(Re)designing the Rules: Collaborative Planning and Institutional Innovation in Schoolyard Transformations in Madrid

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments are added in the PDF file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

Thank you very much for your thorough and constructive review, which has greatly helped us to improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and attention you dedicated to each aspect of the paper.

In response to your valuable feedback, we have made several key revisions: we improved the clarity and specificity of the title, ensured all abbreviations (such as IAD) are defined at first mention, and rewrote the abstract to more clearly present the research problem, methodology, and findings. We critically revised the literature review to better align it with the study’s objectives, integrated key references on collaborative planning, and justified the choice of the IAD framework. A new subsection (5.3) was added to discuss tensions between formal rules and informal dynamics. We addressed structural and formatting issues by eliminating redundancies, improving figure readability, and correcting appendix references. The demographic context of the case study was strengthened, and the scalability argument was refined to acknowledge its conditional nature. Finally, we substantially expanded the conclusion to present clear theoretical and practical contributions. Each comment is addressed in detail below:

Comment 1: Title and Abbreviations: The title of the paper needs to be revised for clarity and specificity. Additionally, all abbreviations must be defined in full at their first occurrence both in the abstract and the main text to ensure comprehension across diverse readerships. (e.g. IAD framework was first defined in Pg.2-line 74, though it is written as a keyword)

Response 1: We have revised it to improve both clarity and thematic specificity. The new title “(Re)designing the Rules: Collaborative Planning and Institutional Innovation in Schoolyard Transformations in Madrid,” explicitly reflects the core focus of the article: the analysis of institutional change through collaborative planning processes in the context of schoolyard interventions. This revised title retains the conceptual framing of redesigning the rules while clearly situating the study within the fields of urban governance, participatory planning, and climate adaptation.

 

Comment 2: Abstract Detailing: The abstract lacks sufficient detail regarding the paper's problem and conclusion. lt should succinctly encapsulate the study's primary outcomes.

Response 2: The new version explicitly defines the institutional and urban problem addressed—namely, the rigidity of planning rules and limited participation in schoolyard transformations. It clearly presents the methodological approach, highlighting the use of the IAD framework and a qualitative case study design. Most importantly, it includes detailed empirical results, including how collaborative planning reshaped rules-in-use, expanded actor networks, and transformed decision-making processes.

 

Comment 3: Literature Review : Portions of the literature review are overly elementary and do not advance the theoretical framework of the paper. These sections should be critically assessed and refined to focus on insights directly pertinent to the paper's objectives framework and not others. Justify your selection.

Response 3: we have critically revised Section 2 to better align the literature review with the objectives of the study. We replaced descriptive segments with a more analytical discussion of how the shift from top-down to collaborative urban planning entails institutional and procedural transformation. Foundational authors such as Healey (1997), Swyngedouw (2005), and Alexander (2005) have been integrated to frame the interplay between governance, design, and regulation.  In section 3 we justify the selection of the IAD framework for the case study, which is particularly well-suited to analyzing changes in “rules-in-use” within complex urban systems.

 

Comment 4: Deeper Application of IAD Framework: The IAD framework is applied effectively, but the analysis could be enriched by explicitly discussing tensions or contradictions within the "rules-in-use." For example, how were formal rules around procurement or maintenance reconciled with the more informal, co-produced dynamics of the project? Were there frictions between legal obligations and participatory processes? 

Response 4: We have added a new subsection (5.3: Tensions and contradictions in the rules-in-use) that explicitly addresses the frictions between formal rules—particularly around procurement and maintenance—and the more informal, co-produced dynamics generated through participatory processes. We discuss how collectively imagined solutions had to be translated into legally admissible specifications and how maintenance obligations created mismatches with adaptive interventions. These reflections highlight tensions between “rules-in-form” and “rules-in-use,” illustrating the evolving nature of institutional arrangements under experimental governance settings. We believe this addition strengthens the analytical depth of the paper and aligns closely with the core tenets of the IAD framework.

 

Comment 5: Paragraphs Repetition: The text is highly readable but occasionally repetitive (e.g., Section 2.2 the lines 153- 182 are all repeated in lines 183-214) ("IAD framework developed by Elinor Ostrom" is repeated several time). A tighter edit would improve conciseness without sacrificing depth

Response 5: The manuscript has been carefully revised to eliminate the identified redundancies, particularly the duplicated content in Section 2.2 . We have ensured a more concise and fluid narrative while preserving the conceptual depth and clarity of the argument.

 

Comment 6: Author mentioned in line 89 that "the case study connects with an emerging stream of experimental urbanism studies  where the shared production of knowledge" indicate some of these urbanism studies?

Response 6: We have included specific references to the experimental urbanism literature. Section 2.2 introduces key contributions regarding collaborative planning processes. These references situate the case study within broader academic debates on experimentation as a tool for institutional innovation.

 

Comment 7: Refinement of the "Scalability" Argument  : The article asserts that the methodology has the potential to be scaled or transferred, but the analysis remains context dependent. San Cristóbal's strong community fabric, municipal engagement, and external funding (via LIFE PACT) are unique enablers. In addition, and as mentioned in the conclusion line 710-719 that 2 case studies could restricts the generalizability of the findings (Conflict in idea).

Response 7: "We have refined the discussion and conclusions to explicitly address this issue. We now clarify that the scalability of the methodology is conditional, not automatic, and that its successful replication depends on the presence of three key enabling conditions: (1) a strong and active community fabric; (2) institutional legitimacy and administrative capacity to act across scales; and (3) dedicated financial resources to support collaborative planning facilitation.  Furthermore, in response to this and other reviewer comments, we have undertaken a rigorous review of the entire manuscript to identify and resolve potential internal inconsistencies. Additional clarifications have been incorporated regarding: the absence of formal regulatory reforms (Section 5.1), the role of children's perspectives within the IAD analysis (Section 4 and new Section 5.4), and the analytical incorporation of participatory evaluation despite not being a core component of the IAD framework (Section 4)."

 

Comment 8: Visual Clarity: Figures 5 is conceptually useful but need to improve readability (unreadable). In addition, all figures should be located near to their citation so it could be easily reflecting the idea.

Response 8: Figure 5 has been redesigned to improve its visual clarity by restructuring the layout in a vertical format, which enhances legibility and facilitates interpretation. Furthermore, all figures throughout the manuscript have been repositioned to appear as close as possible to their corresponding citations in the main text.

 

Comment 9: Appendix Citation and information: the numbering of some appendix inside the text are not right (e.g. line 390, [Appendix C: List of dissemination activities (videos)] This is D not C). In addition, some data from the appendix should be added to the text not as appendix)

Response 9: All appendix citations in the manuscript have been carefully reviewed and corrected to ensure accuracy—for example, the reference to the list of dissemination activities has been updated from “Appendix C” to “Appendix D” in line with the correct sequence.  Regarding the placement of information in the appendices, our intent was to maintain the analytical focus of the main text on the application of the IAD framework to the San Cristóbal case study. Detailed project documentation (e.g., dissemination materials, before-and-after images, or technical guidelines) was deliberately included in the appendices to prevent overloading the core narrative. This structure allows readers to follow the institutional analysis more clearly, while still providing access to comprehensive case-specific materials that may be consulted as needed."

 

Comment 10: Participants and Demographic Context: The authors emphasize the participatory and inclusive nature of the project, highlighting the involvement of over 600 people and 33 organizations. However, the manuscript largely treats participation as a success without examining how power was distributed or contested. Were certain voices marginalized or underrepresented (e.g., ethnic minorities, school support staff, parents with limited availability)? Or any actors resist the process, and if so, how were such tensions negotiated?  In addition, section 3.3 (Case Study) would be strengthened by including basic demographic and socioeconomic information about the student populations served by the two schools.

Response 10: In the revised version of Section 3.3, we have included a detailed demographic and socioeconomic profile of the San Cristóbal neighborhood to contextualize the schools’ vulnerabilities. We specify that 35.83% of the population is of foreign origin—mainly from Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Eastern Europe—and that the district records the lowest average net household income in the city. Additionally, the revised section acknowledges how the multistakeholder ecosystem helped mediate community dynamics and support the participation of vulnerable groups, thereby addressing potential exclusions related to availability, language, or social capital.

 

Comment 11: Result: AII the data mentioned in this part is derived as a discussion and comparison between the traditional approach and the experimental approach, so nothing is added because of the study. I believe this part could be Discussion and Section 5. Could be Results and Findings as it refers to the study outcomes and findings.

Response 11: We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful suggestion. While we understand that the analytical content presented in Section 4 may appear more discursive in nature, we have opted to retain the current structure in accordance with the editorial guidelines of the journal Land. The template provided by Land specifies that the Results section should offer a “concise and precise description of the experimental results.” In our study, this refers specifically to the application of the IAD framework to the case study. The journal’s guidance on the Discussion section encourages authors to interpret findings in light of existing literature and research hypotheses. Accordingly, Section 5 is structured around three broader institutional challenges derived from the case study.

To enhance clarity for the reader and to address the reviewer’s concern, we have revised the text of Section 5 to more clearly articulate the distinction between the empirical findings (Section 4) and their broader implications (Section 5)."

 

Comment 12: Conclusion: There is no way to draw the conclusions you have provided given the lack of analysis details. The first paragraphs are summarizing the study and the third and fourth are study limitation and future research. Need to develop this part.

Response 12: We have substantially revised the conclusion section to go beyond a summary and limitations. The new version articulates how the empirical findings enable robust conclusions regarding the transformation of institutional “rules-in-use” through collaborative planning. Drawing directly from the IAD framework, the revised conclusion explains how the intervention restructured decision-making processes, expanded actor roles, and enabled deliberative governance without requiring formal regulatory change. Furthermore, theoretical contributions, policy recommendations, and operational insights are presented in a clear and structured manner.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well-structured and presents an adequate level of referencing. However, there are some critical issues that need to be highlighted.

In general terms, the case studies—while of relatively limited impact—are not adequately discussed in substance. Emphasis is placed on the method and the process, but the results obtained are not clearly presented in operational terms. While highlighting methodological aspects ensures the replicability of the experiment, it remains unclear why particular emphasis is placed on these two specific cases.

The manuscript does not specify who was responsible for managing the process, nor does it provide a justification for this decision.

In my view, the presented experimentation gains significance insofar as its impacts have tangible effects on the settlement context. Perhaps the paper could focus more explicitly on the 'school environment' mentioned in the text.

The theme of proximity and the diffusion of activity hubs within neighborhoods is highly topical and widely discussed in the current scientific debate. It is recommended that this interpretative framework be further developed and its outcomes examined.

Intervening in the urban fabric—particularly within the so-called public city—requires public governance, which entails engaging with the existing planning system. This involves both regulatory frameworks and the transformative potential of the school, as well as of the broader context.

This also applies to the definition of rules for acquisition, implementation, management, and maintenance. The urban planning dimension is not addressed at all in the manuscript. It is recommended to integrate this aspect into the text in order to provide the argumentation with stronger and more substantiated foundations.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:

We are grateful for the detailed and constructive feedback, which has been essential in refining the clarity, analytical depth, and contextual grounding of the manuscript. The comments raised have led to substantial revisions in key sections, particularly 2 and 3.3, where we have integrated new content to better articulate the rationale for case selection, present tangible results, and clarify the governance structure behind the intervention. We have also expanded the conceptual discussion to include proximity-based planning frameworks and the integration of schoolyard transformation within broader urban planning systems and regulatory logics. These changes aim to strengthen the empirical grounding of the study while reinforcing its contribution to current academic debates on collaborative planning, institutional innovation, and climate adaptation in city. Below we respond point by point to each of the comments provided:

 

Comment 1: In general terms, the case studies—while of relatively limited impact—are not adequately discussed in substance. Emphasis is placed on the method and the process, but the results obtained are not clearly presented in operational terms. While highlighting methodological aspects ensures the replicability of the experiment, it remains unclear why particular emphasis is placed on these two specific cases.

Response 1: In the revised version, Section 3.3 clarifies that Sagunto and Navas de Tolosa Schools were selected due to their location in one of Madrid’s most vulnerable neighborhoods and their strategic role as everyday anchors for local families. This made them ideal sites for testing collaborative planning in real-world conditions. To better substantiate the results, we have added concrete data in the Results section. These cases also informed citywide policy, including updated technical guidelines and the municipal guide Patios Escolares + Naturales, reinforcing their strategic relevance beyond their immediate scope.

 

Comment 2: The manuscript does not specify who was responsible for managing the process, nor does it provide a justification for this decision.

Response 2: This comment has been fully addressed by detailing the distributed governance model behind the project in Section 3.3. This section explicitly details the distributed governance model of the project, outlining the roles of the main actors involved. The Department of Energy and Climate Change of Madrid City Council provided institutional leadership and funding; the participating schools mobilized their communities; local civil society organizations supported engagement with vulnerable groups; and itdUPM coordinated the methodology and facilitated the process. This structure ensured shared ownership and allowed for multi-scalar collaboration throughout the intervention. Figure 6 has been added to visually represent this actor ecosystem.

 

Comment 3: In my view, the presented experimentation gains significance insofar as its impacts have tangible effects on the settlement context. Perhaps the paper could focus more explicitly on the 'school environment' mentioned in the text.

Response 3: We appreciate this important observation. The revised version of Section 3.3 places greater emphasis on the tangible environmental and social impacts of the intervention within the school environment and its immediate urban context. The intervention involved more than 30,000 m², improving thermal comfort for stu-dents and reducing surface temperatures in schoolyards. Over 130 trees were planted, increasing local biodiversity and creating new shaded areas. The participatory process engaged more than 600 individuals on the social front, including students, teachers, families, municipal staff, and neighbourhood organisations. Finally, the lessons learned and the criteria developed for interventions in school environments were systematised and compiled in the "Patios Escolares + Naturales” Guide published by Madrid City Council, providing technical guidelines to support the potential replication of the model in other urban contexts of the city.

 

Comment 4: The theme of proximity and the diffusion of activity hubs within neighborhoods is highly topical and widely discussed in the current scientific debate. It is recommended that this interpretative framework be further developed and its outcomes examined.

Response 4: The revised text draws from the scientific literature on proximity-based planning [Healey, 1997; Jacobs, 1961] and the “15-minute city” model [Moreno, 2023] to position school environments as relational nodes that contribute to territorial equity, decentralised service provision, and socio-spatial cohesion. These ideas are further explored throughout the article and reinforced in the discussion and conclusions (Sections 5 and 6).

 

Comment 5: Intervening in the urban fabric—particularly within the so-called public city—requires public governance, which entails engaging with the existing planning system. This involves both regulatory frameworks and the transformative potential of the school, as well as of the broader context. This also applies to the definition of rules for acquisition, implementation, management, and maintenance. The urban planning dimension is not addressed at all in the manuscript. It is recommended to integrate this aspect into the text in order to provide the argumentation with stronger and more substantiated foundations.

Reponse 5: Section 2 has been revised to explicitly address the role of urban planning systems in shaping school environment interventions. The manuscript now discusses how the transformation of schoolyards engages with land-use rules, maintenance protocols, and institutional coordination mechanisms. References to Alexander (2005), Ultramari (2023), and others have been added to position the intervention within the broader planning debate. This framing reinforces the idea that collaborative schoolyard redesign is not only a design exercise but also a negotiation within formal planning systems, with implications for acquisition, implementation, and long-term governance.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores critical issues in urban planning and institutional innovation, employing the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework to examine how actor networks and participatory methods reshape institutional arrangements. The paper is well-structured, rich in figures and tables, and includes detailed case studies of processes. However, several aspects require revision.

1. The introduction explains the necessity of the IAD framework; however, it would be more effective to clearly state the research question before presenting the structure of the study.

2. In section 2.1, line 121, the first word "eth" is incomplete in spelling and should be corrected.

3. The content in lines 153–162 and lines 183–192 in section 2.2 appears to be repetitive. Please verify and revise accordingly.

4.  Although the IAD framework is utilized, the manuscript does not sufficiently explain how this research extends or challenges existing theories. The discussion section should elaborate on the theoretical contributions and the study’s unique aspects.

5. Despite focusing on school environments, the study does not adequately present children's perspectives. It is suggested that the discussion section emphasize children’s direct experiences and viewpoints as key stakeholders.

6. The conclusion offers general policy implications but lacks specific and actionable recommendations. The author is advised to propose clearer steps such as “establishing statutory procedures for cross-sector collaboration” or “setting up community oversight committees.”

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3:

Thank you very much for your careful and insightful review. Your comments have been extremely helpful in enhancing the precision, coherence, and impact of the manuscript. In response, we have introduced several targeted revisions to strengthen the article’s conceptual framing, theoretical contributions, and practical implications. Specifically, we clarified the research question in the introduction, corrected typographical and structural issues in Section 2, and refined the discussion of the IAD framework to better articulate the study’s theoretical contributions. We also incorporated children's perspectives more explicitly in the Results and Discussion sections, recognising their active role as design agents. Finally, we revised the conclusion to include clear and actionable policy recommend actions across governance levels. Each of your comments is addressed in detail below:

 

Comment 1: The introduction explains the necessity of the IAD framework; however, it would be more effective to clearly state the research question before presenting the structure of the study.

Response 1: In the revised version of the introduction, we have clearly stated the research question in a dedicated paragraph, placed before the outline of the article.

 

Comment 2: In section 2.1, line 121, the first word "eth" is incomplete in spelling and should be corrected.

Response 2: Thank you for identifying this typographical error. The incomplete word "eth" was indeed a fragment and has now been corrected to ensure clarity and consistency with the overall academic tone of the article.

 

Comment 3: The content in lines 153–162 and lines 183–192 in section 2.2 appears to be repetitive. Please verify and revise accordingly.

Response 3: The manuscript has been carefully revised to eliminate the identified redundancies, particularly the duplicated content in Section 2.2 . We have ensured a more concise and fluid narrative while preserving the conceptual depth and clarity of the argument.

 

Comment 4: Although the IAD framework is utilized, the manuscript does not sufficiently explain how this research extends or challenges existing theories. The discussion section should elaborate on the theoretical contributions and the study’s unique aspects.

Response 4: We have explicitly addressed the theoretical contribution of the research by clarifying how the case study extends the application of the IAD framework to the domain of collaborative urban planning. Specifically, the study shows how “action situations” can be reconfigured through situated practices and without formal institutional reforms, thus refining the understanding of how institutional change occurs in real-world governance systems. Furthermore, the manuscript highlights the intersection between IAD and collaborative planning theories, illustrating how participatory design not only affects spatial outcomes but also challenges technocratic power dynamics and redefines legitimacy in decision-making.

 

Comment 5: Despite focusing on school environments, the study does not adequately present children's perspectives. It is suggested that the discussion section emphasize children’s direct experiences and viewpoints as key stakeholders.

Response 5: Following this suggestion, we have made substantive additions in both the Results and Discussion sections to explicitly reflect children’s roles, experiences, and viewpoints throughout the collaborative planning process. In the Results, we clarify that students were formally recognised as design agents whose imaginaries informed the spatial and normative decisions of the intervention. In the Discussion, we further elaborate how their participation reshaped decision-making arenas and grounded abstract planning procedures in everyday school life.

 

Comment 6: The conclusion offers general policy implications but lacks specific and actionable recommendations. The author is advised to propose clearer steps such as “establishing statutory procedures for cross-sector collaboration” or “setting up community oversight committees.

Response 6: We fully agree with the reviewer and have revised all this section to include clear, actionable policy recommendations across governance levels. The text now proposes concrete steps such as: (i) embedding collaborative planning into municipal programs with dedicated co-production budgets; (ii) supporting national policy frameworks that incentivize participatory schoolyard transformation through funding and regulation; and (iii) leveraging supranational platforms (e.g., EU funding streams) to replicate and scale these approaches. These recommendations are formulated with a multilevel and multi-actor logic and directly informed by the lessons learned from the case study.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have completed a lot of updates. These go a long way in making the manuscript accepted.