Places of Phygital Shopping Experiences? The New Supply Frontier of Business Improvement Districts in the Digital Age
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is much better than the first time, it needs only clarify better in the introduction the aim of the research and enforce the conclusions highlighting the differences and the contribution of the paper with respect to the previous works.
The work can be published without additional revision after the correction above suggested.
Author Response
Reviewer Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper is much better than the first time, it needs only clarify better in the introduction the aim of the research and enforce the conclusions highlighting the differences and the contribution of the paper with respect to the previous works.
The work can be published without additional revision after the correction above suggested.
Authors' response
Thank you for your comments. The above suggestions were taken into consideration. The third paragraph of the introduction was re-organized in order to clearly state the aim of the paper in the beginning of the paragraph. The final section of the paper now clarifies better the differences between this paper and previous works on BIDs and other place management organizations. The authors did so by introducing the references that were discussed in the theoretical framework of this paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
It is important to begin by noting the extensive comments in response to the original referees reports and the major sharpening, shortening and focusing of the paper that has taken place. This has been a significant and a positive step forward with this paper.
As a consequence the paper is now shorter, more focused and a much stronger read. However I do have some residual issues:
- I do not think the revised title represents the content and contribution of the paper. It needs further rethinking to focus on the paper as written.
- There remain errors and over-simplifications which give a sense of inaccuracy to anyone closely involved in UK Bids. This then casts doubt on the rest of the paper, which is unfortunate. The ‘worst’ example is the issue of Scotland and its BIDS. The legislation in Scotland means BIDS do not have to be spatially contiguous nor based around town centres/retailing. Many are but others include tourism, food and drink and industrial estate BIDS. BIDS Scotland was also taken over in 2017/8 by Scotland’s Towns Partnership and relaunched as Scotland’s Improvement Districts with an aim of broadening the model and linking to community. STP was also the vehicle through which the Scottish Government directed its Covid funding for businesses in BIDS; not the BIDS finding money themselves. All this may seem narrowly pedantic (‘the focus is on plans’ say the authors) but if the paper is to be credible it needs to be accurate and what has gone on in Scotland is very different to England, and this context matters, and it matters to get it right.
- There is also an issue about the relationship of BIDS to local authorities (LA) and their operations. This has not been static over the period and LAs have been cash-strapped leading to service reduction. In some cases BIDS have had to take on services as the LAs have cut them. Your analysis misses this changing and massive cutbacks to LAs since 2008.
- There are minor issues over the terms used occasionally. Do ‘members’ vote on the plan at the outset? Why describe brick and mortar operations as multi-channel? A good sense check and proof read would be sensible.
- I think the abstract could be shorter and sharper. It is a bit general.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
It is important to begin by noting the extensive comments in response to the original referees reports and the major sharpening, shortening and focusing of the paper that has taken place. This has been a significant and a positive step forward with this paper.
Response: Thank you for these comments. We are grateful to your comments and suggestions as they have greatly contributed to improve the overall quality of this paper.
As a consequence the paper is now shorter, more focused and a much stronger read. However I do have some residual issues:
- I do not think the revised title represents the content and contribution of the paper. It needs further rethinking to focus on the paper as written.
Response: Thank you for this comment. To better link the title to the content of the article, a final paragraph has been added to the discussion and concluding remarks section.
- There remain errors and over-simplifications which give a sense of inaccuracy to anyone closely involved in UK Bids. This then casts doubt on the rest of the paper, which is unfortunate. The ‘worst’ example is the issue of Scotland and its BIDS. The legislation in Scotland means BIDS do not have to be spatially contiguous nor based around town centres/retailing. Many are but others include tourism, food and drink and industrial estate BIDS. BIDS Scotland was also taken over in 2017/8 by Scotland’s Towns Partnership and relaunched as Scotland’s Improvement Districts with an aim of broadening the model and linking to community. STP was also the vehicle through which the Scottish Government directed its Covid funding for businesses in BIDS; not the BIDS finding money themselves. All this may seem narrowly pedantic (‘the focus is on plans’ say the authors) but if the paper is to be credible it needs to be accurate and what has gone on in Scotland is very different to England, and this context matters, and it matters to get it right.
Response: Thank you for these comments. We acknowledge that these differences, which are stated in the different legal regulations, represent a strong difference between the BID ‘model’ in England/Wales and Scotland. To make it more accurate, we decided to clarify these aspects in the third section of the paper, in particular in its second and third paragraphs (lines 428 and after). Additional clarifications were also made in lines 569-570 and 796-804.
- There is also an issue about the relationship of BIDS to local authorities (LA) and their operations. This has not been static over the period and LAs have been cash-strapped leading to service reduction. In some cases BIDS have had to take on services as the LAs have cut them. Your analysis misses this changing and massive cutbacks to LAs since 2008.
Response: Thank you for this comment. We recognize this limitation. In order to address it in a feasible way, please refer to lines 270-277, which introduces previous studies that have already discussed how 2008 recession and local governments fiscal shrinkage had impacted BIDs’ operations. While BIDs had to take on these services, the BID model has not been put in questions and they have become more prominent actors in urban politics due to public realm services reduction. Future research that combines thematic analysis with budget analysis should closely examine this issue and hypothesis.
- There are minor issues over the terms used occasionally. Do ‘members’ vote on the plan at the outset? Why describe brick and mortar operations as multi-channel? A good sense check and proof read would be sensible.
Response: Thank you for these clarifications. Brick and mortar operations: These terms were clarified (refer to lines 40-43). As for the business plan, it is only voted in a third phase (ballot). It is not clear to the authors where this doubt may arise. What is written is that the business plan is the result of a prior negotiation amongst local stakeholders (local consultations), but the ballot is a subsequent stage. It is through the ballot that the action plan is (or is not) approved and, thus, locally implemented. We believe that this point is made clear in the following lines: 259-266 and, in particular, 398-400 (Figure 2). However, when necessary, some improvements were made in the text to make it more explicit.
- I think the abstract could be shorter and sharper. It is a bit general.
Response: Thank for you for this suggestion. We reduced the length of the abstract to ensure compliance with the journal's guidelines and guarantee that the abstract is clear and explicit.
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
I find it rather difficult to comment on this paper and I am afraid my reaction to it is not very positive. I think it is perhaps trying to do rather too much and has become sprawling as a consequence.
This is a rather long paper. It appears really to comprise two elements. First, there is the undoubted issue that retailing (and places and spaces) has a digital as well as a physical presence. Secondly, there is the equally apparent element that some towns and urban spaces have turned to new governance forms as a way of promoting improvements and tackling some of the systemic changes underway. The paper seems to aim (it is not that clear) to seek to combine these two parts.
So the basic premise of the paper is that BIDS (as that is the model investigated) should embrace a digital and experience future, wrapped up in the team ‘phygital’. To be blunt, 23 pages to draw the conclusion that this premise is reasonable, but has not yet been embraced, seems rather a long way of making a not very substantial contribution. This melding of the two parts does not work in my mind.
I would make some further observations.
- Part of the reason for the length of the paper is the style and depth of writing. The paper could be much shortened and sharpened. It is full of buzzwords and jargon and sweeping statements. This is symptomatic of a paper that is struggling to find its core and focus. The early set up of the paper is very long.
- The section on BIDS, starting on p6, comes quite late and even then the timeline does not start until Page 8 (c line 310). The whole of section 3 needs to be sooner in the paper if the focus is BIDS and needs to be reordered to provide the origins and history first.
- Pages 9-15 provide the core of the paper at one level in that this is an analysis of the Pathfinder or test BIDS in the UK. This is the data component of the paper. Figure 2 provides locations of the 38 pilot BIDS across the UK; but only 30 were included in the initial analysis and then only 9 BIDS were able to be used in the final analysis of change in plans over time. The data that is collected and analysed is thus limited. The analysis is mainly in Table 1 and to a degree in Table 2. I wonder why percentages are used in these given the low numbers. What is the benefit or point as opposed to raw data?
- There is a more fundamental point though about the process of BIDS. Getting to a ballot and to a successful ballot is a process of negotiation and persuasion. The business plan may not therefore be what is desired, but instead is what is (believed to be) acceptable. As a legal document it is important but it is not somehow neutral. The key point is not what is says perhaps but why it is as it is. Then there is the issue of deliverability and the process of re-ballot. Where again it is about effectiveness etc. The point I am getting to is whether it is a reasonable expectation that a plan conceived to do such things in a particular context will be at the cutting edge or up-to-date? Is this a false expectation?
- I would also ask for a more careful reporting of the BIDS. You refer to the UK; but the legislation (certainly between Scotland and England) differs significantly in terms of key components such as eligibility and responses in ballot. To talk about property owners’ in the BID across the UK is not accurate; their role varies legally by the different jurisdictions. This is an example of looseness in the text that needs changing. This is also relevant to the discussion of ‘super-BIDs’. BIDS are legal entities bound by distinct laws; their freedom of movement in such direction may be legally highly constrained. The role of constraints and the re-ballot is underplayed.
- Finally, the remainder of the paper (pages 15-22 essentially) is a long discussion about retail change. It seems to be a rambling collection of things found as interesting eg American Girl Place, the role of cutting edge tech, a section on needs and wants and so on. It is hugely disjointed and lacks any focus and flow.
So, in summary, this paper in my view needs radical alteration if it is going to move forward. There needs certainty of the aim of the paper and the data analysis, as well as the context of the data. That is, if BIDS are the focus. If the changing digital and experience context is the focus then I am not sure what the BID lens adds. Either way the paper needs shortening, sharpening, refocusing, rebalancing and a stronger sense of what is it trying to do, why and how. The writing approach in particular needs addressing to avoid jargon, cliché and diversions. This is a tough ask for the paper, but at the moment, in my view, it is not achieving any goal.
Reviewer 2 Report
Summary
The paper " Towards phygital shopping experience places? Rethinking the Governance of Business Improvement Districts in the Experience Economy and Digital Era " addresses a theme in line with the journal objective, the recent changes in the spatial organization of retail and consumer services systems and the correlated question of the revitalization of traditional shopping districts in the city center, as well as reinforce the resilience and sustainability of towns' centers and high streets.
The authors, starting from the analysis of the general situation for all the European countries where we can see that the traditional role of the city centers is disappearing, analyses new development models to support the city centers life and in particular the role of cultural resources focusing the attention on the theory and a set of pilot initiatives that took place in the UK. The authors try to explain the potentiality of the BIDs to maintain the key role of towns’ centers and high streets in encouraging the resilience and sustainability of inner-city commercial systems.
General comment
Although the theme is very interesting and studied by many authors, in this work I do not note any novelty, the only novelty can be represented by the analysis of a specific case but it is only a description of the policy conduct in UK without giving data about the efficiency of the policy implemented.
Specific comments
Abstract: it says nothing about the aim, novelty and methodology of the work, it has to be rewritten.
Introduction: in it, there is nothing about the methodology and aims of the paper, the authors say that “…paper extends existing arguments in place management and development literature by emphasizing the need to restructure, rebrand and reinvent how town centers and high streets are managed and experienced by technophiles consumers” I imagine that the paper is aimed to a literature review, but it doesn’t have a literature review structure.
Literature review: it is too poor for a literature review paper and the structure is not clear.
Methodology and data analysis: they do not exist, the paper describes only a case study but this is not sufficient for a publication in a scientific journal.
Conclusion and suggestion: once again, in the conclusions, the authors do not compare the findings of previous works with their work. Even the policy suggestions do not appear to be the result of a strong research effort.
