Loving and Healing a Hurt City: Planning a Green Monterrey Metropolitan Area

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript demonstrates an interesting and original case of incorporating the emotion dimension into urban planning. It introduces the 'pain-heal-love' framework supported by detailed case study of the MMA. Still, it can be improved on a few of other areas -- please find suggestions below: 

On Introduction:

Since the background and subject contextualisation is addressed in a separated chapter, the introduction could be more concise and focusing to ensure stronger argumentation clarity. Less relevant contextual information can be removed.

The inclusion of the 16th century poem is an interesting approach, but its contextual relevance should be more explicitly explained.

On Case Study Methods:

Please consider introducing clear emotional measurement tools, indicators or benchmarks to enhance the reliability of the emotional analysis.

Please provide more details about data sources, time of data collection and how data are processed.

On Discussions:

The discussions can be expanded on a clearer perspective on stakeholders examining the roles of local governments, communities, and private sectors in implementing the proposed strategies and examine how policies, public education, or pilot projects could facilitate the adoption of the emotional framework.

Please try establishing concrete success metrics to validate the impact of 'healing' and 'love' strategies on urban quality of life. Using examples from literature or pilot projects would further substantiate these claims.

Please expand on/clarify the framework's applicability across varied contexts. Could its work in other cultural or climatic contexts?

On Figures:

Please consider swapping Figures 3 and 4 to align the narrative order (as Figure 4 is indicated before Figures 3).

The legibility of Figure 3 can be improved by simplifying the metrics and redesigning the notation system to lower the cognitive load required for extracting key information. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the article presents a novel and interesting approach that incorporates emotion into urban planning, but there are several aspects that could be improved.

Introduction.

The mention of the metropolis of Monterrey comes only at the end of the section, without a clear link to the topics covered earlier in the paragraph. It would be helpful to explain earlier in the paper why this city was selected as a case study and its relevance to the research.

The concept of emotional planning mentioned in the introduction is interesting, but it is somewhat vague. It would be better to provide a brief definition of it.

 

Background.

Regarding the impacts of cities on ecosystems and the mental and physical health of the most vulnerable inhabitants, it would be helpful to include some data.

Regarding the discussion on the importance of emotions, examples of cities that have successfully integrated an emotional approach to urban planning could be referenced.

 

2.2 Emotions and urban planning

Line 139-140 you wrote: “Urban planning is driven by values, which are an emotional and mental representation of things and situations, meaning that city designs follow certain emotional coherence”. In my opinion, this sentence needs to be clarified.

 

2.3 Earth emotions

Line 217 et al. you wrote: “In a recent theory, this prospective period is linked to environmental emotions, proposing a vocabulary for how the environment is perceived in perilous times of climate change and resource depletion”. It is necessary to clarify “a recent theory” and cite references.

The title of the paragraph is "Emotions of the Earth", but then the paragraph discusses the emotions of humans?

 

The background on this emotional perspective could benefit from a more clearly defined methodological framework: how are citizens' emotions collected in other studies? What tools are used to map and integrate these experiences into urban design?
It would be helpful to discuss the methodological and cultural challenges of applying an emotional approach. What efforts have been made, and what methodologies have been proposed?
Are there alternative approaches? Has anyone used different methodologies than yours?

 

Method.

Line 260-262 you wrote: “Firstly, to identify the current urban problems and how these are solved, an extensive internet search required using a range of sites such as Google Scholar, Science Direct, JSTOR, and Web of Science. Over 400 articles were scanned, and a selection helped analyze the typical problems and their spatial scale”. It is not clear what type of selection you made. What criteria did you use? Additionally, how did you analyze these papers? This step needs to be explained.

Line 286-287 you wrote: “Fifth, the design phase of the research consisted of two parts. In the first part, four workshops were organized with the research team and the client, who developed future scenarios for the metropolis of Monterrey”. Some elements are missing, for example, how many and which stakeholders participated in these workshops? Who is the client? Furthermore, it would be helpful to mention how many scenarios?

Line 289 you wrote: “In the end, four were selected as distinct enough to discuss the desired green metropolis. The development of a regional spatial strategy on how to grow into a greener metropolis was also part of these workshops, and the objective was to identify the process of green urban development.” How four were selected as distinct enough to discuss the desired green metropolis?, What criteria did you use?

Line 292 you wrote: “The second part focused on creating design principles that visualize urban environments  that residents could embrace, affectionate, and  love”.   You define what residents “could embrace, affection, and love” without involving them? There is no mention of active participation by the local community.

In general: The selection of the three key emotions (pain, healing, and love) is intriguing but might be limiting. Other emotions, such as fear, hope, or frustration, could also be highly relevant in urban planning. It would be valuable to reflect on this aspect.

 

Results

Paragraph 4.1

Specific quantitative data is missing. Phrases such as “shows an extensive eco-degenerating” (line 307) or “with more pollution and pressure” raise questions like: By how much have air pollution levels or deficits in green spaces increased? 

Additionally, it should be made clearer how these results were derived from the analysis conducted and how they were measured. Were analytical tools used to measure and interpret the phenomena (GIS etc.)? 

Phrases like “the maps of urban and human activities show a darker side” (line 312) prompt the question: Were the maps merely observed? Were these maps analyzed using specific methods, or were they simply looked at?

 

4.2. Need to distinguish between the pain, healing, and love.

Clarify how these emotions were observed or inferred from the collected data.

Phrases like: “This distinction between pain, heal, and love illuminates the landscape of pain" (line 321) and "The painful emotions (visual, emotional, physical, health) highlight all elements that people experience as unpleasant or hurting" (lines 329-330) are beautifully written but also somewhat vague and abstract.

Similarly, the statement in lines 342-343: "These emotions can be caused by urban environments built with concrete, related uses in building materials, and derived activities", appears insufficiently supported by the preceding text. There are no examples or descriptions that demonstrate the connection between the type of material or activity and the emotional responses of residents. How can it be concluded that the use of materials like concrete is correlated with the emotions described?

Line 414, you wrote: “The emotional attachment to nature and green spaces and its benefits for human health have been taken as the core of the spatial strategy.” How was this attachment to nature and green spaces identified in the research conducted in Monterrey? In particular, from the perspective of its inhabitants?

 

4.3. Landscape pain is widespread.

How were the reported data calculated?

 

Discussion.

It seems to me that there is no comparison between the results obtained here and those of other studies.

Furthermore, there is no mention of the current policies in place in Monterrey or the specific obstacles of its context in relation to the proposed healing hypotheses. Analyzing or taking into account the current policies in place in the city could provide a better understanding of the concrete challenges Monterrey faces.

 

Conclusion.

The limitations (methodological, empirical etc.) of the research are not addressed. Please insert them.

Finally, probably the emotional approach may not be easily understood by all stakeholders involved in the planning process, such as public administrators,  engineers etc., who may have a mindset more focused on solving practical problems.
How could emotional maps/aspects be integrated with more traditional planning tools to ensure a holistic approach? 

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has important ideas and could potentially make a contribution to the field of landscape urbanism. The discussion of emotions in planning and design is not novel, even though some of the references appear to have been published recently (are the author/s ignoring seminal sources on the theme?). However, in its current form it is unbalanced, improperly structured, and it lacks critical reflection. To use a metaphor from the paper, the manuscript is XL in references, L in content, and S in critical thinking and various arguments are not backed up by appropriate evidence (e.g. Table 3 - not too many examples of Terraphthora in Monterrey? So the author/s resort to providing examples from The Netherlands? Or of Terrafuria? As the examples make allusion to contributions from Nordic countries?). Is that because Monterrey ranks high in the livability league tables and some of its suburbs are known to have the highest quality of urban life in Mexico?

The authors have a point about the growth of cities and the existence of conurbations and megalopolis; however to dwell on it when referring to Mexico’s 2^nd largest metropolitan area is part of XL argument with only L evidence.

Nineteen references in the first (short) paragraph of the introductions is a bit too much, while the intro itself is rather short and lacks the typical elements readers would expect to find (e.g. the abstract has a purpose statement of sorts “we describe a mapping and designing investigation how a green metropolis can be developed”, but then said statement (or a similar aim) cannot even be found in the 2-paragraph introduction. By the same token 71 references in Section 2 is another example of the XL, while the relevance of some of them shows the S small (or little) critical thinking.

Shouldn’t there be a literature review on emotions (pain, heal, and love)? Why are these only introduced as results in section 4? When readers reach the “Materials and Methods” section they are already asking the “so what” question? The author/s would do well to at least acknowledge the subjective nature of love. Luis Vaz de Camões’s verse: “Amor é um fogo que arde sem se ver,
É ferida que dói, e não se sente…” come to mind and provide inspiration to reflect on the paper’s claims. Can one learn to be neutral to love as most of us learn to live with chronic pain inflicted upon us as a result of simply being alive and attempting to survive? (could climate “neutrality” be invoked as well)?

Did the author/s forget the water cycle? This sentence makes little sense: “unknown obstacles, through which the water disappears or cannot flow naturally” if it “disappears naturally” is because it flows to the lowest point, no? If it cannot flow naturally is because it is put to some sort of (hopefully) good use.

The manuscript is design based (not science-based) and as such it does not have research questions or hypotheses to be validated or refuted. Many of the author/s analysis can be verified; however, the results are not necessarily reproducible as the proposals are explorative in nature.

The figures could be appropriate, although several of them are uncritical while others conjure unfeasible and “make believe” messages (e.g. three examples: EX1 – a  question about Figure 2 – so pain can be mapped but heal and love cannot? If so, how is one to identify where healing and love resides? Obviously, they are inside our heads, but how do you bring action out to the territory? Love goes straight to loving principles without having to pass through the healing phase? What kind of love is/are the author/s referring to? Mostly Platonic? Leonard Cohen already said it in “The Future” song: “We don't like children anyhow, I've seen the future, baby: It is murder”. EX2 Figure 9 is a great example of how to camouflage (big/large) buildings to escape drone attacks, but it does not justify the existence of the already green spaces surrounding the highways and the buildings themselves (why can’t those be put to good use and we have to go to the roofs instead?), plus where are the solar panels – wouldn’t that be a very profitable idea in sunny Mexico too? EX3 – Figure 10 what happened to the built environment? Is it still there? The cars are gone, but why would a bicyclist cycle on that greenway if there are no “real” attractions to patronize nearby?).

The discussion section does not discuss the results much, but instead it raises questions and provides lists of references. The conclusion summarizes various points made throughout the paper, but it does not suggest plausible recommendations to advance scholarship and resolve the difficulties of intervening in the territory.

 

Minor comments:

Several design workshops? One or two? More than 10?

l.129-l.130 “caused by others” – incomplete sentence or the author/s are exempt because they have not contributed to the negative externalities?

Table 2 – mentions “Railways and above metro system” and the text adds the word “abandoned” – which one is correct?

The author/s demonize 6-lane roadways but say nothing about driving buses through 2-lane roads.

The paper is not formatted according to the journal’s referencing style (e.g. et al. in Tables 1 and 2; many journal titles are abbreviated, others are not?)

Perhaps too many references to this (unpublished?) document: Roggema et al. “Monterrey Green Metropolis”

Is green gentrification occurring in Monterrey? Can it happen because of the proposals in this paper? How can such effect be anticipated and limited?

Could ADHD be spelled out for those who may suffer from it and haven’t yet been diagnosed?

Wouldn’t it be appropriate to move the last paragraph of Section 2 to the introduction?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

An interesting exploration of the use of Glenn Albrecht’s work to view both the environmental issues of Monterey and propose strategies to remediate the existing environmental damage.

In my view, the importance of the research findings would be heightened by reordering the structure of the paper. The introduction covers a wide range of environmental problems that will be occasioned by urbanisation and climate change, including the growth of the megapolis. However, in the case study, Monterrey, the ecological issues are not primarily caused by urbanisation but by industrial pollution caused by heavy Industry; Monterrey is similar to the northern American industrial cities in pre-globalisation. It would be helpful if the introduction discussed the environmental problems of these kinds of cities in Mexico and, I assume, in China, Vietnam, and so on. 

The following section describes the site. This section needs to be expanded; the reader needs to know much more about Monterrey, especially the Industry and the environmental effects and the history of what the Industry is there, i.e. the proximity to the US  border and the results of globalisation. 

Moving to the lit review, I suggest the authors split this into two parts: the mapping /site analysis /policy analysis and explaining your theory, the Albrecht epistemology. 

Here, I suggest a little background to the theory: who is Albrecht, and how was the theory developed? ( just a  few paras). The table of the three categories is helpful, but the explanation is a little every day; they need to be written more academically with footnotes and practical examples of how they might work in the world, i.e. healing - -stream restorations. In this way, you can help the viewer see the connection between the methodology and how you will analyse Monterrey and the subsequent design strategies proposed.

The next bit is that the analysis of environmental pain needs to be more systematic. Perhaps a summary of the different kinds of pain, then the identified areas of concern under the heading, such as infrastructure/Industry and the effects of pollution.

Then Healing, again, a new heading would be helpful with a short recap on what this term means and the strategies /techniques that can be used, then their use, which you describe as being split into two: the policy and design speculation.

 

The discussion is good, but I wonder if it could focus more on what you have found out and what application your findings might have on Monterrey  in the bigger picture. Is it going to deindustrialise like many of the North American cities? If so, are there opportunities to advance these green strategies? 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the paper does need a check by an English speaker; there are several infelicities and solecisms, some of the writing is a little colloquial, and there are several unsupported assertions; more references are needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf