Toward a Sense of Place Unified Conceptual Framework Based on a Narrative Review: A Way of Feeding Place-Based GIS

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the changes made are sufficient to make the article publishable

Author Response

Thanks very much for your reviewing work.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am glad to see the work again taking into account some of the considerations we discussed earlier. The new concept of ‘Narrative review’ I think is more in line with your work, taking into account the difficulty of a ‘sysematic review’.

Minor issues such as the issue of acronyms in the summary are still pending, even though you consider it to be good.

Similarly, you also fail to mention the authorship of the tables or figures: did you do them yourself? Are they copied?

From my point of view, I think that adding the concept ‘context’ to the introduction does not add anything. Either they are separate sections and even within the methodology or they can simply be removed.

Otherwise, the article is neater and clearer. Good work.

Author Response

Comment 1: I am glad to see the work again taking into account some of the considerations we discussed earlier. The new concept of ‘Narrative review’ I think is more in line with your work, taking into account the difficulty of a ‘sysematic review’.

Thanks, that was indeed a relevant suggestion.

Comment 2: Minor issues such as the issue of acronyms in the summary are still pending, even though you consider it to be good.

Acronyms have been removed from the summary, except for PRISMA; but still to be used in the body of the text to make it more digestible (of course they are explained when they are first used).

Comment 3: Similarly, you also fail to mention the authorship of the tables or figures: did you do them yourself? Are they copied?

I don't really understand, all the figures are fully referenced. In order to make everything explicit we  have mentioned the authorship of the ones that have been made by Ahmed Rezeg.

Comment 4: From my point of view, I think that adding the concept ‘context’ to the introduction does not add anything. Either they are separate sections and even within the methodology or they can simply be removed.

Context has been removed form the title (this add has been made in response to a preview reviewer...)

Comment 5: Otherwise, the article is neater and clearer. Good work.

Thanks very much for having helped us to improve it. 

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Dear Authors,

After thoroughly reviewing your manuscript and considering the author's reply, I must point out that the original issues remain unresolved, and additional problems have been identified.
Given that this paper has been submitted to an international journal, I find it problematic that midway through the introduction, the author delves into details about their doctoral thesis and its relevance to this article. While it is understandable for a PhD student with limited experience to include such information, it is the responsibility of the other authors (such as supervisors) to ensure that these details are placed in the end of manuscript through endnote or acknowledgment sections rather than in the main body of the article.
Although the manuscript is supposed to focus on the sense of place, the abstract and keywords suggest a strong emphasis on GIS. This misalignment creates confusion for the reader from the outset.
The introduction initially centers on the sense of place, but from line 116, the focus shifts to the student's doctoral thesis and then to GIS. This abrupt shift undermines the connection between the sense of place and GIS, creating a significant gap in the narrative.
Basic descriptions about place-human and GIS are reintroduced until line 173 in the second part of the article, where the focus shifts back to the sense of place. Here, four research questions are outlined that last one relation to GIS (PBGIS).
From the third section of the paper onward, GIS or PBGIS is largely ignored until the final lines, where the authors make a brief, general reference to it.

Therefore, it is not clear how the last research question was addressed.

The paper's structure, therefore, needs to be thoroughly reconsidered. A clear decision should be made to either fully integrate GIS throughout the paper or to remove it altogether.
Another issue arises with the inclusion and exclusion criteria (table 2). The most critical component, the keywords, is missing. It is crucial to specify the keywords used, as, for example, four of my articles relevant to your study were not included in your review.
Regarding the timeframe for article inclusion, the table mentions "all years." However, the author has not clarified the specific years during which the articles were searched. Often, there is a gap of a year or more between the search and publication, so it is essential to clearly indicate the years covered. Also, the initial year of the search was not addressed.

 

The final model presented in the paper is another area of concern. The process of model extraction and its connection to findings from previous studies is ambiguous, making it unclear how the components of the model are interrelated.

It is not clear how the proposed model has been integrated with the concept of PBGIS! it is not clear how research questions have been addressed in this paper.
Furthermore, unfortunately, the model appears to be fundamentally flawed and lacks validity for the following reasons:
There is extensive literature supporting the direct, reciprocal relationship between personal identity and social identity (community identity). However, the current paper's proposed model suggests that personal identity does not influence community identity, but rather that community identity, through place, influences personal identity. This is a significant misinterpretation.
Moreover, the proposed model implies that an individual's identity cannot influence the identity of a place, which is a questionable assertion. Place, as a container and foundation, derives its identity from various factors, one of which is the identity of individuals.
The model fails to account for such dynamics, instead suggesting that the community's identity could somehow reform an individual's identity, which is an oversimplification and misrepresentation.
Given these substantial gaps, I recommend dedicating more time to reviewing the relevant literature before undertaking another revision of this paper.

Author Response

Comment 1: After thoroughly reviewing your manuscript and considering the author's reply, I must point out that the original issues remain unresolved, and additional problems have been identified.
Given that this paper has been submitted to an international journal, I find it problematic that midway through the introduction, the author delves into details about their doctoral thesis and its relevance to this article. While it is understandable for a PhD student with limited experience to include such information, it is the responsibility of the other authors (such as supervisors) to ensure that these details are placed in the end of manuscript through endnote or acknowledgment sections rather than in the main body of the article.

Personal comment (from S. Roche): Every time a new reviewer enters into the process, there is a good chance that new requests will emerge... You are the sixth and none of the other five have mentioned your issue. We have done our best to answer them.

I personally disagree about the reference to the Ph.D of the first author. Theses are increasingly done by inserting articles and practices are evolving. On the contrary, I believe that positioning the work in a more global project offers a better understanding of its scope to readers. We have nevertheless removed this reference from the introduction.

Comment 2: Although the manuscript is supposed to focus on the sense of place, the abstract and keywords suggest a strong emphasis on GIS. This misalignment creates confusion for the reader from the outset.
The introduction initially centers on the sense of place, but from line 116, the focus shifts to the student's doctoral thesis and then to GIS. This abrupt shift undermines the connection between the sense of place and GIS, creating a significant gap in the narrative.
Basic descriptions about place-human and GIS are reintroduced until line 173 in the second part of the article, where the focus shifts back to the sense of place. Here, four research questions are outlined that last one relation to GIS (PBGIS).
From the third section of the paper onward, GIS or PBGIS is largely ignored until the final lines, where the authors make a brief, general reference to it.

Therefore, it is not clear how the last research question was addressed.

A few changes have been made in the intro in order to explain the link in between this work and the needs for developing a PBGIS. Title has also been change to reflect it. The wording of the 4th

Comment 3: The paper's structure, therefore, needs to be thoroughly reconsidered. A clear decision should be made to either fully integrate GIS throughout the paper or to remove it altogether.question has also been revised. 

I still disagree with this request. The presentation of the articulation between the need to build a unified framework of SOP concepts in order to feed the structure of PBGIS seems clear to me. Consequently, I do not wish to change the structure of the paper, nor to remove the PBGIS component.

Comment 4: Another issue arises with the inclusion and exclusion criteria (table 2). The most critical component, the keywords, is missing. It is crucial to specify the keywords used, as, for example, four of my articles relevant to your study were not included in your review.
Regarding the timeframe for article inclusion, the table mentions "all years." However, the author has not clarified the specific years during which the articles were searched. Often, there is a gap of a year or more between the search and publication, so it is essential to clearly indicate the years covered. Also, the initial year of the search was not addressed.

Keywords are specified in Table 1, column "Combination" with the combination used for the search. Table 2 is about inclusion and exclusion of criteria, not about keyword and core search strategy. We have added the timeframe of the research at the very beginning of section 3.

Comment 5: It is not clear how the proposed model has been integrated with the concept of PBGIS! it is not clear how research questions have been addressed in this paper.

The proposed model has not been integrated yet, this a work in progress. I don't understand your point, the three first research questions have been addressed and the fourth one to. The aim of the paper was not to integrated the model in a PBGIS, but rather to design a model based on a narrative study, compatible with the perspective of integrating it into a PBGIS. 

Comment 6: Furthermore, unfortunately, the model appears to be fundamentally flawed and lacks validity for the following reasons:
There is extensive literature supporting the direct, reciprocal relationship between personal identity and social identity (community identity). However, the current paper's proposed model suggests that personal identity does not influence community identity, but rather that community identity, through place, influences personal identity. This is a significant misinterpretation.
Moreover, the proposed model implies that an individual's identity cannot influence the identity of a place, which is a questionable assertion. Place, as a container and foundation, derives its identity from various factors, one of which is the identity of individuals. The model fails to account for such dynamics, instead suggesting that the community's identity could somehow reform an individual's identity, which is an oversimplification and misrepresentation.

Regarding the influence of individual identity on collective and place identity, and after consulting the relative literature, we realized that there was indeed a section missing that should talk about this aspect. This was added to the text of the article in the section “4.4. Conceptual Model of Sense of Place Proposal”, starting at line 896 to 914. Thanks to this suggestion.

Comment 7:  Given these substantial gaps, I recommend dedicating more time to reviewing the relevant literature before undertaking another revision of this paper.

Still that does not invalidate the relevance of the model as it is currently. 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your continued efforts on the manuscript, "Towards a Sense of Place Unified Conceptual Framework based on a Narrative Review: A Way of Feeding Place-Based GIS" After a thorough re-evaluation, I appreciate the minor changes made, but I believe further substantive revisions are required for the manuscript to meet the publication standards of Journal of Land.

Here are the key areas where improvement is recommended:

GIS Emphasis and Title Clarity
 The manuscript’s title, abstract, and keywords emphasize GIS, which may suggest to readers that this is a GIS-centered study. However, the manuscript largely reviews sense of place literature without clearly defining or integrating GIS concepts. The addition of “A Way of Feeding Place-Based GIS” in the title is confusing, as the manuscript lacks a clear explanation of how "place-based GIS" aligns with the sense of place, and it remains unclear what distinguishes "non-place-based GIS." Introducing and defining these terms early in the manuscript would improve readability and conceptual clarity.

 Structure and Focus
To strengthen coherence, a clear decision is needed: either integrate GIS comprehensively throughout the manuscript or reconsider its inclusion as a focal element. In my previous review, I recommended re-evaluating the manuscript's structure to enhance its alignment with GIS, but this suggestion was declined (see Comment 3 in the Author's Reply). This misalignment affects the overall flow and detracts from the manuscript’s clarity.

 Integration of the Proposed Model with Place-Based GIS
In the prior round, I raised concerns about the unclear integration of the proposed model with Place-Based GIS (PBGIS) and noted that the manuscript did not adequately address its research questions. In your response (see Comment 5 in the Author’s Reply), you noted that the model integration is still a "work in progress," suggesting it may not yet be ready for publication.

Conceptual Models in Table 4
The manuscript lacks a clear role for GIS within its proposed framework, particularly in Table 4, where all listed conceptual models are non-GIS-based. If the goal is to bridge the gap between sense of place and GIS, this needs to be explicitly addressed. As it stands, the proposed model does not specify GIS-related tasks, leaving readers uncertain of GIS’s relevance to your findings.

With my experience in GIS and sense of place research, I find that the manuscript would benefit from improved structural coherence and alignment between GIS and the conceptual models reviewed. This lack of integration may present a gap for readers, potentially impacting the manuscript's contribution and impact.

Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your revisions.

Best regards,

Author Response

Thanks to reviewer 3 for its suggestions of improvement. We do our best to make clearer (as proposed by the editor) the link in between the proposed SOP framework and the role it could take for feeding PBGIS. Our answers are better described in the box dedicated to the editor.

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 paper is very interesting. The thesis and other relevant points are well-presented and referenced.

Conclusions restate the thesis from the introduction in different words, but they develop only two of the three points of view that the paper aimed to explore in depth in the abstract and introduction, such as human geography, environmental psychology, and urban planning.

In fact, in conclusion the paper develop just human geography, environmental psychology, but not urban planning.

To be coherent it is necessary to also delve into this theme in the conclusions.

Finally, conclusions, need to give clue towards future research directions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article carries out an in-depth review of the literature on the issue of "sense of place". It is well structured and is very enriching for people interested in this old place/space discussion. The quality of the work deserves its publication. I have found some small errors or suggestions that I detail:

- Page 2, line 62 "Sens(e)"

- I suggest that you eliminate quote 17, I do not think it is correct that this statement be attributed to a review of Tuan's work.

- Page 6, lines 280-281. Term repetition (approaches)

- In paragraph 3.2.1. A reference could be included to the work of Aldo Rossi "the architecture of the city", of great impact, at least in Southern Europe.

- Section 3.2.6. It is perhaps too long in the context in which the article is developed. It could be reduced.

- Page 22 line 910. Missing dot "...framework (.)"

- In the list of bibliographic references there are numerous typographical errors: use of capital letters, underlining, italics. It needs a complete revision to homogenize the extensive and valuable list of references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations on this literature review. You have done a fantastic analysis. I would like to correct a few small points:

Firstly, I would not put acronyms in the summary, especially when the list is after.

132, references are missing

174-175 repeated text

179 research questions should be in the introduction.

In many other articles, this methodology is used, for example https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264275123000471#f0005 should be cited.

In the PRISMA methodology you use, you should always talk about totals. For example, it is rare to go from 114 articles to 127 in the final stages.

I am not saying it is wrong, but I would like to know why. When you talk about exclusions after reading the title, abstract or text, what is your basis?

Are the tables your own production? If so, you should give the authorship, if not, cite the research you are referring to, e.g. figure 2.

548 capital letters in information and communication technologies (same as in the list of acronyms)

Has the research had any limitations?

Pay attention to the rules for authors regarding the bibliography. What style do you use?

Good work!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

I have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript investigating the Sense of Place through a Systematic Literature Review. While the concept is intriguing, I would like to express my concerns regarding the manuscript's structure, methodology, and overall presentation, which currently do not align with the standards for publication in the Journal of Land.

Firstly, the manuscript lacks a clear articulation of its primary research aim, the contemporary significance of the study, the identified research gap, and a well-defined approach for the applied systematic literature review. A more explicit introduction and justification for the research would greatly enhance the manuscript's overall coherence and relevance.

One critical area that requires improvement is the establishment of inclusion and exclusion criteria for paper selection. Although the authors introduce these criteria in Table 1 (on page 5 of 32), the presented information appears unqualified, overly general, and lacks a professional tone. For instance, the decision to include papers published after 2017 is mentioned without adequate justification. It is essential to provide a rationale for such decisions to enhance the transparency and credibility of the study.

Additionally, the manuscript does not sufficiently address the expected quality of peer-reviewed papers obtained. 

While the authors mention that papers were sourced from peer-reviewed journals, there is no clarity on how the study ensured the inclusion of high-quality publications. The exclusion of repeated papers in two databases is commendable, but it raises questions about how the study managed to filter papers from well-established journals indexed in multiple databases like WoS and Scopus.

The analysis presented in the manuscript appears overly simplistic for a systematic literature review. Table 2 is notably incomplete, and there is a lack of exploration of conceptual models found in other relevant papers. A more comprehensive analysis, accompanied by a detailed presentation of the systematic review process in all stages, would significantly strengthen the manuscript. We know that many journals are published that are peer-reviewed, but the quality of published papers is inappropriate because the journals are looking at the publication fees. 

Lastly, the manuscript falls short of clearly delineating the novelty and research contributions to existing knowledge. A strong conclusion that explicitly outlines the implications of the research findings on the current body of knowledge is essential. This will help readers understand the significance of the study and its potential impact on the field.

In conclusion, addressing these concerns and making the necessary improvements will greatly enhance the manuscript's overall quality and increase its suitability for publication in the Journal of Land. I encourage you to carefully revise the manuscript, taking into account the suggestions provided, to ensure a more robust and compelling contribution to the field.

 

Best regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I have thoroughly reviewed the revised manuscript investigating the Sense of Place through a Narrative Review.

Having conducted a thorough evaluation of the revised manuscript, I regret to convey my assessment that it is still not suitable for publication in the Journal of Land due to serious issues.

Upon close examination, I have identified the authors have not considered some of my comments in the last review.

Firstly, the manuscript still misses a clear articulation of its primary research aim, the identified research gap, and a well-defined approach for the applied systematic literature review. A more explicit introduction and justification for the research would greatly enhance the manuscript's overall coherence and relevance.

Another critical issue is the establishment of some keywords to promote the quality of the results in Table 1 (on page 6 of 35). 

The presented information appears the "sense of place" OR "place identity" OR "place attachment" OR "sense of belonging" OR "place perception" have been considered within searching keywords. How did you consider them the same? These are different terms with different meanings!

In the second line, the following keywords have been considered for research objectives within past studies.

"concept" OR "character" OR "categor" OR "component"

What is your justification for this?

As another critical issue, I highlighted the issue in the last round of reviews for the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 2).  Although the authors revised these criteria in Table 2 (on page 6 of 35), serious issues are still seen in the inclusion criteria. for example, they included all peer-reviewed papers, but we know many peer-reviewed papers are not qualified and have been accepted for publication for 300-400 USD. Thus, many peer-reviewed journals have been blacklisted in many countries due to low quality and fake review processes.

The main issue for the current manuscript is that these papers have been included in the process and exactly the current research findings have been becoming distracted.

As indicated in the last round of review, the manuscript falls short of clearly delineating the novelty and research contributions to existing knowledge. A strong conclusion that explicitly outlines the implications of the research findings on the current body of knowledge is essential.

In conclusion, the changes are not qualified, and you need to generalize the research findings.

 

Best regards,