Rethinking the Role of Technology for Citizens’ Engagement and Sustainable Development in Smart Cities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents six alternative scenarios, which the definition paper explains how technology can guide citizens towards sustainability.
A careful reading of the article leads to an interpretation of the theoretical implications and practical approach. The paper presents a detailed theoretical discussion of the role of technology in influencing the behavior of actors in the socio-economic environment, and it recalls that attention is paid to the many interpretive fields that are created thanks to the "interpretive role" acquired by technology.
The structure of the article is appropriate, a three-step approach to solving the problem is used.
The research is comprehensive, well-argued, abundant literature sources are used, gradually assessing sustainability, digitalization and achieving a smart city, as one of the most complex objects.
I think the diagram in Figure 1 should be redrawn.
In the text of the article, more emphasis should be placed on the smart city, public participation in its management,
The use of virtual reality tools for the presentation of urban, infrastructural projects to the public, in order to gain their approval or at least form an opinion. It is necessary to highlight the smart city as one of the most complex objects, where both the pursuit of sustainability through the use of technology, the need for digitization, employing databases, and empathy for city residents, evaluating their attitudes and opinions, are intertwined.
Author Response
Point 1: The paper presents six alternative scenarios, which the definition paper explains how technology can guide citizens towards sustainability.
Response to Point 1: Thank you for this positive and constructive comment
Point 2: A careful reading of the article leads to an interpretation of the theoretical implications and practical approach. The paper presents a detailed theoretical discussion of the role of technology in influencing the behavior of actors in the socio-economic environment, and it recalls that attention is paid to the many interpretive fields that are created thanks to the "interpretive role" acquired by technology.
Response to Point 2: Thank you for this positive and constructive comment
Point 3: The structure of the article is appropriate, a three-step approach to solving the problem is used.
Response to Point 3: Thank you for this positive and constructive comment
Point 4: The research is comprehensive, well-argued, abundant literature sources are used, gradually assessing sustainability, digitalization and achieving a smart city, as one of the most complex objects.
Response to Point 4: Thank you for this positive and constructive comment
Point 5: I think the diagram in Figure 1 should be redrawn.
Response to Point 5: Thank you for this comment, we have reflected a lot about the point and we think that the cartesian representation is the most appropriate for the proposed conceptual framework
Point 6: In the text of the article, more emphasis should be placed on the smart city, public participation in its management,
Response to Point 6: Thank you for this comment, we have better clarified the point in the main text
Point 7: The use of virtual reality tools for the presentation of urban, infrastructural projects to the public, in order to gain their approval or at least form an opinion. It is necessary to highlight the smart city as one of the most complex objects, where both the pursuit of sustainability through the use of technology, the need for digitization, employing databases, and empathy for city residents, evaluating their attitudes and opinions, are intertwined.
Response to Point 7: Thank you for this comment, we have better clarified the point in the main text
Reviewer 2 Report
Hello, first of all congratulations to the authors for their work. I have some suggestions for improvements to your article.
Overall, the introduction of the article appears to be well-structured and informative. However, there are some errors and suggestions that could enhance the clarity and flow of the text. First, the sentence "Managerial and social studies have demonstrated a growing interest in digital transformation issues as potential avenues through which social and economic attitudes can be directed toward inclusive and sustainable development" could benefit from being rephrased for clarity. The meaning is unclear, and it is unclear what is meant by "social and economic attitudes."
Second, the sentence "Reflecting on the numerous observations provided on the topic under investigation, it is possible to note how digital transition is usually approached as something not directly related to sustainable development" could be more specific in terms of which observations are being referred to.
It would be helpful to provide a brief overview of the main findings and contributions of the article in the introduction to give readers a clear sense of what to expect.
My impression of the article is that I felt the authors didn't include a clear description of the methodology used in their study. I believe this is a missing piece that should be made more explicit in the article. Additionally, the article contains a lot of text which can make reading tiring. To improve readability, the authors could consider breaking up the text into smaller, more easily digestible sections with clear headings and subheadings.
Author Response
Point 1: Hello, first of all congratulations to the authors for their work. I have some suggestions for improvements to your article.
Response 1: Thank you for this positive and constructive comment
Point 2: Overall, the introduction of the article appears to be well-structured and informative. However, there are some errors and suggestions that could enhance the clarity and flow of the text. First, the sentence "Managerial and social studies have demonstrated a growing interest in digital transformation issues as potential avenues through which social and economic attitudes can be directed toward inclusive and sustainable development" could benefit from being rephrased for clarity. The meaning is unclear, and it is unclear what is meant by "social and economic attitudes."
Response 2: Thank you for this comment, we have revised the whole text and performed a professional review of the language
Point 3: Second, the sentence "Reflecting on the numerous observations provided on the topic under investigation, it is possible to note how digital transition is usually approached as something not directly related to sustainable development" could be more specific in terms of which observations are being referred to.
Response 3: Thank you for this comment, we have revised the whole text and performed a professional review of the language
Point 4: It would be helpful to provide a brief overview of the main findings and contributions of the article in the introduction to give readers a clear sense of what to expect.
Response 4: Thank you for this comment, we have revised the introduction according to your suggestion.
Point 5: My impression of the article is that I felt the authors didn't include a clear description of the methodology used in their study. I believe this is a missing piece that should be made more explicit in the article. Additionally, the article contains a lot of text which can make reading tiring. To improve readability, the authors could consider breaking up the text into smaller, more easily digestible sections with clear headings and subheadings.
Response 5: Thank you for this comment, we have revised the methodology section to better clarify it.
Reviewer 3 Report
The whole idea of the paper is interesting, which is the development of a comprehensive framework to support secnarios of how the digitalization would meet sustainable development in the context of the smart cities.
Nonetheless, there are many problems of design, conceptualization, reasoning, and methodological procedures in the article.
The title make us believe that the authors will argue towards citizens engagement throug digital technologies to boost the smart cities.
In the Abstract, this idea is abandoned, then the authors propose a framework on sustainable development and smart cities, but it is too opened. The authors do not clarify since the beginning the technologies they will include. There are many assumptions that cannot be proved (I took notes along the text, please, see the attached file). The idea that the technology will change sustainable development seems an outrage because it dismiss decades of hard debate on poverty, conflicting ideas on development, and the tricky idea that the economic growth is something that runs out of the natural resources (ecological environment).
I do not see the point to allow the publication because the majority of the arguments are not self-sustained.
It becomes even more evident in the absence of a methodological session.
How did the authors review the literature than guided them to propose such framework and offer assumptions with no practical evidence?
My perspective is that the paper could provide links between the digital world, the full intellingent resources of Big Data management and the smart cities, but it is already proposed. Alternatively, they could choose Circular Economy to be in the center of the debate, questioning the ability of the circular economy to engage citizens through the digital technologies. It would seem more realistic.
Therefore, I suggest to redesign the paper and to propose a clear methodology.
None.
Author Response
Point 1: The whole idea of the paper is interesting, which is the development of a comprehensive framework to support secnarios of how the digitalization would meet sustainable development in the context of the smart cities.
Response to Point 1: Thank you for this positive comment
Point 2: The title make us believe that the authors will argue towards citizens engagement throug digital technologies to boost the smart cities.
Response to Point 2: Thank you for this comment.
Point 2: In the Abstract, this idea is abandoned, then the authors propose a framework on sustainable development and smart cities, but it is too opened. The authors do not clarify since the beginning the technologies they will include. There are many assumptions that cannot be proved (I took notes along the text, please, see the attached file). The idea that the technology will change sustainable development seems an outrage because it dismiss decades of hard debate on poverty, conflicting ideas on development, and the tricky idea that the economic growth is something that runs out of the natural resources (ecological environment).
Response to Point 3: Thank you for this comment. As clarified in the abstract, the paper does not investigate specific technologies but it 'proposes a Sustainability-based framework for supporting both policymakers and managers to better understand at which level to act to improve citizens’ engagement as a way for ensuring sustainable development in Smart Cities ecosystems.' We have read your comment and tried to make more clear underlined concepts
Point 3: I do not see the point to allow the publication because the majority of the arguments are not self-sustained.
Response to Point 3: Thank you for your comment. The paper - as declared - proposes a conceptual framework that is basically based on the literature and observation. Accordingly, this comment is unclear to us
Point 4: It becomes even more evident in the absence of a methodological session.
Response to Point 4: Thank you for your comment. The paper proposes a conceptual framework and not a research analysis. Anyway, we have clarified how a conceptual framework is developed according to consolidated social and managerial studies.
Point 4: How did the authors review the literature than guided them to propose such framework and offer assumptions with no practical evidence?
Response to Point 5: Thank you for your comment. Again, the paper proposes a conceptual framework and it is not a 'data collection and elaboration'. In such a vein, it is not clear which kind of observations you refer.
Point 6: My perspective is that the paper could provide links between the digital world, the full intellingent resources of Big Data management and the smart cities, but it is already proposed. Alternatively, they could choose Circular Economy to be in the center of the debate, questioning the ability of the circular economy to engage citizens through the digital technologies. It would seem more realistic.
Response to Point 6: Thank you for your comment and thank you for listing a few of the multiple domains in which our conceptual framework can be applied. Moreover, the paper does not aim to propose an empirical study but a conceptual development.
Point 7: Therefore, I suggest to redesign the paper and to propose a clear methodology
Response to Point 6: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the paper for clarifying the underlined point. Despite this, we hope that both provided replies and changes performed will be useful for pointing out the main aim of the paper and its development.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors and Editor
Thanks for reviewing this article again.
I understand the efforts of the authors in order to improve the article structure, argumentation, and language editing.
I still struggle with some points that lack clarity and more robust argumentation and that have not be solved. I will mention some of the points I am referring to.
1 Lines 50-55 - citis's management ability - this ability refers to managers, to policies, not only to the technologies. I think the authors were not clear here.
2 Line 58 - the suggested reflections are based on what technologies?
3 Lines 68-75 - Sentence could be reduced/divided to provide more clarity.
4 Lines 76-87 - What is the meaning of 5.0 Society? IT lacks an academic definition in the article.
5 Lines 88-92 - Repeats description of the lines 76-87.
Line 95 - What is common prosperity?
Line 97 - What about the role of the natural environment in the 5.0 Society?
Lines 111-125 - There is only reference to the economic digital sustainability.
Lines 144-147 - These arguments seem to be against your main argument of a whole 5.0 Society - the debate on inclusion/povery is not provided. The geopolitical conflicts we face are totally dismissed as if the 5.0 Society could be a separated world as a "bubble".
Lines 154-261 - Dismiss conflicts as geopolitcial, policy and business conflicts. I think the paper needs to be repositioned to curb thes e large scale conflict that linger because the proposal is about a whole 5.0 Society, it is a large scale proposal.
Line 168 - A transdiscipinary setting does not mean a single objective (line 160), thus, this sequence of arguments is not intrinsically compatible.
From the line 171 on, the autors reduce their proposal employing the Circular Economy six pillars.
Line 192 - The refer to a "sudden spread" of new technologies, but technologies are evolving, I do not see any sudden event regarding the dissemination of the technologies.
Line 276 - Is this the adopted or the proposed framework?
Lines 314- 318 - Why the Logistic level is not inside the Productive level?
The proposed framework, in the sequence of the line 318, has several inconsistencies or lack of sound theoretical explanation.
For instance, the authors argue that the Sociocultural level is an individualistic approach, however, it is actually a collective interaction as well. We cannot suppose that sociocultural issues are just individual or just collective and then classify them as less or more able to engage persons. Also, I disagree that the Semantic level is associated to a single individual or single collective representation, it is very complex to be under this simplified proposal. I suggest to review the proposal of classification of the elements of the framework as more or less collective/individual. I cannot see robust theoretical explanation to such an attempt because there are diverse theories in which these elements could be classified, and the theories are not convergent.
I think the main theoretical issues need more development and clarity.
Nevertheless, I do not think the proposal should be refused, rather it should be improved after a discussion. Perhaps the authors could submit their framework to sociologists, economists, and different types of disiciplinary professionals and scholars to get a more robust result.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions and useful comments we have considered them with attention and we have tried to follow - where possible - your suggestions. The main challenges are underlined in yellow in the main text and the main answers to your comments are following reported.
Comment 1:
1 Lines 50-55 - citis's management ability - this ability refers to managers, to policies, not only to the technologies. I think the authors were not clear here.
Reply 1:
The sentence does not affirm that the tecnology is the only dimension that influence city's management but that "the paper proposes a conceptual framework that identify and classify six levels able to influence the city's management ability to engage citizens in sustainability paths "
Comment 2:
2 Line 58 - the suggested reflections are based on what technologies?
Reply 2:
The reference is not to the technologies but - as written - to the digital transformation
Comment 3:
3 Lines 68-75 - Sentence could be reduced/divided to provide more clarity.
Reply 3:
Done
Comment 4:
4 Lines 76-87 - What is the meaning of 5.0 Society? IT lacks an academic definition in the article.
Reply 4:
Please note that provided perspective is not an IT-based perspective
Comment 5
5 Lines 88-92 - Repeats description of the lines 76-87.
Reply 5
We have deleted this sentence
Comment 6:
Line 95 - What is common prosperity?
Reply 7:
We have deleted it
Comment 8:
Line 97 - What about the role of the natural environment in the 5.0 Society?
Reply 8:
Please note that this is not part of the proposed framework
Comment 9
Lines 111-125 - There is only reference to the economic digital sustainability.
Reply 9
Yes, because it is a managerial paper
Comment 10:
Lines 144-147 - These arguments seem to be against your main argument of a whole 5.0 Society - the debate on inclusion/povery is not provided. The geopolitical conflicts we face are totally dismissed as if the 5.0 Society could be a separated world as a "bubble".
Reply 10
Please note that one paper cannot include all the dimensions and variables related to a specific topic.
Comment 11
Lines 154-261 - Dismiss conflicts as geopolitcial, policy and business conflicts. I think the paper needs to be repositioned to curb thes e large scale conflict that linger because the proposal is about a whole 5.0 Society, it is a large scale proposal.
Reply 11
Please see the previous reply
Comment 12
Line 168 - A transdiscipinary setting does not mean a single objective (line 160), thus, this sequence of arguments is not intrinsically compatible.
Reply 12
This comment is unclear to us because we have never stated this but we have written that "through in which several actors and interests could agree on a single objective". Please note that the alignment in perspective and finality is a concept well debated in consolidated literature and it refers to a time-based framework. Anyway, we have revised the sentence.
Comment 13
From the line 171 on, the autors reduce their proposal employing the Circular Economy six pillars.
Reply 13
It is unclear to us the problem underlined by this comment
Comment 14
Line 192 - The refer to a "sudden spread" of new technologies, but technologies are evolving, I do not see any sudden event regarding the dissemination of the technologies.
Reply 14
With reference to this comment, please consider the evolution rate of technology spread. Several reports and data are available about the topic.
Comment 15
Line 276 - Is this the adopted or the proposed framework?
Reply 15
it is the proposed framework, we have corrected it
Comment 16
Lines 314- 318 - Why the Logistic level is not inside the Productive level?
Reply 16
Because it refers to the more general level of relations that include but are not limited to production
Comment 17
The proposed framework, in the sequence of the line 318, has several inconsistencies or lack of sound theoretical explanation.
Reply 17
We have revised it and tried to make more clear for the reader.
Comment 18
For instance, the authors argue that the Sociocultural level is an individualistic approach, however, it is actually a collective interaction as well. We cannot suppose that sociocultural issues are just individual or just collective and then classify them as less or more able to engage persons. Also, I disagree that the Semantic level is associated to a single individual or single collective representation, it is very complex to be under this simplified proposal. I suggest to review the proposal of classification of the elements of the framework as more or less collective/individual. I cannot see robust theoretical explanation to such an attempt because there are diverse theories in which these elements could be classified, and the theories are not convergent.
Reply 18
Please note that all the elements are motivated and justified in the text according to the adopted framework and interpretative framework. We take note that your perspective is different but this is an essential part of the research activities.
Comment 19
Nevertheless, I do not think the proposal should be refused, rather it should be improved after a discussion. Perhaps the authors could submit their framework to sociologists, economists, and different types of disiciplinary professionals and scholars to get a more robust result.
Reply 19
Thank you for this comment, the paper is the result of a long process of knowledge contamination with several experts from multiple research fields
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
