The Limited Role of Socio-Ecological Indicators in Temporary Use of Space—Deficits in Revitalization of Degraded Urban Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Explaining the concept of community would bring more clarity. The paper mentions local (urban) community and local stakeholders — is there a difference, and if so, what kind? It can be achieved simply by incorporating a reference to the concepts of urban community and/or local community. Still, it is essential because there are different approaches to the concept of community. Is it a flexible one like T. Blokland (2017) suggests, or a more fixed one? How does it relate to the concept of social networks as "soft spatial factors"?

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript focuses on exploring the role of socio-ecological indicators in urban studies. Overall, the structure and writing are coherent and well-organized. I have only a few minor suggestions that may help improve the manuscript. First, in the abstract, the presentation of the results is somewhat vague—we would prefer to see more insightful and intriguing findings highlighted. Second, in the methodology section, it would be helpful to include a flowchart to clearly illustrate the research process. Lastly, in the results section, the authors are encouraged to reiterate the study’s contributions. Additionally, the current conclusion contains some redundant expressions that could be streamlined.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a highly contemporary issue: the revitalization of the urban and social fabric through temporary uses. The authors ground their discussion in an extensive body of theoretical literature; however, the absence of key and current references is notable. In particular, significant contributions by authors such as P. Di Monte, I. Inti, and V. Barberis within the European context, as well as G. Newman in the North American sphere, are not acknowledged. Several of these contributions—some developed through European Projects such as the GE.CO (Generative Commons) —raise questions and perspectives that closely align with those explored in the present study.

The extensive introduction lacks specific references to the various systems for evaluating socio-ecologicla indicators that have been implemented in the contexto of temporary uses, such as those proposed in the Handbook for the Circular Re-Use of Spaces & Buildings by the Urban Agenda Partnership on Circular Economy (2019), as well as the SROI (Social Return on Investment) methodology advocated by R. Marrades (2016).

With regard to the methodological approach, the article is not perceived to offer significant innovation. The objectives and tools proposed do not represent a substantive advancement over those employed in previous research endeavors.

While the article does address critical issues—such as the impact of social relationships—it does not introduce a novel scientific framework or analytical instrumentation through which such dimensions might be examined.

The case studies presented are part of a growing body of examples emerging across the European territory. Nonetheless, they fail to yield distinctive or substantial conclusions that would differentiate them from other cases already documented in academic literature.

In light of the above, while the topic under investigation is undoubtedly relevant, the article adopts a predominantly informative or outreach-oriented approach, which may be better suited to a other types of publications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article brings one relevant point in identifying the relationship between social networks and environmental sustainability, underscoring the necessity of integrating socio-ecological indicators into spatial planning processes. This focus may resonate with contemporary debates around sustainability and community engagement.

However, several aspects could enhance the originality and depth of the discussion. While the authors mention conflicts arising from traditional spatial planning models, it could benefit from providing specific examples of such conflicts to illustrate the argument more concretely. But the most important point is about the methodology: while the research methodology is outlined, a clearer explanation of how the case studies in Portugal and Slovenia were selected, along with their specific contexts, would add credibility and depth to the analysis.

And regarding methodology, authors should understand the difference between hypotheses and assumptions. They have distinct roles in research, and understanding their differences is essential for rigorous scientific inquiry.

A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction or statement about the relationship between variables. It often arises from theoretical frameworks or previous research and is formulated in a way that allows it to be empirically tested through experiments or observations. For example, a researcher might hypothesize that increasing access to green spaces leads to improved mental health outcomes in urban populations. The hypothesis can be tested by collecting data and using statistical methods to evaluate whether the predicted relationship holds true, which is not present (or presented) in the article.

In contrast, assumptions are foundational beliefs or premises that researchers accept as true without direct evidence in the specific context of their study. They underpin the research design, methodologies, and interpretations but are not themselves tested within the study. Assumptions often relate to the conditions under which research is conducted. For instance, a researcher may assume that participants in a study will respond honestly to survey questions or that the environment in which they are studying does not influence the behavior of subjects. These assumptions must be stated clearly, as they can affect the validity of the research findings. While hypotheses are specific, testable predictions about relationships in the data being collected, assumptions are overarching beliefs that guide the research design and methodology but are not directly tested within the study. Recognizing and articulating both is crucial for ensuring the robustness and clarity of the research process.

Additionally, the paper could enhance its contributions by integrating a broader range of interdisciplinary perspectives, not just those strictly related to spatial planning but also insights from sociology, environmental science, and urban studies. This integrative approach could promote a more holistic understanding of the dynamics at play in managing degraded areas.

And the topic of social sustainability mentioned requires further exploration. Elaborating on what constitutes social sustainability in this context and how it can be measured or assessed would provide a clearer framework for practitioners and researchers alike.

The article, with 33 pages, is quite extensive for a typical scientific article, and its length approaches that of a Master's thesis. For it to align better with the standard expectations for a scientific publication, it needs to be condensed significantly. This will help improve its clarity, focus, and overall impact.

The paper should emphasize its key contributions to the field, primarily its replicability, empirical evidence, and scientific value. A more streamlined approach will allow the reader to grasp the core findings and methodologies without becoming overwhelmed by excessive detail. Cutting unnecessary content, simplifying complex sections, and honing in on the core arguments will make the article more accessible and scientifically rigorous.

And the references must follow the journal (or MDPI) rules throughout the text. At many points, the authors are leaving names (from the references) and the numbers in the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately, upon conducting the second review, I found that the authors do not appear fully prepared to submit a revised version. For instance, one of the key points I raised in my initial review was the need to highlight more insightful and engaging findings in the abstract. However, in the revised manuscript, it seems that the abstract has not been revised at all. The authors write: "The basic applied method is described as a plural case study of multiple locations across Portugal and Slovenia. The article identifies social networks that exist between actors (stakeholders) and local environment as one of the most important components that can be evaluated through socio-ecological indicators." But what are the actual findings of the study? What interesting results emerged? And what are the conclusions? Therefore, I strongly believe that the abstract needs to be rewritten. Additionally, in line 916, I do not quite understand the purpose of including a reference in the conclusion section, nor is it clear what "(p. 569)" is intended to refer to in that context.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has improved considerably.

Author Response

Thank you for the review. Your comments contributed to the improvement of the article.

With respect, 

the authors.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Seeing how thoughtfully you have accepted and incorporated all the suggestions made during the first review is truly rewarding. Each recommendation was intended to be constructive, and it’s clear that your careful revisions have strengthened the article significantly. You can now feel even more confident and satisfied with your results. The manuscript remains slightly long, but the quality of the work and the effort invested are evident and commendable. In its current form, the article is suitable for publication. Congratulations on this achievement.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

thank you for the review. Your constructive comments significantly contributed to the improvement of the article.

With respect, 

the authors.