Systematic Review of the Role of Arts Places in Fostering Urban Sustainability and Resilience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article contributes an interesting empirical study to the current topical field of sustainability and arts. The main focus on arts places for uban regeneration is of relevance in this context. However, in the study the focus is going beyond arts places in a narrow sense. This should be explicated/adapted at the beginning. As well there is a lack of conceptual contextualization of the empirical study at the beginning. The introduction is quite short and superficial. It would be necessary to include a subchapter which embedds the research project into the inter- and transdisciplinary field of arts-(based) sustainability science and urban studies. The systemic literature review employing PRISMA follows the established routines and practices of this method. The inherent limitation (selective material corpus) is mentioned. It could be reflected in more detail, because there is a high probability that the localized arts-/sustainability projects are not (only) communicated in English-speakig journals registered in Web of Science/JSTOR. The time period of the analysis is explicated, however no reasons are given for the decision on this period; this would be helpful/necessary. For the analytical-interpretative procedure an analogy is made to the health/medical sector. This is somewhat akward and not completely convincing. A careful, more conceptually founded argumentation for the analytical procedure would be potentially more helpful than the analogy to health/medicine. The interpretative process should be made more transparent. Given, that there is no systematic content analysis conducted, there is a significant risk of selective and biased interpretation. It would be necessary to explicate in more detail, how the interpretative analysis took place. The conclusion, however, is consistent and focused, and the outlook on further research (quanitative long-term impact studies) is important. In sum: With some improvements the article would contribute to the development of the emerging research field of arts, sustainability science and urban sustainability studies.     

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract should clearly articulate the specific contributions of arts places to urban sustainability and resilience. Consider including more explicit examples of the mechanisms identified in the review. 

2. In the introduction, provide clear definitions of key terms such as "arts places" and "urban sustainability." This can lead to confusion regarding the scope and focus of the review. For instance, while the introduction mentions various types of arts spaces, it does not adequately define what constitutes an "arts place" or how these spaces are categorized (Page 1). 

3. The primary research question could be more specific. For instance, it could specify the types of art places being examined. Additionally, the rationale for the systematic review could be strengthened by elaborating on the gaps in existing literature that this study aims to address.

4. The methodology section needs a more detailed explanation of the inclusion and exclusion criteria used during the screening process. Also, provide more explanation of the rationale for selecting the 79 articles from an initial pool of 699. Furthermore, the reliance on AI tools for initial screening without a thorough human verification process may compromise the quality of the selected studies.

5. The results section could be improved by providing more visual aids, such as charts or tables, to summarize key findings. For example, a table summarizing the types of arts places and their impacts would enhance readability and comprehension. Additionally, the discussion of the most cited articles could be expanded to include their relevance to the current study.

6. The discussion should include a more critical analysis of the challenges faced by arts places, particularly regarding gentrification and the balance between artistic and commercial purposes. 

7. The section on future research lacks specificity and depth. While it mentions the need for quantitative assessments of the long-term impacts of arts places, it does not provide concrete suggestions for methodologies or specific areas of inquiry that could advance the field.

8. The manuscript often presents findings without adequately linking them to the cited literature. For example, while it discusses the role of arts places in fostering community engagement, it does not consistently reference specific studies that support these claims 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree with the rationale for the work (line 46-)

Figure 4:  shouldn't this be placed in the Results section?

“the table next to Figure 4” (line 135)??

The VOSviewer figure appears to need a number, title, etc.

Is there value in comparing with the contributions of citizen science?

Discussion:  the unintended consequences are not unexpected

provide an example of economic sustainability (Section 4.3)?

“Second, a careful balance of…”(Section 4.4):  why true, is there any work that guides this aspiration?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review: Systematic Review of the Role of Arts Places in Fostering Urban Sustainability and Resilience

    This work examines the systematic review of the role of arts places in fostering urban sustainability and resilience, investigating how these spaces contribute to long-term urban development goals. By synthesizing 79 peer-reviewed articles published between 2013 and 2024, this review identifies the
mechanisms through which art spaces promote sustainability and resilience across economic, social, environmental, and cultural dimensions.
    The findings reveal how arts places—ranging from permanent museums and galleries to temporary and public art installations—stimulate community engagement, economic revitalization, and environmental stewardship. This study provides a theoretical framework that illustrates the connection between the type of arts places, their initiators, and their intended outcomes. The results also highlight challenge such as gentrification and the tension between artistic and commercial purposes. Implications for urban planners and policymakers include integrating arts places into urban regeneration strategies. Future research should focus on quantitative measures of the long-term impact of arts places and their role in mitigating urban inequities. This work contributed towards general understanding of the role of art for the urban sustainability and resilience with its findings that underlined various form of arts in different contexts and how they relate to specific aspects of sustainable development goals.
   

General concept comments and specific comments
    The manuscript is scientifically sound and there is strong rational for researching about this topic in the midst of the ongoing cities transformation that are searching for different ways how to boost local economies, support social inclusion and address pressing issues of cities identities.
    The work follows a clear structure, from methodology described to the analysis and synthesis of data collected, to the presenting limitations of research and suggesting future research direction. One of the suggestions to authors is to mention cities/countries of articles analysed in order to better
understand results presented. This could be mentioned within introduction and additionally reinforced in the discussion and conclusion. Or integrated somehow within the visuals presented.
    When talking about different modalities of including art in the cities not only scale of the city and where art is exposed matters but also local culture, climate, planning mechanism, politics, developing or developed countries – economy of city. In some cities and cultures art is more integrated at the formal institutional level with the cultural buildings being main proponents of art. In some of more conservative societies the freedom of artists is limited and there is no such thing like urban art, graphite or similar as most of the urban surfaces (urban walls) are strictly controlled by government or city leaders (we are not talking about vandalism but more informal ways to convey messages that are usually found in the cities on different urban surfaces). In some city’s art has been always part of the daily life as it was imposed on citizens by its strategical position within the most used walkable and shared spaces of cities (streets, squares and parks). What has been trend is to create art places that have potential to revive public space, provoke, call for interaction and thinking and make vibrant city life. Entire cultural districts are erected with the art used as a strategy for city revitalisation.
    Additionally, the quality of discussion part might be improved if authors reinforce their arguments on articles found commenting on pattern of art places found (similarities and differences) for specific localities/cities. Also, addition to discussion what are the most advanced or innovate ways of art places found (are these places related with technology, media art, digitalisation or something else). How many of these articles analysed are generic, presented as a literature review, and how many are addressing
specific case study and sharing practical knowledge? How art places and topics around it - keywords - have changed from the earliest article analysed to the most recent?
    Art is very powerful agent for change and it could support urban sustainability and resilience but there is need to solidify statement like this with valid arguments and concrete findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review analyzes 79 studies from 2013 to 2024, exploring the role of arts places in promoting urban sustainability and resilience. It highlights how these spaces foster community engagement, economic revitalization, and environmental stewardship, while addressing challenges like gentrification and tensions between artistic and commercial goals. The study suggests integrating arts places into urban regeneration strategies and calls for future research on their long-term impacts and role in reducing urban inequalities. The article has a clear structure, rigorous logic, and fluent language expression.

Here are some of my suggestions and opinions:

1.Page 1,Lines 22: You mention “The integration of arts and cultural spaces into urban environments has been increasingly recognized as a means to achieve urban sustainability and resilience.” Could you analyse the meaning of the study further?

2.Page 1,Lines 22-27: You mention “While existing literature highlights the economic (Seresinhe et. al., 2016; Zeng & Tuncer, 2022), social (Taylor, 2017; Zeng, et. al, 2024), and environmental impacts of art, there is limited synthesis on how different types of art spaces achieve their intended outcomes.” The discussion in these sentences is rather general. Could you extend these references further to analyse the limitations of these references”

3.Page 1,Lines 27-31: The logic of these two sentences needs to be adjusted. You mention “the relationship between the initiators of these spaces and the specific intention behind their establishment remains underexplored.” The logic of these two sentences needs to be adjusted. You should explain the significance of these relationships in detail and why it is necessary to explore them.

4. In general, review papers may focus more on summarising existing research and place less emphasis on the methodology of the review study, so why does this paper emphasise the methodology of the review study and what are the advantages of that methodology?

5.Page 2,Line 67:you mation “the robustness of the PRISMA approach is also widely applied to the social sciences, including urban planning.” Could you add specific references after that, it would be more convincing.

6.Page 3, Figure 1: The last process box in figure 1 is incomplete, please check it.

7.Page 4, Line89-102：You have only referred to the explanation of the contents of the two process boxes in figure 1, and I think the contents of the remaining process boxes should be explained accordingly. Write the complete steps of the flowchart.

8.Page 4, Line 97: You mention “Rayyan.Ai”. The vocabulary of the context should be consistent.

9.Page 8, Figure 4: Figure 4 contains not only figure but also table. Can the figure and table be discussed separately and modified in the corresponding parts of the text.

10.Page 11, Line 168: Could you explain the system used for analogy? What is its use or purpose?

11.Page 11, Line 176: You mation “The missing linkages between arts places and sustainability/ resilience goals are (1)art and (2) the process of art getting the impact through storytelling, communityengagement, or visual projections, akin to ‘medicine’ and ‘clinical procedures’.” Please check the accuracy of the sentences, including the ordinal numbers as well as the sentence pattern.

12.Page 12, Line241:You mation “can be from top-down or bottom-up”, but there is no explanation of top-down or bottom-up in 3.1.1, could you add an explanation?

13. Are there any published review papers on the subject? If so, how does the perspective of this review differ from that of existing reviews?

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions made by the authors are - overall - fine. The source of Lew et al. 2016 for arts-based and sensory sustainaiblity science, however, is not very appropriate. Nevertheless I can go with it.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your revisions and thoughtful response to my comments. The revisions have comprehensively addressed my previous concerns, and the manuscript has been significantly improved.