Smart Circular Cities: Governing the Relationality, Spatiality, and Digitality in the Promotion of Circular Economy in an Urban Region
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has some good contributions in terms of novelty and contribution. I have the following comments as follows:
1. The abstract must indicate the major findings in the last part of it. It should be more scientifically explained, not any informal or casual writing.
2. What are the fundamental findings that this paper can be published in this reputed journal? You must explain it.
3. The introduction should be explained based on the research gap, contribution, and organization of the paper.
4. Add the literature review separately with keyword specific.
5. There are several important findings in the literature in this direction. Therefore, it is important to obtain the novel findings of this research. There must be a comparative study with the following articles (Effect of circular economy for waste nullification under a sustainable supply chain management; Circular economy-driven two-stage supply chain management for nullifying waste; Application of improved meta-heuristic algorithms for green preservation technology management to optimize dynamical investments and replenishment strategies; Effect of bargaining on pricing and retailing under a green supply chain management) to show the major contributions and findings.
6. Keywords should be perfect. The abstract should contain the details of the study and the findings in a very constructive way.
7. The introduction should be based on the exact research gap, and the literature review should be based on the specific keywords-based review; finally, make an author's contribution table to show the novelty and effectiveness of the study. Show all referenced papers in the table to show the contribution of this study.
8. Please write the significant findings in conclusions. Do not mention all assumptions which have been indicated within the model.
9. Conclusions should be updated with more findings, limitations, and future extensions.
10. The applicability of the model should be explained. A real case study is required to prove the applicability of the study.
The paper has some good contributions in terms of novelty and contribution. I have the following comments as follows:
1. The abstract must indicate the major findings in the last part of it. It should be more scientifically explained, not any informal or casual writing.
2. What are the fundamental findings that this paper can be published in this reputed journal? You must explain it.
3. The introduction should be explained based on the research gap, contribution, and organization of the paper.
4. Add the literature review separately with keyword specific.
5. There are several important findings in the literature in this direction. Therefore, it is important to obtain the novel findings of this research. There must be a comparative study with the following articles (Effect of circular economy for waste nullification under a sustainable supply chain management; Circular economy-driven two-stage supply chain management for nullifying waste; Application of improved meta-heuristic algorithms for green preservation technology management to optimize dynamical investments and replenishment strategies; Effect of bargaining on pricing and retailing under a green supply chain management) to show the major contributions and findings.
6. Keywords should be perfect. The abstract should contain the details of the study and the findings in a very constructive way.
7. The introduction should be based on the exact research gap, and the literature review should be based on the specific keywords-based review; finally, make an author's contribution table to show the novelty and effectiveness of the study. Show all referenced papers in the table to show the contribution of this study.
8. Please write the significant findings in conclusions. Do not mention all assumptions which have been indicated within the model.
9. Conclusions should be updated with more findings, limitations, and future extensions.
10. The applicability of the model should be explained. A real case study is required to prove the applicability of the study.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
I thank reviewer 1 for the instructive comments. My responses are below.
- The abstract must indicate the major findings in the last part of it. It should be more scientifically explained, not any informal or casual writing.
Response: Abstract reflects the content of the paper. It addresses the main points of the paper, even though in a very succinct manner. A few points have been added to reflect the insights of the analysis better.
- What are the fundamental findings that this paper can be published in this reputed journal? You must explain it.
Response: Findings are briefly explained in the concluding section. A few novel points have been added to reflect the insights of the analysis.
- The introduction should be explained based on the research gap, contribution, and organization of the paper.
Response: The above elements have been finetuned in the introductory section. Several research gaps are identified, contribution of this paper is explicated, and the organization of the paper is added at the end of introduction.
- Add the literature review separately with keyword specific.
Response: This matter has been addressed in the paper. In social sciences literature review can be included in theoretical framework. Most notably, if research involves multiple theories or discourses, literature review cannot necessarily be presented in a meaningful way in a separate literature review section. In such a case the review is integrated into theoretical framework. This is conventional solution especially in theoretically oriented research in social sciences. This matter is addressed in methodological section. In addition, reflections on literature on smart circular cities are discussed in discussion section together with remarks on the case of Tampere urban region.
- There are several important findings in the literature in this direction. Therefore, it is important to obtain the novel findings of this research. There must be a comparative study with the following articles (Effect of circular economy for waste nullification under a sustainable supply chain management; Circular economy-driven two-stage supply chain management for nullifying waste; Application of improved meta-heuristic algorithms for green preservation technology management to optimize dynamical investments and replenishment strategies; Effect of bargaining on pricing and retailing under a green supply chain management) to show the major contributions and findings.
Response: This paper deals with large amount of relevant literature in order to map out the main features of the current research on smart circular city. Various relevant themes have been elaborated in theoretical framework and partly also in discussion section. Two first references mentioned above were relevant and have been referred to in the revised paper.
- Keywords should be perfect. The abstract should contain the details of the study and the findings in a very constructive way.
Response: Keyword have been added.
- The introduction should be based on the exact research gap, and the literature review should be based on the specific keywords-based review; finally, make an author's contribution table to show the novelty and effectiveness of the study. Show all referenced papers in the table to show the contribution of this study.
Response: Introduction has been shortened and research gaps are highlighted. Literature review is integrated into theoretical framework, as explained above. Author’s contribution is explicated in Introduction and results elaborated in discussion section and presented in a concise form in the concluding section. While the idea of collecting all contributions and references to a table may work with a research with concise research setting, in this kind of theoretically oriented work with a case description as a source of empirical evidence that ultimately try to make sense of extremely complex phenomena, presenting all contributions in a Table together with all referenced papers is somewhat difficult to do in a feasible manner. I have collected most important results to discussion and concluding sections.
- Please write the significant findings in conclusions. Do not mention all assumptions which have been indicated within the model.
Response: Findings are explicated in the concluding section as requested.
- Conclusions should be updated with more findings, limitations, and future extensions.
Response: Conclusion includes findings, limitations of this study, and remarks on directions for future research.
- The applicability of the model should be explained. A real case study is required to prove the applicability of the study.
Response: As this paper tries to make sense of complex phenomena, its applicability to similar urban cases in developed world can be outlined rather schematically and in broad terms. Context dependence limits the application of the “entire model” while its individual aspects are widely applicable as the elements of urban CE development. This study uses real-life case to highlight theoretically grounded views of the governance of relational, spatial, and digital aspects of urban circularity. In essence, the applicability of these ideas to other cases will be discussed in subsequent research.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear editor,
Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to review the paper titled "Smart Circular Cities: Governing the relationality, spatiality, and digitality in the promotion of circular economy in an urban region"
the topic and content are interesting. After care fully reading of the paper, however, I found some flaw and need to revision in this paper, which recommended as follows:
1. what is the meaning of circular economy? what is the relationship/differences between circular economy and smart circular city?
2. While the author have used the term "smart circular city", the introduction (section) and elaborating of the research issure have created on circular economy! OF COURCE, without any definition of it!
3. I was not able to find the justification of smart circular city as the research issue in case study area? In fact, Why are you drawn to evaluate the circular smart city in this area?
4. The INTRODUCTION section is too long. it should be revise toward more well-organized considering research issure, macro justification and micro justification (in case study area) AND answering this question : what is/are your research innovation and knowledge contributions?
5. The METHODOLOGY section need to be shorten. there is a need to provede a flowchard or conceptual model for describing research stages with clear manner.
6. If the sections 3 to 6 is about theoritical background, they should turn befor than method section.
7. Unfortunately, many parts of the paper have not been supported by relevant references! For instance, lines 28-48; 68-70; 109-119; 471-487; and .....
8. It is better to provide a map from case study.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
I thank reviewer 2 for the comments. Comments were helpful for the revision. My responses are below.
After care fully reading of the paper, however, I found some flaw and need to revision in this paper, which recommended as follows:
- what is the meaning of circular economy? what is the relationship/differences between circular economy and smart circular city?
Response: These concepts have been defined in the paper. The definition of circular economy is explained before discussion turns into local instance of CE or a circular city. In the same section, this discussion is further sharpened to cover the specific term of smart circular city. As said, all these terms are now defined as requested.
- While the author have used the term "smart circular city", the introduction (section) and elaborating of the research issure have created on circular economy! OF COURCE, without any definition of it!
Response: The definition of circular economy is added. The core of this discussion is presented in section 3, ‘Urban circular economy’.
- I was not able to find the justification of smart circular city as the research issue in case study area? In fact, Why are you drawn to evaluate the circular smart city in this area?
Response: Research gaps have been identified and explicated in the introductory section. The justification in question is now added to introductory section. The point is that green transition is supposed to take place in the context that is technologically advanced, which creates an inherent interest in the connection between smartness and circularity. As said, this is explained briefly in the revised paper.
- The INTRODUCTION section is too long. it should be revise toward more well-organized considering research issure, macro justification and micro justification (in case study area) AND answering this question : what is/are your research innovation and knowledge contributions?
Response: Introduction has been considerably shortened. The research gaps are explicated, and justification of the paper is briefly outlined, too. Moreover, a short expression of the contribution of this paper is added to Introduction as requested.
- The METHODOLOGY section need to be shorten. there is a need to provede a flowchard or conceptual model for describing research stages with clear manner.
Response: Methodology section is considerably shortened and sharpened. Research stages are presented in a separate table as suggested by the reviewer.
- If the sections 3 to 6 is about theoretical background, they should turn befor than method section.
Response: Order of sections have been changed as suggested. This was a good point. Methodology comes after theoretical sections.
- Unfortunately, many parts of the paper have not been supported by relevant references! For instance, lines 28-48; 68-70; 109-119; 471-487; and .....
Response: These have been checked and where reference has been needed, they have been added. This holds especially claims that should be backed up by empirical evidence or statements that need backup from prior research.
- It is better to provide a map from case study.
Response: Map of the area under research is added as requested.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This a highly relevant and original article which moves forward the emerging research agenda at the intersection of circular economy and place, in particular 'local' circularity in cities and regions, in the specific and extended context of Smart Circular Cities. It systematically adds the dimension of digitality, and the rising significance of data infrastructures and Big Data (for example) in both facilitating, and evaluating, different environmental, economic and social indicators and indeed the operationalisation of Smart Circular Cities. This also addresses the charge often levelled at CE that the tools to measure, assess and evaluate the contribution of CE to wider sustainability objectives (in particular emissions and other climate change indicators, but also integrating a range of social and economic indicators into the design and operationalisation of 'holistic' data-capture frameworks) is underdeveloped both by CE academics, and indeed significantly by policy makers, and co-ordinated across heterogeneous practitioner worlds, is a weakness in CE practice currently, and an important omission within the CE city-region sub-literature.
Methodologically, the underpinning ontology of critical realism is used to good and persuasive effect in the article. It highlights the significance of underlying mechanisms which condition and shape the outcomes described in the case, and thus the need to surface 'deep' critical conditioning mechanisms. Methodologically, the argument for a single case is made, supported by the development and deployment of the multi-level framework which would render 'specific locals' the product of a unique set of overlapping conditions, from which other city-regions can learn, but not assume transferability. The argument for illustration through a single case is therefore justified.
At times, the sheer range of theoretical building blocks utilised give an impression of 'theoretical overload' , with the risk that in being 'all things to all people' the conceptual framework becomes everything and nothing. However , anchoring the article through the three core dimensions of relationality, spatiality, and digitality, and using these three theoretical elements to structure the article and the case analysis, does, in the opinion of this reviewer, achieve an elegance by maintaining this core thread throughout whilst still enabling the accommodation of the very many rich theoretical elements that the framework integrates . Further, anchoring the article in a complex, open and emergent adaptive 'systems of systems' approach enables a number of intersecting dynamics to be addressed simultaneously. The author thus refers to the dynamic interplay of the 'technosphere' and the 'ecosphere' . Under 'ecosphere', social relations are surprisingly but persuasively incorporated theoretically, and highlighted for their significance through demonstration within the Tampere case. This includes the role of multiple local actors within a 'hybrid' governance model, highlighting the critical role of progressive and entrepreneurial local and regional governments dedicated to promoting circularity and with a high level of local autonomy but also hierarchy, and the role of economic and urban development agencies, local businesses and educational institutes.
In particular, the multi-level conceptualisation enables an analysis of how the city-region is nested within - and critically how it is the product of - dynamics occurring at other scales than the 'local' ie in this case, embedded within the Nordic Welfare Society model of political economy. Thus with reference to the distinctive nordic model of (hybrid) governance, the article is able to overcome the tendency within the CE and/for Place literature to overly reify the 'local' by failing to consider how the 'local' is shaped by national and international governance dynamics outwith the local, but crucially impacting on it.
So, where the word 'complex' is often used as a catch-all in sustainability transitions literature, this article seeks to articulate what this means through a much richly elaborated theorisation - getting 'below the surface' of it theoretically - and thus enabling its effective illustration empirically through the Tampere case.
The article primarily contributes to circular economy theory, by co-coupling the three dimensions of relationality (addressing the still often missing attention to social relations in circular economy scholarship); spatiality (a theorised attention to the multiple factors and scales that constitute the 'local' ) and the relatively new area of digitality (where there is still sparse theorisation in the CE literature to-date). To tackle these individually in the richness and detail that the article deploys is an achievement, but to bring them together, is an ambitious but significant and interesting, addition to the CE and/for the City scholarship. For this reviewer, the insights and application of relationality (drawing on Healy) to the context of CE is particularly interesting for introducing the powerful effects of spatial imaginaries, and local 'branding' strategies around eco-futures, where typically these (social science) dimensions and their affects are not considered, let alone developed, within the 'Circularity and the City literature'.
The paper acknowledges that it is mainly a theoretical paper, illustrated , through the single Tampere case. This being a stated decision of the author. Given the attention to detail (and word count) expended in developing the very interesting and novel theoretical building blocks and framework of the paper (and given that the field of CE in the city suffers from under-theorisation as a generic critique), this balance across theoretical elaboration and empirical illustration works, as it produces a robust theoretical prism through which to organise and select and present the relevant empirical material from the no-doubt extensive case material that has been gathered to support the theorisation.
I have no hesitation recommending publishing this very interesting, original, and in the view of this reviewer academically robust and rigorous, article as it is.
Author Response
Response: I thank reviewer 3 of insightful and encouraging comments as well as the positive review of the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The author has revised my concerns properly, and therefore, I recommend accepting the paper.
