Participatory Planning and Gamification: Insights from Hungary

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well-structured and well-written. The literature review is regarded as sufficient and addresses the necessary background to lead and ground the study. The methodology section is described adequately and provides enough sampling to reach a saturation point. Similarly, the Results and Discussion sections are well-written, clear and straightforward. Refer to the comments below for more details.

Section 1: The Introduction section becomes quite lengthy and clumsy. It would be easier to read if the introduction were split into a literature review from line 87 onwards (Section 2: Literature review/literature background).  

Proposed Section2: From here onwards the Literature review could be further split into subheadings on (2.1) Successes (line 144 more or less);  and then (2.2) Challenges of Gamification; and lastly a focus on the application in Hungary specifically as section 2.3 (line 198 onwards). 

Refer to line 219 - It is unnecessary to repeat the definition.

Section 5: The potential of a "gamification handbook" is reiterated in the manuscript and survey results, but not explored in some more practical detail. It could add value to shortly indicate what such a handbook could entail, how it could be utilised and on which levels of governance it could be implemented, just as a way to follow through on the identified need and provide some practicalities.

 

Author Response

The paper is well-structured and well-written. The literature review is regarded as sufficient and addresses the necessary background to lead and ground the study. The methodology section is described adequately and provides enough sampling to reach a saturation point. Similarly, the Results and Discussion sections are well-written, clear and straightforward. Refer to the comments below for more details.

• Answer: Thank you for taking the time to read our article and providing your insights. We appreciate the feedback on the structure of the Introduction, and we reworked it following your kind advice. We also agree that the concept of the gamification handbook required more explanation, thus we gave that part more detail.

 

Section 1: The Introduction section becomes quite lengthy and clumsy. It would be easier to read if the introduction were split into a literature review from line 87 onwards (Section 2: Literature review/literature background).

• Answer: Thank you for the insight. We see your point about the length and complexity of the Introduction section. To enhance readability, we have split the Introduction in two, and the more massive literature reviewing part of it received a dividual section.

 

Proposed Section2: From here onwards the Literature review could be further split into subheadings on (2.1) Successes (line 144 more or less); and then (2.2) Challenges of Gamification; and lastly a focus on the application in Hungary specifically as section 2.3 (line 198 onwards).

• Answer: Agreed. We appreciate your suggestions considering the new Literature Review section. We have split it into corresponding subsections to enhance readability.

 

Refer to line 219 - It is unnecessary to repeat the definition.

• Agreed. The definition has been removed.

 

Section 5: The potential of a "gamification handbook" is reiterated in the manuscript and survey results, but not explored in some more practical detail. It could add value to shortly indicate what such a handbook could entail, how it could be utilised and on which levels of governance it could be implemented, just as a way to follow through on the identified need and provide some practicalities.

• Answer: We agree with the suggestion. We put less emphasis on the handbook in the revised text, however with rephrasing we suggest that this handbook could be a collection of adaptable best practices to provide a useful basis for the development of know-how. The key elements of a handbook are shortly mentioned in Discussion while its use is discussed in the Conclusions.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article explores the practical application of gamification in urban planning using Hungary as a case study. The research background is clearly described, and the discussion is relatively profound, offering certain theoretical and practical reference value. However, some areas could be improved to enhance the readability, scientific rigor, and depth of the study.

 

1. In the Materials and Methods section, the authors mentioned that the initial attempt to conduct an online questionnaire was unsuccessful. I believe it is necessary to explain the specific reasons for this failure.

 

2. Furthermore, the authors conducted seven in-depth interviews, but the small sample size raises concerns about the representativeness of the results. It is necessary to cite relevant literature to validate the effectiveness of this sample size (e.g., previous studies using similar sample counts).

 

3. Moreover, I believe it is necessary to include a table summarizing the demographic information of respondents, such as educational background, age, and job positions.

 

4. The article highlights, through interviews, the potential of gamification in enhancing civic participation. However, it lacks quantitative analysis of the actual effects. It is suggested that future research incorporate quantitative evaluations, such as surveys or experiments, to measure the real impact of gamification techniques on citizen engagement.

 

5. The conclusion summarizes the main findings of the study and offers suggestions for future research. However, it does not sufficiently emphasize the theoretical contributions and practical implications of the research. It is recommended to elaborate further on how the study contributes to urban planning theory and practice—for instance, by explaining how gamification can promote citizen engagement and transparency in public decision-making in the post-socialist context. This would enhance the depth and significance of the study.

 

6. Additionally, the article contains relatively few charts—only three in total. It is recommended to include more cases and tables. As a scientific paper, incorporating diverse visual elements could attract readers’ interest and improve readability. For instance, adding a research framework chart in the methodology section or introducing images of interview settings could be beneficial.

Author Response

The article explores the practical application of gamification in urban planning using Hungary as a case study. The research background is clearly described, and the discussion is relatively profound, offering certain theoretical and practical reference value. However, some areas could be improved to enhance the readability, scientific rigor, and depth of the study.

• Answer: Thank you for taking the time to read our article and providing your insights. We appreciate your feedback on the structure and clarity of the arguments presented.

 

In the Materials and Methods section, the authors mentioned that the initial attempt to conduct an online questionnaire was unsuccessful. I believe it is necessary to explain the specific reasons for this failure.

• Answer: Thank you for this insight. We have clarified the circumstances and reasons why our online questionnaire results were not usable.

Furthermore, the authors conducted seven in-depth interviews, but the small sample size raises concerns about the representativeness of the results. It is necessary to cite relevant literature to validate the effectiveness of this sample size (e.g., previous studies using similar sample counts).

• Answer: We followed your advice and supplemented the Materials and Methods section with the necessary evidence (i.e. cited sources) that validates the low sample size of the interviewees. However, we must emphasize that this is a new topic among Hungarian professionals. Therefore, there are merely a few people who have relevant information on the topic; on the other hand, they possess an overall knowledge of how the local municipalities work in general on the different settlement levels.

 

Moreover, I believe it is necessary to include a table summarizing the demographic information of respondents, such as educational background, age, and job positions.

• Answer: We have considered your suggestion and partially accepted it, thus providing a table with some information about the interviewees. However, we have not displayed demographic informations, such as educational background and age in order to protect the anonymity of interview partners. We believe that it should be considered that the scale of the size of a settlement is different between smaller and larger countries. Thus, in Hungary, even a major city’s local government size is not so large that the respondent cannot be identified based on such data, therefore depriving them of their anonymity.

 

The article highlights, through interviews, the potential of gamification in enhancing civic participation. However, it lacks quantitative analysis of the actual effects. It is suggested that future research incorporate quantitative evaluations, such as surveys or experiments, to measure the real impact of gamification techniques on citizen engagement.

• Thank you for the suggestion. Indeed, future research should conduct quantitative analysis. This aspects was out of the scope of the research, but in the next steps of our work we will pay attention to the benchmarking of gamified urban planning, since measuring the success of the initiatives is a crucial feedback when forming future policies and planning practices.

 

The conclusion summarizes the main findings of the study and offers suggestions for future research. However, it does not sufficiently emphasize the theoretical contributions and practical implications of the research. It is recommended to elaborate further on how the study contributes to urban planning theory and practice—for instance, by explaining how gamification can promote citizen engagement and transparency in public decision-making in the post-socialist context. This would enhance the depth and significance of the study.

• Thank you for the suggestion. We updated the conclusion with this aspect, highlighting the possible role of civil organizations and the importance of information exchange. The conclusion was expanded with the aspects raised by the reviewer – emphasizing the practical and theoretical contributions and highlighting how gamification can support public participation. We highlighted the potential of civic organizations bridging decision-makers and locals, thus building trust and cooperation. Furthermore, the need for the transfer of knowledge is also emphasized. Our theoretical contribution is that lack of trust in post-socialist societies is a crucial barrier using participatory techniques. At the same time, the lack of financial resources is motivation and obstacle at the same time for municipal participatory planning processes and gamification.

 

[x] Additionally, the article contains relatively few charts—only three in total. It is recommended to include more cases and tables. As a scientific paper, incorporating diverse visual elements could attract readers’ interest and improve readability. For instance, adding a research framework chart in the methodology section or introducing images of interview settings could be beneficial.

• Answer: We understood and accepted your concerns and complemented two new charts and a table; one chart displays the selection phase of the respondents; the other chart supports a statement along the quotes in the Results section; and the table contains some information about information about the interviewees. Also the general outline of the resarch is visualized in Fig. 2. We hope they improve the readability of our article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. We believe that the subject of the manuscript is novel and good, but it needs to be supplemented with a lot of theoretical considerations on gamification. Otherwise, the logic of the authors' use of the methodology may be weakened. It is important to understand how other fields interpret the subject and methodology.

2. The methods of citizen participation in other fields should be broadly explained. Among them, the manuscript should appeal why the in-depth interview is important. A detailed description of the interview outline and method is also required.

3. Please add a flow chart that can explain the overall progress and stages of the manuscript.

4. Figure 3 shows that the results of the study will be able to create positive results in the future, but the conclusion section needs to additionally describe how the manuscript and methodology can be utilized in policies and systems.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

1. We believe that the subject of the manuscript is novel and good, but it needs to be supplemented with a lot of theoretical considerations on gamification. Otherwise, the logic of the authors' use of the methodology may be weakened. It is important to understand how other fields interpret the subject and methodology.

Answer: Thank you for your time reading our article and your feedback on our work. We broadened the theoretical part of the article, as well as our methodology part to clarify the logic of the paper.

 

2. The methods of citizen participation in other fields should be broadly explained. Among them, the manuscript should appeal why the in-depth interview is important. A detailed description of the interview outline and method is also required.

Answer: Thank you for the feedback. We understand the suggestion; however, the scope of the article is primarily urban planning and focusing on other fields might dilute the theoretical part and distract the reader from the main object of the article. The methods section has been expanded, justifying the sample size, and the steps of the research are described with a new illustration. We also explained why the questionnaire survey was unsuccessful.

 

3. Please add a flow chart that can explain the overall progress and stages of the manuscript.

Thank you for the suggestion, we added a chart that shows the interviewing phase with the snowball sampling. Furthermore, the stages of the research are also presented in a separate figure.

 

4. Figure 3 shows that the results of the study will be able to create positive results in the future, but the conclusion section needs to additionally describe how the manuscript and methodology can be in policies and systems.

Answer: We agree with the suggestion and modified the Conclusion of the article. We highlighted the possibilities in the involvement of civil organizations and the benefits of guidebooks/handbooks that can help the transfer of knowledge. In the Discussion we mention the possible content of the guidelines, while in Conclusion we describe that national/regional actors should compile these toolkits, but local actors should be responsible for their adaptation since they are capable to tailor them to comply with local needs and conditions. Furthermore, the importance of face-to-face interactions is also emphasized.

 

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Answer: We have made language corrections and aimed to use more straightforward wording to present our results in a clearer way.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The theme of gamification is interesting and important as it may contribute to mitigate "...a substantial erosion of trust in public institutions".

The article has a good introduction but some major flaws.

The bigger one is to build a research just around 7 interviews. The mere opinion of seven people is not enough to come out with conclusions such as "...gamification is not an unusual concept among decision makers...", "...the attitudes towards gamification are positive" or "most of the municipalities are still in the early stages..."

Apart from more interviews and an enlarged outlook on collaborate planning and/or gamification in cities of different size, I recommend a clarification of the object. In fact gamification is at the centre of very sound theoretical chapter; however collaborative planning (and not gamification) is treated in pages 6-9 and in other parts.

Some more has also to be said about gamification in and after urban planning, as in p. 4 there are abundant mentions of cases of civic behavioral change and situations of citizen action that don't fall in the category of planning.

After a clearer definition of the object, I recommend a change of the tittle, and that the introduction is divided in a theoretical part (1.1) and another (1.2.) on the Hungarian context (line 173 onwards)

Please avoid:

- repetitions (as too much mentions to "guidelines" or a "handbook" in gamification);

- non evidence based sentences: "...we adopt methods that have been successful in Western countries) (l. 563/4) I don't think that is the case in the most Western of the European countries (Portugal and Spain), so some more has to be said.

- schemes that add confusion (fig 3): see for exemple the links established with "adoption challenges" (including "potential...) or a very strange one between "international issues of demotivation and distrust" and "gamification in major municipalities" (fig. 3);

- out of context references (lines 478-481).

I encourage the authors for a new submission, after reinforcing the methodological approach, clarifying the object and having a reflection on my suggestions.

Author Response

The theme of gamification is interesting and important as it may contribute to mitigate "...a substantial erosion of trust in public institutions". The article has a good introduction but some major flaws.

• [x] The bigger one is to build a research just around 7 interviews. The mere opinion of seven people is not enough to come out with conclusions such as "...gamification is not an unusual concept among decision makers...", "...the attitudes towards gamification are positive" or "most of the municipalities are still in the early stages..."
• Answer: We understand the concerns about the low sample size. We have complemented the Materials and Methods sections with statements supporting and explaining this unusual situation. As we have highlighted in the paper, gamification, and even participation are new phenomena in Hungarian urban planning practices. Therefore, merely a few people can provide useful information about the current state of the above-mentioned in the country. However, these people have an overall insight into the other municipalities on different settlement levels, due to the “purposive sampling” (Bekele & Ago 2022), i.e. approaching professionals who has comprehensive knowledge on the topic.

 

• [x] Apart from more interviews and an enlarged outlook on collaborate planning and/or gamification in cities of different size, I recommend a clarification of the object. In fact, gamification is at the centre of very sound theoretical chapter; however collaborative planning (and not gamification) is treated in pages 6-9 and in other parts.
• Answer: As per your suggestion, we have complemented the paper with a more in-depth part about collaborative planning. However, as we understood it, the center of the paper is participation and gamification. We believe that participation is the first step that is followed by collaborative planning. However, the current Hungarian state is away from it for now, considering that participatory practices are, for now, quite immature.
• [ ] Some more has also to be said about gamification in and after urban planning, as in p. 4 there are abundant mentions of cases of civic behavioral change and situations of citizen action that don't fall in the category of planning.
• Answer: We agree with the suggestion that the change of civic behavior is an important issue as a „benchmark” of actions. However, analyzing this topic was out of the scope of our research, thus we have not got enough evidence of such changes from the interviews. Future research should focus on this issue, as we highlight it in the updated Conclusions.
• [ ] After a clearer definition of the object, I recommend a change of the tittle, and that the introduction is divided in a theoretical part (1.1) and another (1.2.) on the Hungarian context (line 173 onwards)
• Accepted. Based on the suggestion we slightly modified the title by changing the order of words – since participatory planning is a broader category than gamification. The Introduction was restructured based on the reviewers’ suggestions.

 

Please avoid:

• repetitions (as too much mentions to "guidelines" or a "handbook" in gamification);
• Accepted. We mention less of these terms in the article and decreased the number of redundancies within the text.

 

• non evidence based sentences: "...we adopt methods that have been successful in Western countries) (l. 563/4) I don't think that is the case in the most Western of the European countries (Portugal and Spain), so some more has to be said.
• Accepted. We slightly rephrased this statement and added citation to support it.

 

schemes that add confusion (fig 3): see for exemple the links established with "adoption challenges" (including "potential...) or a very strange one between "international issues of demotivation and distrust" and "gamification in major municipalities" (fig. 3);

• Accepted. The figure has been modified to make it clearer. We indicated the direction of the connections thus making clearer the direction of the process and indicating the main conclusions deriving from it.

 

• out of context references (lines 478-481).
• Accepted. Thank you for pointing this out, indeed, the reference was out of context there. Since we consider the information useful to present the topic, we kept the reference, but it has been moved to an another part of the article where it is more appropriate.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Above all, the manuscript needs a mark on which part has been modified.

1. Need to add a flow chart to understand the overall flow. From a reviewer's point of view, it is not easy to understand the structure of the paper at a glance. If so, international readers are too.

2. The average interview time is described as 35 minutes, what is the minimum and maximum time?

3. It is judged that there are many various methods to study the subject in the research method, and it is necessary to provide evidence that the research methodology is suitable. The research methodology will have to be compared with other research methodologies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

English needs to be improved.

Answer: Accepted. Thank you for the insight; we improved the English of the article by double-checking typos, using more variable words, and clarifying parts by rephrasing them. All changes in the article were tracked, thus the new or modified parts are highlighted

 

1. Need to add a flow chart to understand the overall flow. From a reviewer's point of view, it is not easy to understand the structure of the paper at a glance. If so, international readers are too.

• Answer: Accepted. We added the flow chart to help the readers to better understand the overall flow of the paper. Also, the structure of the paper is presented at the end of the Introduction.

2. The average interview time is described as 35 minutes, what is the minimum and maximum time?

• Answer: Accepted. We included the minimum and the maximum time of the interviews.

3. It is judged that there are many various methods to study the subject in the research method, and it is necessary to provide evidence that the research methodology is suitable. The research methodology will have to be compared with other research methodologies.

                  Answer: Accepted. We presented what other research methodologies are used other researches. We also added justification to support our choice of method.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors consideration for the suggestions.

I believe the topic has potential for a better article, with more information and debate without relying so much in just some interviews in a few cities.

But the the article is sound and deserves to be published however Hungary participatory experience in planning doesn't look as the best case to bring international interest for gamification in participatory planning.

A third look at fig. 5 is recommended, however, as links in the scheme are not evident for the reader. Is there a sequence from "Need For Responsive Planning Processes and Effective Communication" to "Current Motivational Techniques Are Not Novel", for example? Or from "International Issues of Demotivation and Distrust" to "Gamification In Major Municipalities"? In general, most of the times, it does not seem to exist a cause and consequence effect or any other type of sequence for that matter. In the cases above, it may happen exactly the opposite, as it could be the non existence of novel motivational technics that show the need for more responsive planning processes and better communication. And why international issues of demotivation and distrust are related with gamification only in "major municipalities"?

Author Response

All changes in the article were tracked, thus the new or modified parts are highlighted.

I believe the topic has potential for a better article, with more information and debate without relying so much in just some interviews in a few cities.

• Answer: Accepted. We understand the concerns. In our study, we aimed to provide a thorough theoretical background and connected those findings with the results of the interviews. Furthermore, we conducted a media-analysis of participatory budgeting in Hungary to give additional information and to present the current state in a more nuanced way. The results of the media analysis support the findings of the in-depth interviews and provide new insights into the practice of participatory planning (e.g. some critiques towards the techniques).

 

But the article is sound and deserves to be published however Hungary participatory experience in planning doesn't look as the best case to bring international interest for gamification in participatory planning.

• Answer: Partly accepted. We understand the concern; however, we believe that the experiences of the Hungarian practices can be of use to countries that are at the same or lower level considering participation. Our study revealed possible paths and obstacles to participation and gamification as well, therefore it provides useful information. On the other hand, there are countries where the government is weak, and bottom-up civic organizations must perform state duties - for them, the results provided by the article can be practical. And above all that, there are countries with similar post-socialist structures as Hungary, there are countries where there has been a shift in politics, and there are countries with weak social cohesion. These countries are also at the beginning of citizen engagement and involvement practices, and the results of the article can be advantageous for them in pathfinding.

A third look at fig. 5 is recommended, however, as links in the scheme are not evident for the reader. Is there a sequence from "Need For Responsive Planning Processes and Effective Communication" to "Current Motivational Techniques Are Not Novel", for example? Or from "International Issues of Demotivation and Distrust" to "Gamification In Major Municipalities"? In general, most of the times, it does not seem to exist a cause and consequence effect or any other type of sequence for that matter. In the cases above, it may happen exactly the opposite, as it could be the non existence of novel motivational technics that show the need for more responsive planning processes and better communication. And why international issues of demotivation and distrust are related with gamification only in "major municipalities"?

• Answer: Accepted. We understand the concerns about the mentioned figure. We modified its structure to clarify its message. We believe that the links between the boxes are now clearer and provide a better overall picture of the findings of our study.