Exploring Service Design as a Commoning Approach: The Engaging Strategy of the Service Master Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.          Although bottom-up approach in planning process is not a new concept, we do need more practices and case studies to explore the potential of it. The keys of public participation are who were invited, why, in which stage, the extent to which their voices are heard and their ideas are incorporated into the projects. For example, in the “Rival(u)ta Rivalta in Reggio Emilia” case, 26 local stakeholders were selected, could they represent the “more local (the resident of the Rivalta neighbourhood), to the inhabitants of Reggio Emilia, to national and international visitors”? Why were students invited to participate in the “MilanoSesto” and “Tourist Harbour Carlo Riva in Rapallo” cases? Were they having architecture, urban planning, fine art, and/or similar backgrounds? Why were they invited? Why not others? How about local residents? Or local stakeholders?

2.          Therefore, in this article, it would be better to show the outcomes and lessons learned from the presented cases to highlight this article’s contributions. For example, in the “MilanoSesto” and “Tourist Harbour Carlo Riva in Rapallo” cases, it will be interesting to see the extent to which students’ ideas are put into practice.

3.          In “MilanoSesto” and “Tourist Harbour Carlo Riva in Rapallo” cases, the developer’s boards were the key persons to implement the whole projects. As we all know, public participation in any form is a time and budget consuming process. From developers’ point of view, time means money. So, why were they willing to take this approach?

4.          “Service Master Planning” and “Service Design Master Planning” – which one is better? Choose one and use it throughout the article.

5.          References: 2, 7, 22, please give details.

6.          To sum up, this article did not present a new approach to neither planning process nor public participation. The so-called “Service (Design) Master Planning” has little different from traditional physical planning process integrated with public participation concept/process which is widely used in many countries as well as in the field of community planning, protected area planning, and etc. It would be better to highlight the difference between “Service (Design) Master Planning” and the traditional physical planning. Moreover, 3 cases are all in the implementation stage. As a Consequent, the extent to which the final “products” incorporate participants’ ideas and the users are satisfied with them is unknown, which makes this article less attractive.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Please see the attachment.

Kindest Regards

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is presenting clearly the methodology applied in 3 Italian neighborhoods with the aim to c-develop with relevant stakeholders the new planning/use of these spaces that is of interest.

Please find minor suggestions for improvement:

The following points on the use of the tool as well as how to apply it is to be complemented ( In parts 3 or Part 4): for instance:

1.       In part 3, what is missing are the lessons learnt on this co-development of services master plans: were the relevant stakeholders easy to find and actively willing to participate in that process? what elements were a real success from what expected? Did you have some feedback from them on their participation? etc

2.   Since the preliminary vision is made by the “client”as mentioned in table 1, discuss the interest of the client to proceed with such co-development (since it represents time and somehow costs) and what where the degree of freedom left for this co-thinking;  were there differences in that sense with the type of client ( public/private)?

3.       Please also precise for each case study what scenario was selected, what are the benefits of this exercise for the implementation if you know it. You said that the implementation is ongoing but it is rather unclear what was decided by the policymakers for case 1 and real estate companies in cases 2 and 3. For instance, did they selected 1 scenarios or combination of elements from all of them? Or was this co-production not really appropriated by the client but rather a general inspiration to the re-organisation of these places. This is of importance for the stakeholders involved to make them feeling that they contributed for real to the new service planning of the area (as well for their potential future involvement), as you claimed this methodology “generates community interest”.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Please see the attachment.

Kindest Regards

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is generally very well written and has the potential to make an important contribution within the context of the field.  The below comments are provided for further consideration to strengthen this paper prior to publication:

-As a reader, adding a brief paragraph in the introduction (first section) to highlight how placemaking is contextualized within this context of the paper would help provide further grounding. I was also interested as to how this work relates back to “sustainability” in general? To be situated within this journal, making this implicit link, explicit from the start will be important.

-I don’t think this statement is necessary, “While a comprehensive review of the Placemaking concept falls beyond the scope of this paper,” as the authors have provided a general overview of placemaking within the context of this study. In my reading, much better than other concepts introduced.

-What I did think was missing was a broader focus and description of the concept of “service master planning” – both in sections 1 and 2 of the paper.  If this is a new concept developed by the authors, even further elaboration on reference 2 (authors, 2022) would be helpful to provide further guidance for the reader.  How is this different and novel to other urban planning approaches?  For example, as a curiosity, I was wondering how some of the approaches highlighted compared to participatory planning approaches?  Making this explicit for the reader would help to further develop the importance of this work, including how others may draw upon this work moving forward (the latter of which is most suited to presenting in the conclusion).

--For consistency throughout the paper, is it “service master planning” or “service design master planning”?

 

-In the interpretation of the cases, to strengthen alignment, I was interested in the authors drawing me back to the concept of placemaking and how it relates to the framework presented. It seems to place such a central role at the start of the paper.

-In section 3, I would recommend the authors include a brief paragraph highlighting the methods used to analyze the cases (e.g., before section 3.1). This will help make it clear how they were able to draw the findings and conclusions that were presented.  I don’t think this needs to be overly elaborate, but adding a paragraph would provide further guidance for the reader.

-There is a bracket missing in the discover phase in Table 1.

-In section 4, I think there is an extra word or a comma missing in the statement, “Service Master Planning considers places social and service ecosystems [27]”

-In the conclusion, I would be interested to learn more about the limitations of this work and future questions which may inspire further research.  The authors state, “Despite we do not have yet evidence of this, we infer that Service Master Planning, being a guided decision making and collective process, may aid in the prevention and management of the conflicts that could arise among actors during the design of the future of a place.” What needs to be done to further provide this evidence? How do you imagine other scholars building upon the work presented in this paper?

 

-In the conclusion, I would have liked to have seen some further discussion of how Service Master Planning, compares to other approaches – what really makes this novel?  Why should other urban planners, designers, architects, landscape architects etc. pay attention to and build upon this work? I think here, it will also be important to draw the reader back to the concept of sustainability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Please see the attachment.

Kindest Regards

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.          The augmentation of a few sentences did not contribute significantly to elucidating the inquiries posited in the preceding review. Although the students possess the requisite professional knowledge and qualifications to undertake these projects, essential questions remain unanswered. Specifically, the process of their selection and participation necessitates clarification. Were all students involved in the projects, or was there a selective criterion? Moreover, it is imperative to ascertain the determinants behind the selection and exclusion of participants, extending this inquiry to encompass other project stakeholders.

 

2.          On page 13, the statement "Contrariwise, the two real estate companies demonstrated a relatively lack of vision, being mainly concentrated on hard/infrastructural aspects: thus, they realised the need to take a step back. Here is why they contacted us" posits a substantial assertion. However, an in-depth exploration is warranted to elucidate how and why these two real estate companies recognized the necessity to emphasize software-related aspects. Did they encounter challenges that resulted in unsuccessful projects, prompting this strategic shift?

 

3.          The theories of Mouffe and Illich were introduced for the first time in the concluding section, and a clear correlation between these theories and the case studies presented in this article was not apparent. As an individual not specialized in these theories, integrating novel concepts in the conclusion section appears less advantageous, as it hampers the seamless integration of these theories with the case study analysis.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

please see the attachment,

Kindest regards

The Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Questions were answered.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

since questions were answered, we proceeded with a final review of the English language and we now submit a revised version of the manuscript.

Thanks again

the Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf