft wares??

 

line 477- You constantly talking about quantification and database which is a result of linking two analysis level. this process of linking should be visually available to reader; first by describing the method. and then by showing some images of different stages of this linking process.

 

line 482- Great Image! it describes your method way better than exhaustive text.

 

line 601- this result is logical and acceptable.

 

line 621- exactly this is something that this paper lacks; to show how these methods, separately and together could be useful by their positive impacts

 

line 632- for instance; this sentence is something that I was looking for during the whole paper.

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. In principle, a study on urban regeneration in historical districts could be of interest to the readership of Sustainability, but this paper does not meet the high standards of a prestigious journal.
2. The paper is sometimes written in a sloppy way. For example, already in the affiliations twice the University of Bescia is mentioned (should be Brescia).
3. The Abstract is not written in an attractive style; there is no mentioning of any new or original perspective. It only says that it seeks to use a GIS-based methodology. Well, GIS is with us more than 30 years: so, what then is the novelty? It talks about comparison of scenarios, but I do not see any systematic scenario design in the two case studies, nor any linkage between scenario-based ploicy-making and GIS (even though there is quite some literature). 
4. The aims of the study are not clearly articulated at all, Only in the concluding part a reference is made to the objective of this study. But it is still not clear whether the study is a comparis of two case studies, (Brescia and Porto) or whether the study wants to open up new methodological perspectives. I was disappointed to see that modern approaches to urban planning, such as geo-design oir BIM models, are not used or referred to.The simple use of GIS is by no means a novelty.
5. Italy has a great collection of well-known urban architects and planners, who have extensive published on the topic of urban regeneration and cultural heritage, e.g. Lombardi and Fusco Girard. I felt disappointed to see that their work has not found a place in this paper.
6. In the Introduction, the author proposes  that a first line of research considers the enhancement of architectural heritage as a piece for the promotion of wide-ranging policies. This is not a research line, but only a very vague normative statement. Later on the author emphasizes efficiency as a policy orientaton. I fail to understand this as a principle of urban regeneration.
7. The author refers to the works of Alterman and Albrecht, amongst others, but fails to articulate how these contributions have been methodological signposts for this paper. And where is the reference to the work of Kourtit in TPR on the Italian piazza model?
8. The author makes a reference a couple of times to urban morphology, but it is not clear which role morphology plays in the evidence-based guidelines for the case studies (e.g. by using morphometric urban values).
9. The relation between SDG and the case studies is not clear, and it does not come back in the Conclusion.
10. Figure 1 is by no means a pictorial description of GIS software; in addition, it hard to grasp how it funtions as framework in the case studies.
11. Value capturing is of course an important concern in these studies, but it is not clear where this plays a role in the two empirical cases.
12. Section 3 is not a real methodology for urban transformations analysis and it not used as a systematic anchor point in the cases of Porto and Brescia.
13. The description of the two cases is informative and interesting, but it is mainly a description of processes and transformations, and a unifying planning principle is missing.
14. I found the results section disappointing: knowing both cities, I wonder whether I learned something new. It is all too descriptive and not sufficiently analytical, so that important hypotheses cannot be tested.
15. The conclusions go back to efficiency, but do not clarify what this means and what has been achieved for the theory of urban regeneration.
16. In the final para an important reference is made to public value; it is a pity that this concept has not played a leading role in the whole analysis.
17. The references are incomplete and contain several mistakes.

Reviewer 2 Report

Introduction and Theoretical framework needs to be a bit shorter and they can be followed by a chronology table which would be the optimized form of lengthy texts.

Methodology needs a comprehensive revision to be more clear. The proposed method seems interesting and useful to interpret and evaluate intervention in historic cores. However, as this method has various stages, it needs a thorough description. For instance the quantification of assets involved in the urban transformation and The process to define the strategy are not clear and may cause ambiguity.

Different experiences of enhancing historical fabrics seems very lengthy and although it contains interesting points and description, it should be way shorter. Instead of that, after a short introduction to case studies the proposed method should be implemented in these cases in a separate section. 

Therefore, although the results and conclusion seem appropriate, the link between method and results needs a clarification