Planning on the Verge of AI, or AI on the Verge of Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

As a type of Communication, this manuscript provides a new perspective on the application of AI in urban planning. In my opinion, it can be published after the following minor revisions:

1. Line 216. Changing 'argue' to 'argued'.

2. Page 10, Supplementing Parts 'Supplementary Materials', 'Author Contributions', 'Funding'...

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Both of the items mentioned were addressed: 

On Line 216., 'argue' was changed to 'argued'.

Supplementing Parts 'Supplementary Materials', 'Author Contributions', 'Funding' were completed.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

This article focuses on a hot topic of the potential role of Artificial Intelligence in urban planning. It brings a personal perspective with arguments that are hard to contest as AI is still a novelty process.

The arguments presented are logical although occasionally speculative. Nonetheless I think it is  a valid contribution to the ongoing discussion about the use of AI. However, the article still offers limited information regarding the potential interactions between the planning process, its methodologies, and AI support. As can be foreseen, and is suggested in this article, AI can surely provide answers to some of the most challenging stages in the planning process, from data collection to decision making, but this article doesn’t deliver a clear solution to t when and how AI will be diploid in future planning processes.

Nonetheless, since we are dealing with an ongoing novelty process, this article is still a valuable contribution.

Generically the text is clear, and I found that the English writing is generically very correct.

 

Specific corrections

 Title 8.3 is in a different format from the rest of the document.

 For the overstated reasons I am recommending that this article should be accepted in its current form.

 

Kind regards,

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Regarding your comment, "this article doesn’t deliver a clear solution to when and how AI will be diploid in future planning processes." I completely agree. I added to the conclusions section to draw the key points together and hopefully provide some encouragement to planners to learn more, move forward, try some new things, improve processes, etc. It is up to the profession to stop lagging behind. 

Also, the title for section 8.3 was fixed.

Reviewer 3 Report

urbansci-2400363 Planning on the Verge of AI, or AI on the Verge of Planning

This is a timely topic and one that is almost continually in the news.  The article is well written and well developed and the documentation is extensive.  It discusses the integration of AI in planning practice and successful identifies a number of barriers. Planners and planning academicians should hear what this paper has to say.

Having said that, I have a few concerns.

The section on AI is too brief and too general to support the rest of the paper.  Most AI today is a variant of Machine Learning. You mention that toward the end of the paper.  The way you define and explain AI could refer to a large number of analytical possibilities. You don’t mention the relationship between AI and other technological trends (Like IoT) in this section. I don’t think a lot of readers would go past this section and read the rest of the paper.  For the reasons I’ve give above, that would be unfortunate.

A lot of what you cite is old.  Many of them are articles that I dearly love but I wonder if some more up to date citations aren’t warranted.  There are quite a few discussions of AI in the planning literature (and in this journal). 

 

The conclusion is also soft.  You make some excellent points in the text but the are often forgotten in the conclusion.  Where do we go from here???

Author Response

Thank you for your excellent comments and suggestions. I added to the section on AI to provide more context. This included some newer references. At the end of this section I also added mention of technology trends (e.g., IoT) that planners also need to know about. While my focus is on the AI tools that planners will need to think about using, there isn't a distinct separation from the AI technologies that will become a part of cities. These aspects of AI also have implications for how planners collect information as part of the plan-making process.  More was also added to the conclusions to draw together some of the key points and encourage readers to look forward and consider the opportunities represented by these new technologies.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

the article presents an interesting argument however there are some aspects that must be specified:

1) text and chapter formatting does not always reflect the mdpi template

2) the style of the quotations in some points should be revised

3) English in some places is cumbersome and the structure of the sentences must be revised

4) the article is presented as a review of the literature and techniques that have gradually led to the development of automation in urban planning. however this aspect is not specified in the text and especially in the abstract. I suggest therefore to develop more the abstract highlighting what the objective of the article is and the structure. in the introduction chapter explain what are the aims of the research.

In the chapter, you will learn more about the topics covered by highlighting the links to the assumptions introduced in the initial chapters and showing some practical examples of how AI can contribute in the profession for example by developing scripts that can be used in gis or other. 

English in some places is cumbersome and the structure of the sentences must be revised

Author Response

Thank you very much for your insightful comments and suggestions. The following are my responses:

1) text and chapter formatting does not always reflect the mdpi template

I made some changes and I will work with the editors on the proper formatting.

2) the style of the quotations in some points should be revised

I revisited all of these and inserted page numbers that were missing. In other cases I was using quotation marks to highlight terminology, but removed these instances because they were not actual quotes.

3) English in some places is cumbersome and the structure of the sentences must be revised

I used Grammarly and Microsoft Editor to improve readability.

4) the article is presented as a review of the literature and techniques that have gradually led to the development of automation in urban planning. however this aspect is not specified in the text and especially in the abstract. I suggest therefore to develop more the abstract highlighting what the objective of the article is and the structure. in the introduction chapter explain what are the aims of the research.

I added to the abstract to better highlight the objectives of the article.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for your revisions.  I think that this is a much stronger paper

I  wrote:

The section on AI is too brief and too general to support the rest of the paper.  Most AI today is a variant of Machine Learning. You mention that toward the end of the paper.  The way you define and explain AI could refer to a large number of analytical possibilities. You don’t mention the relationship between AI and other technological trends (Like IoT) in this section. I don’t think a lot of readers would go past this section and read the rest of the paper.  For the reasons I’ve give above, that would be unfortunate.

You responded

I added to the section on AI to provide more context. This included some newer references. At the end of this section I also added mention of technology trends (e.g., IoT) that planners also need to know about. While my focus is on the AI tools that planners will need to think about using, there isn't a distinct separation from the AI technologies that will become a part of cities. These aspects of AI also have implications for how planners collect information as part of the plan-making process.

My response

I think you addressed this concern well and the description provides a much better

A lot of what you cite is old.  Many of them are articles that I dearly love but I wonder if some more up to date citations aren’t warranted.  There are quite a few discussions of AI in the planning literature (and in this journal). 

I appreciate the additional citations.  This addressed my concern

I wrote

The conclusion is also soft.  You make some excellent points in the text but the are often forgotten in the conclusion.  Where do we go from here???

You responded

More was also added to the conclusions to draw together some of the key points and encourage readers to look forward and consider the opportunities represented by these new technologies.

My response

The conclusion is much stronger and this addressed my concern. Do you have any thoughts about the downside?

 

 

In Sum

I am completely happy with the revisions and I recommend acceptance