A Framework for Effective Design Thinking Based Smart Cities Projects in Qatar

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper deals with an interesting issue. Based on a good state of the art, it attempts to fill the gap concerning citizens’ opinion about the smart city. 

The research methodology is based a survey questionnaire about readiness of the citizens to live in smart cities in Qatar. 

In the current form the paper suffers from several imperfections, in particular.

1)     The sample used in the research is very small (40). The significance of this sample should be seriously discussed in the paper and in the conclusion.

2)     The question about “have been living in smart cities” is not rigorous. What does mean a smart city? Which experience in the smart city? I suggest to delete this issue from the paper: it does not provide any additional value. In addition, the impact of living in the smart city on the responses in not discussed.

3)     The social representation of the sample is not discussed. What is the level of education of the participants? What is the ratio of migrants?  What is the income ?.... This issue is very important. The paper should discuss the relationship between the citizens’ readiness and their social category.

4)     The paper does not deal with citizens’ opinion about the fear from the smart city: privacy, digital inequity, totalism … This issue is very important, it should be discussed in the paper …

5)     The conclusion is not interesting. It should be completely re-written in a scientific style and outline the limitations of the paper and the real need for additional research to address these limitations.

 

The paper cannot be published in the current form. My first opinion is to reject the paper. However, I suggest “major revision” to give the authors an opportunity to improve the scientific quality of the paper in addressing my comments.

Author Response

We would like to cordially thank you for the constructive feedback. We have amended my manuscript to the possible extent, taking into consideration the comments received by the reviewers.

First of all, the paper has undergone thorough proofreading and the references used have been updated. In addition to that, the research design and methods have been explicitly stated and developed, in order to provide the reader with an adequate understanding of the presented research. Additional clarity has been provided to the empirical research and presentation of the results and findings. The conclusion has been supported by academic literature, following the recommendations provided by the reviewers.

The following actions have been taken to address the comments of the first reviewer:

1. The limitations of the small sample of 40 respondents have been seriously discussed throughout the paper. It was pointed out that the paper does not aim for generalizability of the research findings but at the current preliminary stage of the performed research, it lays the foundations needed for further investigation and a better understanding of the research problem.
2. The second comment that the question regarding the past experience of the research participants living in a smart city is not rigorous has not been addressed. Even though the data provided by this question has not been employed further in the analysis, it has been left in the text, in order to enrich the description of the sampled respondents. In addition to this, it has been discussed in the paper what does “smart city” mean. Furthermore, the people who have lived in smart cities have different experience compared to those who have not lived in such cities.
3. The next comment regarding the social representation of the research participants has not been addressed due to the limitations posed by the available primary data. The survey questionnaire which is going to be employed for the subsequent stage of the research has been amended based on this comment. Nevertheless, the data requested in this comment is not present in the pool of primary data collected at this preliminary stage.
4. The comment regarding the lack of discussion focused on the fear of digital inequity, privacy, totalism, etc. related to the smart city has been addressed by adding a corresponding section in the literature review section. This new information has been blended into the discussion of the survey results.
5. In addition to the above comments, the conclusion has been modified. Furthermore, the paper has been enriched by adding a separate section aimed at the theoretical contributions, and practical implications of the present research.

Reviewer 2 Report

This study attempted a quantitative study in the qualitative aspect to understand smart city in the design context.

This study divided the acceptability of Smart City into residents and non-residents in the city and analyzed the characteristics of each smart city solution.

Its novelty is acknowledged in that it clarified the attitude and difference of perception.

1. A specific extraction process for attributes by category in relation to smart economy, smart people, governance, mobility, environment and living is required.

2. It is necessary to think about the connection between governance and Living Lab and design a model.

3. The description of the survey design process and the concept of the sampling method are insufficient.

4. In the conclusion, the derivation of implications for the survey results conducted according to the design of this study should be reinforced.

5. Overall, it is necessary to schematize this research process, which is possible in a descriptive structure, and to enhance readability through brief organization of each process.

Author Response

We would like to cordially thank you for the constructive feedback. We have amended my manuscript to the possible extent, taking into consideration the comments received by the reviewers.

First of all, the paper has undergone thorough proofreading and the references used have been updated. In addition to that, the research design and methods have been explicitly stated and developed, in order to provide the reader with an adequate understanding of the presented research. Additional clarity has been provided to the empirical research and presentation of the results and findings. The conclusion has been supported by academic literature, following the recommendations provided by the reviewers.

Based on the comments provided by the second reviewer, the manuscript has been reviewed as follows:

1. A specific extraction process for the attributes included in each of the categories – smart economy, smart people, smart governance, smart mobility, smart environment, and smart living, has been outlined in the paper. The extraction process for all the six categories is presented in the “Methods” section of the manuscript on pages 14-15 of the paper.
2. The survey has been designed using the literature review and different theoretical models such as the smart city framework, technology readiness model, Griffinger’s Model, and Living labs theoretical references.
3. The research design is discussed in detail in the research methodology section on pages 14-15 in the manuscript. The sampling technique employed, as well as its strengths and limitations are also discussed. Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria utilized in the study are explicitly presented. The online medium used for collecting the quantitative primary data is also explicitly presented in the text of the manuscript.
4. As discussed in the reply to the 5^th comment of the first reviewer, the conclusion has been modified and enriched by adding separate paragraphs on the limitations of the present research, theoretical contributions, and practical implications, as well as directions for future research.
5. The paper has been proofread for coherence, structure, and alignment. The entire paper has been divided into an Introduction, Literature Review, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions, as well as Theoretical Contribution and Practical Implications.

 

We would like to thank you again for the constructive comments. They have been taken into serious consideration and addressed to the possible extent. We hope that the manuscript has been sufficiently improved to be published in the Smart Cities Journal.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made an important effort in the paper's revision to make it acceptable for publication.