Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

Your manuscript is really interesting in terms of topic and case studies. It would bring a lot of value to a PhD thesis, lecturing session or project presentation. But you entered it as a review and I neither found the methodology of any type of review nor the sound presentation of the referencing used, compared and contrasted as the rigour of this scientific journal asks for. I recommend you to follow strictly the authors guidelines and re-write it to match this journal or to send to another one, closer in topic to your manuscript.

Yours faithfully,   

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Assessment:  

This manuscript presents a timely and critical examination of the interplay between urban climate adaptation policies and socio-spatial justice. The focus on "climate gentrification" as a central challenge to achieving equitable sustainability is both relevant and necessary. The comparative case study approach (Little Haiti, Miami, and Green Corridors, Medellín) effectively illustrates contrasting models of urban regeneration. The manuscript is well-structured, argues its case convincingly, and aligns with the scope of Applied Sciences, particularly in its interdisciplinary approach to sustainable urban development. I recommend Major Revisions prior to publication, as detailed below.

1. Summary of the Research and Contributions

The paper argues that the current narrow focus on "climate neutrality" in urban policy risks exacerbating social inequalities, leading to a phenomenon termed "climate gentrification." Through a mixed-method approach involving documentary analysis and comparative case studies, the authors propose a framework for integrating climate justice into urban planning. The primary contribution lies in the systematic comparison of two divergent trajectories—a market-driven, exclusionary model (Little Haiti) and a publicly-led, inclusive model (Medellín)—using a set of five evaluative descriptors (Strategic Vision, Housing/Mobility, Environmental Benefits, Job Creation, Cultural Identity). This framework offers a practical tool for policymakers and planners to assess the social equity dimensions of climate adaptation projects.

2. Major Strengths

• The topic addresses a critical gap in the literature on sustainable cities, moving beyond technical solutions to foreground social justice.
• The concepts of "climate gentrification" and "integrated socio-environmental crisis" are well-defined and provide a solid theoretical foundation for the analysis.
• The selection of Little Haiti and Medellín provides a powerful, real-world contrast that vividly demonstrates the paper's core argument. The analysis of Medellín's Green Corridors project is particularly strong, backed by specific data (e.g., temperature reduction, job creation figures).
• The manuscript successfully bridges urban planning, environmental science, social policy, and governance studies, making it a valuable contribution to applied sciences.

3. Points for Improvement and Revision

3.1. Methodology Section

• While the criteria of "thematic relevance" and "geographical variety" are mentioned, the rationale for specifically choosing these two cases from a wider pool of potential examples should be more explicitly justified. A brief statement on why these cases are considered paradigmatic would strengthen the methodology.
• The description of the case study analysis ("examination of official reports, project documents, media articles, and academic research") is somewhat generic. Please specify the number and types of documents analyzed for each case (e.g., 10 peer-reviewed articles, 5 policy reports, 3 major media analyses) to enhance the reproducibility and rigor of the research.

3.2. Comparative Analysis

• The comparison tables (Tables 2 and 3) are useful but could be more analytically rigorous. For each descriptor, consider adding a brief explanation of how the specific policies or lack thereof in each case led to the observed outcome. For instance, under "Strategic vision and governance" for Little Haiti, briefly mention the absence of inclusionary zoning or community benefit agreements.
• The analysis of Little Haiti relies heavily on qualitative evidence and descriptive observations. Whenever possible, incorporate quantitative data to strengthen the argument, such as statistics on rising property values, displacement rates, or demographic changes in the neighborhood pre- and post-intervention. If such data is unavailable, explicitly state this as a limitation.

3.3. Discussion and Conclusion

• The manuscript would benefit from a dedicated paragraph discussing the limitations of the research. Key limitations include the inherent differences in the national and municipal governance contexts of the USA and Colombia, which may affect the transferability of findings. Additionally, the reliance on secondary data (as opposed to primary data like interviews with residents) limits the "bottom-up" perspective, as the authors themselves note in the "Future Developments" section. This should be formally acknowledged as a limitation.
• The suggestions for future research are excellent but could be more focused. Propose 2-3 specific, testable hypotheses or research questions that emerge directly from this study. For example: "To what extent can participatory budgeting mechanisms mitigate climate gentrification in European cities?" or "How do co-design processes in green infrastructure projects impact long-term community ownership and resilience?"

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper focuses on core issues in urban planning beyond climate neutrality. Through a mixed-methods approach, it conducts a comparative analysis of two case studies—Little Haiti in Miami and the Green Corridors in Medellín—offering an in-depth exploration of climate justice, social inclusion, and pathways to prevent climate gentrification. The topic holds both theoretical value and practical significance. The research framework is clear, the case studies are representative and well-contrasted, and the argumentation is logically coherent, providing important insights into the synergistic advancement of ecological transition and social equity in urban regeneration. However, there remains room for improvement in certain dimensions.

Some revision suggestions I provided are as follows:

1. Supplement the analysis of case study adaptability: Miami and Medellín differ significantly in political systems, economic models, and social structures. It is recommended to add a dedicated section or paragraph explaining the criteria for case selection, as well as the commonalities and specificities in the formation mechanisms and governance pathways of climate gentrification under different contexts. This will enhance the universal explanatory power of the research conclusions.

2. Refine the operationalization process of evaluation indicators: Although the five evaluation dimensions proposed in the paper (e.g., strategic vision and governance) align with the research objectives, the specific measurement criteria and data sources for each indicator are not clearly defined. It is recommended to supplement the operationalization of indicators, such as how "housing accessibility" is quantified and what specific data supports the "distribution of environmental benefits," to improve the rigor and replicability of the study.

3. Strengthen the targeted discussion of the Rome case: The conclusion of the paper mentions the reference value of the research for the Pietralata community in Rome, but the related discussion is relatively brief. It is recommended to combine the specific characteristics of the community (e.g., urban fabric, development challenges, policy environment) to elaborate on the application scenarios and adjustment strategies of the five evaluation dimensions, making the practical translation path of the research findings clearer.

4. Deepen the discussion of research limitations and future prospects: The current conclusion section provides a somewhat general description of the study's limitations. It is recommended to specify the shortcomings of the mixed-methods approach in case comparisons (e.g., limitations in data acquisition, lack of a temporal dimension) and, based on these limitations, propose more targeted future research directions, such as conducting longitudinal follow-up studies or expanding the geographical coverage of case studies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article submitted to the journal fits into the line of research that may contribute to the development of guidelines for spatial planning, taking into account the needs of climate justice and equitable adaptation to climate change. I consider the socially important and topical subject matter of the article to be an undeniable strength. Moreover, the spatial planning issues outlined in the research are likely to increase along with the growing climate risk.

I consider the strong point of the article and a valuable achievement to be the attempt to define preliminary guidelines for environmentally and socio-economically sustainable urban revitalization interventions that can prevent the phenomenon of climate gentrification. These guidelines can contribute to both theoretical knowledge development and practical significance. Another unquestionable achievement is the attempt to use five indicators to assess the degree to which climate and social justice goals have been achieved. An additional aspect of the research, not included in this study, could be considering the impact of European concepts and policies on third countries. I find the approach taken to achieve the research objective through the description of two case studies very interesting.

For me, the weak point of the article is the theoretical part, contained in chapters 1 and 3. I suggest, as I have justified in the later part of the review, combining and shortening chapters 1 and 3; however, some of its elements require supplementation or further development. The main shortcoming is the lack of a clear definition of the concepts used by the Authors: a public city; climate gentrification and spatial justice; the most vulnerable groups. In my opinion, at the very beginning, there should be an explanation of the key concepts necessary to understand the work, such as climate justice and social justice.

Thus, there is a lack of distinction between gentrification and climate gentrification, as well as the concepts of climate justice and equitable adaptation to climate change. In my opinion, not only is there a lack of reference to the concept of equitable adaptation, it is also worth adding the identification of groups vulnerable to climate change.

However, there is no reason or justification for including information about a research project carried out by the Authors in Italy at the outset – in my opinion, this information is irrelevant from the perspective of the international context of the article. 

The theoretical justification of this research is contained in the concept of urban revitalization formulated by the European Union, and it has also been described by the Authors with reference to documents shaped from a European perspective and influencing European urban policy. In this context, quite unexpectedly, the Authors chose areas outside the EU as case studies, namely Miami in the USA and Medellin in Colombia.

I believe that a certain weakness of the study is the predetermined assumption about which example is better and which is worse (lines 78-80), as the Authors preemptively assess the quality of actions in the areas selected for the study. I apologize for perhaps too harsh an assessment, but such an approach carries the risk of selecting cases based on a preconceived thesis. I may be mistaken, but I consider the choice of the Miami case to be inappropriate. What "green solutions" or "climate infrastructures" (line 478) were implemented (or planned) there? I do not see evidence of a planned or carried out "ecological transformation" in Miami, nor is there any information on adaptive or mitigation measures included in the planned investment or in the concept of planning resilience to the effects of climate change for this investment. Were any adaptive measures planned in this project, such as, for example, green roofs or renewable energy sources? If there are any, please add this information to the case description. Not every investment conducted away from the coast is necessarily driven by a desire to avoid the impact of climate change.

I believe that the article needs major revisions before publication.

Detailed comments:

Line 77 - "two international case studies" – what was international about them? International partners, stakeholders, investors, participants in revitalization projects?

- I kindly ask you to divide the Methodology chapter into two subchapters, material and methods,

- Line 94 - please add, from which years the documents included in the "first phase of document analysis" came;

- In this section, please also include the concept of 'equitable adaptation' and the concept of vulnerable groups (to climate change); you may use the results of the latest city studies, e.g., from Central and Eastern Europe. 

- Please explain how European climate policy described in the introduction (Chapter 1) is connected to examples of climate gentrification in Colombia (Medellín case study) and the USA (Miami case study). 

- Please provide a more detailed explanation of Stage 2, 'Case Study Analysis,' regarding the selection of the two cases for research – how many and which cases that were analyzed in the introduction were rejected? 

- Chapter 1 (“1. New rules, tools, procedures, and operational references for a socially and eco-sustainable approach to urban regeneration”) is a shortened version of the document analysis presented in Chapter 3.

- lines 204-207: this statement relates to the issue of climate justice, which has a global context. However, the above-cited statements concerning climate migrants and climate gentrification (lines 190-202) refer, as the context shows, to internal processes ("These migrants typically move to urban centres"), which should not be confused with a lack of global climate justice. Please consider addressing the issue of equitable adaptation instead of climate justice, or change the context to international migration. In that case, however, climate gentrification would not have a point of reference. 

- lines 220-224: I do not know where these claims come from? Do they arise from the research of other authors not mentioned here? Are they the Authors' own reflections? If so, I do not see any indication of evidence to support them. In this form, they evoke the notion of a “wishful thinking”.

- All photos in the article come from external sources; as I understand it, the Authors either hold the copyright or have permission from the Authors to publish them, or such permission is not required.

- One of the photos (fig. 4) displays images of private individuals – permission from these individuals is required to share their likeness, or this photo should be removed;

- Please add maps or drawings showing the location of the research areas.

Example of Miami: 

– Is the development of investments away from the coast related to the abandonment of seaside apartments? Is the ongoing process truly ‘climate gentrification,’ or is it simply regular gentrification? What climate adaptation measures have been implemented in this neighborhood that caused property prices to rise and led to its climate gentrification? The new projects shown in Figures 7 and 8 do not reflect climate gentrification; in my opinion, they may be driven by investors seeking land cheaper than that on the waterfront. Their adaptations to the impacts of climate change and resilience to extreme weather conditions have not been demonstrated, although, perhaps, they were planned? Please complete the case description.

Medellin example:

– have the implemented blue-green solutions, which brought such remarkable climate benefits, caused a local rise in property prices? If so, do the previous residents of informal settlements in this district still live there? The case description lacks information about the absence or occurrence of climate gentrification following the implemented NbS.

- I don't understand why, at the end of the analysis, there was a reference to the Rome Technopole project? The description indicates that the analysis of the two selected cases was used to determine guidelines for the Rome Technopole project. Was that also the goal of the study? The project itself is not described in much detail; information about its content only appears in section 5.2.

- please consider revising the statements contained in lines 363–368.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

The changes you performed due to reviewing definitely improved the manuscript. In my view, you need to remove lines 122-123  as information provided seems not to have any connection before and after. 

Yours faithfully,

Author Response

Done

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Author Response

Thank you

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors addressed all my comments and made the necessary corrections. In my opinion, the article in its current form can be accepted for publication in the journal.

Author Response

Thank you