“Build It and They Will Stay”: Assessing the Social Impact of Self-Build Practices in Urban Regeneration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reviews the effect of self-constructed buildings on urban regeneration (UR), and conducts the detailed study of the level of social, restorative and dynamic behaviours in the community in three different locations before and after intervention and conducts a detailed study from the level of community participation and physical transformation.

1. Research Contribution and Originality

In this paper the use of the self designed buildings in the process of urban renovation by the method of observing the behavioral, and to analyze the social effect of the construction, it can prove the application of the design of the built buildings. According to the results , the appropriate design of architecture such as the movable seating , and also the shade, is not only the use of the people's attention by women , but also has a very important effect to the public environment, so that it is more and more attractiveness and inclusiveness, in addition to being aesthetics.

The behavioral observation method used in the study combines quantitative and qualitative analysis, which is somewhat innovative in evaluating urban regeneration projects.

2.Research design and methods

The study collected data through multi-dimensional matrices and behavior mapping, ensuring the comprehensiveness and meticulousness of the data.However, the sample size and time span were insufficient:although the study was observed at three different sites, the sample size at each site was relatively small and the observation time was short (only 20 minutes).It is recommended to increase the time span and frequency of observations in future studies to obtain more stable results.Site B, as a control group, did not elaborate on how to control for other factors that may influence behavior (e.g., weather, seasonal changes, etc.).It is recommended that these external variables be more tightly controlled in follow-up studies to ensure the accuracy of the results.

3.Analysis of the data and display the results

The data analysis part results are obvious, although the depth of the interpretation of the results needs to be increased. Although the conclusions of the study show some major changes, the reasons for them have not been further studied. Why do some behaviors such as reading and studying decline? Does this have anything to do with designing interventions? The study indicated that the use of women has increased, and the particular approaches of gender equality design might be further investigated.

4.Study limitations

There is very little sample size in the current study; there is little time for observation, and there is a very particular research background. It is advised to increase the sample size and repeat the experiment in several related contexts in subsequent research in order to confirm the extensiveness of the current study results. It is possible to combine behavioral observations with other data gathering techniques, such questionnaires or interviews.

The overall purpose of the paper is to give urban regeneration a good situation by illustrating the possibility of self-built practices in terms of improving social interaction and the use of public space. While there are some shortcomings to the paper, the methods of the research and the conclusions of the investigation of this one are creative and useful.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall grammar of the article is accurate, and the sentence structure is clear. Some sentences appear lengthy and complex, and it is advisable to simplify them to improve readability.Pay attention to the consistency of tenses. 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Answer: Thank you for your consideration and for providing us with the opportunity to submit a revised version of our paper. We would also like to express our gratitude to the reviewers for their valuable observations and recommendations.

In this revised submission, we have made several changes to address all the comments. The updated manuscript reflects these modifications.

Below, we respond to specific comments made by the reviewers and highlight the corresponding changes in the new version of the manuscript.

Comments and suggestions for authors

This paper reviews the effect of self-constructed buildings on urban regeneration (UR) and conducts the detailed study of the level of social, restorative and dynamic behaviours in the community in three different locations before and after intervention and conducts a detailed study from the level of community participation and physical transformation.

1. Research Contribution and Originality

In this paper the use of the self-designed buildings in the process of urban renovation by the method of observing the behavioral, and to analyze the social effect of the construction, it can prove the application of the design of the built buildings. According to the results, the appropriate design of architecture such as the movable seating, and also the shade, is not only the use of the people's attention by women, but also has a very important effect to the public environment, so that it is more and more attractiveness and inclusiveness, in addition to being aesthetics.

The behavioral observation method used in the study combines quantitative and qualitative analysis, which is somewhat innovative in evaluating urban regeneration projects.

Answer: We appreciate your thoughtful feedback and are glad that our explanation aligns with your observations.

2.Research design and methods

The study collected data through multi-dimensional matrices and behavior mapping, ensuring the comprehensiveness and meticulousness of the data. However, the sample size and time span were insufficient: although the study was observed at three different sites, the sample size at each site was relatively small and the observation time was short (only 20 minutes). It is recommended to increase the time span and frequency of observations in future studies to obtain more stable results. Site B, as a control group, did not elaborate on how to control for other factors that may influence behavior (e.g., weather, seasonal changes, etc.). It is recommended that these external variables be more tightly controlled in follow-up studies to ensure the accuracy of the results.

Answer: The reviewer is correct in their assessment. Thank you for the helpful suggestions. We have addressed all issues related to sample size and time span by integrating the following sentences:

“In future studies, increasing the duration and frequency of observations could provide more stable results and enhance the robustness of the findings.” p.19 [676-678]

“Future studies should aim to more tightly control these external variables (e.g., weather, seasonal changes) to ensure the accuracy of the results.” p.19 [686-687]

In relation to Site B, the reviewer is correct in their assessment. Specifically, we have addressed the issue in the following way:

“The study assesses the impact of a self-build interventions across three sites, referred to as A, B, and C. Sites A and C are undergoing significant transformations as part of the intervention, while Site B serves as a control area, with no planned intervention. Data collection is systematically conducted across all three sites to evaluate baseline conditions and monitor changes over time.” 4 [190-195]

 3.Analysis of the data and display the results

The data analysis part results are obvious, although the depth of the interpretation of the results needs to be increased. Although the conclusions of the study show some major changes, the reasons for them have not been further studied. Why do some behaviors such as reading and studying decline? Does this have anything to do with designing interventions? The study indicated that the use of women has increased, and the particular approaches of gender equality design might be further investigated.

Answer: We have refined the interpretation of the results and hope that these revisions effectively address your suggestions.

The behaviors of reading and studying have decreased in our case, and a possible explanation is provided in the text below. While there is no definitive answer regarding the cause of this decline, we have outlined several possible explanations, and we have chosen to propose one of them:

“Notably, there was a decrease in reading and studying activities post-intervention, though this decline was not statistically significant. This result was unexpected, as the self-build process was designed to enhance these activities by increasing seating options and shaded areas—key elements for outdoor study spaces [45]. In the context of our study, it is plausible that reading and studying activities were negatively impacted by the social interactions occurring nearby. As highlighted by previous research on the influence of background noise in open-plan study environments [55], the presence of conversations or social activities can generate noise that, although not always perceived as disturbing, may interfere with the level of concentration required for cognitive tasks such as reading and studying. The social interactions in the surrounding areas may have created a sound environment that distracted students, reducing their ability to focus on tasks requiring a high level of attention, such as reading and information processing. This effect aligns with findings from other studies, which have shown that background noise can impact performance, particularly in tasks involving memory and reasoning [55]. These dynamics warrant further investigation to better understand the factors influencing these activities and how to balance social and study-related needs in shared spaces.”. p. 18-19 [630-649].

 Furthermore, regarding the increase in women’s presence, there could be multiple explanations. However, we have chosen to present the perspective of gender architecture, as it seemed particularly relevant to the topic and aligned with current research interests. Below, we provide the detailed explanation:

“These results underscore the intervention’s potential to promote women’s participation. This outcome can be interpreted through the lens of gender architecture [54],a concept emphasizing  that design and spatial organization influence gender dynamics by fostering inclusivity and equitable access to public spaces [50,51]. By incorporating gender-sensitive design principles, spaces can be made safer, more accessible, and welcoming for women, addressing traditional architectural biases that often favor male-oriented uses [52]. The improvements at Site C can be attributed to design changes that created safer, more inclusive, and flexible environments. Features such as movable seating and open, visible spaces likely enhanced women’s comfort and sense of security, fostering a sense of belonging and encouraging greater social participation. These findings demonstrate how thoughtful design interventions can effectively promote gender inclusivity and support equitable use of public spaces.” p. 19 [654-666]

4.Study limitations

There is very little sample size in the current study; there is little time for observation, and there is a very particular research background. It is advised to increase the sample size and repeat the experiment in several related contexts in subsequent research in order to confirm the extensiveness of the current study results. It is possible to combine behavioral observations with other data gathering techniques, such questionnaires or interviews.

Answer: Thank you for the suggestions. In response, we have updated the paragraph on "Limitations and Possible Developments" by adding a few sentences on how future studies can be implemented, building on the limitations highlighted. Specifically, we have made the following revisions:

“Furthermore, increasing the sample size and replicating the experiment in multiple related contexts would help confirm the generalizability of the current study’s results. It would also be beneficial to combine behavioral observations with other data-gathering techniques, such as questionnaires or interviews, to enrich the findings and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics at play” p.20 [709-714]

The overall purpose of the paper is to give urban regeneration a good situation by illustrating the possibility of self-built practices in terms of improving social interaction and the use of public space. While there are some shortcomings to the paper, the methods of the research and the conclusions of the investigation of this one are creative and useful.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall grammar of the article is accurate, and the sentence structure is clear. Some sentences appear lengthy and complex, and it is advisable to simplify them to improve readability. Pay attention to the consistency of tenses.

Answer: We have made an effort to improve the readability, sentence length, and overall clarity of the paper. After careful proofreading, we have clarified several sentences to enhance the document’s clarity.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

An excellent introduction and literature review that takes the very effectively sets up the article. Full use of appropriate references to frame and justify the methodology.

Section 2: It's not clear to me what the nature of the interventions in the spaces where - that's pretty crucial information!

the phrase "Although Site B was replaced during the design phase, it was maintained in the analysis as a control space." A control makes sense, but not clear what is meant by 'replaced'- there is some process that is not explained here. Was there a different site B originally? Was there no intervention (implied by being a control)?

Through out Section 2.3 and 3 in general - a citation is reported as an error - I am assuming it's the same one each time.

Is Site B a control or not - the results and discussion are ambiguous.

Section 2.1. I would like to see more explanation and justification of why the three sites were chosen and what the criteria the researchers were using to select them.

Discussion cover the points I would anticipate, and the conclusion flows well from the study as reported.

Section 2.2: The explanation of the question is sound, but lacks citation. For example "People often stay longer in places that are perceived to have better qualities and offer more opportunities for enjoyment" - this needs a citation. Also was there a reason for the specific time scales in which you carried out observations?

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Answer: Thank you for your consideration and for offering us the opportunity to submit a revised version of our paper. We wish to thank the reviewers for their valuable observations and recommendations.

We have revised and reorganised the paper in an attempt to address all the comments. In the new submission, we present the text with the changes already made.

Here, we wish to respond to specific comments by the reviewers, and to point at the relevant changes in the new version of the manuscript.

Comments and suggestions for authors

An excellent introduction and literature review that takes the very effectively sets up the article. Full use of appropriate references to frame and justify the methodology.

Section 2: It's not clear to me what the nature of the interventions in the spaces where - that's pretty crucial information!

Answer: Transformative urban regeneration interventions are defined by the realisation of architectural devices through self-building practices, with the capacity to enhance the liveability of open spaces. Structures that are underdetermined in functional terms enable individuals to project their desired usage onto them by fostering multiple forms of social interaction and relationships.

As illustrated above, the text has been integrated within p. 5 [198-205].

the phrase "Although Site B was replaced during the design phase, it was maintained in the analysis as a control space." A control makes sense, but not clear what is meant by 'replaced'- there is some process that is not explained here. Was there a different site B originally? Was there no intervention (implied by being a control)?

Answer: Thank you for pointing this out. Initially, a different site was considered for the control area; however, due to logistical challenges, we had to replace it with the current Site B mentioned in the article. To avoid potential confusion for the reader, we chose to omit the details about the initial site in the final text. We appreciate your observation and your understanding of this adjustment.

Through out Section 2.3 and 3 in general - a citation is reported as an error - I am assuming it's the same one each time.

Answer: The reviewer is correct. Thanks for the note;we solved the problem.

Is Site B a control or not - the results and discussion are ambiguous.

Answer: The discussion of the results has been improved to address potential ambiguities. Yes, Site B is a control area, and we have clarified this in the revised text to ensure a better understanding of its role in the study.

Section 2.1. I would like to see more explanation and justification of why the three sites were chosen and what the criteria the researchers were using to select them.

Answer: Thank you. We have accepted this suggestion. These important explanations were not included in the original paper, so we have now added them in the following way:

“All sites were selected based on two primary criteria. First, the technical feasibility of the interventions, taking into account spatial morphology and logistical considerations. Second, specific campus constraints, such as safety regulations and waste disposal protocols, which limited the range of viable options.” p. 5 [231-235]

Discussion cover the points I would anticipate, and the conclusion flows well from the study as reported.

Answer: Thank you for your positive feedback.

Section 2.2: The explanation of the question is sound, but lacks citation. For example "People often stay longer in places that are perceived to have better qualities and offer more opportunities for enjoyment" - this needs a citation. Also was there a reason for the specific time scales in which you carried out observations?

Answer:  We appreciate the suggestion provided. The reference to the cited text has now been added:

Gehl, J. Cities for People; Island Press: Washington, DC, 2010.

The duration of twenty minutes for the observations was selected due to both practical constraints and methodological considerations. Specifically, we focused on strategic moments of the day or particular contexts that allowed us to capture a wide range of representative behaviors. While we acknowledge that a longer observation period could have yielded more comprehensive results, we believe that the approach taken was sufficient to provide an initial overview of space usage.

 

Furthermore, our primary objective was to develop a pilot methodology that could be replicated and expanded in future studies, with a more in-depth focus on a larger temporal sample. This decision aligns with the exploratory nature of the study, which aimed at identifying initial trends rather than exhaustively analyzing all variables of the observed phenomenon. We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to extend the duration and frequency of observations in future research, as this would certainly enhance the robustness of the results.