Evaluating the Value Relationships of Stakeholders in Urban Land Redevelopment: A Study Based on Stakeholder Value Network and Adversarial Interpretive Structure Modeling
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
First of all, I would like to congratulate you for your article. I believe that the article article makes a valuable and innovative contribution to stakeholder analysis in urban land redevelopment using advanced modeling techniques. However, I believe that some minor revisions focusing on clarity, validation of flows, and broader applicability would strengthen its impact.
- The manuscript is generally well written, but the abstract and introduction would benefit from slight condensation to improve readability. I would consider simplifying dense phrases or separating long sentences.
- While 92 value flows are identified, I believe that further explanation is needed regarding the validation and prioritization of these flows beyond expert input. Were any empirical cross-checks or stakeholder surveys used beyond the Delphi panel? This point need some further discussion as it is critical
- The visual models are useful but could be overwhelming in places. I would simplify key figures or relocating detailed diagrams (e.g., full matrices) to supplementary material.
- The study is firmly rooted in the Chinese ULR context. A brief discussion on the transferability or limitations of the proposed SVN-AISM framework in international or different institutional contexts would strengthen the conclusion (at least) and would increase the validity of the study.
- The limitations mention the static nature of the analysis. It would be helpful to briefly suggest how dynamic or temporal extensions of this model could be operationalized in future research.
- Despite the fact that I really liked the policy recommendations, I would highlight the potential barriers to implementation (eg. stakeholder resistance) etc.
Author Response
Point 1: The manuscript is generally well written, but the abstract and introduction would benefit from slight condensation to improve readability. I would consider simplifying dense phrases or separating long sentences.
Response 1: Thank you for your helpful feedback. We have condensed the abstract and introduction, simplified dense phrases, and separated long sentences to enhance readability. (R1 P1)
Point 2: While 92 value flows are identified, I believe that further explanation is needed regarding the validation and prioritization of these flows beyond expert input. Were any empirical cross-checks or stakeholder surveys used beyond the Delphi panel? This point need some further discussion as it is critical.
Response 2: Thank you for raising this important point. We agree that, in addition to expert opinions, further validation and prioritization of the 92 value flows are crucial. In addition to the Delphi survey, we also conducted stakeholder interviews to confirm the consistency of the identified value flows. We have added a brief discussion in the methods section to clarify this process. (R1 P2)
Point 3: The visual models are useful but could be overwhelming places. I would simplify key figures or nonreciprocating diagrams (e.g., full matrices) to materialistically.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We fully agree that the complexity of some visual models can be confusing. To address this issue, we have highlighted the key data in the matrix of Equation (13) by coloring, making the presentation more intuitive. However, due to time constraints, we were unable to modify the other figures. In our future research, we will certainly take your suggestions into full consideration and adopt them. (R1 P3)
Point 4: The study is firmly rooted in the Chinese ULR context. A brief discussion on the demonstrability or limitations of the proposed SVN-AlSM framework in international or different institutional contexts would strengthen the conclusion (at least) and would increase the validity of the study.
Response 4: “Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have added a brief discussion in the conclusion section to address the potential applicability and limitations of the SVN-AlSM framework in international or different institutional contexts. This addition aims to provide a more comprehensive perspective and enhance the validity of our study. (R1 P4)
Point 5: The limitations mention the static nature of the analysis. It would be helpful to briefly suggest how dynamic or temporal extensions of this model could denationalization in future research.
Response 5: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have added a brief suggestion in the conclusions section regarding potential dynamic or temporal extensions of our model. We propose that future research could attempt to use simulation models to analyze the evolution of value flows over time and further investigate the potential impacts of dynamic changes on the research outcomes, thereby addressing the static nature of our current analysis. (R1 P5)
Point 6: Despite the fact that I really liked the policy recommendations, I would highlight the potential barriers to implementation (e.g., stakeholder resistance) etc.
Response 6: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have added a discussion on potential barriers to implementation, including stakeholder opposition or lack of engagement, to provide a more comprehensive view of the policy recommendations. (R1 P6)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper aims to explore the complex value relationships among stakeholders involved in urban land redevelopment (ULR) in China by integrating Stakeholder Value Network (SVN) analysis with Adversarial Interpretive Structure Modeling (AISM). The authors develop a model comprising eight stakeholder categories and 92 value flows, identifying key stakeholders, value paths, and hierarchical structures of value flows.
General concept comments
Article: The main contribution lies in the novel methodological integration of SVN and AISM, enabling a nuanced understanding of stakeholder value co-creation. The paper is appropriate for its systematic approach, strong empirical basis, and innovative methodological framework. Overall, the paper presents an original and methodologically rigorous approach to stakeholder analysis in ULR, and with minor revisions and elaboration, it could make a significant contribution to the field.
Review: Although stakeholder categories are clearly defined, the process of selecting and weighting value flows through expert elicitation (Delphi and KANO methods) introduces subjectivity. Additional validation of these weights or sensitivity analysis could strengthen the robustness of the model. Moreover, it is appropriate to add references to those methods that are not specifically presented in the article. The recommendations are well-formulated but could benefit from a deeper examination of implementation challenges. The feasibility of proposed collaborative mechanisms across diverse stakeholder groups presented in Section 5 must be clarified, considering the specific territorial area. Furthermore, as explained in the following Specific Comments section, authors must clarify that the article aims to identify stakeholders categories and do not provide a specific stakeholder analysis on a case study.
Specific comments
- Figure 1. “SVN-AISM analysis framework.” → check the title of the first column (Stps is steps?). Add some numbers or letters to the phases in order to make them clearer for the reader.
- Lines 299-300 and 345-346: “The value flows were determined using the Stakeholder Characteristic Template (SCT).” → What kind of stakeholder template is used for these phases? Add specific references to the applied well-known methodology. This step it is not present in Figure 1, but it is part of your methodological approach.
- Lines 345-346: “A quantitative assessment of the value flows was undertaken utilizing the Delphi survey method, wherein stakeholders evaluated the value flows by completing a KANO questionnaire.”. Add some references to the well-known methodology. Similarly to the previous comment, this steps are not present in Figure 1.
- Clarify the aim of the article in the Introduction: the aim is clearly defined only in the Literature Review section (lines 156-159), despite it is stated in the Introduction in lines 66-70 (aim) and 74-77 (research gap).
- Evaluate to add a Materials paragraph: in the article it is completely missed the “Materials” paragraph. It would be useful to have some information about your Case Study and the materials for the interviews and methods application. In this paragraph, you could explain also the structured interviews content (lines 293-294) and the consistency of your database of stakeholders.
- Table 1. “Stakeholder identification and description.” Provides an identification and classification of the stakeholders. In my opinion, this is a stakeholder CATEGORIZATION. You are not providing a classical stakeholder identification (of specific stakeholders) but you are framing what are the typology of stakeholders that are involved in the URL process. Similarly in line 359 you are referring to “eight stakeholders” but these are stakeholder categories.
Author Response
Point 1: Figure 1. “SVN-AlSM analysis framework.”, check the title of the first column (Stps is steps?) Add some numbers or letters to the phases in order to make them clearer for the reader.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion regarding Figure 1. We have reviewed and corrected the title of the first column to “Steps” for clarity. Additionally, we have added numbers to each phase in the framework to make them more distinguishable for readers.（R2 P1)
Point 2: Lines 299-300 and 345-346: “The value flows were determined using the Stakeholder Characteristic Template (SCT).”, → What kind of stakeholder template is used for these phases? Add specific references to the applied well-known methodology. This step it is not present in Figure 1, but it is part of your methodological approach.
Response 2: Thank you for your insightful comment. We appreciate your suggestion to clarify the Stakeholder Characteristic Template (SCT). We have added specific references in the methods section to provide a clear understanding of the template’s origin and application. Additionally, we have incorporated this step into Figure 1.（R2 P2）
Point 3: Lines 345-346: “A quantitative assessment of the value flows was undertaken utilizing the Delphi survey method, wherein stakeholders evaluated the value flows by completing a Questionnaire.”. Add some references to the well-known methodology. Similarly to the pretentiousness, this steps are not present in Figure 1.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added relevant references to the Delphi survey method and the KANO model in the paper. In addition, we have incorporated this step into Figure 1 to ensure that our methodological process is fully represented. (R2 P3)
Point 4: Clarify the aim of the article in the Introduction: the aim is clearly defined only in literature Review section (lines 156-159), despite it is stated in the Introduction in lines 66-70 (aim) and 74-77 (research gap).
Response 4: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have further clarified the aim of the article in the Introduction by rephrasing and integrating the content from lines 156-159 in the Literature Review section, as well as lines 66-70 and 74-77 in the Introduction, to ensure that the research objective is clearly articulated from the outset. (R2 P4)
Point 5: Evaluate to add a Materials paragraph: in the article it is completely missed the “Materials” paragraph. It would be useful to have some information about your Case Study and the immaterial the interviews and methods application. In this paragraph, you could explain also the structured interviews content (lines 293-294) and the consistency of your database of stakeholders.
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the “methods” section in the paper to a “Materials and Methods” section. Within this section, we have supplemented the information on the scope of the study and the sources of data. We have also added more detailed descriptions of the application of the research methods, as well as the structured interview content mentioned in lines 293–294. Additionally, we have addressed the validity and consistency of the research data to ensure the clarity and transparency of our research. (R2 P5)
Point 6: Table 1. “Stakeholder identification and description.” Provides an identification and clarification the stakeholders. In my opinion, this is a stakeholder CATEGORIZATION. You are not providing a classical stakeholder identification (of specific stakeholders) but you are framing what are the typology of stakeholders that are involved in the URL process. Similarly in line 359 you are referring to “eight stakeholders” but these are stakeholder categories.
Response 6: Thank you for your insightful comments. You are correct that Table 1 provides a categorization of stakeholders rather than a classical identification of specific individuals or entities. The term “eight stakeholders” in line 359 indeed refers to eight categories of stakeholders, we have also corrected this error in the revised manuscript. (R2 P6)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments on “Evaluating the Value Relationships of Stakeholders in Urban Land Redevelopment: A Study Based on Stakeholder Value Network and Adversarial Interpretive Structure Modeling”
Thank you for all the authors because of their hard work and interesting topic. There are some suggestions as follows:
1.Line28-29, “As the high-quality economic development and the progress of new industrialization have driven large-scale urbanization in China”, this agreement is wrong, large-scale urbanization in China are result in high-quality economic development and the progress of new Industrialization, or China’s industrialization, tertiary industry, transformation of the economic structure, urban policy?
2.Line55, “ULR is essentially a process of multi-party collaboration and co-creation of value.” It is the authors’ argument, or cited from the other scholars?
3.Line55-56, “In recent years, China has taken a series of measures in the field of ULR”, the authors should tell the readers “When, What, and How?”
4.Line 59, “.... among others.” this was wrong academic English writing.
5.Line70-72 “The SVN theory,... among stakeholders”, which reference are the auhors cited?
6.Line77-80, “”The outcome of this study can provide a novel perspective on the relational behaviors of stakeholders in ULR and offer valuable implementation strategies for advancing ULR, thereby effectively propelling its progress and making a significant contribution to cities’ economic and social development.” Firstly, this was not a novel perspective; secondly, the authors should find the real niche of this research, rather than the “policy discourses”; thirdly, the academic English writing seem to be strange, for example, “the outcome of this study”, etc.
7.Literature Review in Line 83-159, this section must be re-arranged. I have three suggestions: firstly, in the references, there are many excellent academic research, but the section of this literature review seem be not thorough enough and the organization was a bit chaotic. Secondly, I suggest the authors have a English Edit Serve for improve the academic writing, for instance, “As time progresses”, ”already involved” ,etc.
8.Line169, in the Figure 1, what is ”Stpt”? is it “step” or ?
9.Line 183, “we utilized a combination of literature review and semi-structured interviews to ascertain stakeholders”. The authors show “How” and “What” in Line 459-460, and the questionnaires (243 valid questionnaires) in Line 350. In the beginning, I don’t know how many interviewees, how long time, and where, the authors should describe them in Research Design. In addition, the authors should re-organizaed the stucture of this manuscript.
10.Line 188-192, “ exchanges of value between stakeholders are conceptualized as value flows,......through value flows”, please add the cited resources. The authors should exam this manucript carefully.
11.Cities at different levels in China are facing different relations between the central and local governments and political-economic backgrounds, such as municipalities directly under the central government, sub-provincial cities, provincial capitals and some cities with political priority. This study puts forward a universal analysis framework, which I suggest the author should consider, or it can be placed in the research limitations.
12.Finally, it is suggested that the authors polish this manucript carefully again.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAs given above.
Author Response
Point 1: Line28-29, “As the high-quality economic development and the progress of new industrialization have driven large-scale urbanization in China”, this agreement is wrong, large-scale urbanization in China are result in high-quality economic development and the progress of new Industrialization, or China's industrialization, tertiary industry, transformation of the economic structure, urban policy?
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We understand your concern regarding the phrasing in Line 28-29. We intended to convey that large-scale urbanization in China has been driven by high-quality economic development and the progress of new industrialization. To clarify this relationship more accurately, we have already revised the sentence in the paper. (R3 P1)
Point 2: Line55, “ULR is essentially a process of multi-party collaboration and co-creation of value.” It is the authors’ argument, or cited from the other scholars?
Response 2: Thank you for raising this point. The statement on line 55, “ULR is essentially a process of multi-party collaboration and co-creation of value,” reflects our own argument based on the comprehensive analysis of the literature and our empirical findings. However, to provide a stronger foundation, we have added relevant references from other scholars who have similarly emphasized the collaborative and value co-creation aspects in ULR. This ensures that our assertion is well-supported by existing research in the field. (R3 P2)
Point 3: Line55-56, “in recent years, China has taken a series of measures in the field of ULR", the authors should tell the readers “When, what, and How?”
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the text on lines 55-56 to provide more specific details regarding the timeline, the specific measures, and the implementation methods of China's actions in the field of ULR. The revised passage now includes examples of key policies and their implementation processes to better inform the readers. (R3 P3)
Point 4: Line 59,“.... among others.” this was wrong academic English writing.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the sentence on line 59 to eliminate the use of “among others” and provide a more precise and academic expression. (R3 P4)
Point 5: Line70-72 “The SVN theory,... among stakeholders”, which reference are the authors cited?
Response 5: Thank you for your question. We have cited the relevant reference in the appropriate place for this statement. (R3 P5)
Point 6: Line77-80,“The outcome of this study can provide a novel perspective on the relational behaviors of stakeholders in ULR and offer valuable implementation strategies for advancing ULR, thereby effectively propelling its progress and making a significant contribution to cities economic and social development.” Firstly, this was not a novel perspective, secondly, the authors should find the real niche of this research, rather than the “policy discourses”. thirdly, the academic English writing seem to be strange, for example, “the outcome of this study”, etc.
Response 6: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have revised the text on lines 77-80 to address your concerns. We have also refined the language to improve academic precision and clarity, deleting phrases like “the outcome of this study”. (R3 P6)
Point 7: Literature Review in Line 83-159, this section must be re-arranged. l have three suggestions. firstly, in the references, there are many excellent academic research, but the section of this literature review seem be not thorough enough and the organization was a bit chaotic. Secondly I suggest the authors have a English Edit Serve for improve the academic writing, for instance, “As time progresses”, “already involved”, etc.
Response 7: Thank you for your constructive feedback on the Literature Review section. We have reorganized this section to improve its thoroughness and coherence, ensuring a more systematic presentation of the references. Additionally, we have added citations to some recently published excellent references relevant to this study. We have also revised the manuscript，addressing specific phrases such as “As time progresses and“already involved” for better clarity and conciseness. We appreciate your suggestions and believe these revisions have significantly improved the quality of this section. (R3 P7)
Point 8: Line169, in the Figure 1, what is “Stpt”? is it “step" or ?
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We apologize for the confusion. "Stpt" in Figure 1 is indeed an abbreviation for "Steps" We have corrected this typo and ensured clarity in the revised figure. (R3 P8)
Point 9: Line 183, “we utilized a combination of literature review and semi-structured interviews to ascertain stakeholders”. The authors show “How” and “What” in Line 459-460, and the questionnaires (243 valid questionnaires) in Line 350. In the beginning, I don't know how many interviewees, how long time, and where, the authors should describe them in Research Design. In addition, the authors should re-organized the structure of this manuscript.
Response 9: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised the manuscript to address your concerns. In the material and methods section, we have clearly described the number of interviewees, the duration of the interviews, and the locations where they were conducted. Additionally, we have reorganized the structure of the manuscript to improve clarity and coherence. (R3 P9)
Point 10: Line 188-192. “exchanges of value between stakeholders are conceptualized as value flows, .....through value flows”, please add the cited resources. The authors should exam this manuscript carefully.
Response 10: Thank you for your comment. We apologize for the oversight and have carefully reviewed the manuscript to ensure all assertions are properly supported. For the section on lines 188-192, we have added relevant citations to substantiate the viewpoints. We have also conducted a thorough examination of the entire manuscript to ensure all claims are adequately referenced and supported by scholarly sources. (R3 P10)
Point 11: Cities at different levels in China are facing different relations between the central and local governments and political-economic backgrounds, such as municipalities directly under the central government, sub-provincial cities, provincial capitals and some cities with political priority. This study puts forward a universal analysis framework, which I suggest the author should consider, or it can be placed in the research limitations.
Response 11: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have revised and added to the research limitations section of our conclusions, acknowledging the limitation that our paper treats cities as a homogeneous group without considering the significant differences among them in terms of administrative level, policy priority, economic development level, and fiscal autonomy. We have also suggested the need to adjust our research model according to the specific conditions of different types of cities.（R3 P11）
Point 12: Finally, it is suggested that the authors polish this manuscript carefully again.
Response 12: Thank you for your suggestion. We have carefully polished the manuscript again to enhance its overall quality.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
