Review Reports - Three Sides of the Same Coin: A Scoping Review of Community Development, Urban Design Dimensions, and Proactive Urbanism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The introduction could benefit from a more rigorous theoretical positioning of "proactive urbanism."
2.The article relies primarily on literature analysis and author observations, lacking case studies or evaluations that demonstrate the application of "proactive urbanism" in practical projects.
3. Figure 3 is of very low resolution and lacks clarity.
4.The conclusion could propose more concrete research directions, such as developing an evaluation index system for proactive urbanism or exploring its applicability across different cultural contexts.
5.Some sentences are too long and lack clear logical structure, such as the discussion on "restricting individual actions" in Section 5.1.
6. Certain paragraphs are repetitive, particularly regarding the mention of "proactive" across different fields.

Author Response

Comment 1. The introduction could benefit from a more rigorous theoretical positioning of "proactive urbanism."

Response 1: We appreciate this valuable comment. In response, we have strengthened the theoretical grounding of proactive urbanism in the Introduction (Page 2 within Line 50–70), the red sentence starts with “Proactive urbanism is an approach to ...”.

We now clarify its conceptual lineage and position it within broader debates on anticipatory and adaptive planning. This addition enhances the manuscript’s theoretical coherence and situates our approach within contemporary urban theory.

Comment 2. The article relies primarily on literature analysis and author observations, lacking case studies or evaluations that demonstrate the application of "proactive urbanism" in practical projects.

Response 2: We appreciate this thoughtful comment. We agree that the paper currently focuses on theoretical and conceptual analysis rather than empirical application. We have therefore acknowledged this point as a research limitation in the revised version (pages 18–19, Lines 626–637 ) and clarified that future research should empirically test the concept of proactive urbanism through case-based evaluations and practical implementations.

Comment 3. Figure 3 is of very low resolution and lacks clarity.

Response 3: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have provided a revised version of this figure to improve reliability.

Comment 4. The conclusion could propose more concrete research directions, such as developing an evaluation index system for proactive urbanism or exploring its applicability across different cultural contexts.

Response 4: This is a very valuable suggestion. We have added it to our future research. Please check the sentence on Page 637 that starts with “Future research can also develop an evaluation index…”

Comment 5. Some sentences are too long and lack clear logical structure, such as the discussion on "restricting individual actions" in Section 5.1.

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. We have revised Section 5.1 to improve clarity and logical flow, particularly in the discussion of “limit individual actions.” The sentences have been shortened and restructured to clearly explain how coordinated individual behaviour contributes to the principles of proactive urbanism. Please check the red text in this section.

Comment 6. Certain paragraphs are repetitive, particularly regarding the mention of "proactive" across different fields.

Response 6: Thank you for taking the time to read and review our manuscript. We really appreciate this observation about repetition. In response, we have carefully reviewed the entire text and removed redundant references to the term “proactive” across different sections.

We ensured that the concept is now introduced once in the theoretical framing and referred to consistently throughout the paper. We believe these revisions improve the manuscript’s readability and conceptual coherence.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Issues related to changes taking place in public spaces, the directions of their transformation, and the evaluation of their design principles have been of interest to researchers studying urban space for many years. This manuscript is part of this trend, and the authors describe their thoughts on integrating urban design and community development within proactive urban design based on bibliometric analysis. The changes introduced by the authors are a step in the right direction, and the article has become more transparent. However, the following comments have still not been taken into account:

- Introduction section – the authors write, “In pursuit of this aim, the current manuscript employs a mixed-methods approach that combines the authors' observations and bibliometrics,” but section 3. Method and Materials, only mentions Bibliometric Study, and the authors do not write about observations.

- It is still unclear why the authors decided to elaborate on the prevalence of street food in hot zones. Why this aspect and only this aspect? Please explain in the manuscript. The same comment applies to section 5.3 Design with or without an Urban Designers' Involvement – why are there only references to food stalls?

- section Method and Materials: Bibliometric Study – the authors did not describe which countries/regions the analyzed works concern. The authors refer to the Global South in some places, but the analyzed works cover a wider geographical area, as can be seen in the Results and Discussion sections. This raises the question of whether the analyzed solutions can be adapted to the Global South. There is an inconsistency because the authors refer to this idea in general terms in some places and in relation to the Global South in others. The idea can be discussed in general terms and then solutions/directions, etc., that are suitable and applicable to the selected area can be indicated.

- Discussion section – this section should clearly indicate whether the solutions presented are based solely on a bibliographic analysis or also on the authors' observations. As a reader of this article, I do not know.

I hope that these comments will contribute to raising the scientific level of the manuscript.

Author Response

Comment: Issues related to changes taking place in public spaces, the directions of their transformation, and the evaluation of their design principles have been of interest to researchers studying urban space for many years. This manuscript is part of this trend, and the authors describe their thoughts on integrating urban design and community development within proactive urban design based on bibliometric analysis. The changes introduced by the authors are a step in the right direction, and the article has become more transparent. However, the following comments have still not been taken into account:

Response: Thank you for your time and effort in reading and reviewing our manuscript. We have addressed all your valuable comments and feedback and provided appropriate responses.

Comment 1- Introduction section – the authors write, “In pursuit of this aim, the current manuscript employs a mixed-methods approach that combines the authors' observations and bibliometrics,” but section 3. Method and Materials, only mention the Bibliometric Study, and the authors do not write about observations.

Response 1: Thank you for bringing these points to our attention. We have revised the introduction to clarify the methods used, namely, bibliometric and content analysis. The observation served as the research justification, as mentioned in the section following the introduction.

Comment 2- It is still unclear why the authors decided to elaborate on the prevalence of street food in hot zones. Why this aspect and only this aspect? Please explain in the manuscript. The same comment applies to section 5.3 Design with or without an Urban Designers' Involvement – why are there only references to food stalls?

Response 2: We have balanced the references that explain the ongoing changes in public spaces due to informal activities, such as food vending and other informal practices.

Comment 3- Section Method and Materials: Bibliometric Study – the authors did not describe which countries/regions the analyzed works concern. The authors refer to the Global South in some places, but the analyzed works cover a wider geographical area, as can be seen in the Results and Discussion sections. This raises the question of whether the analyzed solutions can be adapted to the Global South. There is an inconsistency because the authors refer to this idea in general terms in some places and in relation to the Global South in others. The idea can be discussed in general terms and then solutions/directions, etc., that are suitable and applicable to the selected area can be indicated.

Response 3: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have revised the text to ensure consistency in the geographical scope, which now clearly reflects a global perspective. However, we acknowledge that some of the analyzed articles include case studies from cities in the Global South, and we have clarified this in the revised manuscript.- Discussion section – this section should clearly indicate whether the solutions presented are based solely on a bibliographic analysis or also on the authors' observations. As a reader of this article, I do not know.

Comment 4: I hope that these comments will contribute to raising the scientific level of the manuscript.

Response 4: Many thanks for your valuable comment and insights, which helped us to provide a better version of this manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents an ambitious framework for “Proactive Urbanism” by combining community development and urban design. However, this manuscript requires major revisions to enhance academic rigor, transparency, and reduce bias. Specific critical issues and suggestions below refer to line numbers where substantial text changes are needed.

Introduction

While the introduction makes for a very engaging read and sets up proactive urbanism well, it relies too much on metaphor ("three-sided coin") and personal observation, sometimes at the cost of scholarly clarity and neutrality. Lines 32-38 summarize paradigm shifts without naming the paradigms in question or specifying what gaps in the literature these paradigms represent. The authors need to explicitly outline the meaning of terms like "proactive urbanism" and detail exactly how their approach adds to or departs from existing approaches in the fields of urban design and community development. Especially in lines 49-61, proactive urbanism seems to get blurred with other planning frameworks. The review also focuses a lot on positive urban transformations and gives scant attention to negative or even unintentional consequences of informal adaptations,(lines 73-84) which might give a biased view to the narrative. The introduction needs revision in order to clearly demarcate the boundaries and novelty of "proactive urbanism" and assume a more balanced approach toward informal transformation by referring to benefits and drawbacks supported by broader scholarship.

Methods

The mixed-methods approach claims to combine bibliometric analysis and author observation but does not detail how observational data were collected, validated, or synthesized. Lines 215–217 state that observations support the research challenge, yet provide no indication of methodology for their collection, which is required to ensure objectivity or repeatability. Bibliometric procedures appear poorly described on lines 219–277: selection criteria, search strings, and filtering steps should be detailed further. For example, Scopus is mentioned on line 223, and on line 224, Web of Science is excluded due to coverage; however, the latter lacks systematic comparison or justification. Similarly, three rounds of data mining are referred to, but details are not given about the inclusion and exclusion of materials, gray literature, or the handling of duplicate entries. Authors need to revise this section for replicable procedural transparency and reflection on potential bias, particularly in interventions based on the authors' own interpretations (lines 218–220 and 279–285).

Results

Results highlight keyword mapping through VOSviewer but exaggerate the interpretive depth that co-occurrence analysis allows (lines 289-312). Community development and proactive clusters are discussed but without the limitations of bibliometric mapping, which is most often biased towards some countries and English-language sources only (lines 318-319). Finally, the narrative, lines 329-342, is slightly biased in the way that it selects literature supportive of empowerment and participatory planning instead of critically considering the evidence that either dissents from or complicates its interpretation. Further, the results around definitional fluidity, lines 343-375, need more analytical framing; these descriptions run the risk of circular reasoning, for example: "Community development is contested because the meaning is debated." Include explicit tables or figures to summarize the number and type of articles reviewed, limitations of synthesis, and a fair account of negative, contradictory, or "missed" findings. Discussion of how cultural or geographical contexts affect generalizability.

Discussion

The discussion systematically advances principles for proactive urbanism, but too often presents these as uncritically positive and universally applicable. There is a tendency toward speculative claims and recommendations in places where little empirical support exists in the preceding results. For example, the restrictive design guidelines suggested on lines 419–441 give no attention to possible social, economic, or accessibility impacts of such an approach and fail to reference contradictory evidence. The conceptualization of "design in or out of context" (lines 418–426) would benefit from examples demonstrating where out-of-context interventions have succeeded or failed, to broaden the theoretical scope and reduce confirmatory bias. The authors must better link their proposed principles with concrete, well-referenced evidence-and acknowledge where the literature is divided or inconclusive, especially regarding unintended outcomes and the varied impacts of "proactivity" on marginalized communities.

Conclusions

The conclusion overstates the strength of the evidence by giving the impression that the proactive urbanism model is widely validated, despite the methodology being largely literature-based and not testing applicability (lines 619–624). There is insufficient reflection on limitations with regard to relying on bibliometric synthesis sans empirical case studies and with regard to operationalizing proactive urbanism across disparate contexts (line 627–628). The authors declare limitations but do so too briefly; these need to be extended by discussing risks, such as over-reliance on expert-driven approaches, lack of engagement with minority voices, or technology-related biases in “data-driven” urban design.

Additional Critical Points

References throughout the paper to observation from the author and use of AI for figures (e.g., line 161, line 645) could be interpreted in a biased way, unless transparently handled. The text has to specify exactly what these technologies were used for, clarify how they might influence the results, and invite independent validation.

Author Response

Comment 1: This paper presents an ambitious framework for “Proactive Urbanism” by combining community development and urban design. However, this manuscript requires major revisions to enhance academic rigor, transparency, and reduce bias. Specific critical issues and suggestions below refer to line numbers where substantial text changes are needed.

Response 1: Thank you so much for your valuable comments and for taking the time to read and review our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your valuable suggestions and made the required changes.

Comment 2: Introduction

Response 2: Thank you for this constructive comment. We appreciate your point regarding the use of metaphor and clarity in the Introduction. We have retained the “three-sided coin” metaphor as it represents a central conceptual framing of proactive urbanism, used deliberately to illustrate the interdependence of theory, practice, and community agency. However, we have revised the surrounding text to clarify its analytical meaning and ensure that the metaphor supports rather than replaces scholarly explanation.

We have also strengthened the Introduction by:

- Explicitly identifying the paradigms that frame the discussion of urban transformation and the research gap proactive urbanism
- Providing a more precise definition of proactive urbanism and explaining how it builds upon and differs from existing approaches in urban design and community development.
- Expanding the discussion to acknowledge both the benefits and the potential drawbacks of informal urban transformations, supported by additional literature.

These revisions enhance clarity and balance while preserving the conceptual richness of the original framing.

Comment 3: Methods

Response 3: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The observation is in the section that comes after the introduction as research justification. We have revised the abstract and introduction to include a brief methodological note indicating that our data collection used a mixed-methods approach combining bibliometrics and content analysis.

In addition to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the methodology section was added. Kindly check the red text in the methods and materials section.

Comment 4 Results:

Response 4: Thank you for bringing this point to our attention. We have added the research limitation and the suggested future research in the conclusion section. Please check the red text that starts with “This study was also limited to English sources, which means it is based solely on non-English sources..” and the text that has the sentence “Besides, future studies can strengthen our argument about proactive urbanism and its links to urban design and community development by drawing on diverse contributions from non-English sources.”

Comment 5: Finally, the narrative, lines 329-342, is slightly biased in the way that it selects literature supportive of empowerment and participatory planning instead of critically considering the evidence that either dissents from or complicates its interpretation. Further, the results around definitional fluidity, lines 343-375, need more analytical framing; these descriptions run the risk of circular reasoning, for example: "Community development is contested because the meaning is debated." Include explicit tables or figures to summarize the number and type of articles reviewed, limitations of synthesis, and a fair account of negative, contradictory, or "missed" findings. Discussion of how cultural or geographical contexts affect generalizability.

Response 5: Thank you for this insightful comment. We have revised the relevant sections (lines 329–375) to ensure a more balanced and analytically framed discussion. Specifically:

- We have incorporated studies that present critical or dissenting perspectives on empowerment and participatory planning to reduce potential bias and provide a more comprehensive view of the debate.
- The discussion on definitional fluidity has been reframed to avoid circular reasoning and to clarify how “community development” is differently interpreted across contexts.
- We have added a summary table that outlines the number and types of articles reviewed, highlighting methodological approaches, key themes, and geographical coverage. Kindly check Appendix A.
- The revised section now explicitly addresses the limitations of the synthesis, including contradictory and underrepresented findings, and discusses how cultural and geographical contexts may influence the generalizability of the results.

These revisions strengthen the analytical depth and neutrality of the narrative.

Comment 6: Discussion

For example, the restrictive design guidelines suggested on lines 419–441 give no attention to possible social, economic, or accessibility impacts of such an approach and fail to reference contradictory evidence. The conceptualization of "design in or out of context" (lines 418–426) would benefit from examples demonstrating where out-of-context interventions have succeeded or failed, to broaden the theoretical scope and reduce confirmatory bias. The authors must better link their proposed principles with concrete, well-referenced evidence-and acknowledge where the literature is divided or inconclusive, especially regarding unintended outcomes and the varied impacts of "proactivity" on marginalized communities.

Response 6: Thank you for this important observation. We agree that the Discussion should more clearly acknowledge the contextual limits and empirical grounding of the proposed principles for proactive urbanism. Accordingly, we have revised the section substantially to strengthen the analytical rigor and reduce speculative tone. Specifically, we have:

- Rephrased the discussion of design guidelines (lines 419–441) to explicitly consider potential social, economic, and accessibility implications.
- Added references that present critical or alternative perspectives on restrictive or universal design applications.
- Revised the conceptualization of “design in or out of context” (lines 418–426) by integrating examples from the literature that illustrate both successful and unsuccessful applications of out-of-context interventions, thereby broadening the theoretical scope.
- Linked each principle of proactive urbanism more directly to specific empirical evidence and clarified where the literature remains divided or inconclusive.
- Added a paragraph acknowledging the possible unintended consequences of “proactivity,” particularly in marginalized communities, and highlighted the need for sensitivity to contextual and cultural diversity.

We want to thank the reviewer for this comment. These changes ensure that the discussion presents a more balanced, evidence-based, and critically reflective account of the proposed framework.

Comment 7 Conclusions

Response 7: Thank you for this helpful observation. We agree that the conclusion should more clearly reflect the conceptual and literature-based nature of this study and acknowledge its limitations. Accordingly, we have revised the Conclusion and Limitations sections to:

- Rephrase claims about the validation of the proactive urbanism model to emphasize that the findings are exploratory and theory-building rather than empirically confirmed.
- Elaborate on the methodological limitations of relying primarily on bibliometric synthesis without empirical case validation.
- Discuss potential challenges in operationalizing proactive urbanism across diverse socio-economic and cultural contexts.
- Add a critical reflection on risks such as over-reliance on expert-driven perspectives, limited engagement with minority or marginalized voices, and the potential biases associated with technology-based, data-driven approaches.

Comment 8: Additional Critical Points

Response 8: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have clarified the use of tools in preparing the figures. Specifically, Figure 1 was produced using an AI tool, while all other figures were designed solely by the authors for this manuscript. We have also added a corresponding statement in the Declaration section before the list of references.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The current framework relies predominantly on theoretical constructs and literature-based support. It would be valuable to incorporate one or two practical case studies in the discussion section to facilitate a more seamless transition from theoretical concepts to practical applications.
2.The conclusion section could benefit from more precise articulation of future research directions. Specific suggestions include developing an assessment framework or evaluation tool for measuring the proactive qualities of public spaces, as well as investigating the framework's adaptability and implementation strategies across different contextual settings.
3.The image resolution of Figure 3 appears to remain suboptimal in the current version, with key nodal points and connecting lines lacking sufficient clarity for proper interpretation.

Author Response

Comment 1.The current framework relies predominantly on theoretical constructs and literature-based support. It would be valuable to incorporate one or two practical case studies in the discussion section to facilitate a more seamless transition from theoretical concepts to practical applications.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments and feedback. We have added two case studies in the discussion section to illustrate how our suggested proactive urbanism applies to two cases: Hunsville, USA, and Copenhagen, Denmark. Kindly check the red text that starts with "In line with previous studies, our suggested model ..."

2.The conclusion section could benefit from more precise articulation of future research directions. Specific suggestions include developing an assessment framework or evaluation tool to measure the proactive qualities of public spaces, and investigating the framework's adaptability and implementation strategies across diverse contextual settings.

Response 2: We have added a sentence based on your recommendation for future research. Please check the text in red that starts with

"Future research can also develop an assessment framework or evaluation tool to measure the proactive qualities of public spaces and investigate the framework's adaptability and implementation strategies across diverse contextual settings."

Comment 3.The image resolution in Figure 3 appears suboptimal in the current version, with key nodal points and connecting lines lacking sufficient clarity for proper interpretation.

Response 3. We have split this figure into three to make each map larger and the text more readable. Also, this type of analysis is intended to provide some nodes that are clearer, and others should not be blurred.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the comments to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response

Comment: Thank you for addressing the comments to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for your time and effort in reading our manuscript.

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

Attached in the pdf file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript offers an important integration of community development and urban design under the

lens of proactive urbanism. The writing is clear, but the methodology and theoretical framing should be

reinforced for publication.

Response 1: Thank you so much for your constructive feedback. We have revised the methodology and theoretical framing. Kindly, check the red text in both the methods and the introduction section to keep the consistency.

Kindly check the red text:

In the introduction:

In pursuit of this aim, the current manuscript employs a mixed-methods approach that combines the authors’ observations and bibliometrics.

And in the section named “2. Research design and methods”:

“This manuscript adopts a mixed-method approach that combines qualitative …”

Comment 2: 1. Major Comments

Conceptual Framing and Originality

- The “three-sided coin” metaphor is appealing, but should be visualized in a conceptual framework

diagram.

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion to add a diagram that reflects our thoughts on the three sides of the coin. We have added this. Please check Figure ….

Comment 3: - Clarify how Proactive Urbanism differs from Resilient, Adaptive, or Tactical Urbanism.

Response 3: Indeed, proactive urbanism is different from Resilient, Adaptive, or Tactical Urbanism. To reflect the differences, we have added a definition of this concept in the introduction, along with supplementary references.

Kindly check the red sentences in red that are named as:

“Proactive urbanism is an approach to urban planning and urban design that emphasizes anticipation, strategic foresight, and active intervention to shape the built environments in a sustainable, inclusive, and resilient manner [16,17]. Unlike reactive urbanism, which responds to problems as they arise, proactive urbanism seeks to prevent issues and optimize urban living conditions through forward-thinking strategies [18,19]. Proactive urbanism was used in the literature to strengthen urban resilience by integrating climate adaptation and mitigation efforts into planning processes [14,16,20].

Comment 4: - Expand the theoretical grounding of “proactivity” in urban design.

Response 4: Thank you for bringing this point to our attention. We have added a sentence describing a limited number of studies in the urban design literature that address the ‘proactive.’ Please check the sentence that is named:

Besides, a limited number of studies in urban design or related fields addressed the term ‘proactive’ [11,14,20,25]. Such studies focus mainly on the environmental and built environments, with limited attention to the ongoing changes in the built environment driven by local communities [14,26].

Comment 5: B. Scoping Review Methodology

- Add explicit search strings, criteria, and PRISMA-ScR diagram.

Response 5: This excellent recommendation is to be clear about the method used in the literature review. We want to ensure we have used a scoping review in our data search. PRISMA was not employed in this study, and the authors believed it was important in conducting such a study.

“This study employed a scoping review [37] to identify and analyze principles that align with community development goals while accommodating ongoing social and temporal changes. Conducting a scoping review of the urban design literature paved the way for proactive urbanism, which bridges the gap between urban design and community development.

Comment 6: - Clarify Scopus AI usage and justify parameter thresholds for VOSviewer.

- Provide data selection and screening details for reproducibility.

Response 6: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have revised the method section to explain the data used in the VOSviewer analysis.

Kindly check Table 1 and other red text in pages 7–8.

Comment 7: C. Results Presentation

- Separate data-driven results from interpretation.

- Enrich Figure 2 and Figure 4 with readable legends and cluster analysis details.

Response 7: We have revised the text to separate the results from the method section. Besides, all figures have been revised for better readability.

Comment 8: D. Analytical and Theoretical Depth

- Support the five principles of Proactive Urbanism with empirical or literature evidence.

- Connect PU to policy frameworks (UN-Habitat, SDG 11).

Response 8: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have added literature to support proactive urbanism in the introduction and discussion sections. Besides, we have added a couple of sentences to link the PU to SDG 11.

Kindly check the red text named:

The literature also highlights the role of proactive urbanism, emphasizing the need for cities to be resilient in the face of challenges such as climate change and health crises. For instance, cities like Berlin, Milan, Oakland, and Bogotá demonstrated resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic by quickly adapting their mobility systems, facilitated by pre-existing sustainable urban mobility policies [66]. This aligns with SDG 11's focus on resilience [13–15,17,24].

Comment 9: E. Structure and Style

- Reduce redundancy between sections (especially proactive vs reactive explanation).

- Streamline conclusion into three parts: key findings, implications, and future work.

Response 9: Thank you again for bring this to our attention. We have revised the entire text to remove any repetition. We have also restructured our conclusion based on your recommendation. Kindly check the red text in the conclusion that reflects the places of change.

Comment 10: 2. Minor Comments

- Clarify ambiguous terms (“design in or out of context”).

- Fix minor typographical issues and unify citation style.

- Simplify overly long sentences.

Response 10: Thank you again for your constructive feedback. We have adjusted all these points. Please take a look, and we are happy to make any other changes.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The research questions outlined in the paper appear to be derived from a synthesis of existing literature rather than constituting discrete, empirically testable scientific questions. These questions could benefit from greater focus and depth. Furthermore, the concept of "Proactive Urbanism" requires more precise differentiation from established theoretical frameworks to clarify its novel contribution.
2.While the topic itself is highly relevant and demonstrates originality, the justification for the research gap is not entirely compelling. The literature review, for instance, could do more to substantiate the critical need to address this specific problem.
3.The paper's primary theoretical contribution lies in positioning Proactive Urbanism as a bridge between Urban Design and Community Development. Its practical contribution, however, is less developed, as it does not delineate actionable processes or evaluative criteria.
4.Methodologically, the description of the bibliometric analysis is insufficient. A clearer account of the procedures, data sources, and article screening criteria is necessary for the study to be transparent and replicable.
5.The conclusions seem to be based more on a synthesis of the literature and the authors' assertions than on evidence systematically derived from the preceding analysis.
6.The line of argumentation could also be strengthened. The logical progression from the results of the literature analysis to the principles of Proactive Urbanism is not entirely coherent, and the paper would benefit from a more clearly articulated conceptual framework.
7.The bibliometric results presented in Figure 2 are not adequately interpreted in the text.

Author Response

Comment 1. The research questions outlined in the paper appear to be derived from a synthesis of existing literature rather than constituting discrete, empirically testable scientific questions. These questions could benefit from greater focus and depth. Furthermore, the concept of "Proactive Urbanism" requires more precise differentiation from established theoretical frameworks to clarify its novel contribution.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments and feedback. We have revised the research question to fit the intended meaning and scope of the current research. Please check the revised research question (Page 3), which becomes:

“How can the relationship between the dimensions of community development and urban design be conceptualized to frame a proactive urbanism that responds to the continuous socio-spatial dynamics of everyday life?”

We have added a couple of sentences to explain the concept of ‘proactive urbanism’. Kindly check the red text on Page 2, which is named.

Comment 2.While the topic itself is highly relevant and demonstrates originality, the justification for the research gap is not entirely compelling. The literature review, for instance, could do more to substantiate the critical need to address this specific problem.

Response 2: We have revised the gap in the literature. Kindly check the paragraph that includes:

“Existing studies also discuss proactive strategies, which involve identifying issues early to prevent deviations from plans [13,14,22]. Proactive strategies are further examined across various management disciplines, including environmental, risk, and social media management [11,15,23,24]. However, few studies specifically focus on proactive strategies or insights for managing spatiotemporal dimensions of public spaces that undergo changes and interventions initiated by local communities, beyond those planned initially by urban designers. Besides, a limited number of studies in urban design or related fields addressed the term ‘proactive’ [11,14,20,25]. Such studies focus mainly on the environmental and built environments, with limited attention to the ongoing changes in the built environment driven by local communities [14,26].”

Comment 3. The paper's primary theoretical contribution lies in positioning Proactive Urbanism as a bridge between Urban Design and Community Development. Its practical contribution, however, is less developed, as it does not delineate actionable processes or evaluative criteria.

Response 3: We sincerely appreciate this insightful comment. We have clarified the paper’s practical contribution by outlining how the proposed Proactive Urbanism framework can inform practice. Specifically, we added a paragraph describing the potential processes and evaluative criteria through which Proactive Urbanism can be operationalized in urban redevelopment and community-based projects. This addition demonstrates how the theoretical bridge between urban design and community development can translate into practice.

We have added a couple of sentences compiled from literature to explain the principle of proactive urbanism. We also added a way forward for implementation in the conclusion.

Comment 4. Methodologically, the description of the bibliometric analysis is insufficient. A clearer account of the procedures, data sources, and article screening criteria is necessary for the study to be transparent and replicable.

Response 4: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have revised the method section, adding all missing data about how the data were collected and analyzed.

Please check the red text in the method section.

Comment 5.The conclusions seem to be based more on a synthesis of the literature and the authors' assertions than on evidence systematically derived from the preceding analysis.

Response 5: We have revised the conclusion and the main findings in the results. Kindly review the red text in the Results and Conclusion sections

Comment 6. The line of argumentation could also be strengthened. The logical progression from the results of the literature analysis to the principles of Proactive Urbanism is not entirely coherent, and the paper would benefit from a more clearly articulated conceptual framework.

Response 6: Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention. We have revised the Discussion to reflect the main finding from this study and our suggested “Proactive Urbanism.”

Kindly, could you check the red text in the discussion and Figure 6?

Comment 7. The bibliometric results presented in Figure 2 are not adequately interpreted in the text.

Response 7: We have revised Figure 2, which becomes Figure 3. We have also added explanatory text on pages 8–9.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Issues related to changes taking place in public spaces, the directions of their transformation, and the evaluation of their design principles have been of interest to researchers studying urban space for many years. This manuscript is part of this trend, and the authors use bibliometric analysis to describe their thoughts on integrating urban design and community development within proactive urban design. The topic is interesting, but the presentation is a bit unclear. Perhaps taking the following comments into account will help other readers better understand the authors' ideas.

Below are comments and suggestions:

- lines 84-86 - Is it possible to plan something in a way that takes into account unforeseen changes? Incorrect wording - one excludes the other. As the name suggests, unforeseen changes cannot be taken into account at the planning stage because they are simply unpredictable. Further on in the sentence, there is mention of evolution, which is probably a more accurate term.

- Section Research justification, in my opinion, fits better in the introduction (it is an extension of it) than in the section related to methodology; consider moving this section. In addition, this section contains a general justification for the research, so why did the authors decide to go into detail about the prevalence of street food in hot zones? Why this aspect and only this aspect? Please explain. Also, Figure 1 fits into this elaboration and does not fit into the general context of the research justification. The same comment applies to section 3.2. Informal urban design: Placemaking without professionals – why are there only references to food outlets?

- Section Bibliometric study – the authors should describe in general terms which countries/areas the analyzed works concern. The authors refer to the Global South in places, but the analyzed works cover a wider spatial scope. This raises the question of whether the analyzed solutions can be adapted to the Global South.

- Section 4 4. Discussion: Urban design gives form; community development gives purpose - Do the analyses conducted on the global issue of proactive urban design refer only to the global south? This needs to be clearly stated and consistently discussed; there is an inconsistency because the authors refer to this idea in general terms and in other places in relation to the Global South. The idea can be discussed in general terms and then solutions/directions, etc., that are suitable and applicable to the selected area can be indicated. In the case of this manuscript, I feel that there is a slight inconsistency.

- Conclusion section – this section should emphasize that the conclusions presented are based on a bibliographic analysis. As a reader of this article, this is how I understand it. As it is presented, it suggests that the conclusions come directly from the authors of the manuscript, which is misleading for the reader. However, the assumption was probably that the authors conducted a literature review in this area, which led to certain conclusions.

Technical comments:

- line 261 – incorrect citation of literature,

- from fig. 4, incorrect numbering of figures – figure 3 is missing. Please also correct the references in the text.

- the Research justification and Bibliometric study sections have the same numbering – 2.1.

- different fonts are used in different places in the text.

I hope that these comments will contribute to raising the scientific level of the manuscript.

Author Response

Comment 1: Issues related to changes taking place in public spaces, the directions of their transformation, and the evaluation of their design principles have been of interest to researchers studying urban space for many years. This manuscript is part of this trend, and the authors use bibliometric analysis to describe their thoughts on integrating urban design and community development within proactive urban design. The topic is interesting, but the presentation is a bit unclear. Perhaps taking the following comments into account will help other readers better understand the authors' ideas.

Response 1: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have carefully considered all your valuable comments and suggestions, and we have provided appropriate responses and made the necessary revisions accordingly.

Comment 2: lines 84-86 - Is it possible to plan something in a way that takes into account unforeseen changes? Incorrect wording - one excludes the other. As the name suggests, unforeseen changes cannot be taken into account at the planning stage because they are simply unpredictable. Further on in the sentence, there is mention of evolution, which is probably a more accurate term.

Response 2: Thank you for this observation. We have revised the word 'unforeseen' in the entire text.

Comment 3: Section Research justification, in my opinion, fits better in the introduction (it is an extension of it) than in the section related to methodology; consider moving this section. In addition, this section contains a general justification for the research, so why did the authors decide to go into detail about the prevalence of street food in hot zones? Why this aspect and only this aspect? Please explain. Also, Figure 1 fits into this elaboration and does not fit into the general context of the research justification. The same comment applies to section 3.2. Informal urban design: Placemaking without professionals – why are there only references to food outlets?

Response 3: We totally agree with you. So, we have restored our manuscripts and moved some sections to the places you suggested.

Comment 4: Section Bibliometric study – the authors should describe in general terms which countries/areas the analyzed works concern. The authors refer to the Global South in places, but the analyzed works cover a wider spatial scope. This raises the question of whether the analyzed solutions can be adapted to the Global South.

Response 4: We have revised the method section. Regarding the Global South, to maintain consistency, it was deleted from the text because the results were from worldwide, not only the Global South.

Comment 5: Section 4 4. Discussion: Urban design gives form; community development gives purpose - Do the analyses conducted on the global issue of proactive urban design refer only to the global south? This needs to be clearly stated and consistently discussed; there is an inconsistency because the authors refer to this idea in general terms and in other places in relation to the Global South. The idea can be discussed in general terms and then solutions/directions, etc., that are suitable and applicable to the selected area can be indicated. In the case of this manuscript, I feel that there is a slight inconsistency.

Response 5: Thank you for bringing this point to my attention. We have deleted Global South to maintain consistency. It was deleted from the text because the results were from worldwide, not only the Global South.

Comment 6: Conclusion section – this section should emphasize that the conclusions presented are based on a bibliographic analysis. As a reader of this article, this is how I understand it. As it is presented, it suggests that the conclusions come directly from the authors of the manuscript, which is misleading for the reader. However, the assumption was probably that the authors conducted a literature review in this area, which led to certain conclusions.

Response 6: We have revised the conclusion to focus on the significance of the current study and its reflection on the research question. We also mentioned the main finding of this study. A paragraph about the implementation of our suggested proactive urbanism was also added.

Comment 7: Technical comments:

- line 261 – incorrect citation of literature,

- from fig. 4, incorrect numbering of figures – figure 3 is missing. Please also correct the references in the text.

- the Research justification and Bibliometric study sections have the same numbering – 2.1.

- different fonts are used in different places in the text.

I hope that these comments will contribute to raising the scientific level of the manuscript.

Response 7: Thank you very much for your constructive feedback and commnets. We have considered all your comments as follows:

- The citation has been revised in the text.

- The Figure and subtitle numbering have been revised and corrected.

- The manuscript was revised in terms of the journal guidelines.