Developing Social Simulations to Aid Scenario-Based Planning for Urban Regeneration Projects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper explores the use of social simulation tools to assist scenario planning for urban regeneration projects. Overall, the topic of the paper is of significant importance, especially in the context of increasing emphasis on urban sustainability and social participation. However, before further consideration for publication, the following suggestions and comments need careful attention:
The Introduction section presents the background, research content, and significance of the topic, but there are several issues:
a. Although it mentions that "human activities affect urban ecological impacts," specific cases or data support are lacking, which reduces persuasiveness.
b. The introduction does not clearly state which theoretical frameworks will be used to support the arguments in the article, resulting in a lack of focus on the topic.
c. There is a lack of a literature review section. What research has been done on this topic? What issues exist in current research? How do these issues lead to the considerations in this paper? These questions have not been clearly articulated.
d. The author mentions "psychological biases," but the discussion is too simplistic, lacking a deep analysis of their influence on user behavior and failing to adequately reveal the support of existing research and literature.
The section on Designing Regenerative Precincts mainly has the following issues:
a. The logic between paragraphs is unclear; what is the relationship between the lengthy research design and its components? Please clearly delineate different themes and research methods. It is recommended to increase the coherence of the writing.
b. Concepts such as "regeneration" and "circular economy" are mentioned, but the definitions of these concepts are not clear. How are these conceptual elements used in the design? Please elaborate to enhance the author's understanding.
c. The article mentions many concepts and strategies, but there are no specific cases or practices provided, lacking supporting content for the arguments.
d. The author mentions the substitution of buildings and materials, but how are the environmental impacts of different alternatives assessed? What impacts might result?
In the Research Method section, there are significant formatting issues. Please revise according to the journal's publication requirements.
The research methods section contains lengthy textual descriptions of concepts; please use concise language to clearly describe the research methods, quantitative models, etc.
The Results section discusses the conclusions drawn from the modeling data by the author, indicating what phenomena are evidenced by these data results. There is no need to spend excessive space explaining formulas.
In the Discussion and Conclusion section, please explain the implications of the assumptions and limitations of the model. The author mentions insufficient attention to social dimensions but does not propose specific suggestions or methods for improving this point in the discussion. It is recommended to suggest how social impact factors can be better integrated into future research. The author mentioned modifications to the model based on user feedback but did not specify how to collect and apply this feedback. It is suggested to provide detailed mechanisms and steps for user feedback collection.
Author Response
Response to review 1 comments:
Comment 1: This paper explores the use of social simulation tools to assist scenario planning for urban regeneration projects. Overall, the topic of the paper is of significant importance, especially in the context of increasing emphasis on urban sustainability and social participation. However, before further consideration for publication, the following suggestions and comments need careful attention:
Response 1: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted file.
Comment 2: The Introduction section presents the background, research content, and significance of the topic, but there are several issues: a. Although it mentions that "human activities affect urban ecological impacts," specific cases or data support are lacking, which reduces persuasiveness.
Response 2: Specific cases such as the urban heat island effect, increased flooding due to impermeable surfaces, and biodiversity loss associated with urbanisation have been explicitly integrated into the introduction, supported by recent literature .
Comment 3: b. The introduction does not clearly state which theoretical frameworks will be used to support the arguments in the article, resulting in a lack of focus on the topic.
Response 3: The theoretical frameworks underpinning the development of the tool has been explained in the manuscript.
Comment 4: c. There is a lack of a literature review section. What research has been done on this topic? What issues exist in current research? How do these issues lead to the considerations in this paper? These questions have not been clearly articulated.
Response 4: A literature review section has been added, while addressing the specific points raised by the reviewer.
Comment 5: d. The author mentions "psychological biases," but the discussion is too simplistic, lacking a deep analysis of their influence on user behavior and failing to adequately reveal the support of existing research and literature.
Response 5: The reference to sentence referring to psychological biases has been deleted and so that the focus is on the behavioural aspects.
Comment 6: The section on Designing Regenerative Precincts mainly has the following issues: a. The logic between paragraphs is unclear; what is the relationship between the lengthy research design and its components? Please clearly delineate different themes and research methods. It is recommended to increase the coherence of the writing.
Response 6: This section aims to introduce the concept of urban regeneration and how it applies to university precincts. Research methods have not been mentioned in this section, rather it explains the importance and how urban regeneration has been applied in previous similar cases. The coherence of the writing has been improved.
Comment 7: b. Concepts such as "regeneration" and "circular economy" are mentioned, but the definitions of these concepts are not clear. How are these conceptual elements used in the design? Please elaborate to enhance the author's understanding.
Response 7: The definition of urban regeneration and circular economy have been added to the manuscript and further explanation on how circular economy principles have been included in the tool, in order to aid urban regeneration has also been mentioned.
Comment 8: c. The article mentions many concepts and strategies, but there are no specific cases or practices provided, lacking supporting content for the arguments.
Response 8: The strategies that were selected for analysis were based on previous research and readily available techniques that could be adopted within the project. Their applicability was analysed through the MCDA conducted.
Comment 9: d. The author mentions the substitution of buildings and materials, but how are the environmental impacts of different alternatives assessed? What impacts might result?
Response 9: The environmental impacts of the different alternatives are assesed based on carbon sequestration, energy saving, stormwater management, urban heat reduction, biodiversity and social health benefits. These are the different criteria that was used in the MCDA as explained in the previous response. The manuscript has been revised to explain this in more detail.
Comment 10: In the Research Method section, there are significant formatting issues. Please revise according to the journal's publication requirements.
Response 10: The entire manuscript has been revised and formatting improved.
Commet 11: The research methods section contains lengthy textual descriptions of concepts; please use concise language to clearly describe the research methods, quantitative models, etc.
Response 11: The methods section has been revised into a more concise section.
Comment 12: The Results section discusses the conclusions drawn from the modelling data by the author, indicating what phenomena are evidenced by these data results. There is no need to spend excessive space explaining formulas.
Response 12: The results section has been revised to reflect the important findings of the modelling and explanation of formulas have been excluded.
Comment 13: In the Discussion and Conclusion section, please explain the implications of the assumptions and limitations of the model.
Response 13: The implications of the research and limitations of the model have been included in the revised manuscript.
Comment 14: The author mentions insufficient attention to social dimensions but does not propose specific suggestions or methods for improving this point in the discussion.
Response 14: This has been addressed in the revised manuscript, with suggestions for improvement in future research and model development.
Comment 15: It is recommended to suggest how social impact factors can be better integrated into future research.
Response 15: This has been addressed in the revised manuscript, with suggestions for improvement in future research and model development.
Comment 16: The author mentioned modifications to the model based on user feedback but did not specify how to collect and apply this feedback. It is suggested to provide detailed mechanisms and steps for user feedback collection.
Response 16: The steps for user feedback collection and how it will be used to improve the model has been added to the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Please add the contribution of your research to the abstract. Reorganize into a more concise structure: (i) background/problem, (ii) objective, (iii) methods, (iv) key findings, and (v) conclusion/implications.
2. The introduction sets the stage but does not clearly articulate the specific research gap this study addresses. Please explicitly state what has not been done in previous research and how this paper fills that gap.
3. Please add the references in the introduction, and your research should rely on previous research
4. Terms like "urban precincts," "urban areas," "city campuses," and "free area" are used interchangeably. Please standardize terms to maintain conceptual clarity and avoid reader confusion.
5. Table 2-table 5 showed many results, but there were not enough explanations.
6. While weights are said to be based on literature, the rationale seems general. Please provide more specific examples or cite exact papers supporting the selection and value of each weight.
7. "The simulation model included a dashboard displaying the financial cost and environmental impacts..." → Could be shortened to: "The simulation dashboard presented financial and environmental impacts..."
Author Response
Response to review 2 comments:
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted file.
Comment 1: Please add the contribution of your research to the abstract.
Response 1: Contribution of the research has been added to the abstract.
Comment 2: Reorganize into a more concise structure: (i) background/problem, (ii) objective, (iii) methods, (iv) key findings, and (v) conclusion/implications.
Response 2: The structure of the paper has been improved and flows as follows: Introduction; Literature review, which is broken down into urban regeneration and social simulations; Methods; Findings and Discussion & Conclusion.
Comment 3: The introduction sets the stage but does not clearly articulate the specific research gap this study addresses. Please explicitly state what has not been done in previous research and how this paper fills that gap.
Response 3: The research gap the study addresses has been identified in the revised introduction section.
Comment 4: Please add the references in the introduction, and your research should rely on previous research
Response 4: Previous research pertinent to this study have been added and the introduction section has been improved.
Comment 5: Terms like "urban precincts," "urban areas," "city campuses," and "free area" are used interchangeably. Please standardize terms to maintain conceptual clarity and avoid reader confusion.
Response 5: Use of terms have been standardised in the revised manuscript.
Comment 6: Table 2-table 5 showed many results, but there were not enough explanations.
Response 6: The revised manuscript includes further explanations of the results.
Comment 7: While weights are said to be based on literature, the rationale seems general. Please provide more specific examples or cite exact papers supporting the selection and value of each weight.
Response 7: The MCDA weighting rationale has been expanded with specific literature references and detailed justifications. This has been added immediately after Table 1 in the Methods section.
Comment 8: "The simulation model included a dashboard displaying the financial cost and environmental impacts..." → Could be shortened to: "The simulation dashboard presented financial and environmental impacts..."
Response 8: Thank you. This has been revised accordingly.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents research on the development of a social simulation tool to facilitate decision-making in an urban regeneration project. The development of this tool was informed by a community survey of typical users of the precinct, which was used to understand sustainability behaviours and challenges. The topic is both practical and relevant, and is of greater significance than attempting to execute urban regeneration projects. The paper's methodology is appropriate, the workload is sufficient, and it makes numerous practical suggestions for urban regeneration solutions. However, some details require improvement.
- In this study, the concept of 'stakeholder' is of particular significance; however, it is not addressed in the introduction, and its inclusion is crucial for a introduction. The section entitled “Designing regenerative precincts” and “Social simulations for sustainability assessments” in the article 'What role do they play?' is of particular interest. The question arises as to whether it constitutes a review of literature or a research methodology. The authors posit that it should be more of a review, but as a review it is excessively long.
- Furthermore, the methodology section is excessively lengthy and should be more concise.
- Inclusion of 5. The development of a social simulation model is outlined, but the manuscript of the model itself is not included. Instead, the results of the simulation are interspersed with the description of the model, which may be more confusing. This section is followed by the discussion and conclusion.
- It is recommended that the discussion and conclusion be written separately, with the discussion comprising an in-depth analysis of the results and a summary of some urban regeneration recommendations. The conclusion should summaries the study.
- The aforementioned issues pertain to the structural and logical framework, with further details concerning formula numbering, references, number of decimal places, figure norms, and other such elements.
Author Response
Response to review 3 comments:
Comment 1: The paper presents research on the development of a social simulation tool to facilitate decision-making in an urban regeneration project. The development of this tool was informed by a community survey of typical users of the precinct, which was used to understand sustainability behaviours and challenges. The topic is both practical and relevant, and is of greater significance than attempting to execute urban regeneration projects. The paper's methodology is appropriate, the workload is sufficient, and it makes numerous practical suggestions for urban regeneration solutions. However, some details require improvement.
Response 1: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted file.
Comment 2: In this study, the concept of 'stakeholder' is of particular significance; however, it is not addressed in the introduction, and its inclusion is crucial for a introduction.
Response 2: The concept of stakeholder, its importance to the study and how it has been defined for the purpose of the study has been included in the introduction.
Comment 3: The section entitled “Designing regenerative precincts” and “Social simulations for sustainability assessments” in the article 'What role do they play?' is of particular interest. The question arises as to whether it constitutes a review of literature or a research methodology. The authors posit that it should be more of a review, but as a review it is excessively long.
Response 3: The paper has been revised and these two sections have been included as part of a literature review section, as recommended by Review 1. Although the literature review section is lengthy, the authors are of the opinion that a detailed literature review covering these two areas of research is required to position this study within broader sustainability literature.
Comment 4: Furthermore, the methodology section is excessively lengthy and should be more concise.
Response 4: The methods section has been condensed.
Comment 5: Inclusion of 5. The development of a social simulation model is outlined, but the manuscript of the model itself is not included. Instead, the results of the simulation are interspersed with the description of the model, which may be more confusing. This section is followed by the discussion and conclusion. It is recommended that the discussion and conclusion be written separately, with the discussion comprising an in-depth analysis of the results and a summary of some urban regeneration recommendations. The conclusion should summaries the study.
Response 5: The analysis of the results is included in the findings and model development section, while the discussion and conclusion section summarises the research and includes implications and future research direction.
Comment 6: The aforementioned issues pertain to the structural and logical framework, with further details concerning formula numbering, references, number of decimal places, figure norms, and other such elements.
Response 6: The manuscript has been revised and formatted to the requirements of the journal.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors There are still issues with the format and language expression. The reference format is still incorrect. Please refer to other published articles in the journal for the correct format. Additionally, the way the titles for Figures 1 and 2 are labeled is incorrect. It is inappropriate to mix a large amount of information in the discussion and conclusion sections. Please separate them. The discussion section should contain your discussion content. The conclusion section should succinctly summarize 3-4 key points.Author Response
Comments: There are still issues with the format and language expression. The reference format is still incorrect. Please refer to other published articles in the journal for the correct format. Additionally, the way the titles for Figures 1 and 2 are labeled is incorrect. It is inappropriate to mix a large amount of information in the discussion and conclusion sections. Please separate them. The discussion section should contain your discussion content. The conclusion section should succinctly summarize 3-4 key points.
Response: Thank you for raising these issues with the manuscript. The formatting, references and figure labeling have been corrected, while the discussion and conclusion sections have been separated.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsaccept
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review the manuscript and for your constructive comments in previous rounds, which has helped improve the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have revised the literature review section of the manuscript; however, the discussion remains interwoven with the conclusions. It is recommended that the discussion be separated before the conclusions are reached.
Author Response
Comments: The authors have revised the literature review section of the manuscript; however, the discussion remains interwoven with the conclusions. It is recommended that the discussion be separated before the conclusions are reached.
Response: Thank you for raising this point. The discussion and conclusion have been separated in the revised manuscript.
