Applying the Delphi Approach to Incorporate Voiceless Stakeholders in Community Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The theme of the paper may Interest the readers since there is rare literature concerning how to Incorporate Voiceless Stakeholders in Community Planning. However, due to the design of the research and the case study, some doubts need to be clarified as follows:

1.  How do you define Voiceless Stakeholders, especially the stakeholders who are marginalized?

2.  How do you define the panel to include a broad range of experts as panelists? Could we represent the residents not included in the panel of the Resident Council as marginalized stakeholders? If yes, why are they not included in the policy Delphi investigation?

3.   What are the components of the subcommittee that takes charge of the Seohak-dong Art Theme Street Development Project within the Resident Council? Are they all included in the policy Delphi investigation? If not, what are the reasons?

4.   Since the policy Delphi may adjust its panel composition to represent diverse interests better, the research design is crucial; please describe the critical process of manipulating to represent various interests in the case study in detail.

5.    How do you suggest operating the Delphi method more effectively as a complementary tool alongside other participatory planning methods?

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

First and foremost, we wish to extend our heartfelt gratitude for the detailed and constructive comments on the earlier version of our paper. They were instrumental in refining our manuscript. Our responses to the primary concerns raised by the reviewer are detailed in the attached file. For ease of reference, all the revisions in the manuscript have been highlighted in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very well-written and interesting paper that will be of interest not just to planners but indeed to anyone involved in projects that require stakeholder dialogue. Well done!

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind and encouraging words. We deeply appreciate your positive feedback and are delighted that you found the paper well-written and of broader interest. Your insights and support greatly motivate our work.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors propose a revised Delphi approach in involving multi stakeholders in a local renewal project. Overall, the study had significant empirical and social implications. However, as I read through the paper, I noticed some concerns that should be addressed.

 Introduction

 This manuscript mentioned three types of Delphi methods: classical Delphi, policy Delphi, and 'Delphi'. It is unclear which Dephi method the authors used or referred to in certain cases. It requires clarification both in the manuscript's head and throughout the text.  

It is recommended that you include a clearer and more concise definition of how your proposed new Dephi method works and how it can serve as your bidirectional communication tool in the introduction. 

This manuscript's research design and research questions are not entirely clear. It should be clarified earlier in the introduction, for example, the research questions can be whether it contributes to stakeholder consensus, how effective it is as perceived by stakeholders... 

Results

The results part, especially the first section, was quite descriptive. Your results organization can be more concisely aligned with your research questions.

 Photos from stakeholder meetings and questionnaires created for the Delphi approach can be included as appendices to improve understanding.

 

Discussion

The discussion section was somewhat out of the ordinary. In writing a discussion, we usually compare how your results differ from/ align with others and justify underlying reasons. However, the authors only compared their findings to one paper by 'Innes and Booher'. As a result, the authors should improve their research justification and provide explanations.

For example, the last section in Results ( “The chapter then offers valid explanations for the factors that led to a consensus 341 among these stakeholders”) can be combined into the Discussion

Conclusion 

The authors should further elaborate on the theoretical implications of their findings.

 

Author Response

First and foremost, we wish to extend our heartfelt gratitude for the detailed and constructive comments on the earlier version of our paper. They were instrumental in refining our manuscript. Our responses to the primary concerns raised by the reviewer are detailed in the attached file. For ease of reference, all the revisions in the manuscript have been highlighted in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has generally responded to my questions individually, although some operations are challenging to revise because the manipulation of the PAP Delphi method has been implemented. In addition, there are a few problems with the smoothness of writing, please review and change again.

The author has generally responded to my questions individually, although some operations are challenging to revise because the manipulation of the PAP Delphi method has been implemented. In addition, there are a few problems with the smoothness of writing, please review and change again.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review my manuscript and provide valuable feedback. I appreciate your understanding regarding the challenges of revising some operations due to the implemented manipulation of the PAP Delphi method.

I take your point on the smoothness of the writing seriously and plan to carefully review and revise the manuscript to improve readability and flow. Your comments have provided insightful guidance that will undoubtedly enhance the quality of the work. We highlighted all revised parts in the attached manuscript file.

Once again, thank you for your thoughtful comments and for your time in reviewing the manuscript. I look forward to submitting a revised version for your further consideration.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf