The Impact of Gentrification Phenomena in Thailand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper aims at contributing to the debate on gentrification, by developing a study in Thailand. The topic is relevant, although the paper does not really seem to contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field.

The abstract is not easily readable and the language is lacking. It does not adequately describe the objectives of the paper.

The structure of the paper does not fit the academic requirements: the introduction needs to clearly state the aims of the paper and describe the structure of the paper.

The literature review on gentrification appears inadequate, considering the relevance of the scientific production on the subject and is not critically presented and related to the development of the study.

In the focus on Thailand, it is unclear what approach was adopted, what sources were selected and on what basis the summarised studies were selected and for what purpose. The methodology and the development of the case study should be explained in more detail.

   

The paper declares the aim to provide three contributions to advance the debate on gentrification by examining existing literature on the topic, discussing case studies on gentrification in Thailand, and finally designing guidelines for managing the phenomenon.

 

Although the topic of gentrification could be relevant, the paper needs to be updated in order to meet the aims in terms of adequate literature review, robust methodology and research outlines. 

 

Major issues are:

 

The abstract is not easily readable and the language is lacking. It needs to be reorganized to adequately describe the objectives of the paper.

 

The introduction does not set the context for the study nor adequately present the aims of the paper and the way the paper addresses the gentrification critics. I suggest starting by introducing the perspective chosen to deal with the well-known and broad concept of gentrification, the aims of the study, the specificity of the phenomenon in Thailand and the reason why this topic is relevant in the area. The first paragraph usually includes the description of the structure of the paper.

 

Paragraph 2 on materials and methods needs to be expanded in order to describe the methodology. It is not clear if the research includes empirical evidence too or it is exclusively based on secondary data from literature. The latter means that the literature review needs to be developed extensively and the criteria for selecting and discussing the papers needs to be adequately designed and applied. I suggest updating paragraph 2 clarifying the research protocol, the steps of the study and the critical perspective of the literature review.

 

Paragraph 3 aims at introducing the concept of gentrification by reporting a few definitions. This literature review on gentrification needs to be improved in quantitative and qualitative terms. It does not include all the relevant papers in the field and does not clarify the critical perspective of the study. Is difficult to suggest references from the huge scientific production in the field, because it is not clear the aim of this overview of the concept. I encourage you to critically present the contents of the literature review and relate them with the aims of the study. I suggest substituting the simple list of definitions in pp. 2 and 3 with the narrative of the main research question explored within the literature.

 

Paragraph 4 introduces the focus on Thailand, it is unclear what approach was adopted, what sources were selected and on what basis the summarised studies were selected and for what purpose. At the beginning of the paragraph an introduction of the criteria for selecting the 4 studies is needed and a critical comment at the end of the paragraph would be appropriate to let the reader understand the purpose of the selection and the results achieved.

 

The purposes of paragraph 5 are indefinite. Maybe it could be moved in the conclusion to introduce the outcomes of the study.

 

At the opening of paragraph 6 dedicated to the conclusion, sentences such as “The societal issue of gentrification is complicated and has both advantages and disadvantages” are generic and colloquial. Please do not downgrade the momentum of issues related to gentrification such as expulsion of locals from the area, loss of tangible and intangible cultural heritage, social inequalities, environmental vulnerability and land consumption, and so forth.

 

The abstract promised a set of “guidelines for sustainable development under the gentrification phenomenon”. The paper does not present the results of this very ambitious objective. The relevance of the topic asks for a robust and sound investigation. I suggest narrowing down the targets and focusing on the critical issues of gentrification in Thailand, identifying factors to be exploited to counteract the negative impacts of the process.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

needs to be improved

Author Response

Thank you for your invaluable suggestions in improving our manuscript. We have made the revisions based on your recommendations. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses the impact of gentrification phenomena in Thailand.

I find the topic very interesting. However, in my opinion, some weaknesses could be addressed.

·       In the Introduction section, please highlight the gap in the existing knowledge the paper covers.

·       You could critically discuss the terms of gentrification, similarities and differences, what dimensions of sustainability they included, etc., instead of simply quoting.

·       Your critical discussion could integrate all the dimensions of sustainability. For instance, there is no reference to the environmental impact of gentrification phenomena.

·       Enumerate and present clearly the conclusions in a separate section.

 

·       What are your recommendations for policymakers, urban planners, etc., according to your results and analysis?  

Author Response

Thank you for your invaluable suggestions in improving our manuscript. We have made the revisions based on your recommendations. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “The Impact of Gentrification Phenomena in Thailand” is very interesting, by showing the social effects and the cultural, economic and physical impacts of gentrification, that represents the result of urbanization in order to define and organize more livable spatial spaces in cities. The analysis of gentrification in four study cases in Thailand have highlighted some positive and negative impacts that urban development or renewal policies should pay attention. The manuscript should be considered more similar to a review paper, instead of an article one, because the author makes a very in deep analysis, but does not show his application of the research findings to a new case study.

Moreover, some changes and suggestions are here listed:

·       Some sentences must be reorganized because their meaning is not very clear or seem to be incomplete. It is suggested also to make a check of the punctuation marks;

·       Table 1 is not recalled in the text. In addition, it is suggested to add a new column in the Table after the “authors” column. The new column should contain the study cases in terms of specific area and district.

·       It is suggested to delete all the “etc.” in order to show a more accurate analysis and summary.

The opinion of this reviewer is that the manuscript is well written, but it should be published as a review paper.

Author Response

Thank you for your invaluable suggestions in improving our manuscript. We have made the revisions based on your recommendations. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors implemented some of the recommendations.

However, the paper still needs major revisions.

The abstract needs to be rephrased as it is unclear and some sentences are controversial.

A few paragraph are well written, others are confused and the sentences are unclear.

The 27 references are not sufficient to support a literature review paper on the widely discussed topic of gentrification.

Please confront the comments in the attached paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some paragraphs are well written and readable, others are unclear and written in a completely different style.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors improved the manuscript satisfactorily.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript, now, is clearer and more understandable than the first version. The authors accepted my suggestions and modified the manuscript according to them. 

Make attention: there are two captions of Table 1, so the second one must be deleted.

 

Author Response

Suggestion: Make attention: there are two captions of Table 1, so the second one must be deleted.

Response: The author has already verified that there is only one caption of Table 1 in the article. Thank you very much for your suggestion.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been improved.

It can be considered for publication.

I suggest to be less assertive in some definitions that can be controversial. 

The sentence in the abstract "Gentrification can have positive impacts, such as the revitalisation of a neighbourhood s blighted places, enhancements to infrastructure and public safety, and the establishment of new businesses and jobs." need to be rephrased as the gentrification is considered in literature as result of rehabilitation projects instead of driver of such initiatives.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English has been improved

Author Response

Suggestion 1: 

I suggest to be less assertive in some definitions that can be controversial. 

The sentence in the abstract "Gentrification can have positive impacts, such as the revitalisation of a neighbourhood s blighted places, enhancements to infrastructure and public safety, and the establishment of new businesses and jobs." need to be rephrased as the gentrification is considered in literature as result of rehabilitation projects instead of driver of such initiatives.

Correction 1:

Thank you very much again for your suggestion. The authors revised the abstract as suggested. Please see the abstract.

 

Suggestion 2.

The quality of English has been improved.

Correction 2.

The authors had the manuscript English language edited by the language expert from MDPI AuthorServices, as certify by the certificate number english-73654.