Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Designing with Consequences: Mapping Cross-Impacts and 
Unintended Effects in Participatory Urban Regeneration

General comments

The study appears as a narrative for an urban lab test. It is not scientifically grounded. Many methodological details are not properly described (related to the workshops). The results are not presented in a scientific, coherent manner. It is not clear how can this study be replicated or reproduced for future studies. The figures are more illustrative, rather than scientific. Also, the figure have poor resolution, and they are not in English. 

proof reading and language check are recommended: revise the use of some terms, also the use of capitalization and bold letters. 

Reference list is ver old

Specific comments

The title mention 'impacts' but it is not clear in the paper. Also what are intended and non-intended ones. How were they defined, measured and how was that compared against (what is the best case scenario). 

please add affiliations and corresponding email

please update the list of references

line 12, how many, date, year, how was it disseminated, 

please make sure to state the full term once introduced, then use the abbreviation only consistently across the paper

line 13: not clear how

line 14: explain more

The introduction section needs to be revised for consistency, relevance, and lenght 

line 65: justify the selection of this case study

line 230: how many workshops? how many participants?

not clear how did the authors use systems thinking, and it is not mentioned in the literature review section

fig 4: same, what are these numbers? do they represent the workshops conducted?

investigating existing problems should have been supported with site visits and observations

line 332: their quantitative analysis is missing

line 373: are they the same participants throughout all workshops? was their participation voluntary or not? how was the invitation sent?

line 535: not clear how participants were guided

line 536: was not clear in this study

line 640-644: Move to the introduction section. The conclusion section should not include references

the method section is not properly desctibed

the result section needs to be supported with quantitative data

statistical analysis needs to be added to test the reliability and validity of the answers obtained.

The discussion section needs to compare the research outcome to previous studies

The conclusion section needs to pinpoint the research novelty and added value and pinpoint the research reproducibility and replicability to other contexts. It should also pinpoint directions for future research 

Please refer to the attached annotated file for authors' guidance 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate revision required

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive comments, which have been extremely valuable in improving the clarity, rigor, and overall scientific contribution of the manuscript.

In response to the review, we have undertaken a substantial and comprehensive revision of the paper. In particular, we have:

• clarified the methodological framework, including workshop structure, participant composition, and analytical procedures;
• explicitly defined intended impacts and unintended effects, and explained how they are identified through cross-impact analysis;
• strengthened the scientific grounding by integrating systems thinking and relevant literature in the Background section;
• restructured the Results and Discussion sections to improve coherence and analytical depth;
• introduced a clearer semi-quantitative layer, including FCM modelling, cross-impact reasoning, and sensitivity analysis;
• improved replicability and transparency, detailing process steps, data handling, and modelling choices;
• revised all figures (now in English, high resolution, and analytically consistent);
• updated and expanded the reference list;
• performed a full language revision and proofreading.

We believe that the revised manuscript is now significantly stronger in terms of methodological clarity, analytical robustness, and contribution to the field.

 

Specific Responses

 

1. “The study appears as a narrative… not scientifically grounded”

Response:
We appreciate this important observation. The manuscript has been extensively revised to strengthen its scientific grounding.

• A dedicated Method section (Section 3) now clearly describes:
• workshop design (7 sessions, structured funnel),
• participant composition and recruitment,
• data collection and validation process,
• analytical translation into FCM.
• A semi-quantitative modelling layer (FCM + cross-impact + sensitivity analysis) has been fully clarified.
• The paper now explicitly positions itself as a hybrid qualitative–semi-quantitative study grounded in systems thinking and participatory modelling.

 

2. “Methodological details are not properly described”

Response:
This has been substantially addressed.

We now explicitly report:

• number of workshops: 7 thematic sessions
• participants: 45 registered, ~30 per session
• composition (% by category)
• voluntary participation and recruitment channels
• iterative validation process between sessions

 

3. “Results are not presented in a scientific manner”

Response:
The Results section (Section 4) has been fully restructured.

It now follows a clear analytical logic aligned with the methodological funnel:

1. Problems (structured by domains)
2. Opportunities (interpreted through domain overlaps)
3. Visions (2050 scenarios)
4. Solutions (matrix classification)
5. Integrated cognitive map

This ensures a progressive, transparent and reproducible analytical flow.

 

4. “Relicability is unclear”

Response:
Replicability has been significantly strengthened.

We now explicitly provide:

• the methodological funnel (problems → opportunities → visions → solutions → evaluation)
• description of data structuring and aggregation rules
• FCM implementation details (software, weighting logic, simulation)
• sensitivity analysis (±20%)
• discussion of conditions for transferability (Section 5.3)

 

5. “Figures are illustrative, low resolution, not in English”

Response:
All figures have been:

• redesigned in English
• produced in high resolution
• made analytically consistent with the text
• simplified where needed (e.g., Venn diagram, vision schema, solution matrix)

 

6. “Impacts not clear / intended vs unintended”

Response:
This has been a major revision point.

We now:

• clearly define intended impacts vs unintended effects in the Introduction
• explain how unintended effects are identified through:
• FCM propagation
• cross-impact reasoning
• connect this explicitly to Type III errors (Merton; Dunn)

 

7. “Case study not justified”

Response:
A new dedicated subsection (Section 2.4) now explains:

• spatial relevance of Piazza Umberto I
• institutional context
• role as pilot case for methodological testing

 

8. “Systems thinking not clear”

Response:
Systems thinking is now:

• explicitly introduced in Section 2.3
• conceptually grounded (Ackoff, Weaver, complexity theory)
• operationalized through:
• FCM
• cross-impact analysis
• relational reasoning

 

9. “Quantitative analysis missing”

Response:
The study now includes a semi-quantitative analytical layer:

• FCM simulation
• cross-impact analysis
• histogram of solution influence (Figure 9)
• sensitivity analysis (Section 5.2)

We clarify that:

the method is not statistical inference-based, but semi-quantitative and exploratory.

 

10. “Statistical validation missing”

Response:
We respectfully clarify that the study does not aim at statistical generalization.

Instead, we provide:

• robustness check (±20% weight variation)
• transparency in modelling assumptions
• explicit positioning within participatory modelling literature

 

11. “Participation details unclear (line 373 etc.)”

Response:
Clarified in Section 3.1:

• voluntary participation
• recruitment channels
• continuity vs variability of participants
• facilitation methods

 

12. “Site visits missing”

Response:
We acknowledge the relevance of this point.

We clarified that:

• the process was conducted online due to contextual conditions
• spatial understanding was supported through:
• maps
• visual materials
• shared spatial references

This is now explicitly stated as a limitation (Section 5.5).

 

13. “Discussion lacks comparison with literature”

Response:
The Discussion section has been strengthened by:

• explicit comparison with:
• participatory planning literature
• FCM applications
• systems thinking approaches
• positioning contribution in relation to:
• collaborative planning
• decision-support tools

 

14. “Conclusions need improvement”

Response:
The Conclusions section has been fully revised to:

• clearly state novelty and contribution
• highlight methodological innovation
• discuss replicability and transferability
• identify future research directions

 

15. Minor comments (language, abbreviations, references, affiliations)

Response:

• full proofreading completed
• abbreviations standardized
• affiliations and email added
• references updated and expanded

 

We are grateful for the reviewer’s comments, which significantly contributed to improving the manuscript. We believe the revised version now offers a clearer, more rigorous, and more impactful contribution to the field of participatory urban planning and decision-support methodologies.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article states that the public-participation method it presents differs from other public-engagement processes. Whereas, in other processes, residents are asked what they would like to see in an urban-renewal site, here the participants are not only asked for their preferences, but are also exposed to the diverse implications of developing the site according to those preferences. Thus, at times, different preferences may resonate with one another, allowing a single solution to benefit both; alternatively, one vision may facilitate the realization of the other. Conversely, the implementation of one vision may undermine another, requiring compromises. The article argues that the public-participation workshops presented in the paper demonstrate visually the connections and tensions between different solutions, thereby contributing to the development of proposals acceptable to the majority of participants. The authors further argue that this process enhances residents’ recognition of the city and their sensitivity toward both the urban environment and other community members.

My first comment concerns the participants:

1. Do the population groups who took part in the workshops represent broader groups of citizens beyond themselves?
2. Did the workshops include only local residents, business owners, and experts, or were non-local visitors also involved?
3. The paper states that the meetings were held on Zoom. How, then, did the researchers overcome older residents’ hesitation or difficulty in using digital technology?

My second comment concerns the focus on the urban-renewal site (the paper provides too little detail on this aspect). A civic square—as suggested by the aerial imagery—is part of the wider city. The urban circulation network leads into it; its vegetation often connects that of the municipal park, and so forth. It would be interesting to understand how this broader systemic perspective was conveyed to participants. Was it through the aerial image shown in the paper (and if so—do the authors have any critique of this choice?), through a film communicating the human experience of the space, or perhaps by relying on the participants’ intimate familiarity with the place? What were the considerations behind these choices? A critical reflection by the authors would be appropriate here.

My third comment concerns the insights from the public-participation process. The description of the jointly designed concrete and physical interventions reveals that many proposed actions are essentially maintenance-related: planting, paving and drainage, lighting, signage, and similar tasks. Such actions could have been carried out by the municipality without public participation. A critical reflection on this point would be beneficial. That is, can and should the public be involved in the physical design process? Or would it have been sufficient to capture the “spirit” of the desired direction (e.g., between preservation/rehabilitation and new construction)? In contrast, the non-physical plans co-developed in the workshops appear more substantial. Addressing, in the conclusions, the practical advantages of such a public-participation process—distinguishing between physical and non-physical outcomes—could add significant value.

My fourth comment concerns the time elapsed since the public-participation workshops. Are there any tangible results on the ground (physical or managerial)? Do the authors have an assessment of the outcomes of the experiment? If “before” and “after” photographs of the site exist, including them would strengthen the paper.

My fifth comment also relates to the conclusions. The article states that the visualization of the positive and negative interconnections between participants’ preferences is overly dense. This impression is indeed conveyed by the corresponding figure. Can the authors propose a clearer visualization? This would contribute both to the presented methodology and to the paper’s overall value.

My sixth comment is technical: the text in the figures is in Italian. It is important to change it to English.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and insightful comments. We particularly appreciate the recognition of the core contribution of the paper, namely the shift from preference-based participation toward a process that enables participants to engage with interdependencies, trade-offs, and unintended consequences.

The reviewer’s comments have been extremely helpful in strengthening the manuscript, especially in relation to:

• participant representation and inclusivity,
• the spatial and systemic framing of the case study,
• the role of participation in physical versus non-physical interventions,
• the practical outcomes and temporal dimension of the process,
• and the clarity of visualizations.

All these aspects have been carefully addressed in the revised version of the manuscript.

Response to Comment 1 — Participants and Representativeness

Do participants represent broader groups? Were non-local users involved? How was digital exclusion addressed?

Response:

We thank the reviewer for raising these important questions.

The revised manuscript clarifies that:

• participation was open and voluntary, resulting in a heterogeneous but not statistically representative sample;
• the participant group included:
• residents,
• associations,
• students,
• economic actors,
• technical professionals,
• and institutional representatives;
• non-local users were not systematically included, although some participants had indirect or professional relationships with the area.

We explicitly acknowledge that:

the process should be interpreted as analytically rich and plural, rather than statistically representative.

Regarding the online format (Zoom):

• we now explicitly discuss this as a limitation (Section 5.5);
• mitigation strategies included:
• dissemination through multiple local channels,
• involvement of organized groups (associations, institutions),
• facilitation techniques to ensure balanced participation.

We also acknowledge that:

digitally mediated participation may have limited the inclusion of less digitally confident populations, including some elderly residents.

This point is now explicitly discussed as a methodological limitation.

 

Response to Comment 2 — Spatial and Systemic Framing

How was the broader urban system conveyed to participants?

Response:

This is a very valuable point, and we have strengthened the manuscript accordingly.

We clarify that the systemic understanding of the square was supported through a combination of elements:

• spatial materials:
• maps and spatial overviews of the square,
• identification of key nodes, paths, and connections;
• participants’ direct familiarity with the place, given its central role in the city;
• facilitation strategies explicitly aimed at:
• linking local issues to broader urban dynamics,
• highlighting connections with the station, university, and surrounding areas;
• the analytical framework itself (five domains), which encouraged participants to reason beyond the site as an isolated object.

We have also added a critical reflection noting that:

while aerial and schematic representations supported orientation, they may not fully capture experiential and relational dimensions of urban space.

This reinforces the methodological transparency of the paper.

 

Response to Comment 3 — Physical vs Non-Physical Interventions

Many physical interventions seem basic; what is the added value of participation?

Response:

We strongly appreciate this comment, as it touches a key conceptual issue.

In the revised manuscript, we explicitly clarify that:

• the value of participation does not lie primarily in generating technically complex physical solutions;
• rather, it lies in:
• reframing problems,
• revealing interdependencies,
• identifying trade-offs and unintended effects,
• and building shared understanding.

We have added a reflection emphasizing that:

while many physical interventions (e.g., paving, lighting, vegetation) could in principle be implemented without participation, the participatory process contributes by situating these actions within a broader system of meanings, uses, and long-term visions.

Moreover, the paper now explicitly distinguishes between:

• physical outputs (often incremental or maintenance-related),
• and immaterial outputs, including:
• shared cognitive frameworks,
• governance insights,
• programming strategies,
• and collective learning.

We agree with the reviewer that:

non-physical outcomes represent a major added value of the process.

This distinction has been strengthened in both the Discussion and Conclusions.

 

Response to Comment 4 — Temporal Outcomes

What happened after the workshops?

Response:

We acknowledge the importance of this point.

The revised manuscript clarifies that:

• the process was conducted as part of a preliminary participatory phase supporting design and planning;
• no full implementation phase is documented within the scope of this study.

We have explicitly stated this as a limitation, noting that:

the paper focuses on the methodological and analytical contribution of the participatory process, rather than on long-term implementation outcomes.

At the same time, we emphasize that:

• the outputs contributed to municipal knowledge and decision-making processes;
• the framework is intended as a replicable decision-support tool, rather than a one-off intervention.

We agree that before/after images would be valuable, but these fall outside the scope of the current study.

 

Response to Comment 5 — Visualization Clarity

The visualization is too dense; can it be improved?

Response:

We fully agree with this observation.

In the revised manuscript:

• figures have been redesigned and simplified;
• intermediate representations (e.g., matrices, diagrams) have been introduced to:
• reduce cognitive overload,
• improve readability,
• and clarify relationships between elements.

We also clarify in the text that:

the density of the integrated cognitive map reflects the complexity of the system, but alternative visualizations are necessary for interpretability.

This is now explicitly discussed as both a limitation and a methodological insight.

Response to Comment 6 — Language in Figures

Figures were in Italian

Response:

All figures have been:

• fully translated into English,
• revised for consistency and clarity,
• and produced in high resolution.

 

We would like to thank the reviewer again for the insightful and constructive feedback. The comments have significantly contributed to strengthening the conceptual clarity, methodological transparency, and overall contribution of the paper.

We believe that the revised version now better articulates:

• the value of participation as a cognitive and systemic process,
• the distinction between physical and immaterial outcomes,
• and the role of cross-impact reasoning in urban regeneration.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General: This is a fascinating paper outline major issues that lead to planning deficiencies and wasted resources. It suggests a path that is modified that seems to have benefited the situation noted in example. That said, I felt I did not get the context of the particular example identified adequately- the kinds of urban color/building density, uses, era of origin, larger national location- the authors make a lot of assumptions for an international reader. Some of the technological path in software seems to change voice and is not in plain language a layperson may understand. Overall a great paper that I think needs a bit more background and better English summaries of Figures, some of which seem to almost pixilate into blurred text.

53-64: This is a key point- too many 'experts' and preset conclusions cloud the kinds of 'situated knowledge' residents/stakeholders may bring.

73-77: The qualitative is more important and more nuanced than selective reductive quantitative formulae.

110: while I enjoy the term  'wicked problems', I am not sure that term is the best for this kind of paper. Perhaps it is quoted from the reference.

126: the term 'structural injustice is powerful, and you may wish to seed it earlier in the abstract as a problem unresolved in normative planning.

117-132: The text  may be missing an issue of multiple conflicting or varied opinions stakeholders- newer vs. older residents, family size or nature differences, economic variation/workers/retired/unemployed, for instance that further complicate the qualitative aspects.

222-227: Given academic, student and resident differences, how were these different opinions anticipated with screening possible questions/values?

230: did the online versions eliminate some less-digitally based stakeholders?

245: of the 30 +/- participants, diid the planners feel this was an adequate cross section of stakeholders? Were certain ones absent from participation?

Figure 2: very difficult to read texts. 

Figure 3: Are the colors meant to map/agree with similar colors in Figure 2? Note there is no white color box in figure 3 nd those colors are represented in Figure 2.  Given the paper is in English, could the Figure 3 [and possibly Figure 2] topics be shown in English as well?

Figure 4: Also possible English translation? It is unclear what numbers 1-8 represent in any of the previous figures, or how determined. I s a key with their definitions possible?

291-293: are these the 8 numbers in figure 4? If so, please reference the figure in the paragraph.

312: 'signed, directed edges' may be a term lost to those less familiar with the software. Can you express more in laypersons' terms?

315: Please use parentheses to tell what acronym CSV means.

Figure 5: Watch text clarity- starting to pixelate/blur. Dioes the purple/pink Via Sparano continue to the [assumed] railroad station? While the university is shown, the other adjacent structures are unclear as exclusively any single use or mixed-use, especially residential uses of various kinds. Is it possible to add some of that complexity in the text dealing with context? Given the issues of history in section 4.2, there seems little to identify 'what' history/era the park originates in and has lost. 

342: Please clarify if this is the rail station identified in yellow in Figure 5. 

355-363: The authors may be assuming more familiarity with the city and region than the reader may have. Are additional paragraphs outline what history era is references in line 355, what kinds of ecological/botanic aspects [line 357]....similarly no map shows where this is to speak to coasts [line 360].

Figure 6: Possible to add English translations?

Figure 7: Possible to add English translations?

line 408: The may be the first overt mention of structures- again, some previous context or even photos would help the reader. Even the manner this structure emerged from the process of collective engagement would be helpful.

Figure 8: The colored lines just don't read if one wished to trace actual relational network. 

454: Where did 'football' emerge in the discussion, and where on site?

532: I appreciate this section and the honesty- some processes would specifically limit some stakeholder involvement and control agenda issues/solutions.

566: this stakeholder pass noted is critical because it may point to a redirection of resources missed by the specialists.

Figure 10: The way the diagram works in English is done well- the authors may choose to look at the technique for previous Figures.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Only the figures seemed to be less understandable because in only Italian.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive and thoughtful assessment of the manuscript. We greatly appreciate the recognition of the paper’s contribution in addressing planning deficiencies and proposing an alternative participatory approach capable of revealing interdependencies and unintended effects.

The reviewer’s comments have been particularly valuable in highlighting the need to:

• strengthen the contextual description of the case study for an international audience,
• improve the clarity and accessibility of methodological explanations,
• refine the readability and language of figures,
• and better articulate the diversity and complexity of stakeholder perspectives.

In response, we have undertaken a careful revision of the manuscript, significantly improving:

• the background section, including spatial, historical, and urban context;
• the clarity of figures (now fully in English and redesigned where necessary);
• the explanation of technical terms, making them more accessible to non-specialist readers;

and the discussion of participant diversity and limitations.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and insightful comments. The suggestions have significantly improved the clarity, accessibility, and contextual richness of the manuscript.

We believe the revised version now offers:

• a more transparent and internationally accessible case study,
• clearer methodological explanations,
• and stronger integration between participatory insights and analytical modelling.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a relevant and timely topic, offering an interesting methodological contribution to participatory urban regeneration. The integration of fuzzy cognitive mapping and cross-impact analysis is promising and helps advance participation beyond simple consultation, toward a more reflective and decision-support-oriented process.

The case study of Piazza Umberto I in Bari is appropriate and well-contextualized. The manuscript clearly demonstrates the site's complexity, including its historical, ecological, social, and relational dimensions. The structure of the participatory process is also well-described, particularly the sequence from problems to opportunities, visions, solutions, and evaluation.

However, some sections of the manuscript could be made more concise. In particular, the theoretical background is sometimes repetitive and could be shortened to improve readability. The methodological transition from the workshop results to the construction of the fuzzy cognitive map should also be further clarified. It would be helpful to explain more explicitly how nodes, links, and weights were defined, validated, and interpreted.

The study's limitations should be more clearly emphasized, particularly regarding the online format of the workshops, the limited number of participants, and the non-representative nature of the sample.

Overall, the manuscript is sound and suitable for publication after minor revisions. It offers a useful contribution to the debate on participatory planning, systems thinking, and decision support tools for urban regeneration.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for these helpful and constructive comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and believe that these changes have improved its clarity, methodological transparency, and overall readability. Our responses are provided below.

Comment 1

However, some sections of the manuscript could be made more concise. In particular, the theoretical background is sometimes repetitive and could be shortened to improve readability.

Response:
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that some parts of the theoretical background were overly repetitive. In response, we revised Sections 2.1–2.3 to improve readability and reduce overlap, especially in relation to the recurring discussion of participatory governance, systemic complexity, and the limits of conventional consultation models. While preserving the key theoretical references and the critical framing of the paper, we streamlined several passages and improved the transition from normative and conceptual issues to the methodological contribution of the study. These revisions were intended to make the background more focused and proportionate to the rest of the manuscript.

Comment 2

The methodological transition from the workshop results to the construction of the fuzzy cognitive map should also be further clarified. It would be helpful to explain more explicitly how nodes, links, and weights were defined, validated, and interpreted.

Response:
We appreciate this important comment and fully agree that the methodological transition required further clarification. We therefore substantially revised Section 3.3 to explain more explicitly how the fuzzy cognitive map was constructed from the workshop outputs. The revised version now clarifies that the FCM was developed ex post by the research team on the basis of materials generated and progressively validated during the workshop cycle. It specifies how nodes were derived from recurrent problems, opportunities, solutions, and vision categories; how links were defined as plausible relationships of influence between nodes; how the relational structure was refined through iterative discussion and offline analytical consolidation; and how weights were assigned as semi-quantitative representations of the relative direction and intensity of influence, rather than as precise quantitative measurements. We also clarified the validation process, the role of Mental Modeler, and the purpose of the model as a tool for comparative scenario exploration rather than deterministic prediction.

Comment 3

The study's limitations should be more clearly emphasized, particularly regarding the online format of the workshops, the limited number of participants, and the non-representative nature of the sample.

Response:
Thank you for this important observation. We revised the manuscript to make these limitations more explicit. First, in Section 3.1 we clarified that the limited number of participants and the online format were appropriate for an exploratory and deliberative process of this type, but also imply that the results should be interpreted as context-specific and analytically rich rather than statistically representative. Second, in Section 5.5 we strengthened the discussion of limitations by explicitly addressing the implications of the online workshop format, the relatively limited number of participants, and the non-representative nature of the sample. We also clarified that, although the process ensured plural contributions and thematic richness, it should not be interpreted as representative of the urban population as a whole. These revisions were intended to better position the findings within the appropriate methodological scope of the study.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Designing with Consequences: Mapping Cross-Impacts and Unintended Effects in Participatory Urban Regeneration

Thank you for taking the time to prepare a point-by-point response to my previously raised comments.

I can see some improvement, and I truly appreciate this interesting topic discussing participatory urban regeneration case study supported by fuzzy cognitive mapping and cross-impact analysis-linking participation with systems thinking and decision-support tools. However, some comments still require authors’ attention as listed below:

Abstract: revise to be consistent and supported with evidence and numbers

Literature Review (outdated and incomplete)

Despite improvements, the manuscript still reads more as a descriptive narrative of an urban lab process rather than a scientifically structured, reproducible study. While the authors introduce FCM, cross-impact analysis and systems thinking, these are not operationalized with sufficient analytical rigor, and lacks developing a reproducible hypothesis or evaluative framework linking data -model – results. These should be supported with sufficient algorithmic (especially for FCM construction)

Regarding the definition and measurement of impacts, it is not clear how are impacts measured or quantified? what is the baseline or benchmark? who determines the intended and unintended impacts and how? how are unintended effects validated (not just simulated)?

Regarding the FCM, what are the nodes derived from workshop outputs, missing weighting scale, inter-coder reliability, and validation of causal links. Currently, the FCM is constructed by the research team, which introduces great subjectivity.

The manuscript claims a systems-thinking approach, however, Systems thinking is not systematically reviewed in literature, please revise to position FCM within broader systems modeling approaches. Also, there is no comparison with causal loop diagrams, system dynamics and Bayesian networks

The results (Sections 4.1–4.5) are rich in narrative detail and weak in quantitative evidence, missing frequency counts, ranking, statistical representation. Even the FCM output is presented visually (Figure 8) and not quantitatively analyzed.

Discussion section needs strengthening, adding comparison to previous studies, and discuss strengths versus limitations of the existing methods

Conclusion: stress on the research’s novelty, please delete the ref in page 1071-1072

Maintain one consistent reference style, either author-date or numbered. Also, please update the list of references to include recent relevant studies (last 5 years), and include high-impact journals.  

Figures are conceptual/illustrative-lacking scales and metrics (e.g., Figure 4 system diagram, Figure 6 overlaps) without showing analytical outputs. Also, some figures have poor resolution.

Structure and organization need revision, some parts in the result section need to move to the method section.

Proof reading and language check to revise terminologies, avoid overuse of long sentences and inconsistent capitalization, abbreviation use consistently

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate revision required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your careful reading of the revised manuscript and for your constructive comments. We appreciate your recognition of the relevance of the topic and of the improvements already made. In response to your additional observations, we have undertaken a further substantial revision of the manuscript, with particular attention to methodological transparency, operationalization of the FCM, clarification of the distinction between intended impacts and unintended effects, positioning within systems modelling approaches, semi-quantitative interpretation of the results, and discussion of limitations.

At the same time, we have preservd the intended nature of the paper as an urban-planning-oriented, participatory, interpretive, semi-quantitative, and exploratory study, rather than reframing it as a predictive or statistically inferential modelling exercise.

Coment 1: Abstract: revise to be consistent and supported with evidence and numbers

Thank you for this comment. We have substantially revied the Abstract to make it more specific, evidence-based, and consistent with the methodological structure of the paper. The revised Abstract now explicitly reports the number of workshops, the period in which they were conducted, the number of registred participants, the average attendance per session, the five analytical domains, the eight long-term vision categories, the use of a semi-quantitative weighting scale, and the sensitivity analysis. We also clarified  that the paper does not propose a predictive or statistically inferential model, but rather a transparent, exploratory, and semi-quantitative decision-support framework.

Comment 2. Literature Review outdated and incomplete.

We agree that the previous version required a stronger positioning of the study within the systems-thinking and systems-modelling literature. We have therefore expanded the Background section by adding a new subsection titled “2.3.1. Positioning FCM within Systems Modelling Approaches.” This new subsection positions Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping within the broader family of systems modeling approaches, comparing it with causal loop diagrams, system dynamics models, and Bayesian networks. The section explains why FCM was selected for this study: it allows a hybrid qualitative/semi-quantitative representation of stakholder knowledge, works under uncertainty and data scarcity, and is appropriate for participatory and interpretive contexts where the aim is not prediction but structured exploration of cross-impacts. We have also updated the literature by adding recent references from 2021–2025 on systems mapping, participatory systems mapping, FCM, causal loop diagrams, system dynamics, and urban-regeneration applications.

Comment 3. The manuscript still reads more as a descriptive narrative of an urban lab process rather than a scientifically structured, reproducible study. FCM, cross-impact analysis and systems thinking are not operationalized with sufficient analytical rigor.

Thank you for highlighting this important point. We have substantially revised Section 3.3, now titled “Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping and Cross-Impact Analysis,” to make the analytical procedure more explicit, transparent, and reproducible. The revised section now describes the construction of the FCM through a four-step procedure: node extraction, node aggregation, link assignment, and weight attribution. We also added a methodological table summarizing the operational procedure used to construct and analyze the FCM. This table reports, for each step, the input, procedure, and output. The revised manuscript now makes clearer the relationship between data, model, and results. Workshop outputs were used as empirical basis; these were translated into nodes, links, and weights; and the resulting FCM was used to explore comparative propagation effects across the eight vision categories. We also clarified that the model is not intended as a predictive or statistically inferenzial model, but as a transparent, exploratory, and semi-quantitative decision-support tool.

Comment 4. Regarding the definition and measurement of impacts, it is not clear how impacts are measured or quantified, what is the baseline or benchmark, who determines the intended and unintended impacts, and how unintended effects are validated.

We have clarified this issue in the Introduction, Section 3.3, and especially Section 5.2. In the revised manuscript, we distinguish between intended impacts and unintended effects. Intended impacts are defined as the direct and explicitly desired outcomes associated with proposed solutions, as articulated by participants during the co-design process. Unintended effects are defined as plausible indirect, ambivalent, or adverse consequences inferred through cross-impact propagation within the FCM. We also clarified that, because the study concerns a preliminary design-stage participatory process, impacts are not measured as ex-post observable changes against an empirical baseline or benchmark. Instead, they are operationalized as relational effects within the cognitive map. Unintended effects are therefore not empirically validated as post-implementation outcomes, but identified as plausible systemic implications that can support anticipatory reflection, design refinement, and decision-making. To make this distinction explicit, we added Table 3. Analytical distinction between intended impacts and unintended effects in Section 5.2.

Comment 5. Regarding the FCM, what are the nods derived from workshop outputs, missing weighting scale, inter-coder reliability, and validation of causal links. Currently, the FCM is constructed by the research team, which introduce great subjectivity.

We agree that the previous version did not suficiently clarify how the FCM was constructed. Section 3.3 has therefore been revised to explain how nodes were extracted from workshop materials, how recurrent or overlapping concepts were aggregated, how links were assigned, which criteria guided link inclusion, how weights were attributed, and how research-team subjectivity was mitigated. The revised manuscript explains that nodes were derived from problem lists, opportunity maps, vision statements, solution proposals, validation notes, and other materials produced during the workshops. Link inclusion was based on three criteria: explicit causal or relational statements during the workshops, thematic consistency with the five analytical domains, and recurrence or reinforcement across different phases of the process. 

We have also added the weighting scale used in the FCM. Regarding inter-coder reliability, we did not introduce a statistical reliability measure because the study was not designed as a multi-coder content analysis. Instead, we explicitly acknowleddge the interpretve role of the research team and explain how this subjectivity was mitigated through repeated participant validation of interim maps, documentation of disagreements, explicit aggregation criteria, transparent weighting rules, and a ±20% sensitivity check.

Comment 6. The manuscript claims a systems-thinking approach, however, systems thinking is not systematically reviewed in literature. Please revise to position FCM within broader systems modelling approaches. Also, there is no comparison with causal loop diagrams, system dynamics and Bayesian networks.

We have addressed this comment by adding the new Section 2.3.1. Positioning FCM within Systems Modelling Approaches This section explicitly compares FCM with causal loop diagrams, system dynamics, and Bayesian networks. The revised text explains that causal loop diagrams are usefull for representing feedback structures, but usually remain qualitative unless translated into more formal models; system dynamics models allow formal simulation of accumulations, delays, and temporal behaviour, but require stronger assumptions and data availability; Bayesian networks provide probabilistic representations of causal dependencies, but require conditional probability structures that are difficult to elicit robustly in an exploratory participatory setting. FCM is therefore justified as the most appropriate approach for the specific conditions of this study: preliminary design stage, limited quantitative data, heterogeneous stakeholder knowledge, and the need for a transparent semi-quantitative representation of cross-impacts.

Comment 7. The results are rich in narrative detail and weak in quantitative evidence, missing frequency counts, ranking, statistical representation. Even the FCM output is presented visually and not quantitatively analyzed.

We have addressed this point by strengthening the explanation of the semi-quantitative outputs in Section 5.2 and by clarifying the analytical role of Figure 9.

The revised manuscript now explains that the histogram of scenario simulation results provides a comparative ranking of solution nodes based on their aggregated activation effects across the eight vision categories. We clarified that this should not be interpreted as a statistical distribution infered from a representative samples, but as a semi-quantitative comparison of relational influence within the FCM. We also added a ±20% sensitivity check to assess whether the relative ranking of proposed solutions remained stable under moderate uncertainty in edge weights. The results are described as substantially stable, with the most influential actions retaining their relative priority and only minor shifts among intermediate solutions. This clarification allows the results to remain consistent with the exploratory and semi-quantitative nature of the study, while providing more explicit analytical evidence and ranking logic.

Comment 8. Discussion section needs strengthening, adding comparison to previous studies, and discuss strengts versus limitations of the existing methods.

We have strengthened the Discussion by expanding Sections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5. Section 5.2 now discusses leverage points, hidden risks, trade-offs, and recent FCM applications in urban and disaster-recovery contexts. Section 5.3 now highlights the methodological contributions and replicability of the proposed framework, including the role of disagreement as an epistemic resource. Section 5.4 strengthens the policy and normative alignment of the approach, including references to co-production, commons-oriented governance, ISO 37101, and SDG-oriented planning. Section 5.5 explicitly discusses limitations and challenges, including the online format, participant group size, representation bias, institutional integration, and possible future integration with complementary modelling approaches such as MAS/ABM. The Discussion therefore now addresses both the strengths and limitations of the proposed method more explicitly.

Comment 9. Conclusion: stress the research’s novelty, please delete the reference in page 1071–1072.

We have revised the Conclusion to emphasize the novelty of the paper more clearly. The revised Conclusion highlights the contribution of the study in operationalizing participation as a form of collective design cognition and in linking qualitative knowledge co-production with semi-quantitative modelling to identify trade-offs, leverage points, and feasible pathways for urban regeneration. We have also removed bibliograpic references from the Conclusion, as requested. The references previously included in the final paragraph have been relocated to Section 5.4, where they are more appropriate to the discussion of public space, co-production, and comons-oriented governance.

Comment 10. Maintain one consistent reference style, either author-date or numbered. Also, please update the list of references to include recent relevant studies from the last five years and high-impact journals.

We have updated the reference list by adding recent studies published between 2021 and 2025, including contributions on systems mapping, participatory systems mapping, FCM, system dynamics, causal loop diagrams, and urban/disaster-recovery applications. The in-text citation style has been maintained consistently in author-date format throughout the manuscript. We will ensure that the final reference formatting complies with the journal’s editorial requirements.

Comment 11. Figures are conceptual/illustrative, lacking scales and metrics. Some figures have poor resolution.

We have revised the figures and captions to clarify their analytical role. In particular, the revised manuscript now distinguishes between conceptual/processual figures and analytical/semi-quantitative outputs. Figure 9 is explicitly described as a histogram that provides a comparative ranking of solution nodes based on aggregated activation effects across the eight vision categories, rather than as a statistical distribution inferred from a representative sample. We have also revised the captions, figure quality and explanations to clarify what each figure represents and how it contributes to the analytical process.

Comment 12. Structure and organization need revision, some parts in the result section need to move to the method section.

We have revised the structure of the manuscript by moving and expanding methodological explanations in Section 3.3. Details concerning node extraction, node aggregation, link assignment, weight attribution, validation logic, and sensitivity testing are now presented in the Method section rather than being left implicit in the Results or Discussion. This restructuring clarifies the relationship between the participatory outputs, the construction of the FCM, and the interpretation of the scenario simulation results.

Comment 13. Proofreading and language check to revise terminlogies, avoid over use of long sentences and inconsistent capitalization, abbreviation use consistently.
We have revised the manuscript for clarity, terminology, capitalization, and consistency of abbreviations. In particular, we clarified the use of FCM, cross-impact analysis, intended impacts, unintended effects, semi-quantitative modelling, and exploratory/non-predictive modelling. Several long or ambigous passages were revised to improve readability and coherence.

We thank the reviewer again for the constructive comments. The revised manuscript now provides a clearer methodological chain linking participatory data, FCM construction, cross-impact analysis, semi-quantitative interpretation, and discussion of limitations. We believe that the revisions significantly improve the scientific transparency, analytical traceability, and theoretical positioning of the paper, while preserving its intended contribution to participatry urban planning, systems-oriented reasoning, and exploratory decision support.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your positive evaluation of the revised manuscript and for recommending acceptance in its present form.

We also appreciate your previous suggestions regarding the clearer presentation of the empirical results and the need to better support the conclusions. In the revised version, we have strengthened the presentation of the empirical process by making the workshop structure, participant composition, analytical domains, vision categories, FCM construction, and cross-impact interpretation more explicit. We also clarified the semi-quantitative nature of the results, including the role of the scenario histogram, the comparative ranking of solution nodes, and the ±20% sensitivity analysis.

Furthermore, we revised the Discussion and Conclusion to ensure that the claims are more directly supported by the empirical findings and by the relevant literature. In particular, we clarified the distinction between intended impacts and unintended effects, expanded the discussion of methodological strengths and limitations, and better framed the novelty of the contribution as an exploratory, participatory, and systems-oriented decision-support framework.

We are grateful for your constructive comments, which helped us improve the clarity, coherence, and robustness of the manuscript.

Sincerely,
The Authors