Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper on crucial issues. However, it needs major revisions.

 

The central notion of (the) “logic of equation” needs further explanation in simpler terms.

 

The use of the term “liberal” across the paper is quite generic and confusing.

 

On page 10, line 406, “social ontology” is mentioned (for the first time) without any clear explanation.

 

Foucault, and his theory of power, is mentioned only at the end of the paper. If this is a crucial point for the author, I suggest further discussing and developing it.

 

Before the “Conclusion”, a “Discussion” section critically focused on the main (theoretical) findings could be of help.

 

Certain papers relevant for the discussion are missing; I suggest considering at least the following:

Basta, C. (2016). From justice in planning toward planning for justice: A capability approach. Planning Theory, 15(2), 190-212.

Moroni, S., & De Franco, A. (2024). Spatial justice: A fundamental or derivative notion?. City, Culture and Society, 38, 100593.

Schmitt, P., & Weck, S. (2024). Towards just planning: on the relationship between procedural and distributive justice in local development actions. Planning Practice & Research, 1-19.

Weghorst, M., Buitelaar, E., & Pelzer, P. (2024). A dynamic justice framework for analyzing conceptions of justice: the case of urban development projects. Planning Theory

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- The abstract lacks a clearly defined purpose. However, this sentence is unnecessary: “This paper begins by reviewing theories of distributive justice and environmental justice”.

- The introduction lacks coherence between the literature review and the transition to the problem of the article. In addition, the purpose must be clearly defined.

- The article lacks clearly defined research procedures. It is also worth making a scheme showing the research procedure. In addition, each research procedure uses specific methods and types of source materials. The article lacks a discussion of these research bases. It is important to discuss, for example, how many interviews were conducted, how the research was conducted, in what locations, etc. At this point, the "case study" should also be described - what are its characteristics, why this location was chosen.

- The article has no clear structure. Chapter 3 appears twice, but there is no chapter 4. The chapter titles do not reflect the specific nature of the content (e.g. theoretical outline and empirical research). The paper lacks a discussion, so this chapter should be created. The discussion is very important because it allows the results to be presented in the context of existing research.

- Some of the information contained in Chapter 3 (“Logic of equation and injustice: a case of relocation under the community life-circle planning”) is methodological or conclusive in nature and should be placed in other chapters.

- The graphics are legible. It is suggested to create a figure regarding the research procedure. There is no scale given on the maps.

- Footnotes should be avoided.

- Conclusions should be shortened to make them understandable

This article requires major revision. The article in its current form is poorly accessible to the reader.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article Beyond Distribution: Critique of Spatial Justice Theories. Case Study of Shanghai’s 15-minute City raises a very important issue of relocation of residents. Unfortunately, instead of focusing on planning and architectural issues, the authors devoted more space in the article to discussing theories of distributive justice and environmental justice. In my opinion, this is more of a review article than a research article. The research sample on the basis of which the maps were drawn and the conclusions were drawn is very small. There are too few spatial issues in the article in the material sense. Only in line 431 in the Summary do we learn about spatial knowledge, spatial practice. Therefore, it is difficult for me to evaluate such an article in the Land Planning and Landscape Architecture section.

I propose to re-edit the article by expanding the research analyses, conducting additional research, and strengthening the spatial accents.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is a critical study of theories of spatial justice, with a particular focus on the case of the “15-minute city” concept as practiced in Shanghai. The theme has important research significance. Since there is still room for improvement in this article, I would like to make the following suggestions for improvement:

1. The abstract should provide a clear description of the research methodology and the case. E.g., Which case site? How much sample size? What methodology was used to collect the data?. Also, The abstract should end with linking the findings of the study with policy implications.

2. In the introduction, it is necessary to clearly write the research objectives and specific questions of the article. Also, the innovation of the study and its contribution to the existing theories should be highlighted.

3. In the second part, the discussion of the theory of distributive justice is rather lengthy, and it is recommended to focus more on the core concept of “logic of equation” and to reduce the repetition of references to the theory of distributive justice. The discussion from distributive justice to environmental justice lacks a natural transition, and it is suggested that the relationship between the two be explained more clearly through concluding paragraphs.

4. In the fourth part, the description of the relocation project in the case background section is rather simple, and it is suggested to add more about the background of the “15-minute city” in Shanghai and the overall planning objectives of the relocation project.

5. In the fourth part, the combination of theory and case study is more separated, the theoretical reflection is more abstract, and the results of the case study are not sufficiently returned to the theoretical framework for discussion, which is recommended to be added in the case study results section.

6. In the fourth part, the data collection process should be clarified and the number of interviews conducted, the main content of the interviews, the profile of the interviewees, and the criteria for selecting the interviewees should be detailed. Also, the sample size of the interviewees was small (15) and I am not sure if it is representative of the trend in the wider context. A combination of quantitative data (e.g., questionnaires) is recommended to further support the conclusions.

7. The article offers a critique of existing theory and practice, but more specific policy recommendations could be provided in the conclusions to address the issues presented in the article.

8. Simplify or break down long and complex sentences to improve the readability and fluency of the article. E.g., lines 30-33, lines 60-63, lines 90-94.

9. Standardize formatting according to journal standards. Also, check the full text for grammar and punctuation issues. E.g., ①lines 119-120: The Status A’ and B are arrived at through a process of imposition the norms of particular groups on the others; ②line 276: The JiangpU relocation project; ③line 278: and second to improve of the living condition; ④line71: to be towards social justice. the community; ⑤line 156 and line 248: repetition of chapter numbers.

10. Review and update the reference list to ensure that citations are current and relevant to the research topic.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Beyond Distribution: Critique of Spatial Justice Theories. Case Study of Shanghai’s 15-minute City

Review

The article examines the notion of the 15-minute city in Shanghai and its ramifications for spatial justice. It analyzes the distributive justice framework and examines the effects of relocation on inhabitants' lifeworlds. Authors contend that distributive justice planning, emphasizing equitable resource allocation, may reinforce individual subjectivity and sustain inequality. It presents the notion of the "logic of equation" in the context of distributive justice planning. They examined environmental justice theories that incorporate elements such as recognition, procedure, and capabilities to distributive justice. They propose that although these theories tackle certain concerns, they continue to incorporate aspects of distribution and do not comprehensively address the effects on lifeworlds.
The document delineates a case study concerning a relocation initiative in Shanghai. The migration resulted in a contraction and uniformity of residents' lifeworlds, despite attempts to attain distributive equality. The research underscores the constraints of distributive and environmental justice in tackling these challenges. The study asserts that the "logic of equation" in distributive justice planning may result in the infringement of lifeworlds and evoke sentiments of unfairness. It necessitates a more cohesive strategy that acknowledges the intricate and evolving characteristics of lifeworlds and enables relocatees to reconstruct their lifeworlds through spatial awareness and social engagement.

The references in the paper appear to be a balanced mix of classic (e.g. David Harvey (1973)) and modern (e.g. Wu et al. (2021)) sources, providing a comprehensive foundation for the discussion on spatial and environmental justice.

However, some weakness points must be fixed before publication, these points are:

·        The paper does not make a clear statement about its contribution to knowledge. In the conclusion section, the authors highlight their main contribution by identifying the "logic of equation" in distributive justice planning and its impact on relocatees' lifeworlds. They argue that this logic can lead to the shrinkage and homogenization of lifeworlds, causing feelings of injustice. The paper calls for a more integrated approach that considers the dynamic and complex nature of lifeworlds and empowers relocatees to rebuild their lifeworlds through spatial knowledge and social practice. This contribution is significant as it challenges the traditional distributive justice approach and provides new insights into the limitations of current spatial justice theories. The authors emphasize the need for planning practices to go beyond mere distribution and address the socio-spatial interactions that shape individuals' lifeworlds. Therefore, it is strongly advised that a paragraph be inserted at the end of the introduction section to explicitly state the authors' contribution to knowledge as they mentioned in the conclusion.

·        Figure 2 & 3 – page 7 & 8 respectively - should be larger, with coordinates added to show where this place is in the world. Otherwise, add a map to show the location of your area of interest.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript deals with an important topic in the field of maintaining the quality of life of relocated persons. I have studied the manuscript carefully and found the following:

The title of the manuscript raises expectations in the readers that are not met by the content.

‘Article’ was chosen as the type of article, so it is reasonable to assume that (original) empirical results are presented and discussed. However, it turns out that the structure of the manuscript does not correspond to the required structure in essential parts (Material & Methods are missing, Results are not clearly labelled as such in the corresponding section).

The theoretical framework is very comprehensive and a lot of relevant literature has been compiled, but this section (Theoretical framework?) needs structure. 

The research questions are missing, this also applies to the reasons for the choice of the case study which should be presented in the Introduction section.

The Material & Methods section is completely missing.

As the empirical basis (original data) is weak, the arguments in the Conclusion section should be critically reviewed.

All the best! 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been sufficiently improved

Author Response

Comment：The paper has been sufficiently improved

Response: We are sincerely grateful for your contribution to improving our paper. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been significantly improved and has become more understandable to the reader.

Author Response

Comment: The article has been significantly improved and has become more understandable to the reader.

Reponse: We are sincerely grateful for your contribution to improving our paper. 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for responding to my comments. It is understandable that the theoretical basis of spatial planning and population distribution have implications for land use planning and development.

Thank you for adding a new chapter on the paper's methodology and highlighting the importance of qualitative research in this article. The small sample size may lead to results that are somewhat questionable. Emphasising in the text that the choice of samples was consulted with the officials responsible for spatial planning increases the credibility of the research. While it is true that relocation may have negative consequences for the population - as confirmed by the literature analysis - the study conducted should have been supported by more interviews or conversations with residents and observations. This is my suggestion. 

I suggest that the last paragraph of the Introduction be corrected. Some sentences are part of the methodology and even the results. It may be worth dropping some of them (if they are found later in the work) or moving them to other chapters.

I further suggest expanding the results, especially regarding additional recommendations

Author Response

Comment 1: Thank you very much for responding to my comments. It is understandable that the theoretical basis of spatial planning and population distribution have implications for land use planning and development. Thank you for adding a new chapter on the paper’s methodology and highlighting the importance of qualitative research in this article. The small sample size may lead to results that are somewhat questionable. Emphasising in the text that the choice of samples was consulted with the officials responsible for spatial planning increases the credibility of the research.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate your acknowledgment of the improvements made to the methodology section and the emphasis on qualitative research. The inclusion of the consultation process with spatial planning officials aims to enhance the credibility of the study, and I am glad this aspect was well received.

Comment 2: While it is true that relocation may have negative consequences for the population - as confirmed by the literature analysis - the study conducted should have been supported by more interviews or conversations with residents and observations. This is my suggestion. 

Response 2: Thank you for this suggestion. To address this, we have incorporated direct quotes from the interviews into the text (e.g., Line 399–402, Line 413–414, Line 417–421, Line 425–428). These additions aim to highlight the voices of the participants and provide a more nuanced perspective. While additional interviews and observations would certainly add depth, the scope and resource constraints of this study limited such expansion. This aspect will be explored further in future research endeavours.

Comment 3: I suggest that the last paragraph of the Introduction be corrected. Some sentences are part of the methodology and even the results. It may be worth dropping some of them (if they are found later in the work) or moving them to other chapters.

Response 3: We understand your concern regarding the overlap between the Introduction, methodology, and results. However, other reviewers have suggested keeping some of this content in the Introduction to establish the context and rationale for the study. As such, we believe the current structure serves the purpose of clarity and coherence for the target readership. The connections between sections have been carefully crafted, and I hope this approach is acceptable.

Comment 4: I further suggest expanding the results, especially regarding additional recommendations.

Response 4: Thank you for this feedback. While we appreciate the suggestion to elaborate further, we believe the current results section provides sufficient detail aligned with the scope of this study. Additional recommendations risk overextending the focus, which could dilute the central findings. The current balance reflects the aims of the research and its intended contribution.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to all the authors for their revisions and responses to the previous reviewers' comments, the article has been greatly improved. However, the author's revision responses seem to be written not so rigorous, there are many mistakes. Although the revision responses are not published, this is the only opportunity for the author to communicate with the reviewer, hoping that the author will pay attention to the details in the future. These details sometimes make the difference between success and failure.

Author Response

Comment:  Thanks to all the authors for their revisions and responses to the previous reviewers' comments, the article has been greatly improved. However, the author's revision responses seem to be written not so rigorous, there are many mistakes. Although the revision responses are not published, this is the only opportunity for the author to communicate with the reviewer, hoping that the author will pay attention to the details in the future. These details sometimes make the difference between success and failure.

Response: Thank you for acknowledging the improvements made to the article following the revisions. We sincerely appreciate your overall recognition of the efforts taken to address your feedback.

Regarding your concerns about the rigor of the revision responses, we would like to clarify that every response was written with the intent to address the reviewers’ comments thoughtfully and comprehensively. Regarding your comment on the rigor of the revision responses, we are uncertain about the specific aspects you found lacking. We believe that responses were carefully crafted to directly address each reviewer’s comment and provide clear explanations of the revisions made. While the revision responses may not adhere to the same stylistic standards as the manuscript itself, given that they are not intended for publication, they were drafted with care to provide clarity and transparency in the revisions undertaken. If there are particular points you believe could have been improved, we would welcome clarification to better understand your concerns. We are confident that the substance of the responses accurately reflects the care and thoughtfulness dedicated to the revision process.

Nonetheless, we sincerely appreciate your reminder to maintain precision in all aspects of academic communication.

Thank you again for your feedback！

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, as my methodological and content-related concerns regarding your article have now been resolved, I accept the publication of the manuscript in its present form. Best regards

Author Response

Comment: Dear Authors, as my methodological and content-related concerns regarding your article have now been resolved, I accept the publication of the manuscript in its present form. Best regards

Reponse: We are sincerely grateful to your contribution to improving our paper.