Assessing Spatial Information Themes in the Spatial Information Infrastructure for Participatory Urban Planning Monitoring: Indonesian Cities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Summary and Evaluation
This manuscript (IJGI-522104: Assessing spatial information themes in the spatial information infrastructure for participatory urban planning monitoring: Indonesian cities) is a very interesting study which presents a new approach in selecting spatial information in participatory urban planning monitoring systems that consider the requirements from all stakeholders involved in the activity. It is well written and it presents a method for spatial information selection which considers regulation, urban planning, and spatial science theories, and citizens’ requirements to support participatory urban planning monitoring as a way to ensure the success of providing near real-time urban information to planners and decision-makers. There are only some problems/issues that should be addressed in order to qualify the submission for publication.
First of all, I recommend to clearly identify the rationale of this study and previous limitations. The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance, including specific hypotheses or proposition being tested. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited.
Second, I recommend to include the rationale of each process. Authors briefly describe each steps based on some literature. But, they need to clearly identify why each step should be considered and conducted.
Third, results are fine but they are very analytical. My suggestion is that author’s results should provide the summary details about what you found rather than an analytical description.
Finally, I recommend an elaborate discussion of the implications of your study for the business industry. Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and limitations of the work highlighted. Future research directions may also be mentioned.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Title: Assessing spatial information themes in the spatial information infrastructure for participatory urban planning monitoring: Indonesian cities.
Thank you for your advice
Point 1-1:
"First of all, I recommend to clearly identify the rationale of this study and previous limitations. The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important."
Response 1-1:
Agree
We add one sentence in paragraph 2 (Introduction) for identifying the rationale and highlighting the importance of this study :
“It is important to allow stakeholders to participate in defining data specification for participatory activities.”
In the introduction we added paragraph highlighting the rationale of the study:
(1) In facilitating participatory mapping, many cities established a ‘top-down’ GIS system to support their decision-making (Jankowski & Nyerges 2001). These ‘top-down’ GIS applications were established by spatial data producers and introduced only limited type of dataset for participants. These systems were mainly developed based on the expert’s view and in many cases, marginalized local spatial knowledge (Harris & Weiner 1998). Sieber (2006) also reported that the top-down approach grows scepticism in participants.
(2) The potential role of citizens is, for example, underestimated. By giving access to spatial information services, citizens will be able to enhance their knowledge in locating a phenomenon (Weiner et al. 2002) in filling the information gaps with better quality for urban planning processes (McCall 2003). This article argues that stakeholder’s demands, including the demands of users, shall be integrated with regulations and functional requirements to support participatory urban planning monitoring.”
Point 1-2:
"It should define the purpose of the work and its significance, including specific hypotheses or proposition being tested."
Response 1-2:
Agree
We add one sentence in paragraph 2 (Introduction) for declaring hypotheses of this study :
“This article assumes that regulatory demands, including the demands of users, shall be integrated with functional requirements to support participatory urban planning monitoring. The user-centered aspect in spatial themes selection will be highlighted to support situational awareness for the participant.”
Point 1-3:
"The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited."
Response 1-3:
Agree.
"We include all relevant and related work known by us in section 2 and 3
Point 2:
"Second, I recommend to include the rationale of each process. Authors briefly describe each steps based on some literature. But, they need to clearly identify why each step should be considered and conducted."
Response 2:
Agree. Very good points.
(1). We add two sentences in paragraph 1 Section 4.1 (Regulation Chain) for declaring rationale of adding the regulation chain :
From:
“According to the Spatial Planning Act (2007), Indonesia adopts the ‘top-down’ approach for its urban (spatial) planning that prescribes provinces or cities to refer to spatial planning policy at the upper levels.”
To:
“Technical data specification may in the form of regulation or standards. A regulation is mandatory whereas standards are voluntary (Timmermans & Epstein 2010). When referenced in a regulation, the use of standards can be mandatory (Knight 1995). Spatial Planning Act (2007) prescribes some data specification. According to the this Act, Indonesia adopts the ‘top-down’ approach for its urban (spatial) planning that prescribes provinces or cities to refer to spatial planning policy at the upper levels.”
Paragraph 2, Figure 2 and Figure 3 in Section 4.1explains why regulation chain must be included in data specification. In addition, paragraph 1 and 2 Section 4.2 (Functional Chain: Utility of Spatial Information to perform Monitoring and Evaluation) already explains the rationale of adding the functional chain.
(2)We modified paragraph 1 Section 4.3 (User-centered chain: Requirements of stakeholders (Jakarta and Bandung City)) to declare the rationale of adding user-centered chain.
From:
“The last aspect is the user-centered chain that should support the identification of spatial information requirements for participatory urban planning monitoring is the user-centered chain.”
To:
“The last aspect is the user-centered chain. This chain shall support the identification of spatial information requirements for participatory urban planning monitoring is the user-centered chain”
Knight, C. F. (1995). Voluntary environmental standards vs. mandatory environmental regulations and enforcement in the NAFTA market. Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L., 12, 619.
Timmermans, S., & Epstein, S. (2010). A world of standards but not a standard world: Toward a sociology of standards and standardization. Annual review of Sociology, 36, 69-89.
Point 3:
"Third, results are fine but they are very analytical. My suggestion is that author’s results should provide the summary details about what you found rather than an analytical description."
Response 3:
Agree. This is a good idea.
We add a sub section 5.4 (Summary) and 1 paragraph to summarize the result.
Adding:
“6.4 Summary
There are twelve thematic themes (see Table 1) score more than three from the proposed selection method. If the authority defines data specification in a regulation based functional aspect, their value will be consistent. In this case, we can use the proposed method to analyze the consistency between the functional and regulation requirements chains. We found that participants are very receptive to 3D spatial information. However, part of this selection method (user-centered chain) is still exposed to biases since each respondent has different skills and knowledge in selecting appropriate data.”
Point 4:
"Finally, I recommend an elaborate discussion of the implications of your study for the business industry. Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and limitations of the work highlighted. Future research directions may also be mentioned."
Response 4:
Agree. This is a good idea.
In paragraph 3 (introduction), I add two sentences describing hyphotheses.
Adding:
“This article assumes that regulatory demands and user’s perspective shall be integrated with functional requirements to support participatory urban planning monitoring. Participatory monitoring activities in urban planning require compliancy with data specification defined in regulation. Also, user-centered aspect in spatial themes selection shall be accommodated to support situational awareness for the participant in performing urban planning monitoring.”
We accommodate the suggestion in two sections: 6.4 and creating new sub-section 7.3 (Implications and Future research direction).
Adding:
Section 6.4 highlighting the results and how they can be interpreted in the working hypotheses
Section 7.3 explains implications to the businesses industry and future research direction. Then I added 7.3 Implications and Future Research Direction.
Revising:
“6.2 Does spatial information determined by regulation meet contributor demands?
This paper shows that the availability of spatial information services is essential in performing participatory urban planning monitoring. The selection method has successfully selected nine layers that are critical for the performance of PUPM in Indonesian cities. These datasets need to be available and shared among all stakeholders in participatory urban planning monitoring to successfully monitor urban planning. Given most regulation proposed by the government, this method proposed in the article considers how functional spatial information to perform participatory urban planning monitoring, and to what extent these maps meet contributors’ requirement. Spatial information mentioned in regulation is not the only source, but when shared to the contributors of participatory urban planning monitoring useful to perform conformance evaluation by comparing them to reality.
6. 3 Implications and Future Research Direction
Taking all into account, authoritative spatial information provides more guidance for contributors and have real potential to improve their local spatial knowledge. The idea of open government at the city level is to promote democratic principles by enabling interested citizens to have access to information and become a contributor in a meaningful way to their neighborhood. Nowadays, many cities are settling into participatory or collaborative activities as part of a Spatial Information Infrastructure (SII) initiative. The emergence of open data and SII allow society to participate in urban development. Most of the initiatives seem to be expanding beyond the Internet of Things (IoT) to open data and harvesting quality citizen contributions. However, amidst open data and smarter city initiatives that are being developed, many essential challenges in providing spatial information have appeared. This paper recommends the selection method to be implemented to analyze the suitability of spatial information shared in the SII. As the open data movement is gaining momentum, a higher level of participation needs to be applied in a data sharing system in cities. Open SII has the real potential to be integrated into a smart city ecosystem, particularly for accessing and contributing large-scale maps and 3D spatial information.”
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your contribution on monitoring participatory urban planning. We are convinced that this is a very important topic, but is not restricted to urban, but also valuable in rural areas. In fact clear and international comparable indicators are missing to fulfill the agenda 2030.
Citizen science is one successful perspective for participatory mapping. It is definitely spanning from laymen to various experts. The key is that participants do not need to be experts in the planning area, but provide insights due to their behaviour.
In the beginning of the paper a new approach is announced. We are missing the results. We can see that a more detailed methodology for the determination of spatial information service -requirements has been applied. But taking different viewpoints do not define a new approach. It is claer that you have evaluated "demand" for up-to-date spatial information. Your study highlights preferences of the participants for the given list.
In chapter 5.3 you name these processes "supply chain", which is definitely not true. Instead you can speak of different processes. If you think that your chains are supply chains then please describe the SCOR model, products and production cycles within the paper in order to make it more understandable.
At least the overall new approach is not visible. Maybe you should more focus on the three viewpoints (chains) its impact , examples and relation to your study.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Title: Assessing spatial information themes in the spatial information infrastructure for participatory urban planning monitoring: Indonesian cities.
Point 1:
"Thank you for your contribution on monitoring participatory urban planning. We are convinced that this is a very important topic, but is not restricted to urban, but also valuable in rural areas. In fact clear and international comparable indicators are missing to fulfill the agenda 2030.“
Response 1:
Thank you for your salutation.
I accommodate your suggestion in paragraph 1 section 7.3 (Implication and Future Direction).
Point 2:
"Citizen science is one successful perspective for participatory mapping. It is definitely spanning from laymen to various experts. The key is that participants do not need to be experts in the planning area, but provide insights due to their behaviour. In the beginning of the paper a new approach is announced. We are missing the results. We can see that a more detailed methodology for the determination of spatial information service -requirements has been applied. But taking different viewpoints do not define a new approach. It is claer that you have evaluated "demand" for up-to-date spatial information. Your study highlights preferences of the participants for the given list.”
Response 2:
We partly agree with the statement: “But taking different viewpoints do not define a new approach”.
However, this article attempts to help facilitators of VGI and system developer in selecting spatial themes in development of application interface for participatory activities. In many cases, facilitators share data via their application in a Facilitated-Voluntary Geographic Information (F-VGI) based on data producers point of view only, disregarding regulation, functional or user’s demand. This article proposes to include these three chains for constructing data specifications. This can be considered a new approach since most often facilitators or app developers disregard one or more chains. In most of the cases, they provide spatial data in their application based on their own assumptions ignoring a holistic understanding of the PUPM system, including users’ needs. In Jakarta, Open Street Map provides road networks and point of interest in their F-VGI for participatory flood mapping, but data on utility network and drainage layers (sewers and canals) which are not provided and identified as the cause of the flooding.
Link:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/532516/mapping-disaster-in-jakarta/
A similar case in Bandung city, the local government published “Panic Button” app, an F-VGI for reporting crime by sharing google map layers only. In this app, they miss police station distribution.
https://commandcenter.bandung.go.id/layanan/panic-button/
Point 3:
“In chapter 5.3 you name these processes "supply chain", which is definitely not true. Instead you can speak of different processes. If you think that your chains are supply chains then please describe the SCOR model, products and production cycles within the paper in order to make it more understandable. At least the overall new approach is not visible. Maybe you should more focus on the three viewpoints (chains) its impact, examples and relation to your study.”
Response 3:
We agree to update from “supply chain” to “supply driven” to differentiate with SCOR nomenclature.
The term “Supply chain” may coincide with the SCOR model. However, term “Supply chain” in this paper is referring to Malinowski & Zimányi (2006). They recommend the demand/supply-driven approach as the combination of user and data-driven approaches. Demand represents business or user data requirements while supply indicates the availability of data in database systems.
On the other hand, many countries strengthened urban planning monitoring with regulation (or legislation) aspect (or chain) which is mandatory. Nyerges & Jankowski (2009) present “phase-construct-aspect” theory to describe the functional aspect (chain) in using spatial data for decision support in urban planning.
This article extends the demand/supply- driven to accommodate regulation and functional aspects as well as user’s demand for data specifications.
To accommodate this suggestion, we change the term supply chain into “supply driven” in this chapter 5.3.
Nyerges, T. L., & Jankowski, P. (2009). Regional and Urban GIS: a decision support approach. Guilford Press.
Malinowski, E., & Zimányi, E. (2006). Requirements specification and conceptual modeling for spatial data warehouses. In OTM Confederated International Conferences" On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems"(pp. 1616-1625). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This study presents a spatial information selection method to support participatory urban planning monitoring by considering regulation, urban planning, spatial science theories, and citizens’ requirements. I enjoyed reading the article. However, some changes are required prior to publication. Please see my comments below.
Some repetitions identified in abstract: e.g. in lines 19-20 and 22-23 and the same thing happens in the last paragraph of the introduction as well.
Lines 230-231: The statement related to spatial information quality is little wage. It should be more specific and well supported.
Line 273: This line best fits in the next page
Line 274: Better to explain what ‘top-down’ approach is? And advantage of using this over the ‘bottom-up’ approach
Line 340: The terms ‘zoning maps’ repeating
Line 348: Figure 5 best suits right after the figure 4 that is to be in line with its explanation.
Line 424: Figure 8 not used, hope can be used in line 416
Line 514: Better to shift the title in to the next page
Lines 633, 646,678,713: References not complete
Line 678: This reference is too old
Line 760: This question needs to be revised
I feel that the concept of geometric accuracy is not well understood and not used in the correct sense within the text as well as in the questionnaire. Usually, geometric tests consist of verifying sizes, shapes and positions of components and the accuracy is commonly described by the Root Mean Squared error (RMS). Suggest to use precision of length measurements in the questionnaire.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Title: Assessing spatial information themes in the spatial information infrastructure for participatory urban planning monitoring: Indonesian cities.
Point 1:
“This study presents a spatial information selection method to support participatory urban planning monitoring by considering regulation, urban planning, spatial science theories, and citizens’ requirements. I enjoyed reading the article. However, some changes are required prior to publication. Please see my comments below.”
Response 1:
Thank you for your salutation and advices.
Point 2:
“Some repetitions identified in abstract: e.g. in lines 19-20 and 22-23 and the same thing happens in the last paragraph of the introduction as well.”
Response 2:
Thank you for your insight. We delete duplication in Abstract were deleted in line 19-20.
“Most of the urban planning was designed to aggregates multiple sectors from different initiatives into practical and measurable indicators. Nowadays, cities utilize spatial information in monitoring and evaluating urban planning implementation, not only for national or local goals but also for the Agenda 2030 of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Many modern cities adopt Participatory Geographic Information System (PGIS) for their urban planning monitoring. Cities provide spatial information and online tools for citizens to participate. However, the selection of spatial information services for participants is made from producers’ perception and often disregarding requirement from the regulation, functionalities, and broader user’s perception. By providing appropriate spatial information, the quality of participatory urban monitoring can be improved. This study presents a method for spatial information selection which considers regulation, urban planning, and spatial science theories, and citizens’ requirements to support participatory urban planning monitoring as a way to ensure the success of providing near real-time urban information to planners and decision-makers”
Point 3:
“Lines 230-231: The statement related to spatial information quality is little wage. It should be more specific and well supported.”
Response 3:
We agree to revise Lines 230-233, paragraph 2 Section 3.2 (Voluntary Geographic Information (VGI) in Urban Planning Monitoring and Its Quality).
From:
“The quality of spatial information may in the form of geometric accuracy, timeliness, and completeness aspects. This paper considers only two aspects of the quality of reference dataset shared to the citizens in contributing their spatial information the urban planning monitoring processes (geometric and completeness).”
To:
“ISO 19157:2013 – Geographic information – Data quality specifies elements for data quality measures which are: Positional Accuracy, Completeness, Thematic Accuracy, Temporal Accuracy, Logical Consistency and Usability Element. This paper considers only three aspects of the quality of reference dataset shared to the citizens in contributing their spatial information the urban planning monitoring processes (Positional Accuracy, Completeness, and Thematic Accuracy).”
ISO. (2013). ISO 19157: 2013, Geographic Information—Data Quality. Retrieved 02/04/2015. Available from https://www.iso.org/standard/32575.html
Point 4:
“Line 273: This line best fits in the next page.”
Response 4:
Thank you for your insight. Revision is made
Point 5:
“Line 274: Better to explain what ‘top-down’ approach is? And advantage of using this over the ‘bottom-up’ approach.”
Response 5:
We agree to revise Lines 274, paragraph 1, Section 4.1 (Regulation chain).
From:
“According to the Spatial Planning Act (2007), Indonesia adopts the ‘top-down’ approach. for its urban (spatial) planning that prescribes provinces or cities to refer to spatial planning policy at the upper levels.”
To:
“According to the Spatial Planning Act (2007), Indonesia adopts the ‘top-down’ approach for its urban (spatial) planning. The top-down spatial planning approach recognizes the existence of centralization of planning, whether in the form of a centralized plan or in the form of a referencing whereas the plan of the lower jurisdictions must follow the upper plan.”
Point 6:
“Line 340: The terms ‘zoning maps’ repeating.”
Response 6:
Thank you for your insight. We agree to revise Lines 340, paragraph 4, Section 4.1 (Regulation chain).
From:
“Participants may apply conformity assessment on actual space utilization using zoning maps and zoning maps.”
To:
“Participants may apply conformity assessment on actual space utilization using openly published zoning maps.”
Point 7:
“Line 348: Figure 5 best suits right after the figure 4 that is to be in line with its explanation.”
Response 7:
Agree..
Point 8:
“Line 424: Figure 8 not used, hope can be used in line 416”
Response 8:
Agree.
Point 9:
“Line 514: Better to shift the title in to the next page”
Response 9:
Agree.
Point 10:
“Lines 633, 646,678,713: References not complete.”
Response 10:
Thank you for your insight. We improve related references.
Point 11:
“Line 678: This reference is too old.”
Response 11:
According to Davies (1997) and Batty (2014), this book is one of the most influential literature in planning and science of cities.
Davies, H. W. E. (1997). Brian McLoughlin and the systems approach to planning. European Planning Studies, 5(6), 719-729.
Batty, M. (2014) A Science of Cities in Science of Planning.
http://www.complexcity.info/files/2014/09/BATTY-Biographical-Essay.pdf
Point 12:
“Line 760: This question needs to be revised
I feel that the concept of geometric accuracy is not well understood and not used in the correct sense within the text as well as in the questionnaire. Usually, geometric tests consist of verifying sizes, shapes and positions of components and the accuracy is commonly described by the Root Mean Squared error (RMS). Suggest to use precision of length measurements in the questionnaire.”
Response 12:
Yes, we agree that the discussion of data quality is important in participatory mapping and VGI.
However, in this article focuses on data selection to be used as reference to support participatory mapping, not the participatory mapping itself. We plan to write an article about an application to assist participatory urban planning monitoring, including for data quality assessment. In our next article, we plan to discuss the quality assessment of data produced from participatory mapping in depth.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have successfully addressed the comments I suggested. The revised version is qualified for publication. Great works.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for revising the contribution. It is easier understandable now. Your research and investigation is clearer presented.
