Accessibility and Inclusiveness of Public Open Spaces in Fragile Contexts: A Case Study of Kaya, Burkina Faso

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a strong conceptual link between urban fragility and accessibility, framing it within the right to the city. It demonstrates a commendable effort in empirical data collection which is a significant contribution to research on this topic. The integration of theory with method is particularly effective and deserves recognition.

 

One key area for improvement is the use of figures and infographics. Currently, some figures feel extraneous, and many could be consolidated into a single table to enhance clarity. Infographics in particular do not seem to serve the argument effectively and are difficult to read. A more intentional selection would help ensure they contribute meaningfully. Additionally, rather than presenting figures as standalone data points, integrating them with explanatory text would improve readability and strengthen the argument.  The number of figures should be cut by half. This will strengthen and clarify the argument.  Also, many of these have already been published in another article.

 

The discussion of accessibility would benefit from a more nuanced engagement with distributive justice. Proximity alone does not fully capture the complexities of accessibility. A deeper interrogation of these dimensions would strengthen the framing. The findings section presents valuable insights, but the conclusion could push further by asking deeper questions about the implications of the research. Revisiting the key figures in the tables and distilling their most significant takeaways in the conclusion would help sharpen the link between accessibility and fragility.

 

Overall, this paper is a well-researched and methodologically rigorous study with a strong theoretical foundation. By refining the use of figures, deepening the engagement with justice frameworks, and strengthening the conclusion’s analytical reach, it can make an even more compelling contribution.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title “Rethinking Public Open Spaces in Fragile Contexts: A Study of Accessibility and Inclusiveness in Kaya, Burkina Faso” is relatively clear, but further simplification could be considered to highlight the core issue of the research. It is recommended to modify it to “Accessibility and Inclusiveness of Public Open Spaces in Fragile Urban Contexts: A Case Study of Kaya, Burkina Faso”.
2. The introduction provides a relatively detailed description of urban vulnerability and the importance of public spaces. However, it could further emphasize the innovation of the paper and its supplementation to the existing literature. It is recommended to explicitly mention the deficiencies in the existing literature on African urban public spaces in the introduction and highlight how this paper fills this gap.
3. The research question of the paper “How does Kaya’s fragile context impact the accessibility and inclusiveness of its public open spaces?” is relatively clear. However, the theoretical framework and methodology of the research could be further clarified. It is recommended to briefly mention the employed theoretical framework (such as the theory of spatial justice) and research methods (mixed methods) in the introduction.
4. The paper employs mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative), but could further elaborate on the specific operational steps of each method. For example, the specific discussion questions in the focus groups in qualitative research, and the design and variable selection of the questionnaire in quantitative research. It is recommended to add a detailed description of the data collection process in the methodology section, especially on how to ensure the representativeness and reliability of the data.
5. The quota sampling method is used in the sample selection part, but further explanation could be provided on how to ensure the representativeness of the sample. It is recommended to add a detailed description of the sample selection in the methodology section, especially on how to ensure the representativeness of different social groups.
6. The results part conducts a detailed analysis of the accessibility and inclusiveness of public spaces. However, the core findings of the paper could be further highlighted. It is recommended to add a summary of the key findings in the results part, for example, “The paper finds that the vulnerability of Kaya has led to the unequal distribution of public spaces, especially the exclusion of vulnerable groups.”
7. The discussion part conducts a relatively in-depth analysis of the research results. However, it could further discuss in combination with the existing literature. For example, how to compare the research results of the paper with those of other African cities, or how to contrast the research results with those of global urban public spaces.
8. The conclusion part summarizes the main findings of the paper. However, the policy implications of the paper could be further highlighted. It is recommended to add a detailed discussion of policy recommendations in the conclusion part, for example, how to improve the accessibility and inclusiveness of public spaces through improved urban planning and governance.
9. The paper puts forward some policy recommendations, but they could be further specified. For example, how to improve the management of public spaces through community participation and transparent governance, or how to enhance the accessibility of public spaces through investment in infrastructure.
10. The paper mentions the future research directions in the conclusion part, but they could be further specified. For example, how to verify the research results of the paper through comparative studies, or how to evaluate the effects of policy interventions through long-term follow-up studies.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is on the role of public spaces in attaining the sustainable development goals in the African continent, specifically in the context of Burkina Faso. The article focuses on examining accessibility and inclusiveness as part of the SDGs. The article is underpinned with the concepts of spatial justice and urban fragility and uses a mixed-methods methodology to investigate the profiles of residents in terms of housing formal or informal status, internal displacement, age, gender and special needs, and their experiences in open public spaces. The main research question is to investigate how the fragility of an urban context affects accessibility and inclusivity in public spaces and is studied through the perceptions of urban actors.

While the topic is very timely and the context of the study would add to research and contributions from the Global South, the authors could consider revisiting the conceptual framework, methodology and discussion sections to enhance their article.

The conceptual framework could consolidate the current part as well as the part on the right to the city and spatial justice. The methodology could benefit from further elaborating the presented figures in text, giving some background to the methods used, and participant profiles. The discussion section requires revisions to corelate across the findings from the diverse methods, but also critically assess the methodology, its limitations, and implications of the findings. The authors would then revisit and perhaps reconsider the recommendations provided at the end, with possibilities for further research on this topic. More detailed comments follow in the paragraphs below.

The two concepts are defined. Urban fragility as ‘urban fragility context, which is defined as the inability of public authorities to cope with the risks of dislocation or collapse of cities induced by rapid urbanization, poverty, violence, inequalities, deficits in service provision’. In Table 1, the authors refer to the dimensions for analysing urban fragility, which include ‘political, security, social, environmental and economic’. While the right to the city and spatial justice are explained in the methodology section, perhaps these three concepts could be discussed together in the conceptual network.

 

The types of open public spaces are listed as ‘parks, green spaces, public squares, playgrounds, and leisure facilities,’ and reference is made to SDG Target 11.7

The authors emphasise the role of public spaces in the African continent in terms of providing livelihoods.

The authors reference several attributes of accessibility that refer to the space itself, its governance and activities occurring in it. However, inclusivity is not sufficiently explained in relation to public spaces, except that it is analysed through users’ perceptions.

The methodology section could be revised to focus on the empirical work and how actors’ perceptions were solicited. Table 1 with the definitions could rather be replaced with a diagram that shows the relations between the fragile context and the different types of open public spaces and could be placed in the literature review section of the article.

Figure 1 is a good synthesis of the conceptual framework and could also be moved to the literature review section, where all the dimensions of fragility, public space, and spatial justice are explained. The authors refer to some definitions of spatial justice and public space. One key reference is: Nikšič, M., & Sezer, C. (2017). Public space and urban justice. Built Environment (1978-), 43(2), 165-172.

Figure 2 is a good summary of the methodology. One comment is that the text in this figure is too small and difficult to read. The figure could be further developed to explain how it serves the conceptual framework underpinning this research, for instance, the relation to distributive and procedural justice.

Section 2.2.1 could focus specifically on Kaya, its population and the available open public spaces, and expand the dimensions of fragility, with some background information indicating how Kaya arrived to this fragile state. This section could further explain why private land ownership led to public authorities’ loss of control over public spaces (lines 148-150).

Figure 4 is unclear, it indicates the number 2, are these selected spaces in zone 2 in the plan shown in Figure 3?

What was the result of the GIS analysis of the open public spaces? How is Figure 4 representing some of these results?

In section 2.2.2, was property ownership of open spaces taken into consideration?

How were the focus groups designed? Who are the residents who participated in these focus groups and how was participation announced, or what was the participant recruitment process?

How was decision in public open space defined in the questionnaire?

The findings are very interesting, and Table 5 provides a good summary of the focus group results on perceptions of the public spaces. What could be further clarified is how the spaces were shared with the focus group participants, and whether they are familiar with all these spaces, or were asked to comment on spaces that they knew.

The table indicates ‘little provision of green spaces in housing estates’, is this public space or private space? What did responds mean by ‘Cumbersome administrative procedures for using public spaces’? What is meant by ‘political control of public space’? is it in reference to policing the space, CCTVs or something else? Why should public spaces be rented against a fee and it is paid to whom, the municipality? How does it differ from the ‘permit to use public space’? What is the tax on public space? What ‘lack of information on public space’ were respondents referring to? What ‘street deficiencies’ were identified and along which streets?

 

Table 5 requires unpacking to explain first what is meant by the statements, and second, how they relate spatially to the open public spaces in the city.

 

Figure 5 is not informative without its spatial positioning. It could corelate across the comments on public spaces but does not tell the reader more than that.

 

Section 3.3 requires development to explain the significance of the results in relation to the respondents’ profiles, explain whether some of these respondents also participated in the focus groups, and compare the results to those of the focus groups and GIS analysis. While Figures 6 to 10 are interesting, they require explanation in the article.

 

In the discussion, it is unclear what activities are practised in public space and to what extent streets serve residents’ activities in open public spaces. This also applies to the other types of public space in the study area.

 

Section 4.2 is the core of the article, where it establishes the relation between fragility and the state of public spaces in terms of accessibility of inclusiveness. The link to the right to the city and spatial justice could be improved, once the conceptual framework is revised to connect all the dimensions of this study at the outset.

 

Recommendations by the authors are summarised in Figure 11 whose legibility needs to be improved by increasing font size. Further, these recommendations require critical assessment, after identifying the limitations of the empirical study, which is currently missing in the article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Correct typos. Last sentence of abstract should read 

People living in informal housing, internally displaced people, women, aged people, people living with disabilities and young people are more likely to experiment experience with spatial injustice and social exclusion from public open spaces.

Figure 3 should be cut. It is not even described. And figure 4 covers the material better.

I appreciate that the authors have enriched the theory section, but I regret that they did not connect it as well to their analysis - as the potential of the paper is not realized.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please submit a revised manuscript with tracked changes enabled to clearly indicate modifications.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript for the second time. We have revised it with tracked changes enabled to clearly indicate the modifications and improve the content.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been significantly reworked and is now clearer and more coherent across the sections. The comments have been addressed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your feedback.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form