Your Sustainability Is Not My Sustainability: In-between Spaces for Meaningful Collaboration between Local Stakeholders and Planning Professionals to Construct Congruent Frames over Contested Meanings
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article dealt with a consequence of representative democracy: representation and participation in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
On the other hand, the article has some particularities (historical and political) that can make it difficult for the reader (especially the layperson) to follow the reasoning of the manuscript. This observation does not detract from the quality of the evaluated work.
The best definition of communicative space is far from the introduction. I was wondering if the concept refers to the process of sharing decisions or the consultation mechanisms (opinions). It still lacks a better explanation. Is it a public instrument, regulated by law, or is it just a participation strategy executed by the municipality? Does every public endeavor have to be done this way? Or is it a particularity of Amsterdam? Would it be possible to take a small approach to this concept?
My doubt was between lines 99-129. Although there is popular engagement in the Netherlands, a passage was a bit confusing. The argument of not recognizing what the population wants and about communication. About recognition: It is a dense passage that deserves a little more care in explanation. The doubt that arose to me: Does urban planning in Amsterdam have the same historical social process of participation in other decision-making spaces? The representation crisis may be a sign that it is not a problem with the instrument or the mechanism in participating in urban planning, but with other political processes that citizens are discouraged. I suggest a sentence that allows a better contextualization of this possible problem and indicates a bibliographic reference for support and deepening.
In the method, it would be interesting to address which areas/neighborhoods were worked on in the workshops with society.
In the discussion, there was a lack of an approach that I understand as important: what is the effect of the decisions of a process like this in the political sphere? It was not clear if once the decision was made in this studied process, the planning may not be executed in accordance with the collegiate decision. Would there be a possibility of what was decided by the collective not being executed by a higher political decision?
An intriguing and very timely work for the promotion of public participation in urban planning.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article highlights the challenges of meaningful collaboration between local stakeholders in urban planning projects and the role of well-designed in-between spaces in fostering transformative learning.
The Research paper provides respectable findings and is well-written, but before it is accepted, it needs to be strengthened in the following ways:
In the abstract section, the author should include the qualitative results.
The introduction could be expanded, and more related research sources should be cited.
The author needs to describe the characteristics of a collaborative process.
For better understanding, the author should incorporate the study work's methodology flow chart.
How might innovative visual techniques be created to support transitional areas while ensuring the actors engaged feel ownership over the eventual outputs?
The author needs to include logical arguments for the findings, limitations, and directions for further research in the conclusion section.
There is a typo error in many places, the author should correct them.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. This may be a sociological paper, but I personally believe that the manuscript pattern should not be based on engineering and technology papers, such as Materials and Methods. It is obvious that this manuscript does not involve any material preparation or methodology, and lacks necessary charts and literature reviews, making it difficult to understand whether "in wet spaces" are a real entity or a virtual concept.
2. The author may make a statement around the concept of "in between spaces", which should be consistent with sustainable development or the main theme of this journal. However, I did not see in the entire manuscript whether this paper states a certain fact or discusses the impact of this concept on the urban development and construction of Amsterdam. Alternatively, I believe that this manuscript should be more suitable for theoretical/conceptual research journals.
3. The author should clearly explain which new viewpoints and results are proposed by the author, this manuscript may seem more like a statement about a project in the Amsterdam brownfield area at present.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I believe that the author has made sufficient revisions to the manuscript and it can be currently acceptable. But considering that my understanding of this aspect of research is not sufficient, I suggest referring to the operations of other reviewers for further improvement.
