Urban Regeneration through Integrated Strategies to Tackle Inequalities and Ecological Transition: An Experimental Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

1-      Considering the three dimensions of sustainability in terms of evaluating the results of a given project (economic, social and environmental sustainability) the paper seems to be oriented in the analysis of the economic dimension in a prevailing way: if so, this choice should be justified.

2-      In the paper there is no specific reference to the urban development of Messina. The paper should refer to other studies on the subject.

3-      The result of the change in the individual behaviour of the subjects addressed by the complex urban regeneration project emerges. The paper does not put the community dimension of change in the same light.

4-      The scientific methodology used for data processing is a very interesting mix that deserves a clear emphasis in a specific paragraph that is not included in the paper.

5-      Highlight the positive environmental impact: the contrast to soil waste is included in any urban regeneration project but the benefits of the design component in the energy sector are just mentioned.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your very useful suggestions; below I include the changes made for each point in a summarised manner.

1-      Considering the three dimensions of sustainability in terms of evaluating the results of a given project (economic, social and environmental sustainability) the paper seems to be oriented in the analysis of the economic dimension in a prevailing way: if so, this choice should be justified.  We explained that the analysis emphasises economic sustainability to make the model scalable and replicable. 

2-      In the paper there is no specific reference to the urban development of Messina. The paper should refer to other studies on the subject.

We have included in the Ms among the references other contributions such as: Farinella D, Saitta F,  The Endless Reconstruction and Modern Disasters. The Management of Urban Space Through an Earthquake – Messina, 1908–2018. Palgrave Mac Millan, 2019 ISBN : 978-3-030-19360-7   

3-      The result of the change in the individual behaviour of the subjects addressed by the complex urban regeneration project emerges. The paper does not put the community dimension of change in the same light.   We added some comments: Decision-making processes were strongly influenced by imitative factors among neighbors and relatives, and by group influence mechanisms. 

4-      The scientific methodology used for data processing is a very interesting mix that deserves a clear emphasis in a specific paragraph that is not included in the paper. The section about Methos was improved 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

 The article titled "Urban regeneration through integrated strategies to tackle inequalities and ecological transition: an experimental approach" presents a study conducted in Messina, Italy, focusing on urban regeneration policies. The abstract provides an overview of the research, highlighting the evaluation of a pilot program aimed at addressing social inclusion, sustainability, and environmental transition. The study collects impact indicators related to environmental, social, and economic criteria and explores housing choice mechanisms for marginalized individuals. The program aims to reduce reliance on social welfare measures, enhance institutional capacity, and promote sustainable urban development. However, the article has several areas that require improvement, such as providing a more comprehensive introduction that situates the research within the existing literature and addressing issues related to the structure and organization of the article.

 However, there are several areas that require clarification and improvement before publication.

Lack of Contextual Background: The introduction could benefit from providing more contextual background information on urban regeneration policies, especially in relation to existing literature and prior studies. This would help readers understand the significance and novelty of the research.

Structure and Organization: The article lacks clear section headings and subheadings, making it difficult to follow the flow of information. Improving the structure and organization of the article would enhance readability and comprehension.

Methodological Rigor: The article briefly mentions the research phases and the evaluation of impact indicators, but it lacks details on the research design, data collection methods, and analysis techniques employed. Providing a more thorough explanation of the research methodology would strengthen the study's scientific rigor and allow for replication and further research.

Limited Data Presentation: While the article mentions the collection of impact indicators and the results of the pilot program, it lacks specific data and statistical analysis to support the findings. Including relevant data tables, charts, or graphs would help readers understand the outcomes more effectively.

Lack of Discussion and Interpretation: The results section presents findings without adequate interpretation or discussion. It is crucial to contextualize the results within the existing literature and discuss their implications for urban regeneration policies. Additionally, addressing potential limitations of the study and suggesting avenues for further research would enhance the article's scholarly value.

Writing Style and Language: The article would benefit from improvements in writing style and language clarity. There are instances of ambiguous phrasing and jargon that could be simplified for better comprehension.

Despite these shortcomings, with careful revisions addressing the outlined issues, the study has the potential to contribute significantly to the field of urban regeneration, inequality reduction, and ecological transition.

Author Response

Thank you for your very useful suggestions; below I include the changes made for each point in a summarised manner 

1. Lack of Contextual Background: The introduction could benefit from providing more contextual background information on urban regeneration policies, especially in relation to existing literature and prior studies. This would help readers understand the significance and novelty of the research.  

The contextual background was described  in  3.1 Identification of the problem: the slums of Messina  and new recent studies were included (e.g. Farinella Saitta 2019; Musolino 2021; D’Aleo, Musolino, Nicita 2021) 

2.Structure and Organization: The article lacks clear section headings and subheadings, making it difficult to follow the flow of information. Improving the structure and organization of the article would enhance readability and comprehension.   Subheadings have been added and numbered as follows: 2.1 Research phases; 2.2 Instruments and statistical analysis; 3.1 Identification of the problem: the slums of Messina.... etc. 

 3. Methodological Rigor: The article briefly mentions the research phases and the evaluation of impact indicators, but it lacks details on the research design, data collection methods, and analysis techniques employed. Providing a more thorough explanation of the research methodology would strengthen the study's scientific rigor and allow for replication and further research. More details were provided about data collection methods (e.g. the interview grid) and analysis techniques 

4. Limited Data Presentation: While the article mentions the collection of impact indicators and the results of the pilot program, it lacks specific data and statistical analysis to support the findings. Including relevant data tables, charts, or graphs would help readers understand the outcomes more effectively.

The results illustrated in the pay –off matrix are more fully commented. The issue of Energy Renewable Community is presented in more details.  Statistics about the ECCA Test an the Pay-off Matrix were included (Excel file). We added some pictures of Fondo Saccà

5. Lack of Discussion and Interpretation: The results section presents findings without adequate interpretation or discussion. It is crucial to contextualize the results within the existing literature and discuss their implications for urban regeneration policies. The implications for urban regeneration policy are now clearer and more explicit. (the end of page 18) 

 6.Additionally, addressing potential limitations of the study and suggesting avenues for further research would enhance the article's scholarly value.   

 We added a second limitation at the end of the Discussion: “The second limitation is the limited sample of respondents.” The issue of the link with game theory was moved in the paragraph of suggestions for  further research.

7. Writing Style and Language: The article would benefit from improvements in writing style and language clarity. There are instances of ambiguous phrasing and jargon that could be simplified for better comprehension.

 Improvements have been made to the writing style and clarity of language. Some technical terms related to the Capability Approach or economic analysis (e.g., pay-off) have been explained where they are used for the first time.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The paper was significantly improved. The results of the research must be reorganized following the steps of the methodology mentioned above and they must be clearly related to it. 

The considerations that are not clearly related to the application of the methodology proposed in the paper must be moved into discussion and they need to be adequately supported by literature.

Proofreading is still needed. 

Author Response

Thank you for your very useful suggestions; below I include the changes made for each point in a summarised manner 

1) For empirical research,  the results are not clearly presented -  More care taken in describing some results. The results illustrated in the pay –off matrix are more fully commented. The issue of Energy Renewable Community is presented in more details.  Statistics about the ECCA Test an the Pay-off Matrix were included (Excel file) 

2) The paper was significantly improved. The results of the research must be reorganized following the steps of the methodology mentioned above and they must be clearly related to it. The results section has been re-organised according to the three phases described in Section 2 Materials and methods. 

3) The considerations that are not clearly related to the application of the methodology proposed in the paper must be moved into discussion and they need to be adequately supported by literature. Game theory considerations were moved into discussion 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

I have carefully reviewed the revised version of the manuscript, and I am pleased to confirm that the authors have adequately responded to the comments and suggestions raised during the review process. They have made the necessary changes, including textual revisions, organization enhancements, clarification of the methodology, and incorporation of additional supporting evidence, resulting in a significant improvement in the overall quality of the paper.

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

Rewrite the abstract

Making the research gap explicit

Explain the research questions

Separate the description of the methodology from the description of the context of the experiment 

Within the methodology: clear explanation of the objectives and steps of the proposed method.

In experiment: explain why experimentation is important, what is the objective of the experiment, and describe the experiment and the context in which it takes place. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The purpose of this article is to determine if having a positive outlook on the future and building trust with others can impact decision-making when it comes to housing. While the article may have some original elements, it falls outside the scope of the journal of sustainability. Theoretically, the article lacks development and does not present a specific framework for its structure. The problem statement is not clear, and the statistics presented do not meet the standards of the journal. The format of the article does not match the requested format of the journal, and the introduction lacks a clear scientific structure to emphasize the problem being studied and any gaps in the literature. The conclusion needs to be restructured and should include important information such as supporting evidence for the study's hypothesis and its contribution to existing literature.