Strategic Socio-Technical Innovation in Urban Living Labs: A Framework for Smart City Evolution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper offers valuable insights into the development of Strategic Socio-Technical Innovation in Urban Living Labs (ULLs). It addresses a relevant topic and presents an interesting perspective. However, the reviewer has identified several significant methodological weaknesses that hinder its suitability for publication.

The article proposes a dual approach: first, it conducts a systematic review to extract a series of innovation strategies in smart city initiatives, defined as best practices aimed at enhancing socio-technical innovation and collaboration among ULL stakeholders. Second, it tests these strategies through a focus group applied to a specific case.

This duality creates certain inconsistencies in the article's structure and presentation. For example, the title and objectives are addressed in a broad manner, seemingly referring only to the first phase. In fact, the current objectives are excessively ambitious and do not fully align with the article's actual content. There is disproportionate emphasis on the literature review, both in the methodology description (with the focus group work detailed in an appendix) and in the results (sections 3.1 to 3.5 versus 3.6). The application of these strategies to Fenicia ULL requires a more detailed case study description, including its history, activities, management, etc., to assess the appropriateness of the strategies. Furthermore, the focus group comprised only 15 participants, a small sample that needs contextualization to evaluate the relevance of the results.

En my opinion, to improve robustness, the article should focus exclusively on the literature review and the identification of strategies for implementation in any ULL (suggesting strategies for an ideal ULL), since it is the main and strongest contribution of the article. This would allow for a more in-depth exploration of the strategies, as well as a more comprehensive discussion and conclusion. The implementation of these strategies in Fenicia ULL could be explored in a separate paper, where the case study could be analyzed in greater detail.

 

Author Response

Reviewer: This paper offers valuable insights into the development of Strategic Socio-Technical Innovation in Urban Living Labs (ULLs). It addresses a relevant topic and presents an interesting perspective. However, the reviewer has identified several significant methodological weaknesses that hinder its suitability for publication.

The article proposes a dual approach: first, it conducts a systematic review to extract a series of innovation strategies in smart city initiatives, defined as best practices aimed at enhancing socio-technical innovation and collaboration among ULL stakeholders. Second, it tests these strategies through a focus group applied to a specific case.

Response: 

1. Observation on methodological weakness and dual approach:

   We acknowledge the importance of simplifying the methodological approach to improve the article’s coherence and clarity. In the revised manuscript, we have chosen to focus exclusively on a systematic literature review regarding socio-technical innovation strategies in ULLs, omitting the empirical application to a specific case study. This adjustment allows the manuscript to concentrate on identifying strategies applicable to any ULL, providing a robust theoretical framework with broad applicability. This directly addresses your recommendation to focus on the literature review, which is the main contribution of the article.

Reviewer:

This duality creates certain inconsistencies in the article's structure and presentation. For example, the title and objectives are addressed in a broad manner, seemingly referring only to the first phase. In fact, the current objectives are excessively ambitious and do not fully align with the article's actual content. There is disproportionate emphasis on the literature review, both in the methodology description (with the focus group work detailed in an appendix) and in the results (sections 3.1 to 3.5 versus 3.6). The application of these strategies to Fenicia ULL requires a more detailed case study description, including its history, activities, management, etc., to assess the appropriateness of the strategies. Furthermore, the focus group comprised only 15 participants, a small sample that needs contextualization to evaluate the relevance of the results.

In my opinion, to improve robustness, the article should focus exclusively on the literature review and the identification of strategies for implementation in any ULL (suggesting strategies for an ideal ULL), since it is the main and strongest contribution of the article. This would allow for a more in-depth exploration of the strategies, as well as a more comprehensive discussion and conclusion. The implementation of these strategies in Fenicia ULL could be explored in a separate paper, where the case study could be analyzed in greater detail.

Response:

2. Inconsistencies in structure and broad objectives:

   We appreciate your comment regarding the broad objectives and their disconnect from the article’s content. In the revised version, we adjusted the title and reformulated the objectives to accurately reflect the scope and purpose of the study, centering on the identification of general innovation strategies for ULLs. This adjustment aligns the article’s objectives and structure with the systematic review approach, eliminating ambiguity about the research purpose and ensuring coherence between the objectives and content.

 

3. Imbalance between literature review sections and case study analysis:

   We revised the article’s structure to consolidate the systematic review around general innovation strategies in ULLs, omitting the section describing the Fenicia case study. This allows for a more uniform and in-depth development of the identified strategies, addressing your recommendation to avoid a dual focus that introduced imbalance in the presentation of results. As suggested, we plan to explore the implementation of these strategies in Fenicia in a future article, where we can provide a more detailed and contextualized analysis of that case.

 

4. Contextualization of sample size and representativeness:

   We recognize that applying a case study approach with a focus group of 15 participants required further contextualization to evaluate the relevance of the results. By centering the revised article on a literature review, we eliminated this methodological limitation, ensuring the general robustness and applicability of the findings.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article addresses a topic that is both important and original. The authors made significant efforts in conducting a systematic literature review (SLR) and conducted a thorough data collection using carefully selected keywords.

 

Authors should consider the following comments:

- It would be advantageous for the reader to have further information on the Fenicia project in Bogota, such as a brief description and a photograph showcasing the site. This is particularly important because it is anticipated that readers from different continents will be reading your work. I conducted independent research to gain further insight into the project.

- I highly value the diligent work put into the literature study. However, I noticed several instances of repetition, particularly starting from line 252. It would be more advantageous to condense and provide a summary of that section.

- I would prefer to give your plan in the form of an infographic or chart that clearly illustrates the sub-strategies, such as strategy 3 and 3.1.

- The connection between the planned roles governance framework and your proposed strategy is unclear to me. This aspect has to be established.

- I believe the research question should be restated in order to align it with what the authors have previously addressed in their article.

-The specific component of the software utilizing NVivo 14 is currently unclear and requires additional input.

- The clarity of Figure (3) is quite poor, especially on the left side.

- It is important to note whether the proposed strategies have been authorized by the project management and if they will be implemented in the Felicia Triangle partial urban revitalization plan.

Thank you for your essay. It demonstrates a significant amount of genuine research effort. 

Author Response

Comments 1:

This article addresses a topic that is both important and original. The authors made significant efforts in conducting a systematic literature review (SLR) and conducted a thorough data collection using carefully selected keywords.

 

Authors should consider the following comments:

• It would be advantageous for the reader to have further information on the Fenicia project in Bogota, such as a brief description and a photograph showcasing the site. This is particularly important because it is anticipated that readers from different continents will be reading your work. I conducted independent research to gain further insight into the project.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

We appreciate the suggestion regarding additional context on the Fenicia Project. However, in this revised version, we decided to focus the article solely on a theoretical review of strategies for Urban Living Labs (ULLs), excluding any empirical application to a specific case study.

 

Comments 2:

• I highly value the diligent work put into the literature study. However, I noticed several instances of repetition, particularly starting from line 252. It would be more advantageous to condense and provide a summary of that section.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

Efforts were made to condense repetitive sections in the literature review without compromising the depth of analysis on the strategies. Since the scope relies on an extensive review, further reduction could dilute the necessary analytical detail that supports the identified strategies

 

Comments 3:

I would prefer to give your plan in the form of an infographic or chart that clearly illustrates the sub-strategies, such as strategy 3 and 3.1.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

Following the recommendation, we simplified the visual content by removing Figure 1 and restructuring Figure 2 to clearly detail the proposed strategies and their main interconnections

 

Comments 4:

The connection between the planned roles governance framework and your proposed strategy is unclear to me. This aspect has to be established.

 

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

The governance section was removed as it specifically referred to the Fenicia case, which has been excluded from the analysis in this version. This allowed us to focus the content on general strategies without the specificity of a governance framework.

 

Comments 5:

I believe the research question should be restated in order to align it with what the authors have previously addressed in their article.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

The research question was revised to better align with the article’s content. It is now formulated to reflect the focus on strategic management of innovation districts in smart cities to improve the effectiveness of ULLs.

 

Comments 6:

The specific component of the software utilizing NVivo 14 is currently unclear and requires additional input.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

It has been clarified that NVivo 14 was used exclusively for coding and categorizing the reviewed literature, which facilitated the identification of key patterns and themes within the selected articles.

 

Comments 7:

The clarity of Figure (3) is quite poor, especially on the left side.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

We simplified the figures to a total of two, eliminating Figure 3. This supports a clearer and more visually accessible presentation of the proposed strategies.

 

Comments 8:

It is important to note whether the proposed strategies have been authorized by the project management and if they will be implemented in the Felicia Triangle partial urban revitalization plan.

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

Since the Fenicia project has been excluded as a case study, this consideration is no longer applicable.

 

In summary, these changes directly respond to your observations, strengthening the article as a theoretical framework that identifies and classifies strategies for ULLs without requiring an empirical application to a specific case study. We believe these modifications better align the manuscript with the recommended focus, enabling an in-depth exploration of strategies and their implications for future empirical studies.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback, which has been instrumental in enhancing the rigor and contribution of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting manuscript. There are a few matters authors should check carefully in the revision in order to ensure its academic rigor. Especially, the research design should be improved, problem statement should be more clear and unambiguous (it should describe what authors have actually done with the paper), and the missing theoretical or analytical framework should be added. Detailed comments can be found below.

Highlights

p. 1. Follow journal guidelines with highlights (no colons). 

Introduction

Do consider what is necessary for your readers to frame your discussion properly. It should be like a funnel that approaches from the context and the general nature of issues to your detailed problem statement. In short, the reader needs to know what your want to express with this article, why this is important and how it has been approach in academic field earlier. Why should we be interested in ULLs, and how they contribute to smart cities, and how smart cities again are supposed to improve our wellbeing? It is important that you show what is interesting in your topic and why it is important. You have already many good points in the introduction. The above is just to remind what you could consider when revising the introductory section of your paper. 

p. 2, lines 44-45. It is arguable if the concept of smart city has emerged "recently". Besides, if we are talking about a concept, it is the concept of smart city, not the concept of smart cities. 

p. 2, line 55. Disconnect? (should be a noun)

p. 2, lines 55, 81 and p. 3, lines 106-107. The disconnection between technology and community needs is repeated several times. First, discuss this matter clearly only in one time in the intro. Second, what the disconnection between 'technology' and community needs actually mean. You have to elaborate, as it is not self-explanatory matter. This part of the intro must be improved considerably. 

p. 2, line 82. Do not use square brackets in headings

pp. 2 and 3. There are some overlapping and repetitive discussion in the intro (check esp. p. 3, lines 105-116). Try to make intro more smooth and coherent, and improve the flow. 

p. 3-4. Section 1.2 comes out of the blue. To my taste it pops up too early in the paper, and it is really confusing here, as there is no any particular bridge between general discussion about ULLs and the discussion about BiG. How does this BiG factually relates to your research problem? This section could be possibly presented where your empirical research is presented, not in the intro. In any case, it is of vital importance to carefully explain its role in this research article. So, a quick solution would be to mention the role of BiG briefly in the introductory section and then integrate it carefully into research problem, and then present the details of BiG later, most preferably in section 2 Materials and methods, or alternatively, in the beginning of section 3 Results. (Note: there should be at least two sub-headings if the section is divided by such sub-headings; thus, in the submission sub-heading 1.2.1 must be removed and its content must be incorporated into 1.2, as there is no sub-heading 1.2.2). 

p. 4. Improve the formulation of your research problem. Earlier you mention that the aim of your paper is to bridge the knowledge gap that hampers the implementation of smart city endeavors by comparing the proposed strategies with those highlighted in current literature (p. 2, line 69-71). However, in the section 1.3 your research problem focusses on strategic management of innovation districts in smart cities, and its ability to improve the effectiveness of ULLs as a response to urban challenges (p. 4, lines 163-165). You have to clarify the problem statement and ensure that it is in line with introduction, theoretical framework, and methodology. Especially, if 'strategic management of innovation district' is the key to your research problem, it must be elaborated in the intro and theorized in the theoretical or analytical framework. The confusion is increased due to the role of BiG described in section 1.2, as explained above, as it is not in the problem statement nor is it explained in the methodology section, in which you present basically the conventional literature review procedure. This matter has to be fixed in the revision. 

Theoretical framework

In a scientific article there is a need to have some kind of theoretical, analytical, or conceptual framework, which theorizes the matters that are explicated in research problem. Introduction is about introducing the topic, whereas theoretical framework is about theorising it. That kind of discussion is missing from this submission altogether. Do check how your will define your research problem in the revised from, and extract from there the matters that need to be clarified. The framework can be rather conceptual, as your first part of the discussion is a review, and the second part based on focus group. What mean strategic socio-technical innovation? What are ULLs and how the current discussion approaches them? How has smart city discoursed evolved and what has been the role of ULL in this discourse? All such matters are needed to made your discussion conceptually mature and anchored on prior research. On this basis your literature review has a firm conceptual grounding. In the literature review you go deeper as guided by your research problem with the empirical data. 

Materials and methods

Some aspects of methodology section have already been addressed above. 

p. 5, line 190. Do note that including only articles that are "fully accessible online" may exclude some of the best articles from your review. This must be discussed in the limitation of your article. 

p. 5, line 192. You refer to urban innovation ecosystems, but ecosystems are neither in your research problem nor in your queries (Table 1). Try to be systematic with the key terms. 

p. 5, line 204. Be exact with the databases your have used. I guess there are not too many to be listed here?

p. 6. You present here a conventional article selection process. This is only the first side of your methodological endeavor. The other side is how you factually analyse your data (obtained from selected articles). You mention "qualitative data analysis software tool", but you do not specify how you actually analyse your data and how this software tool is applied. Thus, you need to specify your data analysis method (content analysis, thematic analysis, narrative analysis, GT, etc.), and how you factually apply it. This is particularly important as you refer to qualitative analysis and if you do more than provide just so-called aggregated systematic review. 

p. 6. Focus group methodology fits well with the validation of your findings. Just be more explicit here how the focus group was organised (who, how, when, where) and how the procedure was documented. You may present some of this in an Appendix, but there has to be explicit mention of it in this section. 

Results

p. 7, Fig. 3. This is only a technical matter, but the font size in the Figure 3 is too small.

p. 11. The discussion in the section 3.6 is a separate from the previous sections, even to the degree, that this Strategy approach for Fenicia ULL could have its own main heading. It describes a kind of application issue that goes beyond the review results. 

There are some parts in section 3.6 in which it is difficult to know how authors have chosen certain categories. For example, in section 3.6.4 (p. 14) it is said that effective integration of smart solutions in the Fenicia ULL involves overcoming barriers and fostering collaboration, which is then divided into three areas: innovation methodologies, lack of coordination and triple helix type of collaboration. How did you end up with these three points? There are similar kinds of results in many other parts of 3.6, which requires that you explain in the beginning of this section or in individual sub-sections what is the source of each finding. Of course, it can be based on researchers' reasoning based on certain values, data, and creativity, but such matters should be explicated either at a general level in methodology section or in the beginning of section that discusses Fenicia ULL. 

Discussion

p. 15. Discussion section is too weak. There is too much tautologies and repetitions. It should not be a summary of your results but a discussion in which you highlight the most important aspects of your findings and consider their validity vis-à-vis prior literature and academic discussion. Thus, what is important in your findings and how they related to prior research?

At the end of discussion you should discuss the limitations and methodological challenges of your study. 

Conclusion

Conclusion can be improved on the basis of the revision of previous section. It can be concise and focus on results and policy implications. 

Appendix

If some of the methodological details are presented in Appendix, it should be clear regarding number of participants, when focus group gathered and where etc. Such details can be presented in methodology section, too. 

This is a minor point, that separate bolded items in Appendix (Strategy 1: Foster Civic Engagement etc.) do not require full stops or colons. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some minor problems with English.

Author Response

Comments 1:

p.1. Follow journal guidelines with highlights (no colons).

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

The highlights have been revised, with colons removed to adhere to the journal's requirements.

 

Comments 2:

Introduction

Do consider what is necessary for your readers to frame your discussion properly. It should be like a funnel that approaches from the context and the general nature of issues to your detailed problem statement. In short, the reader needs to know what your want to express with this article, why this is important and how it has been approach in academic field earlier. Why should we be interested in ULLs, and how they contribute to smart cities, and how smart cities again are supposed to improve our wellbeing? It is important that you show what is interesting in your topic and why it is important. You have already many good points in the introduction. The above is just to remind what you could consider when revising the introductory section of your paper.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

the introduction in new version has been restructured to follow a funnel approach, providing a clear progression from general context to specific research focus. It begins by addressing the broad issue of urbanization in developing countries, highlighting both its benefits and associated challenges. The introduction then narrows to discuss the concept of smart cities as an innovative response to urban problems, followed by a critical examination of the inherent challenges within smart city initiatives, particularly the disconnect between technology and community needs and stakeholder misalignment. To address these challenges, the introduction presents Urban Living Labs (ULLs) as a promising solution for fostering socio-technical innovation, framing the purpose of the paper as a systematic literature review aimed at identifying effective ULL strategies. This revised structure provides a coherent and focused transition from the general context to the specific research aim, aligning with the funnel structure recommended by the reviewer.

 

Comments 3:

p.2, lines 44-45. It is arguable if the concept of smart city has emerged "recently". Besides, if we are talking about a concept, it is the concept of smart city, not the concept of smart cities. 

p.2, line 55. Disconnect? (should be a noun)

 p.2, lines 55, 81 and p. 3, lines 106-107. The disconnection between technology and community needs is repeated several times. First, discuss this matter clearly only in one time in the intro. Second, what the disconnection between 'technology' and community needs actually mean. You have to elaborate, as it is not self-explanatory matter. This part of the intro must be improved considerably. 

 p.2, line 82. Do not use square brackets in headings

 pp.2 and 3. There are some overlapping and repetitive discussion in the intro (check esp. p. 3, lines 105-116). Try to make intro more smooth and coherent, and improve the flow.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

First, the phrase describing the concept of smart cities as "recently emerged" has been revised to reflect its established history, clarifying that it is not a new concept. The language has also been adjusted to consistently refer to the "concept of the smart city" in singular form. Additionally, the term "disconnect" has been retained as a noun to convey the intended meaning accurately. To address redundancy and improve clarity, the discussion on the gap between technology and community needs has been consolidated into a single explanation, using the term misalignment to better capture the idea of poor alignment rather than a complete disconnect, as recommended. Lastly, square brackets have been removed from section headings to align with the journal’s formatting guidelines. These changes enhance the introduction's coherence and address all points raised by the reviewer.

 

The introduction has been revised to address overlapping and repetitive content, particularly in the sections noted by the reviewer on pages 2 and 3 (especially lines 105-116). Redundant discussions have been consolidated, and transitions have been refined to create a smoother and more coherent flow. These adjustments enhance the readability of the introduction and ensure a more cohesive presentation of the paper’s main arguments.

 

Comments 4:

p.3-4. Section 1.2comes out of the blue. To my taste it pops up too early in the paper, and it is really confusing here, as there is no any particular bridge between general discussion about ULLs and the discussion about BiG. How does this BiG factually relates to your research problem? This section could be possibly presented where your empirical research is presented, not in the intro. In any case, it is of vital importance to carefully explain its role in this research article. So, a quick solution would be to mention the role of BiG briefly in the introductory section and then integrate it carefully into research problem, and then present the details of BiG later, most preferably in section 2 Materials and methods, or alternatively, in the beginning of section 3 Results. (Note: there should be at least two sub-headings if the section is divided by such sub-headings; thus, in the submission sub-heading 1.2.1 must be removed and its content must be incorporated into 1.2, as there is no sub-heading 1.2.2).

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

In response to the reviewer’s feedback, the section on the Urban Living Lab (ULL) of BiG has been removed to enhance coherence and focus. The revised version now centers exclusively on the systematic literature review (SLR), allowing for a more streamlined and focused discussion. By discarding the BiG case, the introduction maintains a consistent emphasis on the theoretical and strategic aspects of ULLs without diverting into an empirical case, which aligns better with the paper’s research objectives.

 

Comments 5:

p.4. Improve the formulation of your research problem. Earlier you mention that the aim of your paper is to bridge the knowledge gap that hampers the implementation of smart city endeavors by comparing the proposed strategies with those highlighted in current literature (p. 2, line 69-71). However, in the section 1.3 your research problem focusses on strategic management of innovation districts in smart cities, and its ability to improve the effectiveness of ULLs as a response to urban challenges (p. 4, lines 163-165). You have to clarify the problem statement and ensure that it is in line with introduction, theoretical framework, and methodology. Especially, if 'strategic management of innovation district' is the key to your research problem, it must be elaborated in the intro and theorized in the theoretical or analytical framework. The confusion is increased due to the role of BiG described in section 1.2, as explained above, as it is not in the problem statement nor is it explained in the methodology section, in which you present basically the conventional literature review procedure. This matter has to be fixed in the revision.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

In response to the reviewer’s feedback, the formulation of the research problem has been refined in the latest version to enhance clarity and consistency. Specifically, the term "innovation district" has been removed, and the focus is now solely on "technological innovation" in a broader sense. This adjustment ensures that the research question directly addresses the challenges of socio-technical innovation in smart cities without limiting the scope to innovation districts. The revised research question is:

How can strategic management of technological innovation in smart cities improve the effectiveness of urban living laboratories in fostering sustainable and technologically integrated solutions to urban challenges?

This formulation aligns the problem statement across the introduction, theoretical framework, and methodology sections, emphasizing the aim to bridge the knowledge gap in smart city implementations through a socio-technical perspective. By clarifying the research focus on general innovation within smart cities, the paper presents a more cohesive and targeted exploration of ULLs, directly addressing the reviewer’s concerns.

Additionally, with the removal of the BiG case, the paper maintains a unified emphasis on theoretical insights from the literature review, which is now thoroughly integrated into the research problem and methodology.

 

Comments 6:

Theoretical framework

 In a scientific article there is a need to have some kind of theoretical, analytical, or conceptual framework, which theorizes the matters that are explicated in research problem. Introduction is about introducing the topic, whereas theoretical framework is about theorising it. That kind of discussion is missing from this submission altogether. Do check how your will define your research problem in the revised from, and extract from there the matters that need to be clarified. The framework can be rather conceptual, as your first part of the discussion is a review, and the second part based on focus group. What mean strategic socio-technical innovation? What are ULLs and how the current discussion approaches them? How has smart city discoursed evolved and what has been the role of ULL in this discourse? All such matters are needed to made your discussion conceptually mature and anchored on prior research. On this basis your literature review has a firm conceptual grounding. In the literature review you go deeper as guided by your research problem with the empirical data.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

In response to the reviewer’s comments, the paper has been revised to include a structured theoretical framework that supports the systematic literature review (SLR) as the foundation for addressing the research question. This framework theorizes key concepts such as strategic socio-technical innovation, Urban Living Labs (ULLs), and the evolution of smart city discourse, providing a conceptual basis for the study. By grounding these concepts within existing literature, the framework clarifies the role and significance of ULLs in advancing socio-technical solutions in smart cities, as well as the implications of strategic innovation management. This addition ensures that the literature review is conceptually anchored and systematically addresses the research problem with a well-defined analytical perspective, enhancing the academic rigor of the study.

 

Comments 7:

Materials and methods

Some aspects of methodology section have already been addressed above. 

 p.5, line 190. Do note that including only articles that are "fully accessible online" may exclude some of the best articles from your review. This must be discussed in the limitation of your article. 

 p.5, line 192. You refer to urban innovation ecosystems, but ecosystems are neither in your research problem nor in your queries (Table 1). Try to be systematic with the key terms. 

 p.5, line 204. Be exact with the databases your have used. I guess there are not too many to be listed here?

 p.6. You present here a conventional article selection process. This is only the first side of your methodological endeavor. The other side is how you factually analyse your data (obtained from selected articles). You mention "qualitative data analysis software tool", but you do not specify how you actually analyse your data and how this software tool is applied. Thus, you need to specify your data analysis method (content analysis, thematic analysis, narrative analysis, GT, etc.), and how you factually apply it. This is particularly important as you refer to qualitative analysis and if you do more than provide just so-called aggregated systematic review.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

In response to the reviewer’s feedback, the Materials and Methods section has been revised to enhance clarity and rigor. The limitation of including only fully accessible online articles is now acknowledged, with a discussion on potential exclusions and a recommendation for future studies to consider broader sources. Key terms, particularly “urban innovation ecosystems,” have been reviewed for consistency with the research problem and queries, focusing solely on terms directly relevant to the study’s aim. Additionally, the databases used—Scopus, Web of Science, and Elsevier's Science Direct—are now explicitly listed to improve transparency. Finally, the data analysis process is clarified, specifying the use of thematic analysis in NVivo 14, with coding and categorization applied to identify patterns and themes, addressing the reviewer’s concern about methodological detail in the qualitative analysis process.

 

Comments 8:

p.6. Focus group methodology fits well with the validation of your findings. Just be more explicit here how the focus group was organised (who, how, when, where) and how the procedure was documented. You may present some of this in an Appendix, but there has to be explicit mention of it in this section. 

 Results

p.7, Fig. 3. This is only a technical matter, but the font size in the Figure 3 is too small.

 p.11. The discussion in the section 3.6 is a separate from the previous sections, even to the degree, that this Strategy approach for Fenicia ULLcould have its own main heading. It describes a kind of application issue that goes beyond the review results. 

There are some parts in section 3.6 in which it is difficult to know how authors have chosen certain categories. For example, in section 3.6.4 (p. 14) it is said that effective integration of smart solutions in the Fenicia ULL involves overcoming barriers and fostering collaboration, which is then divided into three areas: innovation methodologies, lack of coordination and triple helix type of collaboration. How did you end up with these three points? There are similar kinds of results in many other parts of 3.6, which requires that you explain in the beginning of this section or in individual sub-sections what is the source of each finding. Of course, it can be based on researchers' reasoning based on certain values, data, and creativity, but such matters should be explicated either at a general level in methodology section or in the beginning of section that discusses Fenicia ULL.

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

In response to the reviewer’s feedback, significant adjustments have been made in the latest version of the paper, where the Fenicia case study has been removed to focus solely on a systematic literature review (SLR). Consequently, section 3.6, which previously discussed the Fenicia ULL, has been entirely restructured to align with the findings of the SLR, eliminating any specific references to Fenicia or associated application issues. Additionally, since the focus group methodology was intended to validate findings specifically within the Fenicia context, it is no longer relevant in this revised version. As a result, the methodology section now exclusively details the SLR process, ensuring a streamlined approach that adheres to the research question. The adjustments address the reviewer’s comments by removing sections that are no longer applicable, thereby enhancing the coherence and focus of the paper.

 

Comments 9:

Discussion

 p.15. Discussion section is too weak. There is too much tautologies and repetitions. It should not be a summary of your results but a discussion in which you highlight the most important aspects of your findings and consider their validity vis-à-vis prior literature and academic discussion. Thus, what is important in your findings and how they related to prior research?

At the end of discussion you should discuss the limitations and methodological challenges of your study.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

In response to the reviewer’s feedback, the Discussion section has been thoroughly revised to eliminate tautologies and repetitions, focusing instead on interpreting the key findings. The revised discussion now emphasizes the most important insights, such as the adaptability of global ULL models to local contexts and the role of human-centric design and open data platforms, while situating these findings within the context of prior literature. Additionally, the section has been expanded to include a comprehensive discussion of limitations and methodological challenges, such as the reliance on accessible online articles, the subjectivity in thematic analysis, and the constraints posed by urban system fragmentation. These adjustments enhance the analytical depth and scholarly rigor of the discussion, providing a more nuanced engagement with the study’s contributions and limitations.

 

Comments 10:

 Conclusion

Conclusion can be improved on the basis of the revision of previous section. It can be concise and focus on results and policy implications.

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

In response to the reviewer’s feedback, the Conclusion section has been revised to be more concise and focused on key findings and policy implications. The updated conclusion now emphasizes the core results of the study, including the importance of governance frameworks, participatory civic engagement, and human-centric design in Urban Living Labs (ULLs) to foster socio-technical innovation in smart cities. Additionally, the conclusion highlights actionable policy recommendations, such as supporting spaces for continuous innovation, promoting stakeholder collaboration, and leveraging open data for transparency and citizen engagement. This refined focus enhances the clarity and relevance of the conclusion, aligning it closely with the study's main insights and practical implications.

Comments 11:

Appendix

 

If some of the methodological details are presented in Appendix, it should be clear regarding number of participants, when focus group gathered and where etc. Such details can be presented in methodology section, too.

 Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

In response to the reviewer’s feedback, the appendix has been removed due to the exclusion of the focus group methodology in this revised version of the paper. With the focus now solely on the systematic literature review (SLR), all relevant methodological details have been streamlined and are presented directly in the methodology section. This adjustment ensures clarity and coherence in line with the revised research design.

 

Comments 12:

This is a minor point, that separate bolded items in Appendix (Strategy 1: Foster Civic Engagement etc.) do not require full stops or colons. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language: There are some minor problems with English.

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

In response to the reviewer’s comments, the formatting in the appendix (such as bolded items like "Strategy 1: Foster Civic Engagement") has been adjusted to remove unnecessary full stops and colons, as suggested. Additionally, minor English language issues throughout the paper have been carefully reviewed and corrected to improve clarity and readability.

 

In summary, these changes directly respond to your observations, strengthening the article as a theoretical framework that identifies and classifies strategies for ULLs without requiring an empirical application to a specific case study. We believe these modifications better align the manuscript with the recommended focus, enabling an in-depth exploration of strategies and their implications for future empirical studies.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback, which has been instrumental in enhancing the rigor and contribution of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research is concerned with the "smart city" approach to the challenges of urbanisation.

The research identifies a mismatch in current smart city practices, mainly based on the driving force of digital technologies, which in many cases is disconnected from the needs of the community. From this premise, the author defines the research objective to bridge the gap between smart city technological solutions and societal needs, mainly defining strategies based on the existing literature. The research identifies Urban Living Labs (ULLs) as an appropriate tool to define human-centred technology development appropriate to community needs.

Although the premises of the research and the research questions are original and interesting, the objectives are not clearly defined, in fact, a poorly articulated structure of the paper ensues. The methodology and results are not well described and sometimes the results are confused with the research methods.

In detail:

the paper starts with an interesting Introduction 1., but already paragraphs 1.1. and 1.2. deserve some reflection. In paragraph 1.1. there is a generic description of ULLs, just as paragraph 1.2. generically describes the case study.

Section 1.3 highlights objectives that are not supported by a background, above all, the subsequent structure of the paper is not adequate to achieve the stated objectives: How can strategic management of innovation districts in SC improves the effectiveness of ULLs in fostering sustainable and technologically advanced solutions to contemporary urban challenges?

In the materials and methods, the methodology is not fully described, as compared to what we then read in the results and the appendix.

E.g. on line 220 it should be specified in detail what the literature review was supposed to highlight and which strategies were sought and how.

It is also useful to integrate the description of the focus groups and not leave this section in the appendix.

Line 281 makes an entirely unsupported assertion, which probably could have been a hypothesis to be verified but above all to be substantiated. In Chapter 3, a verification of these strategies defined by the literature is missing: the semi-structured interviews (called focus groups) that are in the appendix are a specification of the Fenicia experience and are not a verification of either the strategies that emerged from the literature review or those to be applied after the literature review, perhaps they could be a guideline for the case study?

Line 311, this paper, which one?

Line 455, para. 3.6 is not a point in the literature review results, it has a different hierarchy in the paragraph structure. Moreover, this passage is not well explained in the methodology. Here should be the testing of strategies derived from the literature review. However, it would be necessary to prepare ground of the case-study, to better explain the objectives of the Phoenicia project and what is expected from the ULL of Phoenicia.

The references are too many and are not all mentioned in the text. It is not necessary for the author to indicate all the ones he used for the systematic literature review.

In conclusion, the article needs to be restructured, especially by formulating the objectives more clearly, defining in detail the methodology, stages and research tools used. It is also essential to define the role of the Fenicia case study.

Author Response

Comments 1:

Although the premises of the research and the research questions are original and interesting, the objectives are not clearly defined, in fact, a poorly articulated structure of the paper ensues. The methodology and results are not well described and sometimes the results are confused with the research methods.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

In response to the reviewer’s feedback, the paper has been revised to enhance clarity and structure. The objectives are now explicitly defined to align closely with the research questions, providing a clear direction for the study. The methodology section has been expanded to detail the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) process, including selection criteria, the use of NVivo 14 for thematic analysis, and coding procedures, which clarifies the distinction between methodology and results. Additionally, the results have been restructured into a separate section, ensuring a clear division from the methods and allowing readers to follow the research flow more logically. These adjustments improve the coherence and articulation of the paper.

 

Comments 2:

the paper starts with an interesting Introduction 1., but already paragraphs 1.1. and 1.2. deserve some reflection. In paragraph 1.1. there is a generic description of ULLs, just as paragraph 1.2. generically describes the case study.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

In response to the reviewer’s feedback, paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 have been refined to enhance specificity and relevance. In paragraph 1.1, the generic description of Urban Living Labs (ULLs) has been tailored to focus directly on the context and significance of ULLs within smart city innovation, aligning it more closely with the study's objectives. Paragraph 1.2, which previously offered a general overview, has been revised to provide a more targeted description relevant to the research framework. These adjustments ensure that both sections are more purposeful and directly support the foundational premises of the paper.

 

Comments 3:

Section 1.3 highlights objectives that are not supported by a background, above all, the subsequent structure of the paper is not adequate to achieve the stated objectives: How can strategic management of innovation districts in SC improves the effectiveness of ULLs in fostering sustainable and technologically advanced solutions to contemporary urban challenges?

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

In response to the reviewer’s feedback, Section 1.3 has been revised to strengthen the background supporting the stated objectives. Additional context has been provided to clarify how strategic management within technological innovation contributes to the effectiveness of ULLs in fostering sustainable and technologically advanced urban solutions. Furthermore, the paper’s structure has been adjusted to ensure alignment with these objectives, creating a logical progression from background to methodology and findings, thereby enhancing the coherence and purposefulness of the study. This restructuring ensures that the research question is fully addressed through the revised framework.

 

Comments 4:

In the materials and methods, the methodology is not fully described, as compared to what we then read in the results and the appendix.

E.g. on line 220 it should be specified in detail what the literature review was supposed to highlight and which strategies were sought and how.

It is also useful to integrate the description of the focus groups and not leave this section in the appendix.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

In response to the reviewer’s feedback, we have expanded the Materials and Methods section to provide a thorough description of the systematic literature review methodology. Given the revised focus of the paper, the case study on Fenicia and the associated focus groups have been removed, as the study now concentrates solely on strategic frameworks for Urban Living Labs (ULLs) based on literature analysis. The methodology section now clarifies the objectives of the literature review, detailing the specific criteria and types of strategies identified, ensuring transparency and alignment with the study’s objectives.

 

Comments 5:

Line 281 makes an entirely unsupported assertion, which probably could have been a hypothesis to be verified but above all to be substantiated. In Chapter 3, a verification of these strategies defined by the literature is missing: the semi-structured interviews (called focus groups) that are in the appendix are a specification of the Fenicia experience and are not a verification of either the strategies that emerged from the literature review or those to be applied after the literature review, perhaps they could be a guideline for the case study?

Line 311, this paper, which one?

Line 455, para. 3.6 is not a point in the literature review results, it has a different hierarchy in the paragraph structure. Moreover, this passage is not well explained in the methodology. Here should be the testing of strategies derived from the literature review. However, it would be necessary to prepare ground of the case-study, to better explain the objectives of the Phoenicia project and what is expected from the ULL of Phoenicia.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

In response to the reviewer’s comments, the final version of the paper has been extensively revised to ensure clarity and alignment between the research objectives, methodology, and findings. The unsupported assertion on line 281 has been removed or rephrased to reflect evidence-based insights from the literature, grounding statements in validated sources. With the removal of the Fenicia case study, the methodology section no longer includes focus groups or interviews, and the analysis now focuses solely on strategies identified through a systematic literature review (SLR), removing any confusion regarding empirical verification. Additionally, the phrase "this paper" on line 311 has been clarified for improved readability. Section 3.6 has been restructured to enhance coherence, eliminating references to the Fenicia case study and focusing exclusively on literature-derived strategies.

 

Comments 6:

The references are too many and are not all mentioned in the text. It is not necessary for the author to indicate all the ones he used for the systematic literature review.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

In response to the reviewer’s feedback, the references included in the paper are maintained as they form an integral part of the systematic literature review (SLR) process. Since the SLR aims to comprehensively capture and analyze relevant literature on Urban Living Labs (ULLs) and smart city strategies, these references represent the scope and depth of sources reviewed to derive meaningful insights. While not every reference is cited directly in the text, each one contributed to the synthesis and identification of themes and strategies presented in the findings. Retaining these references is essential to transparently document the literature base that informed the study.

 

Comments 7:

In conclusion, the article needs to be restructured, especially by formulating the objectives more clearly, defining in detail the methodology, stages and research tools used. It is also essential to define the role of the Fenicia case study.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

In response to the reviewer’s feedback, the paper has been restructured to enhance clarity and coherence. The objectives have been reformulated for precision, aligning them more closely with the research questions and overall focus of the study. The methodology section now includes a detailed description of the systematic literature review (SLR) process, outlining each stage and the tools used, including NVivo 14 for thematic analysis. Additionally, the Fenicia case study has been removed to concentrate exclusively on literature-derived strategies, ensuring a focused analysis that aligns with the study's stated objectives. These revisions collectively improve the structure and clarity of the paper, fully addressing the reviewer's concerns.

 

In summary, these changes directly respond to your observations, strengthening the article as a theoretical framework that identifies and classifies strategies for ULLs without requiring an empirical application to a specific case study. We believe these modifications better align the manuscript with the recommended focus, enabling an in-depth exploration of strategies and their implications for future empirical studies.

 

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback, which has been instrumental in enhancing the rigor and contribution of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version has improved considerably. The misalignment between technology and community needs is more complex issue than what has been expressed in the revised version, but on the other hand, elaborating it here would take the discussion too far from the focus of this paper. Thus, the temporary solution provided by authors suffice for now. In all, I am happy with the end result of the revision, and consider it publishable. 

Author Response

Comments 1:

The revised version has improved considerably. The misalignment between technology and community needs is more complex issue than what has been expressed in the revised version, but on the other hand, elaborating it here would take the discussion too far from the focus of this paper. Thus, the temporary solution provided by authors suffice for now. In all, I am happy with the end result of the revision, and consider it publishable. 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

   Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and for acknowledging the improvements made in the revised version. We agree that the misalignment between technology and community needs is a complex issue that warrants further exploration, but as you correctly noted, delving deeper into this topic would detract from the main focus of the paper. We appreciate your understanding regarding our temporary solution, and we are pleased to hear that you find the revised manuscript publishable. Your comments have been invaluable in strengthening the overall quality and focus of this work.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback, which has been instrumental in enhancing the rigor and contribution of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The decision to focus on strategic frameworks for Urban Living Labs (ULLs) based on the literature review and to remove the Fenicia case study was effective. The document is now clearer and better structured.

Some other comments.

There is a typo on line 187.

Figure 2 is rather confusing, the link to the four components of ULLs (government, community, production, academia) is not clear. It would be more useful if the graph showed what is expressed in lines 257-262. Otherwise, the graph could summarise for each strategy the 'instances explored' in the following Tables 3-7.

Author Response

Comments 1:

The decision to focus on strategic frameworks for Urban Living Labs (ULLs) based on the literature review and to remove the Fenicia case study was effective. The document is now clearer and better structured.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

We appreciate the comment. We believe that excluding the Fenicia case allows for a more structured and generalized approach to the strategic frameworks, which enhances the clarity of the text and its applicability.

Comments 2:

There is a typo on line 187.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

Thank you for pointing out the typographical error on line 187. We have corrected the text to ensure accuracy in the description of the source selection process.

Comments 3:

Figure 2 is rather confusing, the link to the four components of ULLs (government, community, production, academia) is not clear. It would be more useful if the graph showed what is expressed in lines 257-262. Otherwise, the graph could summarise for each strategy the 'instances explored' in the following Tables 3-7.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have:

We acknowledge that Figure 2 could benefit from greater clarity. We have updated the figure to highlight how the components of ULLs relate to the strategies mentioned in lines 257-262 and Tables 3-7. This facilitates a more integrated understanding.

In summary, these changes directly respond to your observations, strengthening the article as a theoretical framework that identifies and classifies strategies for ULLs without requiring an empirical application to a specific case study. We believe these modifications better align the manuscript with the recommended focus, enabling an in-depth exploration of strategies and their implications for future empirical studies.

 

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback, which has been instrumental in enhancing the rigor and contribution of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf