Walkable City and Military Enclaves: Analysis and Decision-Making Approach to Support the Proximity Connection in Urban Regeneration

Comment

Reply

R1_01 - There are several fundamental shortcomings in this article which some of them are as follow:

Thank you for your comments and notes. We read them thoroughly and widely modified your paper accordingly. 

R1_02 - This study lacks a conceptual framework to explain different components of the study and their relationship.

The contextual framework was included in the introduction

R1_03 -  For instance, it is not clear how the urban regeneration is linked to other components of the study.

We specified in the introduction the conceptual correlations between urban regeneration, walkability and the other topics covered in the study

R1_04 - are plenty of studies on walkability assessment both objectively and subjectively; and it is not clear how the methodology of this study is related to the literature.

The working group on this topic has already developed research, the main ones are reported on:

• Balletto, G., Ladu, M., Milesi, A., & Borruso, G. (2021). A Methodological Approach on Disused Public Properties in the 15-Minute City Perspective. Sustainability, 13(2), 593
• Balletto, G., Milesi, A., Fenu, N., Borruso, G., & Mundula, L. (2020). Military training areas as semicommons: The territorial valorization of Quirra (Sardinia) from easements to ecosystem services. Sustainability, 12(2), 622
• Ladu, M., Balletto, G., Milesi, A., Mundula, L., & Borruso, G. (2020, July). Public real estate assets and the metropolitan strategic plan in Italy. The two cases of Milan and Cagliari. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (pp. 472-486). Springer, Cham
• Ladu, M., Borruso, G., & Balletto, G. (2019). Il ruolo delle piattaforme digitali nei processi di valorizzazione del patrimonio pubblico.https://iris.unica.it/retrieve/handle/11584/291040/398837/061.pdf
• Balletto, G., Borruso, G., Milesi, A., Ladu, M., Castiglia, P., Dettori, M., & Arghittu, A. (2021, September). Sport-City Planning. A Proposal for an Index to Support Decision-Making Practice: Principles and Strategies. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (pp. 255-269). Springer, Cham
• Ladu, M., Balletto, G., & Borruso, G. (2019). Sport and the city, between urban regeneration and sustainable development. TeMA-Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 12(2), 157-164
• Ladu, M. (2019). Pratiche innovative di riuso del patrimonio immobiliare pubblico per una città inclusiva.https://iris.unica.it/handle/11584/290820#.YX1_pBpBw2w
• Ladu, M. (2020). The role of city dashboards in managing public real estate in Italy: Proposals for a conceptual framework. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 146(4), 04020047
• Ladu, M. (2018, November). Strategie e strumenti per rigenerare il patrimonio immobiliare pubblico nell’era della Smart City. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conferenza Nazionale ASITA, Bolzano, Italy (pp. 27-29)
• Borruso, G. (2011). Geografie di rete. Infrastrutture, regioni, città. Pàtron.https://arts.units.it/handle/11368/2452931#.YX2APBpBw2w
• Murgante, B., Borruso, G., & Lapucci, A. (Eds.). (2011). Geocomputation, sustainability and environmental planning (Vol. 348). Springer Science & Business Media.

R1_05 - The evolution of the sections for problem statement -in Introduction- does not make sense.

The problem statement was reformulated and modified so that it should be better understood by readers. The organization of the different sections has also been reconfigured, as noticeable in the other comments, and following the reviewers’ comments and notes. 

R1_06 - In addition, there are several paragraphs and sentences in this section which are very difficult to understand such as Page 1, line 40.

We have modified the paragraphs accordingly

R1_07 - The definition of sense of anticommons/semicommons/common in Introduction and how it links with other components such as urban regeneration is not clear .

We specified 

R1_08 - The objective of this study is not well defined.

We have better defined the objective of the study. 

R1_09 - Is the focus of the study on Accessibility Assessment as explained in Abstract or Walkability Assessment as defined in Introduction?

We have better defined the focuses of the study.

R1_10 - The title of section 2 is to be revised.

The title of section 2 has been changed to ‘Literature Review’. A wrong title remained during the final editing of the manuscript.

R1_11 - The section 2 (Literature Review) is to be completely revised and enriched with the literature on walkability and accessibility in order to support the main topic of this study.

We updated considerably the section 2 with more references on walkability and accessibility as suggested. The section has been extended.

R1_12 - Section 3 could be removed and its summary could be aggregated with Introduction.

Thanks for your review. We summarized section 3 and moved it to the section 2 -literature review. Moreover, we introduced this topic in section 1.

R1_13 - The validity and reliability process of the introduced method to assess the walkability is not clear in the section of Methodology and data. 

We specified such point in the section on Methodology and Data

R1_14 - Furthermore, in which study “Walkable Big Buildings Index (WBBI)” has been used to measure the walkability?

Please refer to the following:
Balletto G, Ladu M, Milesi A, Borruso G. A Methodological Approach on Disused Public Properties in the 15-Minute City Perspective. Sustainability. 2021; 13(2):593. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020593

R1_15 - What do you mean by ante and post operam? Page 2, line 77

We clarified the concept. ‘Ante operam’ refers to the current situation with the presence of urban enclaves characterized also by  military infrastructures and facilities. ‘Post Operam’ refers to the situation after the realization of urban regeneration (GBP), with the partial opening of the area to civil use. 

R1_16 - The section of Discussion just reflects the findings and needs to be fundamentally revised. 

We have developed what you indicated

R1_17 -The phrase of “According to the authors” is not commonly used in a scientific paper especially in Discussion section.

We removed such an element.

R1_18 - Several parts of the Conclusions do not make sense and are to be completely revised.

We extensively revised the conclusions in the direction of an improved readability and consistent with the changes done throughout the paper. 

R1_19 - This article is to be checked and revised by a native English speaker.

The paper has been proofread and checked in the English language.

Comment

Reply

The paper is interesting and well-written.

Thank you very much for your comments and appreciation. 

The subject is relevant and very up-to-date.

Thank you for this positive comment.

I would reccomend a minor proofreading by the Authors themselves to improve the flow of the paper. e.g. lines 46, 77, etc.

We re-read the paper and passed it through a proof-reading check and made changes to improve the readability of all the paragraphs. 

Figure 5 and Lines 319-325 - Please consider explaining the Figure 5 in more detailed manner, maybe consider adding a colour chart Legend?

We better explained the work done as portrayed in figure 5 into the text and in the caption. 

The main question addressed by the research is urban renewal and re-opening of military bases regarding the 15-minutes city paradigm

We combined different issues dealing with urban renewal and one particular aspect of the redefinition of use of the building heritage.

Example of Cagliari, Italy. Ii is relevant and interesting. New approach is proposed. The paper is well written and easy to understand.

Thank you for that. We did our best to tackle a local example and case study and insert it into the issue of urban enclaves. 

And the conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

Again, thank you for your appreciation. 

Comment

Reply

This study analyzed walkable city and military enclaves and proposed a decision-making approach to support the proximity connection in urban regeneration.

Thanks, this is correctly the aim and main topic of the paper. 

It is an interesting topic to the readers. However, there are a few questions that the authors need to address before this manuscript is processed further.

Thanks, the revisions indicated have been made

1. Why the military enclaves in Cagliari were chosen for the case study?  

It has been better specified how the city of cagliari has a high incidence of military areas (number and area)

2. Compared to other functional areas, what are the unique situations for military enclaves? 

Military enclaves can be configured as anticommons. Their regeneration allows the transition into semi - commons or commons

What targeted approach to urban regeneration for military enclaves, such as land use, building reconstruction, or road network restructuring? 

The Green Barracks Plan provides for a regeneration based on the efficient use of the land.

3. How about their surrounding areas towards urban regeneration?

The Green Barracks Plan provides for services open to the community for sport and training, thus improving the provision of proximity services

4. Figures 3 and 5 are not very readable and are not clear and quick to show their core content.

The figures 3 and 5 have been modified

Also, they need a compass, legend, etc. 

Figures were changed and updated accordingly.

What does red to green mean in Figure 5, for example? 

The areas from green to red are isochrone lines of 2 min spacing.

Comment

Reply

the authors have done major revisions in different parts of the article

We thanks the respected reviewer for the comments and for acknowledging the changes we performed on the paper.  

I am not convinced with these revisions in respect to my main comments. 

We provided a detailed set of replies to reviewer’s comment after the first round of revisions. The replies were also reflected into the revised version uploaded, and changes tracked into the supplementary materials. 

On our side, we did our best to provide detailed evidence of changes and replies as suggested. 

For instance, the section of Literature Review has been extended with certain irrelevant studies 

The literature review has been implemented and widened with particular reference to relevant studies on the military enclaves and walkability, being this the subject of the paper.

and not with those directly related to Walkability/Connectivity assessments.

A specific literature has been developed combined with military enclaves and walkability, i.e. in contexts without accessibility, although in an urban setting.

And the section of Discussion still lacks the wide range of literature on walkability/accessibility/connectivity. 

The Discussion section has been implemented with more specific and ad hoc comments on the research carried on.

The literature review, as noticed above, was implemented by means of specific reference to the research on military areas and walkability, as in line with the main focus of the paper.

Thus, the contribution of this article to the line of research on Walkability/Connectivity/Accessibility still is not very clear to me. 

The paper is contributing in proposing ‘what if’ scenarios and potentials in case of the opening of enclaves to citizens and city users.
The contribution’s importance is twofold according to us. On one side the focus is on the important issue of dismissed / downsized military areas and their potential re-use in urban terms. This is an issue that is particularly relevant for a formerly militarized area as Southern Italy in terms of its role during the Cold War in the Mediterranean area, and Sardinia in particular, for its geographical location and for the extremely low population density, what made of it a strategic node in the NATO defense system, other than - still today - an important training area. Such an heritage of military installations of reduced use, represents here and in other parts of Italy (and rest of Europe as well) a challenge for their conversion to different uses, particularly in urban areas. 

On the other side, and more in general, the contribution is a reflection on the potential on urban pedestrian accessibility and walkability by opening urban enclaves, a phenomenon, that of urban enclaves, more and more widespread in many urban situations around the world. From the development of gated communities in urban areas, to the realization of new, closed, urban compounds in fast urbanizing urban area.

In fact, this article with its current form is still a technical paper rather than a research paper.

We reject this evaluation. We surely refer to a techincal paper (Green Barracks Plan), that is the document realized by the Military to ‘open’ military barracks and compounds to non-military uses.

Starting from that, as stated in the replies above, we reasoned and implemented ad hoc indicators on the consequences on urban areas, in terms of walkability, coming out from the opening of urban enclaves to the general public’s use. (See reply above). 

In this regard, I do not think that the repetition of the comments for the next round of revisions does not make sense.

We replied in details to the comments expressed in the previous review.

We provide also detailed replies to the comments hereby expressed. 

The paper has been revised considering also the replies hereby expressed, improving the clarity of aims and objects and on the specific literature. 

I am against the publication of this article in this journal.

We do not agree with such an interpretation.