Enhancing Public Space Accessibility and Inclusivity in Residential Neighbourhoods: A Methodological Framework and Pilot Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Your paper introduces a two-level framework for identifying potential areas for public space quality improvement, leveraging resident perceptions and spatial data through GIS. However, for readers, the paper can be somewhat confusing. I suggest creating a flowchart in the methodology section to illustrate the research steps, and then align the text with the flowchart to provide a more detailed and coherent methodology.

While your figures are acceptable, enhancing their definition and enlarging some of them would greatly improve clarity.

You mention an "abacus of design solutions" but fail to present it in the main text, only addressing it in the conclusion. Is this intended as a suggestion for future work? Clarifying this point within the main body of the paper would be beneficial.

The text could benefit from increased conciseness, and a thorough English revision is necessary for improved readability.

In general, I find your paper promising, but addressing these issues will make it more appealing to readers.

Kind regards

Your English should be improved, especially for conciseness and the flow of ideas. It is a bit confusing

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting research that aims to improve inclusivity, security, resiliency, and sustainability in cities—particularly through revitalizing public spaces at the neighborhood scale—. The study uses a mixed technique that includes spatial urban data analysis and participatory methods. A GIS database maps the connections among services and infrastructure, as shown by the methodology's testing in the San Leonardo region of Parma Municipality   (IT).

In my opinion, it also represents an unexplored, interesting topic to be investigated.

Some sentences/arguments/points in the introduction section must be further developed for the following points. Please provide proper answers to those points.

The research is interesting. However, the literature and the methodological approach must be further explained and justified.

 In the introduction on page 7 line 64

In the sentence:  ‘Tactical urbanism is therefore a possible solution to carry out an initial test phase of planning solutions to make local communities gradually adapt to change,’ explain why tactical urbanism is considered as a possible solution amongst others and briefly explain the reason for selecting this methodology among others.

In the sentence pag 3 line 97, ‘The research question is: with which criteria do we identify priority interventions for public space regeneration? The main objective of this research is to define an effective methodological framework to identify the most critical urban areas on a neighborhood scale that need to be regenerated or enhanced through permanent and tactical urban 100 planning interventions’.

Please clarify if any gap in the literature review has motivated or guided the reason for your research.

 For the case study selection, please explain why Parma City has been selected among other cities, especially referring to the sustainable parameters adopted to improve inclusivity, security, resiliency, and sustainability in cities.

 In the methodology section for the sentence’ The methodological framework provided by this contribution and then tested on the 165 case study presented above, is divided into four phases:’ Please explain the reason for the methodological subdivision. Is it based on previous studies from literature review? Briefly describe how the adopted methodology aims to address any gap you have found in the literature review.

Additionally, in the same paragraph, page 5, line 197, ‘ The BAF is an index introduced in planning tools in 1994 by the city of Berlin to improve the ecological performance of the built environment. This index rates the ecosystem functionality by measuring the absorptive properties of a surface.

Is there any other study in the literature review related to a similar methodology for analyses and another case study that can support your methodological approach? Is there any other more recent example that you can refer to? It is suggested that more recent references are included.

 Page 6, line  203, is the questionnaire for participatory analyses related to previous research and studies? Include references.

In the sentence ' In order to collect the citizens' perceptions and opinions on public space quality, mobility, and accessibility, the customized general survey "Public spaces and mobility in the  San Leonardo district of Parma" was prepared. It provides 21 questions specifically addressed to the resident population and 20 specifically addressed to non-residents and is 2structured in seven thematic sections.'

Does the adopted methodology for preparing the questionnaire refer to any related research to justify the reasons for the adopted strategies for investigating the participatory design, especially in the last section of the questionnaire?

I suggest page 7, line 245, to provide a more direct link with the literature review to make the adopted methodology more readable and how the research tries to solve any related gap in the literature.

, ‘some key themes have been identified that can guide the redevelopment of spaces. Each theme may include several possible intervention strategies, as reported in existing literature and experiences (see Chapter 1). These strategies are assigned to each intervention site (node or axis)’ to explain the source for the key items.

 In the results paragraph

Page 8, line 302, I suggest that the adopted methodology to collect data and analyze information should be introduced and explained in the paragraph methodology, not in the result, to provide the readers with an overview of the phases of the conducted research and analyzed data.

Provide the acronym meaning and reference to the code ATECO.

‘They were cataloged according to the 'ATECO'  code, an alphanumeric combination that identifies an economic activity and reveals a significant diversification of activities. Most are related to retail trade, travel agencies, leisure.’

 In the same section, page 11, line 319, the reasons for adopting some references or methodological approaches in your research should be explained in the methodological section.

 ‘Following Jane Jacobs’ concept of ‘eyes on the street’ [44], Figure 6 also provides a 319 critical overview of the concentration of economic activities and facilities of public interest and the safe presidium they provide during evening and night hours, compared to the real geolocation of micro-crime events.

The same consideration for the same paragraph under result Page 12, line 327, the adoption of Lynch's approach to city elements should be explained in the methodology.

‘Lynch's study of the city elements, applied to this neighborhood, (Fig.7) shows elements, such as paths, edges, districts, nodes and landmarks, both primary and secondary. The district is enclosed by edges, which makes it isolated from the rest. On the other hand, there are numerous nodes and landmarks that facilitate the mental schematisation of the  space for the user’.

I suggest that all the adopted approaches for analyses and methodologies be critically presented in the section methodology to provide a clear understanding of your adopter research methodology. It will facilitate the readers' knowledge of the various phases of the research by motivating the reason for the adoption.

Pag 12-line 336 public survey results, please provide an example of the submitted questionnaire and explain to whom the questionnaire was submitted: students, adults, residents, non-residents etc.

Kindly clarify the sentence on page 12, line 345: ‘Most of the participants (75.9%) are residents of the neighborhood.’ Do you have other participants who were not residents? Please clarify.

 To better understand the selection of nodes, it is suggested to present the result of the questionnaire and the areas that were highlighted are more significant than others due to some responses and how the selection is linked with some submitted questionnaire questions.

Page 16-line 467: Same comment to be described in the methodology, not in the results

‘Through the support of a Sankey diagram (Fig.11), the intervention themes (functional aspects, accessibility, implementation of sociality, transformation, and use of public space, transformation and use of built space, and environmental aspects) are addressed in planning solutions, which, however, may also respond to more than one theme. The variety of potential solutions highlights the difficulty of the process but positively affects the richness and feasibility of the planning strategy.

Page 17, line 494 In the discussion and conclusion, please explain in more detail the reason for selecting the areas  and document how the resident user participating guided the analysis of the area; the questionnaire results will help to understand the area chosen for analysis as for the below sentence:

‘This section also discusses the results by showing the intervention scheme outlined in two notable cases among the nodes and axes identified. The chosen cases are node N1 and axis A3 tangent to N1, located in the western part of the San Leonardo district. It was decided to examine node N1 because it comprises public spaces considered by residents and users participating in the public survey as the most used and representative places in the neighbourhood’.

In conclusion, please include any consideration about any study limitations, further research, and possible implications.

Only a few minor typos and errors

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper Enhancing public space accessibility and inclusivity. A methodological framework and application for a residential neighborhood in Parma presents methodology developed on two levels - a participatory process and a spatial analysis of urban data, that was tested on the San Leonardo neighborhood in the Municipality of Parma.

The structure of the paper is correct organized, and tables and figure are informative. The paper demonstrates and cites, to some point, appropriate range of literature sources. Presented research is appropriate designed and applied methods, partly, adequately described.

I have to stress that I assigned major revision as I am of the opinion that main limitation within presentation of this research/study is that scientific soundness is weak. Also, some parts of the manuscript need restructuring.

Suggestions for authors:

Consider revising the tittle of the paper and as well the key words. The title is not clear, and it should correspond/reflect the content of paper. Within key words is mentioned tactical urbanism but not well supported within title and content of the paper. Consider revising.

The quality of communication is not in accordance with the needed criteria. In some parts, the paper does not clearly express its case and needed attention has not been paid to the clarity of expression and readability. Please consider restructuring Abstract and Conclusions according to the journal guidelines for authors. Thus, in order to support consistence of the paper within the section of Abstract, Introduction and Conclusions should be more clearly emphasized significance of this paper, all together with providing explanation of the value of the manuscript for similar research in related fields. The paper could be significantly improved with the addition/comparing of obtained data their implications for research, practice and/or society.

Some mentioned data/documents are missing reference. Consider providing the reference throughout the whole manuscript.

Consider upgrading presentation of the data. Consider presenting some of the data and results in tables or figures (survey, results….).

The quality of the paper could be significantly improved by adjusting the structure of the presentation - clear and precise presentation/writing style together with providing the relation to the current framework (legislative, institutional, SDGs, EU) and the view (statement, opinion…) referring to the enhancing public space accessibility and inclusivity will support publication of the presented research.  

Please refer to the Authors guidelines while revising the manuscript. To the authors it is suggested proofreading.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Why was the study carried out in Parma? Please justify your choice.

192 residents took part in the survey - what proportion of the population of the study area?

It would be useful to illustrate the results of this study graphically, e.g. with a graph/table.

The paper presented lacks an academic discussion of the results - it should be improved and the literature should be added.

Is this study part of some larger municipal programme? Is it being done on behalf of a municipal entity, a government entity or a private investor?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Abstract

1 -The abstract has some flaws and needs some improvements to be clearer.

The research question/problem, the aim, main result and conclusion should be mentioned in a clear way to better understanding.

Introduction 

2 - The introduction has structural flaws and needs improvements to be more clear. The research problem and its context should be framed within more specifically details. 

3 – This section brings the topics of proximity service, transportation modes, 15-minute city and tactical urbanism within urban regeneration framework, however without a deep discussion of the main scientific contributions and its insights.

4 – Abovementioned, evidences a strong lack of the state-of-art, which is missing as literature review section.  

5 - What is the main contribution from this research? In what way, this research is innovative and outstanding? Authors should justify and argue with a new paragraph at the end of this section.

Methodology

6 – The survey description is quite limited of information to be comprehensive, as well as analytical, moreover it does not reveal reliability nor data feasibility.

References

7 - More than 40% of the bibliographic references are not classified as scientific manuscripts, and there are five self-citations which should be avoid it. These context evidences that the literature review is not sufficiently up-to-date.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

You addressed all my comments.

Kind regards.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper focuses on enhancing inclusivity, security, resiliency, and sustainability in cities, particularly through neighborhood-scale revitalization of public spaces. Employing a mixed methodology involving spatial urban data analysis and participatory methods, the study addresses gaps in the literature, explores the uncharted terrain of tactical urbanism, and justifies the selection of Parma City for the case study. Thank you to the authors for the revisions and the improved version.  The paper is more clear and easy to read. The methodological framework, divided into phases, has been improved following the suggested comments by bridging the identified literature gaps and incorporating the Berlin BAF index. The paper has better-integrated literature references in the methodology, explaining the selection of analytical approaches and providing more clarity on the questionnaire's design and participants. Additionally, implementations have been made to enhance the introduction's readability by providing a clearer structure overview and addressing ambiguities in the methodology section. Further, the results and discussion sections have been linked back to the literature, and the conclusion has also elaborated on study limitations, proposed future research, and discussed potential implications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper Enhancing public space accessibility and inclusivity in residential neighborhoods. A methodological framework and application testing in a case study in Parma (Italy) has been notably improved taking into consideration given suggestions.

However, I do have few more suggestions for authors to be considered.

1)      Why dots within title? I would like to suggest “:” - colon (two dots).

2)      Abstract: consider adding few sentences concerning obtained results.

3)      Key words: why city planning (only 2 times mentioned within paper); did you mean urban planning? Consider replacing with urban planning.

As the paper is about methodological innovation it is suggested to the authors to add within key words methodological framework. Also, taking into consideration that the paper/research is about tactical urbanism consider adding tactical urbanism or tactical urban planning within key words.

4)      Consider avoiding using personal pronouns “we” (lines 313, 314). Please correct throughout whole paper.

To the authors is suggested to revise the paper as some of the (minor) aspects need to be improved in order to support publication. Please refer to the Journal guidelines for authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf