Operationalization of the Creative City Concept in Japan: A Comparative Review with a Special Focus on Kanazawa and Environmental Sustainability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author,
you had a good research idea, but the results do not match your research intentions.
The disadvantages of the manuscript are as follows:
1. The abstract does not contain a clearly described aim of the research, methods of data collection and processing, methodology used, clearly described results, and other elements. The abstract is not written according to the "authors' template".
2. The introduction, as an important part of the manuscript, should contain clearly described general and specific objectives of the research, limitations, research gap, and a description of the methodology.
3. The source of the methodology and the structure of the research itself are not clear. Tables are shown in the text independently of the text and numbering. It is not clear what the sources of the data shown in the tables are. It seems that the values are arbitrary.
4. The Literature Review chapter does not contain an adequate theoretical basis. The authors describe a case from Florida, which cannot be compared with UNESCO cities. This chapter does not meet the rules of scientific article structure.
5. The Results chapter acts as a dependent text. This chapter could be a separate article, the results of which can be independent of the announcement of the methodology used. These segments and chapters seem to be in a grand coalition.
6. The Conclusions chapter does not contain a discussion of scientific results, scientific implications, and future research plans. Here, it is necessary to describe the research results in relation to the goal in more detail. That segment was missing because the goal of the research was not even defined.
7. The number of references used is not adequate for an article that should be part of a highly indexed scientific journal.
8. It is understood that the authors should familiarize themselves with and study a larger number of similar research in order to arrive at more original results.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find the review of the sustainability-3695335 entitled “Operationalization of the Creative City concept in Japanese Cities and Discussions on Environmental Sustainability”. The Authors sincerely thank you for your thoughtful review and the constructive feedback on our manuscript.
In the attachment, you will find a point-by-point response regarding your specific comments, followed by the changes suggested by the three other reviewers (in red).
We hope these revisions address your concerns, and we look forward to your feedback on the updated manuscript.
Sincerely,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper analyzes the action reports of ten UNESCO-certified cities in Japan, revealing the specific contents of these cities' implementation of creative city policies and finding that environmental sustainability is generally overlooked in these reports. The study also uses Kanazawa city as a case study to explore potential ways to incorporate environmental considerations into the creative city agenda. My comments are as follows:
- Introduction: The conceptual scope regarding creative cities and SDGs seems incorrect: SDGs should be broader than creative cities. Therefore, the text should state that creative city development is incorporated into urban SDGs, rather than urban SDGs being incorporated into the creative city network agenda (lines 65-68).
- Literature review: Although the article cites scholars such as Landry and Florida in introducing the concept of creative cities, the critical analysis of these theories is insufficient. For example, the article does not adequately discuss the applicability of these theories across different cultural and social contexts, nor does it deeply explore the potential links between the creative city concept and environmental sustainability.
- Methods: Although the article selects ten Japanese cities for analysis, only Kanazawa City is chosen for the case study. This selection may not represent the situation of all Japanese creative cities, especially considering differences in economic, cultural, and geographical contexts. The author needs to emphasize potential limitations and how the findings might be generalized to other regions. In addition, the study does not mention how data reliability and validity were ensured, such as whether coding consistency checks were employed.
- Discussion of environmental sustainability: While the article points out that environmental sustainability is neglected in creative city reports, the case study does not provide detailed analysis of specific environmental sustainability initiatives. For example, the discussion of Kanazawa City’s “Wood Culture City” plan is superficial and does not deeply examine its implementation effects, challenges, or integration with the creative city agenda.
- Theory and practice: The article mentions Landry’s and UNESCO’s visions of creative cities in the theoretical framework but fails to sufficiently demonstrate how these frameworks have guided or influenced policy-making in Japanese creative cities. Several studies have already addressed the relationship between environmental sustainability and creative cities. For details, see:
DOI: 10.3986/AGS.7030
DOI: 10.1080/10286632.2023.2222770
Minor Issues:
- Lines 65-68: The conceptual scope of creative cities and SDGs seems inaccurate; SDGs should be broader. The text should state that creative city development is incorporated into urban SDGs, rather than urban SDGs being incorporated into the creative city network agenda (lines 65-68).
- Figure 1 lack north arrows and scale bars. It is recommended that the author mark latitudes and longitudes in the study area, either on the map or in the text. Finally, it is suggested to distinguish cities by different colors according to their “Field.”
- The word “See” in “(See Figure 4)” seems unnecessary.
- Some content in Discussion (section 5.1) should belong to the Literature review section.
The article contains some lengthy and complex sentences, which increase the burden on readers to understand the text. For example, lines 65-68.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find the review of the sustainability-3695335 entitled “Operationalization of the Creative City concept in Japanese Cities and Discussions on Environmental Sustainability”. The Authors sincerely thank you for your thoughtful review and the constructive feedback on our manuscript.
In the attachment, you will find a point-by-point response regarding your specific comments, followed by the changes suggested by the three other reviewers (in red).
We hope these revisions address your concerns, and we look forward to your feedback on the updated manuscript.
Sincerely,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors of the article investigated the implementation of the Creative Cities policy in Japan by analyzing the content of action plans from ten UNESCO-certified cities. They also identified potential ways to integrate environmental considerations into the Creative Cities policy.
The article's methodology included a qualitative analysis of the membership monitoring reports (MMRs) submitted by cities to UNESCO, as well as a case study of Kanazawa. The methodology used is scientifically sound.
The article addresses a topical issue, possesses scientific novelty, and will be of interest to specialists in urban planning, cultural policy, and sustainable urban development, among others.
The references cited in the article are relevant, and no excessive number of self-citations were found. However, the reviewer advises significantly updating the list of references by considering more works that have appeared over the past five years. There have been numerous articles that have combined the issues of creative cities and sustainable development in recent years, particularly about European cities. For example, the journal Sustainability in 2022 had a special issue on Urban Sustainable Development and the Idea of Creative City https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/creative_city#published
Reviewer's suggestions for improving the article:
- In the sentence 'In the last decade, the literature has thus questioned the sustainability of the creative city with an emphasis on cultural and social aspects as well as the challenges the model faces within the current neo-liberal era' (lines 121-123), it is advisable to provide references to the literature at the end.
- In the reviewer's opinion, it is advisable to swap paragraphs 2.3 and 2.2, i.e., first to describe the UNESCO Creative Cities Network and then to apply the concept in Japan.
- Figure 4 on the page (Some insights about Kanazawa Downtown) should be renamed and better connected to the text.
- It may also be advisable for the authors to create in section 5.2. 'Opportunities for environmental sustainability in Kanazawa's creative city plan' another figure, namely, to modify Figure 5, 'Creative City Policy in Kanazawa's Municipal System' by adding Environmental Sustainability Aspects.
- The title of the article could be improved. In order not to duplicate the expression Creative City, the article should be titled not 'Operationalization of the Creative City Concept in Japanese UNESCO Creative Cities and Discussions on Environmental Sustainability,' but 'Operationalization of the Creative City Concept in Japanese Cities and Discussions on Environmental Sustainability.' The emergence of Japanese UNESCO Creative Cities is part of the process of operationalizing the Creative City concept in Japan.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find the review of the sustainability-3695335 entitled “Operationalization of the Creative City concept in Japanese Cities and Discussions on Environmental Sustainability”. The Authors sincerely thank you for your thoughtful review and the constructive feedback on our manuscript.
In the attachment, you will find a point-by-point response regarding your specific comments, followed by the changes suggested by the three other reviewers (in red).
We hope these revisions address your concerns, and we look forward to your feedback on the updated manuscript.
Sincerely,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe presented manuscript offers valuable insight into the process of operationalization and potential implementation of environmental sustainability into the already established framework of the Japanese UNESCO Creative Cities initiative and its developmental implications.
The authors are encouraged to revisit and reformat the abstract to provide a more concise summation of the presented findings, as its current structure does not efficiently communicate the presented findings and complexities of the subject matter.
Another round of proofreading for the English language is likewise strongly suggested, as some parts of the text lack language precision (wording, syntax structure, and grammar) appropriate for an academic publication.
Further insight or brief commentary is warranted vis-à-vis the discussion on the statement that most of the Japanese articles lack substantive discussions on specific policy content (lines 58–59). Does this imply a lack of academic research on this particular topic overall (across disciplines), or the language contextualization mentioned later on in the text (lines 641–644), or the authors’ lack of access to specific pieces of academic research due to, e.g., a language barrier? Does the same apply to research mentioned in lines 209–210?
Mentions of an “…urban tradition slightly different from Europe” is an understatement to say the least, as Japanese urban planning and spatial logic, influenced by specificities in cultural patterns and spatial usage, is vastly different from the European context. This may be an interesting point of discussion, as the authors are encouraged to briefly explore whether the presumed incompatibility and ineffectiveness of implementation of SDGs into the Japanese context stems from its underlying acontextual guidelines that cannot be implemented in varied spatial and cultural context?
When mentioning “Japanese central government laws and political trends” (lines 252–253), discuss whether this presents a barrier in implementation of goals deemed inappropriate or incompatible (for implementation) by said laws and trends, and if so, speculate on the alternative ways of implementing the desired goals.
When discussing MMRs, specifically Physical urban space, were there any aspects noted that can be classified as aligned with sustainability goals and practices? Were there any other (even subversive) practices found within examined initiatives that do not necessarily explicitly address the desired set of goals/criteria but nonetheless achieve similar effects postulated by official documents, such as SDGs? Or do all documents bear the noted “vaguely evoked” (line 782) mention of environmental sustainability?
The question of potential embeddedness of sustainability goals in different facets of examined material ought to be addressed directly. For example, are there any notions of educating children on sustainability as an everyday practice in the examined “Children workshops” (lines 373–375)? The same applies for exhibitions for children or food education in schools. Discuss briefly.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find the review of the sustainability-3695335 entitled “Operationalization of the Creative City concept in Japanese Cities and Discussions on Environmental Sustainability”. The Authors sincerely thank you for your thoughtful review and the constructive feedback on our manuscript.
In the attachment, you will find a point-by-point response regarding your specific comments, followed by the changes suggested by the three other reviewers (in red).
We hope these revisions address your concerns, and we look forward to your feedback on the updated manuscript.
Sincerely,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I carefully analyzed all the changes in the manuscript. I can conclude the following:
-The abstract has been rewritten. It now contains all the necessary elements. Readers can now get an insight into the research based on this part of the text.
-The Introduction chapter now clearly describes the general and specific objectives of the research, limitations, research gap, and methodology.
-The Literature Review chapter now has a clear chronology and theoretical basis.
-It is not usual for a paragraph of text to start with the word - Table 1 presents.... it is necessary to reformulate this paragraph in such a way that the text begins with an important description and at the end of the text a table is announced according to the order. Lines: 292-300.
-Chapter 3.2. About recent political trends in Japan, should be integrated into chapter 2, and without subchapter titles.
-Chapter 4 Results needs to be significantly shortened. The authors should focus first on the analysis of the research results, then compare them with the previous results on which the conceived methodology is based. The results described in this way do not provide a clear insight into the research. It is not necessary to divide the text to such a large extent into such a large number of sub-chapters. There is no clear unity in the results.
-Table 4 should be moved after the text describing the results in the table. Line 399. The paragraph starting with - Next page Table 4... (line 396) is not an adequate beginning of the text. It is necessary to reformulate more significantly.
-Table 6 does not have an adequate position in the text. It is necessary to move this table after the announcement of the table, line 471.
-Subchapter 4.1.4. Summary of the operationalization review is not necessary, or does not have an adequate position in this text (Lines: 520-532).
-It is not clear why the analysis of the results is focused exclusively on Kanazawa city, although the research focuses on UNESCO Creative Cities (10 by structure of different cities). This would mean that the title of the article and the focus of the research must be changed. Authors should provide a clear description of the choice of focus, Lines: 332-339, 534-683. If it is about a special focus on Kanazawa city, it is necessary to add "with a special focus on Kanazawa city" to the main title of the article and to the abstract.
-The Discussion chapter should be focused on the research results and comparative analysis with previous results. Also, here it is necessary to clearly highlight the novelties that this research contributes to science.
-Not all the references are written in accordance with the instructions for authors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find the review of the sustainability-3695335 entitled “Operationalization of the Creative City concept in Japan: A Comparative Review with a Special Focus on Kanazawa and Environmental Sustainability”. The authors thank you again for your comments. We highlighted in yellow the changes made in this revised version of the manuscript.
Please see the attachement for the point-by-point response.
Sincerely,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have carefully reviewed the revised manuscript submitted for publication in Sustainability. The authors have addressed the concerns and suggestions raised in the previous review.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you once again for your valuable comments, which crucially contributed to the quality of our paper.
Sincerely,
The Authors
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe point-by-point responses provided by the Authors, as well as the amended version of the manuscript are appreciated, and the overall improvement of the manuscript's flow is significant.
Smaller issues may be found for the presented strength of argument and counterargument, but not any that drastically influence the quality of the work.
The Authors are encouraged, for their future research efforts, to perform a comparative qualitative (and quantitative, if possible) analysis with other cities in the UCCN network, drawing conclusion on contextual specificities and their adaptation for each case, as well as global applicability from lessons learned across contexts.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you again for your valuable comments, which crucially contributed to the quality of our paper.
Sincerely,
The Authors
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
with all your corrections, you have made the manuscript very acceptable for publication.
Congratulations!
