Perception of Urban Leftover Spaces: A Comparative Study of Built Environment and Non-Built Environment Participants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article presents a comparative analysis method on perceiving urban leftover spaces of participants with and without knowledge of the built environment. The study develops a mixed method of three different phases of public engagement. The first and second studies looked at image-based media and collected data through questionnaire surveys. The data collection had a significant number of respondents, which is noteworthy to validate the arguments. The third study mentioned a focus group-based design charrette event. However, the study misses some crucial arguments and evidence which are better to include in this area of investigation. The authors may like to address a couple of points to make the contribution unique:

1. The literature review argued the importance of constructing and re-visualising the leftover spaces as a part of the urban design process. The methodology focused on the involvement of the participants, where some participants have a previous acquaintance of the areas. But, the current literature review hardly discussed the need to involve end-users / participants in the investigation process. The research needs to look at the literature on the importance of gathering knowledge through a participatory process, whether in 2D image-based desktop images or events like charrette. Besides, this added literature review is needed if the title includes the world “Participants” and their “Perception of Urban Leftover Spaces” at the beginning.   
2. The research mentioned several times the challenges of recognising leftover spaces. However, the authors didn’t mention how the “six” leftover spaces had been identified and selected. What were the criteria of such selection? Was that self-identified or developed through a figure-ground analysis? It is better to be informed as a part of the methodology.   
3. The research primarily focused on aesthetic assessment and visual preferences, which had been mentioned quite extensively in the literature review. The part of the literature review on the perceptual understanding of urban spaces through 2D media can be extended from the participant’s point of view to understand their cognitive decision-making process. The authors mentioned the cognitive activity once in section 2.2, which can be extended with other references. This addition may help to build the conclusion and discussion comprehensively relevant to understanding and perceiving urban spaces through 2D media. 
4. There is a discrepancy between the abstract and conclusion in the current content. The conclusion started with the healthy and mental well being by redesigning the urban leftover spaces. If that is one of the focuses of this study, then it has to be informed at the beginning. Alignment between the abstract, introduction and conclusion is necessary.  
5. One of the crucial parts that the authors need to address is the third phase- the mini charrette event. The study hardly provided any evidence of what kind of data was extracted from the participants and how they were analysed. There is only one sentence about the “coding” at line 346, but no more evidence of the coding scheme and the clustering of the transcribed data from the focus group discussion. The authors mentioned that the discussion had been transcribed. But how the data was recorded, that didn’t mention, whether through audio recording or collecting photographs.   
6. The authors may like to address some typos like in section 3.3, the title should be “Findings of Study Three”. Not “they city’s”, it may be “the city’s” in 161. 

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments

• A brief summary

This paper aims tries to intersect urban left-over spaces, perception of the built environment, and the sensibilities of built environment professionals compared to people untrained in these matters. To do so the research conducted three tests: a visual preference study of existing leftover spaces, a visual preference study of design proposals, and focus group discussions. The paper  stated that, while architects perceive and differentiate the physical world differently from NBE experts, laypeople's and BE professionals' perceptions regarding the built environment overlapped. Notably, Whereas BE participants were more enthused about redesigning the entire space, NBE participants were more concerned about aesthetics.

• General concept comments

On the ground, actual “left over spaces” don’t “just happen.” They are areas owned by a party that is not stewarding them adequately. Their relevance to urban experience is notable and this article aims to fill the identified gap in knowledge. 

Intersecting the three areas is an interesting notion, but there is an underlying bias towards Modernist style architecture, a typical lack of architectural literacy, and no reference to visual preference work past 2006.

The article reiterated that the literature shows that Modernist trained built environment professionals hold opposing views on preferences to others in the population. Reiterating that is important these days of “strangeness” and peculiarities” in architecture.

While definitely proficient, not much in the article lit a light bulb over my head (emphasis on “my” – I am just one opinionated guy) deep in architecture, urbanism, perception and history.

 

These comments are focused on the scientific content of the manuscript and should be specific enough for the authors to be able to respond.

As such the second study with the proposed designs was truly academic.

• Specific comments

Following an introduction, the paper defines and presents urban leftover spaces and then discusses esthetic assessment and visual preferences, including mentioning the difference of opinions in perceived value. The findings of Study 1 were that BE participants wanted to see changes related to providing vegetation, changing surface materials/colors, and allowing graffiti on walls more than NBE participants. NBE participants were more definite about removing car parks, creating seating space, creating clear pathways, and providing more shade. Other suggestions for improving the spaces related to installing wind turbines and solar panels for the space on the rooftop of a building, providing more cleanliness and maintenance for the space underneath a building, and removing boundary walls for space in front of a building.

The findings of Study 2 were that, for leftover spaces located underneath, in front of, and on top of a building, the most liked option by both groups of participants was a change of surface materials. Providing more vegetation was preferred by both groups for spaces enclosed by three sides and at the back of a building, and providing a clear pathway for a space enclosed by two sides was the most liked design transformation.   

The findings of Study 3 were that,

1. BE participants were more concerned with total space, and their drawings were more dynamic and bolder than those of NBEs. NBE participants     were less concerned about completely changing the design.
2. BE participants sought to modify the entire environment rather than simply one or two features in a given location. They placed a higher value on design than on space usage, placing a greater priority on the makeover of leftover areas than on their utility.
3. The participants believed that visual quality may be enhanced by establishing minor interventions small, simple to adopt steps,   such as adding more greenery or setting up a pop-up cafe.
4. Vegetation was the most popular option among all participants and changing the surface material or colors was the second.

The analysis and discussion part of the paper stated that, while architects perceive and differentiate the physical world differently from NBE experts, both BE and NBE groups had similar preferences for designing urban leftover areas; that laypeople's and BE professionals' perceptions regarding the built environment overlapped.

Noteably, Whereas BE participants were more enthused about redesigning the entire space, NBE participants were more concerned about aesthetics. Providing more vegetation, creating seating space, changing the surface material or colors, and improving the maintenance and cleanliness of leftover spaces were the most chosen features for five of the six leftover spaces

 

There is a typo line 390:

3.3. Findings of Study One à should be  à 3.3 Findings of Study Thee

Author Response

Kindly see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf