Exploring Key Aspects of an Integrated Sustainable Urban Development Strategy in Greece: The Case of Thessaloniki City
, Katerina Melfou 2, Achilleas Kontogeorgos 3 and Stavros Kalogiannidis 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
After a reading in deep, please follow the present suggestion and critical review:
Line 32: also include Urbact I, II and III, that consolidated the mentioned initiatives
Line 54: NO tool but instrument
Line 66: Northern
Line 82: sostitute The manuscript with the paper/the contribution
Line 88-89 (post war): please, include also Italy and quote/look at: D. Briesen and W. Strubelt (eds) (2021), Spatial Planning and Research in Europe between 1945 and 1975, Campus-Verlag, Berlin
Line 92-93: This sentence needs to be supported by a quote/reference.
Line 94: I don’t remind Medeiros & Van Der Zwet made this claim (EU has not established a formal urban policy). From the ESDP (1998), EU policy is continuously concentred on the urban, urban rural, rural question. Please look at the ESPON applied research.
Line 96-97: please, revisit this sentence that is wrong. Cohesion Policy is devoted to regional development and in this framework is also contribute to the urban development. Authors say this in the following. Look at https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/what/history_en
Line 108: take in mind also URBACT I
Several lines: urban regeneration need to be defined
Line 163: probably in Greece, because URBACT is the main reference in all EU countries
In general in this session: probably Authors do not Ivan Torsic launched ITI in 2014 in supporting to the URBAC II. Please quote
Line 192: it is 6% (and not 5) of the ERDF for the 2021-27 period
Line 212: Geographically (!)
Line 220: quote the source: Authors elaboration? Idem for the figg 2, 3, 4.
Line 336-342: please quote pages of the citation
Line 356: clarify if the DD method is adopted in the paper
Line 567: What are these countries? In all EU we have similar experience.
The Annex has to be recalled in the text to permit a better reading
General note: references can be dried from the citations on rural development, since all paper is devoted to urban question.
The reference to the EU Urban Agenda 2016-2019 is missing in the text (see quote n. 20). All the last evolution of this matter and ITI application are oriented from this policy instrument.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We really appreciate all your comments and tried to cover all of them following your suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented case study is interesting and actual, especially for the urban planning and development practitioners of city municipalities.
The title and structure of the presented manuscript are recommended to be revised: maybe the background part might be presented in a more concentrated way - the historical path is important, however, the object of the paper is the recent strategy and its implementation. Thus the Figure 1A schema is recommended to be apparent within the main body of the text.
From the scientific point of view, in light of the Thessaloniki case study, the authors are suggested to provide insights and methodology guidelines for the best urban planning strategy development and project implementation practices of integrated sustainable urban development territories. In the present version, the emphasis is given to the methodology of expert evaluation, but the most relevant question is the creation and implementation of the integrated sustainable urban development strategy.
The title and structure of the presented manuscript are recommended to be revised: maybe the Background part might be presented in a more concentrated way - the historical path is important, however, the object of the paper is the recent strategy and its implementation. Thus the Figure 1A schema is recommended to be apparent within the main body of the text.
5.1 subchapter from the Results chapter describes the steps of the strategy development and implementation, but neither the results of the experts' survey nor the project results achieved, thus it should be provided in the other part of the paper. The Thessaloniki case examples of gains and pains might be provided in this chapter, illustrating SWOT analysis and supporting the experts' opinions.
The discussion and conclusions part is not based on the results of the SWOT analysis as it is supposed to be. Maybe the aspects of the future integration of the smart city perspectives or other initiatives discussed, etc.
The authors also are recommended to revise the list of references - most of the references are more than 10 years old, and there should be more recent scientific papers analyzed and cited.
Since the Thessaloniki project is highlighted by the authors and evaluated by the experts as a successful case, the overall recommendation for the authors would be to present the Integrated Sustainable Urban strategy development methodology as a major deliverable of the study.
Looking forward to seeing the revised version.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We really appreciate all your comments and tried to cover all of them following your suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to read your interesting paper. The article deals with a field that is relevant from an urban and socio-political point of view. The descriptive overview of the chosen case study of Thessaloniki and the methodological approach within a Delphi method is adequate from my point of view. The presentation of the results is understandable and methodologically adequately implemented.
I consider the discussion part frankly too generic and descriptive. In the discussion section, I expect a critical examination of the survey results, a classification in the scientific and urban policy debate, a derivation of recommendations for action for specific target groups in the city administration, etc. on the basis of the survey results. This takes place only partially and rather cautiously. After a scientifically elaborate Delphi approach, some points of contact arise from the results that should be dealt with more independently by the authors and taken up in terms of possible implications and recommendations for action.
After a streamlining and more analytical focus of the discussion section, the paper can make an important contribution to the journal and the scientific debate.
Small typos and formatting errors (numbering of headings) should still be corrected.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We really appreciate all your comments and tried to cover all of them following your suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript to the smart cities journal. It is a quite well-written and sound paper. With the undermentioned comments, I would only like to make some suggestions to make your potential paper clearer.
1. Please provide a more specific title, because the current one suggests a comprehensive study when it is not. In my opinion the title should cover that you are analyzing Greek situation, not ISUDs in general.
2. I'd cut from chapter 2 called background. Number of characters spared from this could turn into chapter discussion and concluding remarks. Make this chapter more concise.
3. Some numbers are misspelled, e.g. period 2013-2020, programming period 2021-2020 please check these and correct them!
4. I accept your general statements of the local factors regarding the sample area, but I think it would be important to be more clear e.g. in what terms can Thessaloniki exploit its strategic location? Trading, or..?
5. There is a paragraph on page 6 where you cite figure 1. Please move it upper, I think lines regarding the intervention area should be on the same page as the figures.
6. Who are the main 'private contributors'? Local companies? If it does not violate rights, some of the could be named.
7. Figure 3 is expressive but authors should mark the three research phases and make the "letter holes" (by letter D, O, Q, etc) transparent. This colorized solution looks not the best.
8. On the whole, the methods chapter is well-written and organized, I would only mark some small things to consider:
8.1- how did the authors process the interviews? Did you make verbatim transcriptions?
8.2- I do not see the considerations behind the 0-7 scale of Delphi answers assessment. It is good that the respondents could revise their thoughts, but I would have used a scale from 1-4, in order to avoid too neutral answers.
9. Please enumerate some specific implemented projects of the areas mentioned such as "green or socio-economic projects".
Lastly, I am honestly surprised that the authors never even mentioned smart city. That would mean Thessaloniki implemented no smart city projects? I don't think so. Regarding the scope of the journal, authors ought to speak some words about smart city visions projects or even related chapters of the cities' ISUD. Interesting addition could be the influence of European energy crises on Thessaloniki and its surroundings.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We really appreciate all your comments and tried to cover all of them following your suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors, thank you for the effort to revise the text on the basis of my observations and suggestion. The topic is crucial for the future development of urban-rural areas. Than I invite you to continue these studies by looking more closely at the results of European research
Best Regards
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Congratulations and thank you for the revised paper!
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have taken up the criticism that the paper is too generic in the final parts and does not contain a sufficient discussion with derived options for action. This has been adequately addressed by the revised version and the subsection on policy recommendations.
