Revitalization of Zabłocie in Kraków: Innovation Cluster as One of the Elements of District Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines the role of the innovation cluster in the revitalization of Zabłocie. While the topic is compelling, the current manuscript reads more like a research report than a rigorous academic article. Several critical elements are missing, including a clear theoretical framework and a well-defined knowledge gap. Additionally, the analysis remains largely descriptive, lacking robust methodological foundations. To meet academic standards, the authors should substantially revise the paper by incorporating these essential components before resubmission.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript and for the valuable comments that helped us improve the article. We agree that the first version contained descriptive elements that may have given the impression of a research report rather than an academic contribution. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have introduced the following improvements:

1. A theoretical framework, referring to the literature on innovation clusters and theories of post-industrial area revitalization.

2. A clearly identified and articulated research gap, which justifies the case study of Zabłocie as a meaningful contribution to the development of knowledge on urban innovation ecosystems.

3. A strengthened methodology section, with a more detailed explanation of the research methods used, data sources, and analytical approach.

4. An added interpretative component, which allowed us to move from descriptive reporting to analytical depth and critical reflection.

Once again, we sincerely thank you for your constructive feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This text offers a clear look at a district in Kraków. The writers present each step with care. Their description of the innovation cluster makes sense and does not distort facts. The language is easy to follow.

The authors offer a good layout of how they used modern tools for the project. They also point to cooperation between public and private groups. Good practices are presented.

 

However, the paper does not break new ground. The article is a case study and does not present a new research methodology.

 

The text still reads smoothly, and it remains free of major slips. Yet it feels more like a local study than a major advance in the field.

 

 

Areas for improvement:

The references and introduction are not thorough enough. They do not link the initiative described to similar endeavors in other places or prove that it is unique in a broader sense. Authors should list similar projects in different locations or prove that this one is one of a kind.

 

Chapter: 4. Discussion contains generic text from the template of the article:

“Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible. Future research directions may also be highlighted.”

It must be improved!

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and for taking the time to review our manuscript. We agree that the introduction and the references section required further development. In the revised version of the article, the following improvements have been made:

1. The literature review has been expanded to link the analyzed initiative with similar projects implemented in other cities, both in Poland and abroad.

2. The unique character of the Zabłocie initiative has been emphasized, highlighting to what extent it represents a distinctive or model case, and how it differs from other approaches to revitalization and innovation cluster development.

3. Section 4 (Discussion) has been restructured, moving away from general statements. We have enriched this part with specific references to previous studies, hypotheses, and the broader theoretical and practical context, as well as outlined potential directions for further research.

Once again, thank you for your constructive critique, which helped us raise the scientific quality of our work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

sustainability-3590552-peer-review-v1 report

This research focuses on Zabłocie in Krakow of Poland to discuss the innovation cluster in the function for regional development from a historical post-industrialization area to a revitalization urban area. By using Building Information Modeling (BIM), the authors discuss a decision-making process to examine “every stage of construction” narratively. Their results “serve as an example” in urban growth. Their main idea is clear to be understood in a case study format. However, there are several aspects can be improved.

• The introduction is not enough to underline the importance of this research. Even as a case study, its representativeness should be addressed.
• The references are lacked of key clues in conceptual history of planning progression. Who did make some important contribution to design their study area? And why did they design in those old fashions at that time? And what is the difficulties for current revitalizations in details?
• The method is new for this kind of academic research, because it usually for application to understand the building design for engineering. Even though the authors provide information to compare this method to another engineering software, it still lacks of references in academic discussions. I suggest to deeper finding some historical martials of this study area in city planning and functional discussion.
• Discussion section is a very draft version, may be made by AI techs.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

must to be improved.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your detailed and critical remarks, which are highly valuable to us. We agree that the article required refinement, particularly in justifying the significance of the study and embedding it within a broader theoretical and historical context. In response to your comments, we have introduced the following revisions:

1. The introduction has been strengthened to clearly emphasize the relevance of the Zabłocie case study, both in the local context and in terms of its potential representativeness for broader revitalization processes in Central and Eastern Europe.

2. We expanded the references to include key themes from the history of urban planning, including the names of planners and architects associated with the historical shaping of the Zabłocie district. We also examined the rationale behind the planning approaches used at the time and their current consequences for revitalization processes.

3. The section on contemporary revitalization challenges has been further developed, showing the institutional, spatial, economic, and social limitations faced by current stakeholders.

4. We clarified and better justified the research methodology, which—although uncommon in urban studies—offers a fresh perspective for analyzing complex urban structures. To support this, the literature review was significantly expanded.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article systematically demonstrates the catalytic role of innovation clusters in revitalizing post - industrial urban areas through an analysis of the historical background, legal framework, and technological applications in the Zabłocie district of Krakow. However, there are still many problems. First, the article mentions the risk of "insufficient cooperation between the public and private sectors", but does not deeply analyze specific cases or solutions. Are there any relevant data or policy recommendations to support this argument? Second, the application of the CDE platform is described as a key success factor, but the article does not compare its cost - benefit differences with traditional management models. Is there any quantitative data to prove its efficiency improvement? Third, Chapter 4 mentions that "Building A has been vacant for a long time", but does not analyze the root causes (such as defects in the operation mode or mismatches in community needs). Is it necessary to supplement failure experiences and improvement measures? Fourth, the conclusion states that the cluster "supports start - ups and social organizations", but lacks specific user feedback or participation data (such as the number of settled enterprises and the effectiveness of activities). Can empirical evidence be added? Fifth, the research methods section does not clearly define the data collection methods (such as interviews, questionnaires, or archival analysis). Does the transparency of the methodology need to be enhanced? Sixth, the paper emphasizes the protection of historical heritage, but does not discuss whether the modern functions of innovation clusters have potential conflicts with the cultural values of the original buildings. How to balance protection and transformation? 

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your detailed and constructive review, which highlighted several key areas requiring improvement. Below we respond to your comments and outline the corrective actions undertaken:

1. Insufficient public-private cooperation – We supplemented the article with specific examples of situations where such cooperation proved problematic, and we presented existing policy recommendations and organizational solutions applied in other revitalization projects.

2. Use of Common Data Environment (CDE) platforms – At present, quantitative data comparing the use of CDE platforms with traditional construction management methods in this type of investment are not yet available. However, it is evident that this solution offers a competitive advantage to companies implementing digital tools such as CDE. To support this argument, we referenced publications that demonstrate the considerable benefits of using a shared data environment, confirming the validity of implementing such platforms across diverse construction projects.

3. Analysis of the prolonged underuse of Building A – We agree that the initial explanation was insufficient. The text was expanded to include an analysis of potential causes such as functional mismatches, infrastructural limitations, and a lack of engagement from the local community. We also outlined the corrective measures undertaken in response to these difficulties.

4. Lack of data on cluster participation and effectiveness – We referenced current empirical sources that provide information on the number of registered startups, social initiatives, and indicators of their activity and survival. We also pointed to interviews and press coverage reflecting the growing success of the implemented investment.

5. Methodological transparency – The methodology section was extended to include a description of the data collection techniques used.

6. Balancing heritage protection and innovation – We recognize the importance of reflecting on the potential conflict between modern functions and the historical character of the built environment. We expanded the article with an analysis of the tensions between conservation and spatial adaptation, providing examples of good practices and design dilemmas encountered during the cluster’s implementation.

We sincerely thank you once again for your insightful evaluation and for identifying areas that required further elaboration, both empirically and methodologically.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript employs the urban renewal of Krakow's Zabłocie district as a case study to investigate the role of innovation clusters in the transformation of historical industrial areas. It effectively combines the renovation of historical buildings with the integration of modern technologies, such as Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Common Data Environment (CDE) platforms, thereby demonstrating a notable level of innovation. However, the article's contribution to theoretical innovation is relatively limited, primarily reflecting its findings through case studies and practical applications.

The overall structure of the manuscript is coherent; however, "Discussion," Section is somewhat brief and does not adequately support the chapter as a whole. Additionally, it should be noted that there is a significant reliance on online sources for references—such as Wikipedia and commercial websites—resulting in a deficiency of academic citations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is suggested to improve the readability and language accuracy of the manuscript.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your feedback and for identifying areas in need of improvement. We appreciate your comments regarding the limited theoretical contribution and the overly concise nature of the “Discussion” section. In response, we have revised the article as follows:

1. We expanded the theoretical component of the article, referring to recent literature in the fields of urban studies, cluster theory, and revitalization. Our aim was to more clearly demonstrate how the Zabłocie case study offers a new perspective on the functioning of innovative urban structures in a post-industrial context.

2. We extended and deepened the “Discussion” section to better link the research findings with existing theoretical frameworks and the gaps identified in the literature. We also developed the practical conclusions and outlined potential implications for future research.

3. We revised the reference list, removing sources that do not meet academic standards (e.g., Wikipedia) and replacing them with scholarly publications, institutional research reports, and peer-reviewed literature.

Thank you once again for your valuable suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments.

Author Response

We would like to once again express our sincere thanks for the constructive and insightful comments provided in the review. The suggestions offered enabled us to improve the manuscript in terms of both content and clarity, and to refine key aspects of the methodology and interpretation of results.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for improvements.

Author Response

We would like to once again express our sincere thanks for the constructive and insightful comments provided in the review. The suggestions offered enabled us to improve the manuscript in terms of both content and clarity, and to refine key aspects of the methodology and interpretation of results.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

well improved for acceptance. double check the spelling and polish the language.

Author Response

We would like to once again express our sincere thanks for the constructive and insightful comments provided in the review. The suggestions offered enabled us to improve the manuscript in terms of both content and clarity, and to refine key aspects of the methodology and interpretation of results.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been well revised and has met the publication requirements.

Author Response

We would like to once again express our sincere thanks for the constructive and insightful comments provided in the review. The suggestions offered enabled us to improve the manuscript in terms of both content and clarity, and to refine key aspects of the methodology and interpretation of results.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors has made substantial revisions to the manuscript, significantly enhancing its depth of research, integration of theory with practice, and the thoroughness of the discussion, approaching the standards required for publication in Sustainability. For instance, 1. The theoretical framework has been expanded, with the introduction and discussion sections citing Flyvbjerg's (2006) case study methodology and integrating the "Triple Helix" Model(government-industry-science collaboration) to analyze the governance model of innovation clusters (page 15). 2. A new "Methodology" section has been added (page 5), clearly stating the adoption of a qualitative case study strategy and the integration of planning documents, interviews, and field observations, which conforms to the rigor of social science research. 3. The original brief "Discussion" section has been expanded into an independent analysis chapter (pages 13-14), thoroughly exploring the challenges faced by innovation clusters in governance models, public-private partnerships, and social inclusiveness, and providing empirical support through long-term monitoring data (such as the outcomes of 30 start-ups and 15 social initiatives). The case study of the Zablocie District innovation cluster is comprehensive and in-depth, elaborating on the role of innovation clusters in the transformation of historical industrial areas from multiple perspectives, offering valuable references and lessons for related research, and demonstrating certain innovation and academic value. Additionally, the reference list has reduced the proportion of non-academic citations and standardized the citation format, providing strong support for the research.

However, the innovation is concentrated on the empirical aspect and no new theoretical models or hypotheses are proposed. If the existing theories are critically expanded, such as the innovation ecosystem and the post-industrial city transformation theory, then the theoretical value of the article will be further enhanced. Certainly, this task can be deferred to future work.

Author Response

We sincerely thank for the detailed and constructive feedback on our revised manuscript. We greatly appreciate the recognition of the improvements made, particularly regarding the expanded theoretical framework, the clarified methodology section, and the in-depth analysis of the case study.

Your acknowledgment of our efforts to enhance the integration of theory and practice, as well as the methodological rigor and empirical depth, is highly encouraging. We are also grateful for your positive evaluation of the case study’s contribution to understanding innovation clusters in the context of post-industrial urban transformation.

We take note of your valuable suggestion regarding the potential for theoretical development, such as expanding existing frameworks on innovation ecosystems and post-industrial city transformation. While this extension exceeds the scope of the current article, we fully agree that it presents a promising direction for future research.

Thank you once again for your insightful comments, which have significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work.