Reviewer: Anonymous

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

The argument provided by the article is very interesting. The idea behind the paper, to distinguish between urban commons and urban commoning as a process, is an interesting line of reasoning, opened by, among the others, commons scholars and practicioners such like David Bollier and Silke Helfrich. The case studies addressed by the papers, 596 Acres in New Yorc City and the Berlin-based grassroots initiative Mundraub are two exemplary cases of urban commoning, that provide a fertile ground for analysis.

2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

The literature used for the article is rich and varied. The article’s focus is concentrated mainly on the urban commons and the knowledge commons literature. This is coherent with the articles’s research question and the analysis it proposed. I would suggest to the author to expand the critical analysis of the literature on the smart city and open government, that might help the author to build the argument of open data as an infrastructure for urban commoning. I would also suggest the author to include the work of other authors that are dealing with the analysis of open commons, such as Yochai Benkler.

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?

I don’t see any noticeable problem with the author’s means of validating assumptions, interpreting data or making judgement. The article provides an excellent and detailed analysis of the case studies, rooted in empirical observation. I would suggest to the author to provide the reader with a methodological note, that might be filled with a detailed description of the data collection phase and data analysis. I would suggest the author to specify details about the data collection phase (how many semi-structured interviews have been realized; what is the role of the actors that have been interviewed) and the data analysis (what is the method and the analytical or technical tools (if any) used to analyse the interviews?).

4. Is the article well written?

The article is very clear. The article’s structure is solid and the arguments are clearly exposed.

5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

The structure and relevance of the issue are exposed brilliantly. The portions of the article are balanced and the conclusions are well structured. I would suggest to expand the last part of the article with a section that provides suggestion to other researchers active in the field of the urban commons and urban commoning study on the basis of the research conducted by the authors. This section could outlines a research agenda to enrich the knowledge of the issue and enlarge the findings of the article with further research.

Suggestions for improvement:

• Expand critical analysis of the literature on the smart city and open government Include work of other relevant authors with the analysis of open commons
• Provide a methodological note with detailed information/description of the data collection process and data analysis
• Expand the last part of the article with a section that provides suggestions of further research.

Reviewer: Anonymous

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

Yes, aligns with the special issue theme of urban commons and commoning.

2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

• The article contains references to a good variety of literature.
• The idea of crowdsourcing / collective / community intelligence may be useful to mention, e.g. Douglas Schuler’s work: http://dl.acm.org/author_page.cfm?id=81100003609
• Smart city is mentioned twice. Perhaps some critiques of the “only way” could be cited, e.g. Foth, Kitchin, Brynskov, Mattern, etc.

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?

The article would improve from a clearer delineation of methodology and empirical data presentation and analysis/discussion. The “Methods” section does not describe any methods, it appears to be a continuation of the theory section. I suggest to explain what data was collected and how in more detail.

4. Is the article well written?

• It is mostly well written, alas slightly dense. Certain parts assume prior knowledge, which reduce the accessibility of the article’s argument to a broader audience. I suggest the author writes an introduction rather than start abruptly with details of the case. How is this situated across different fields? Is the contribution towards economics, urban policy, design, cultural studies, media communications, etc., or a combination of these?
• The platforms are not described, so it’s hard to tell what the authors are talking about. Please insert screenshots.
• The article ends as abruptly as it starts, there are no conclusions.
• The blurring between online/digital and offline/place has been studied a fair bit. The best existing term for this purpose here is net localities: Gordon, E., & de Souza e Silva, A. (2011). Net Locality: Why Location Matters in a Networked World. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. That may be better than introducing a new term such as onland.
• I was not able to open “Figure 1.svg” – tried Illustrator, but it’s all garbled.

5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

• Even without abstract, introduction, methodology, and conclusions, the article as it is now is already approx. 2,000 words over the 8,000 word limit, so some of the more verbose sections need to be shortened.
• Page 2 mentions the IAD framework. I don’t think you can assume the reader automatically knows this IAD framework. What is it?
• Right before the Theory section, it would be useful to have an overview here of the paper’s structure as a way of providing some signposting.
• The absence of a Conclusions section makes it hard to tell whether the authors actually answered their main RQ: “How does the hybrid commoning process of (1) data and the related (2) public space take place?” – And how are any such insights used? Could the authors propose recommendations – even tentative – for other cities or grassroots organisations that want to better engage in a hybrid digital/physical approach to urban commoning?

Suggestions for improvement:

1. Add proper introduction, methodology, conclusions.

2. Shorten the revised and expanded paper to required length of 8,000 words.

3. Add screenshots of online mapping interfaces and discuss.

4. Situate the contribution in the field(s).

Reviewer: Anonymous

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

Yes. The exploration of the connections between urban –or as successfully coined «onland»- commoning to online practices of Peer Production of knowledge and sharing of information and community-building, as a result of the hybrid exchange between those two, is at the core of the inquiry and therefore relevant.

2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

The paper is built around two geographically diverse case studies (Berlin and New York), which allows for broad comparisons and provides useful data systematized as Resources, Community members, Governance, Patterns and Outcomes. Generally the author refers to what is considered essential literature.

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?

A lot of emphasis is placed on IAD, but this presents certain flaws as IAD itself it’s not adequately elaborated, but since this assessment framework’s limitations are discussed, it might be useful to expand it to the Socio-Ecological System (SES) framework, which is considered the outgrowth of IAD. Perhaps it might be productive as well to refer to broader but quite effective organizational frameworks and models as a meta-language or assessment framework, such as the Viable System Model (VSM) which remains a reference to organization studies (Beer, 1985). See Beer, S. (1985), Diagnosing the System for Organisations, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

The key elements of community and community-building processes as both prerequisites and outcomes of managing the commons are only incidentally mentioned and generally underestimated throughout the paper. It appears on page 4 where is is stated “that the resource does not pre-exist the community, but it is produced as the community develops”.

The history of managing empty lots in NYC and their community use predates the 596 Acres case study by several decades, even before they fell under the jurisdiction of DPR and later of Green Thumb. The “Casitas” case in the Bronx, a widespread practice of ad hoc structures accompanying urban gardening and housing festivities is a tradition transferred by the Puerto Rican communities in several community gardens in the Lower East Side have been a well-established, albeit threatened, practice. On the other hand, according to the author, Mundraub was established in 2009. In the Mundraub case study, under the “Governance” section, it is mentioned that “The development of the online platform gives little room to community development”.

These are substantial differences in age and profile that should be better researched and elaborated and it would benefit the paper as a whole to reflect upon the Mundraub experience as to what might complement the online platform effectively, in order to foster community building.

4. Is the article well written?

Generally speaking yes. The term community, as it happens everywhere, is somewhat abused. Instead of “Community members” appearing in the case study analysis categories and being used to indicate mere platform participation, I would suggest the use of “Online Platform Users” (or members). This will be useful in distinguishing the meaning of the word when real community characteristics are being discussed. Proof-reading is recommended, since some grammatical mistakes and oversights were spotted ie “means to an end” instead of “means for an end” (p1), “ the reasons offered” rather than “the reasons advanced”(p6), “unrivalled” rather than “unrival” (p7), etc.

5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

A qualitative comparison at the Discussion section between the two case studies would be extremely useful, and necessary for the comparison to be meaningful. This would allow the reader to draw useful conclusions on the possibilities and limitations based on the action around which the case studies discussed have been built. Also some conclusions are expected, but not delivered: Where is community-building more successful and why? Where are the “onland” and/or the “online” processes more sustainable and resilient and why?

Suggestions for improvement:

• Better and more careful discussion on the role of community building in the two case studies.
• The Introduction section could be shortened.
• The Discussion section should be meaningfully expanded with a qualitative comparison and reflective assessment between the two case studies.