Towards a Fluid Planning Approach in Germany: An Option for Social Fragmentation?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I want to thank the authors for putting forward the idea of a research paper on the subject matter of social fragmentation in urban contexts shaped by migration. I have read the draft with great attention and interest. The idea of fluid planning as a response to social fragmentation is promising and has the potential for academic and practical impact.  Using a case study (Keupstrasse in Köln) adds specificity and situates the discussion in a real-world context. The integration of Jean Hillier’s post-structural, multi-planar planning theory offers a foundation for innovative approaches. The methodology (a qualitative approach) is sufficiently detailed, with a clear presentation of how the data was collected and analyzed.

 

Some considerations:

-  The Introduction and literature review come across as biased toward varied negative experiences of migrant communities within cities. What about the protection and social services cities offer to migrants? Also, it is unclear what these observations refer to – which cities, where, and at which period in time?   

-       The abstract and introduction lack a clear research question or hypothesis. The term “fluid planning” is central – I would suggest adding here a precise definition (which currently appears through Torill Nyseth's categorization of its four forms).

-       It would benefit from an explanation of how fluid planning differs from existing participatory or adaptive planning approaches.

-       The literature review features a minimal discussion of existing frameworks or theories addressing social fragmentation and integration in urban spaces.

-       The conclusion does not provide concrete, actionable insights or practical steps for urban planners.

 

Overall, I would suggest increasing critical engagement with alternative approaches to urban planning. Some claims lack sufficient evidence. The assertion that fluid planning caters to social integration – however intuitively plausible – requires more robust support.

 

In my view, the draft could be improved by:

-  Clearly situating the concept of fluid planning within the broader academic discourse.

- Providing a robust analysis of how this approach builds on or diverges from existing planning paradigms.

- Offering specific, evidence-based recommendations and tools for urban planners to implement fluid planning.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and review points,

Please see the attachment in addition to the manuscript in track changes, where all points are modified in accordance with your review report,

Many thanks again and all our best,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors  

I have enjoyed reading this article; it is very well presented and serialised. Its rationale is easy to follow. However, I have some reservations about the leap to the concept of Fluid Planning, which seems somewhat daring considering it is primarily based on a single case study. I will suggest some minor revisions, but these could become major depending on the strategy the authors choose to take. It is important to clarify that, in my opinion, the article should be published, but with some adjustments.

Firstly, I believe the title could be less categorical. For example, "Contribution towards the conceptualisation of fluid planning" or "Towards a fluid planning approach" would be more appropriate. This is because case studies do not necessarily establish general theories, although they certainly contribute to the wider discussion.

Secondly, the methodology would benefit from explicitly situating this research as a case study. It would be helpful, for instance, to see the authors draw on grounded theory to develop the operational framework of fluid planning that they then seek to advance.

Finally, I suggest adding an operationalisation table to complement Figure 20 (the number of figures is perhaps excessive). This table could be easily transformed into a policy brief for decision-makers, which would lend a sense of practical application to the study's findings. It is crucial to acknowledge throughout that these findings emerge from a single case study in Cologne, and therefore the paper's conclusions should be appropriately qualified.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and review points,

Please see the attachment in addition to the manuscript in track changes, where all points are modified in accordance with your review report,

Many thanks again and all our best,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

urbansci-3353759-peer-review-v1 report

 

1-    show the page number about “Cities as such, can neither be comprehensively understood nor planned for, because of their chaotic nature [2]”, I donot think the author clearly understand that meaningfulness.

2-    show the page number about “The complexity cannot be strictly defined; it can only be situated in between order and disorder [3]”, I donot think the author clearly understand that meaningfulness.

3-    It is not a normal logic in academic to say “Therefore, it is essential to prepare for a wide range of uncertainties and potential scenarios to develop effective urban planning strategies in cities.” Because the different concepts tend to make the limitation to catch the uncertainties in planning perspective. The authors’ logic is very different from the mainstream understanding. Instead, for developing the urban planning to make clearly understand and control to narrow down those projected uncertainties. Or, to make clearly understand different concepts with co-effect and cont.-effect each other. Thus, I still think the authors may read deeper relevant articles to clearly state their research purposes.

4-    Line 83, about “social fragmentation” also in many theories to be stated about its reasons and leading issues. But it is very debatable that “modern” is the typical argument with comparisons to the ancient history. This abstractive concept may overstress an idiosyncratic perspective to lower the consensus for international readers. While, it is still possible to match the understanding of case study area.

5-    Try to change the title to be “Fluid Planning in the digital era” that will match the theme of this article from a technical perspective.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and review points,

Please see the attachment in addition to the manuscript in track changes, where all points are modified in accordance with your review report,

Many thanks again and all our best,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

urbansci-3353759-peer-review-v2 report

The title should add the "in Germany", it is typically fitted for this research area with the country characteristics.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your review points in this second round review!

Please receive our responses and modifications in the uploaded response to reviewer's report along with the updated versions of the manuscript both in track changes and as accepted changes.

Thanks again and all our best regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx