Transforming Cities to Meet 21st Century Challenges: Insights from New Urban Developments in Australia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript focuses on socio-institutional obstacles to innovation in urban development and conducts empirical analysis based on a national cross-sectional survey and two case studies in Australian. It sheds light on the challenges and strategies of implementing sustainable urban development and provides some useful policy insights. However, I have several concerns regarding the theoretical contribution, conceptual framework and methodology of the analysis.

 

Theoretical Contribution: The paper remains largely practice-oriented, and it is not clear whether it makes a meaningful theoretical contribution. The study does not sufficiently position its research within a broader theoretical context or engage with existing scholarship in a way that clarifies how it advances current understanding. At present, the theoretical contribution appears limited, and the authors need to more explicitly articulate how their study extends or challenges existing frameworks.

 

Research Framework: While the study introduces interesting concepts, its engagement with theory remains somewhat superficial. Some of the discussions—such as those on innovation ecosystems and strategic actions—align closely with existing urban innovation literature, making it difficult to see what new perspectives this paper offers. A clearer discussion of how this study differs from or builds upon prior work would help strengthen its impact.

 

Methodology and Data Limitations: The study relies on a national survey and two case studies, but both approaches have notable limitations. The survey includes only 62 respondents, mostly concentrated in specific industries and regions, which raises concerns about its representativeness. The case studies focus exclusively on greenfield developments, overlooking other important project types such as urban renewal and brownfield redevelopment. Given that different project types face distinct innovation challenges, the narrow sample selection may limit the study’s broader applicability. Furthermore, the absence of perspectives from end users, such as residents, makes it difficult to fully assess the real-world implications of urban innovation.

 

In summary, while the manuscript tackles a relevant topic, it still needs substantial revisions to strengthen its theoretical foundation, clarify its research contribution, and address methodological concerns. I encourage the authors to refine these aspects before resubmission.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Transforming cities to meet 21st Century challenges: Insights from new urban developments in Australia” discusses a critical area on the role of innovation in sustainability transitions. The strength of the study lies in the attempt by the authors to address the linkages between innovation and transformative planning. Addressing the points below could greatly enhance the manuscript. Detailed comments are highlighted as in text comments in the manuscript.

Organisation

The organization including the flow of information is satisfactory. However, mix up in results and methods and materials section need to be addressed. Address the following

• Lack of systematic organization of sections i.e. (line 485; 554-558; 602-606) need to be placed under appropriate section as highlighted in the manuscript

Are sections well developed.

The sections are well developed save for gaps on definitions/ explanations of terminologies such as transformation, innovation

Is the literature well synthesized

There are gaps in synthesis of literature. This can partly be attributed to missing or inadequate operationalization of key terms around “innovation and transformation”

Does the author answer the questions he/she sought to answer

The authors have made a good attempt at answering the questions he/she sought to answer but they can improve the manuscript by incorporating suggested observations. Lack of operationalization of the term “innovation”  and “transformation” weakens the argument across the manuscript. The operationalization/ contextualization of the term “innovation” would have led to a focused and unbiased argument by the authors. This is not evident. A few suggested references are indicated in the manuscript to assist in improving the manuscript.    

Is the method well explained:

• The method section is moderately well explained.  A brief discussion of the methodological choices (strength and weakness) on the rationale for excluding end users) while addressing transformation where effective participation is critical is needed.

Is the article well written and well understood

• The article is well written and understood.  organizational changes and operationalization of the term “innovation and transformation” as suggested earlier can immensely improve the manuscript and detailed through intext comments in the manuscript

Results and Discussion

• There is a weak linkage to innovation, transformation and participation

 

Conclusion

• Need to reorganize and review the conclusion remarks by linking it to your study objective around innovation and transformation. In most sustainability transitions, participation of end users under multilevel governance is given a lot of weight yet you have excluded this critical segment in data collection without giving a clear justification. I suggest this angle should be explored in correcting the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting paper about insights from new urban developments in Australia regarding transforming cities to meet 21st Century challenges. Please consider the comments below to improve the paper quality.

(1) Lines 191-192: The two research questions are stated well. Please mention the research objectives, which are usually answers to the research questions.

(2) Line 238: Please explain about the meaning of "semi-structures interviews and workshops".

(3) Lines 328-331: Please give information about the education background of the interviews and workshops participants, if it is available.

(4) Lines 149, 426, 429, 534: "financial strain and capacity constraints" or similar terms are repeated in the mentioned lines. Also in Figure 4, only "financial strain" is mentioned, not "capacity constraints". Please clarify how "financial strain" and "capacity constraints" are different and if needed, adjust Figure 4.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the revised manuscript demonstrates noticeable improvements, several critical issues remain that need to be addressed before it can meet the publication standards.

 

Limited Theoretical Contribution

Although the authors have added more references and attempted to articulate their study’s relationship with existing theories, their engagement with key theoretical concepts remains limited. And the theoretical constructs are not fully explored or critically examined. Moreover, the authors' engagement with the broader theoretical landscape in this field is not comprehensive enough. They seem to cherry - pick certain theories without fully exploring the rich body of research available. This restricted approach makes it hard to evaluate the true value of this study in advancing our understanding of urban development innovation. To enhance the theoretical rigor, the authors should conduct a more in - depth and extensive review of relevant theories and integrate them more effectively into their research.

 

Methodological and Data Limitations

Despite the authors' attempts to supplement and justify their research methods and data sources, the problem of limited case representativeness and generalizability remains a significant concern.

 

Weak Integration between Empirical Analysis and Theory

The empirical analysis is insufficiently linked to the literature review section. The authors should strive for a more explicit dialogue between their findings and the theories they reference.

 

Another issue is that the authors seem to have a muddled understanding of the differences between theoretical contribution and theoretical framework. While the theoretical framework refers to how literature supports the study’s research design and operationalization, the theoretical contribution concerns how the study extends, challenges, or refines existing knowledge.

 

Overall, while the manuscript has improved, I remain unconvinced that the current version sufficiently meets the publication standards. The authors need to deepen their theoretical engagement, strengthen the link between empirical findings and theory, and provide a more convincing articulation of their study’s academic contribution.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Attention to previous comments are well captured 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf