Reviewer: Anonymous
1. Is the subject matter relevant?
Yes. The article effectively addresses how collaborative mapping activities and processes can be used not only as a tool for shared governance, but also as an instrument to “create” space, meaning to create shared narratives and perception of public spaces. It does so through case studies and suggestion of possible methodologies. The article is interesting and covers important matters, that can be useful for the inhabitants of territories, activists, social entrepreneurs and local governments.
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?
Yes, in general. The article somewhat lacks some critical reflections on the dynamics of power and on the role of “images of the future” as present in ecosystems of power. Starting from Foucauldian considerations about the “image of the future” as a tool for biopower, to the suggestions coming from Agamben on the idea, again, of “future as a tool for power”, to insights from Deleuze, Baudrillard, De Kerckhove and many more. Turns out that a “democratization” requires a multiplicity of images of futures, co-existing together. Other possible issue would be the need for a more precise description of the concept of “production of space” through digital maps. This would need explicit and precise considerations around the authors who have explored the theme, such as Zook&Graham, Mitchell, Batty, Dodge, Kitchin, McCullough and many more.
3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?
At times it falls in the category of the “statement” or “opinion”. For example, the “theoretical framework” section is a “statement”: it declares how things “should” be, not whys, how and with what references to previous research. This happens in other places across the document. Other issue: in the case study, there is no mention about the composition of the citizen groups. Are they representative of the city? Is this an inclusive process? Are there people which would never attend this type of process? Who is this process for? Who is this process not for?
4. Is the article well written?
Yes.
5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?
The sections after the case study and before the conclusions are basically lists of references, which could be synthesized, making the article more readable.
Suggestions for improvement:
1) a more detailed and critical definition and exploration of the concept of “production of space through digital maps”. The current one is highly idealistic and needs to be grounded in background research, and more evident and noteworthy case studies and evidence. Some insights may come from researchers such as Zook&Graham, Mitchell, Batty, Dodge, Kitchin, McCullough and many more.
2) limit the parts which currently appear as opinions more than evidence-supported statements or, even, recommendations.
3) include, in the case studies details about the composition of the citizen groups. Are they representative of the city? Is this an inclusive process? Are there people which would never attend this type of process? Who is this process for? Who is this process not for? How to confront with divides (technological, cultural, psychological, social…).
Reviewer: Anonymous
1. Is the subject matter relevant?
Yes.
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 treatment of subject matter is certainly interesting, but underdeveloped. In a long article that makes the case for Vision Mapping, there is a meandering and encyclopedic quality to the recounting of precursor concepts (‘participatory design’, ‘collaborative mapping’, ‘collaborative urban governance’, ‘infrastructuring and prototyping’, ‘maker spaces and FabLabs’, ‘Participatory Budgeting’, ‘participatory design’, ‘design for social innovation’, ‘anticipatory governance’, ‘appreciative inquiry’) that could be better synthesised to highlight exactly what Vision Mapping adds to an already crowded market of bottom-up, participatory, collaborative approaches. It is page 8 before Vision Mapping is introduced, very briefly in prelude to the Future Melbourne case study. Beyond a brand-name, it is unclear what exactly are its debts to and arguments against previous work in urban data management (to which many others – community indicators, digital dashboards, ICT4D, scenario planning, backcasting etc – could also be added). At the very least, some very clear explicit description of Vision Mapping would offer a recipe to others who might like to try it or refine it (in keeping with the article’s own ideas of “prototyping”).
The authors also address areas – urban planning, smart cities, participatory design and budgeting, peer-to-peer organisational structures – with considerable recent critical literatures. Not of all of this can or should be cited, but as per comments below, a more strategic selection of literature in one particular field would make the authors’ own contributions more clear. Given their specific concerns with the Future Melbourne 2026, along with some of the methodological limits of their own study (ie. two workshops), it would be interesting to hear about the authors’ take on the critiques offered in Fast Policy (Peck & Theodore) specifically.
3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?
At the core of the argument as I read it, there is an understandable but jarring contrast between the authors’ advocacy for Vision Mapping, and the results they report upon from its use in the Future Melbourne project. For instance the authors note “The Vision Mapping experience points to the limitations of co-production when it merely encourages greater citizen engagement in deliberative policymaking and service design to legitimise government decisions” (p. 13) and “While the Vision Mapping process welcomed diverse citizen engagement it could have gone much further” (p. 13). The sense a reader gets is that the “experience” / “process” was productive in itself, but lost or ignored among the wider set of activities undertaken by Future Melbourne. Reasons for this – perhaps for reasons of diplomacy – are not articulated though, and this presumably has implications for Vision Mapping (and its many related participatory approaches). The authors could do much more with this than point an implied finger in the direction of Future Melbourne’s power brokers, to reflect upon wider issues of embedding consultative approaches within current structures of urban governance. At play are a host of practical and theoretical considerations barely touched upon: cost and time of workshops; who attended them (out of Melbourne’s overall 4+ million population); how they were framed within the wider project, and how their outputs were intended to inform future city policy-making; what were some of the struggles within the workshops, and how might these play out among the wider community if put forward as policy suggestions; and so on.
The article then shifts to the introduction of a further series of principles (“polycentric governance”, “open platforms”, “infrastructuring and prototyping”). While these are perhaps easy to endorse to a JoPP readership, the article lacks critical reflection upon these concepts, including their risks and limits. Would a polycentric, open and prototyped highway work better, for instance, than one developed by a monocentric (but highly organized), closed (but highly secure and disciplined) and non-prototyped (but well-tested and robust) one? The Prototype 4 (“basic income trial”), at least, seems like it would need to violate one or more of these principles to function equitably, in that a central, secure and mature tax agency seems an essential precondition. Beyond an amicable extolling of their virtues, then, the article provides little by way of conclusions that follow from the case study evidence to support their practical application. Something that supplements “Vision Mapping is a useful method for enabling communities to co-produce bold new urban imaginaries and prototype experiments” with a sense of the lessons learned about the method would be one way of doing this.
4. Is the article well written?
Yes, though some references could be tidied, and the rhetorical tenor could reworked from the genre of report to argument in ways that would improve readability for a journal article.
5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?
The Vision Mapping approach needs a much clearer description, independent of its use in the Future Melbourne project. This would also help the authors make good on their concluding claim that “We have developed a theoretical framework”, which currently at best is implied by the article. The Future Melbourne project also needs to be spelled out in more detail. As someone very familiar with the city but unfamiliar with the project, there is very little about what its general parameters were (timeframe, sponsor, stakeholders, budget), nor the (intended) role of Vision Mapping within it.
Conversely, some of the introduction and concluding section of principles could be summarised much more concisely. References to the Bologna case study, for instance, could be just that – longer exegesis is distracting for an article ostensibly about Melbourne (which also shares very little in common with Bologna). For the proper merits of Vision Mapping to be seen and assessed, it would probably be better to focus more intensively on one or two of the conceptual areas the authors currently cover (i.e. at the conjoining or intersecting of “Design for Social Innovation” and “Collaborative Mapping”).
Suggestions for improvement:
Reviewer: Anonymous
1. Is the subject matter relevant?
The argument introduced by the author is relevant. The paper is structured upon the idea of considering collaborative mapping as a process enabling communities to co-produce urban space through digital visualisation methods. The case study addressed by the article is appropriate to support the authors’ position on the subject.
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 is supported by a consistent set of references, even though the “theoretical framework” section seems to cover an extremely broad range of issues, which eventually result not fully interconnected to the main argument. I would suggest the authors to expand the critical analysis of the literature on “city as a commons” and the meaning of “co-production” in relation to “co-governance” (at some points throughout the paper these two terms seem to be used as interchangeable).
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 section describing the vision mapping workshop in Melbourne is the most interesting part of the paper and could represent a significant contribution to knowledge on the subject. However, in terms of methodology, I would recommend to clarify the following aspects: how workshop participants’ have been recruited? How was the stakeholders group composed? How did it change throughout the different stages? The authors mention that stakeholders have been invited “from industry, government and the community sectors in Melbourne” but no details have been provided on this (such as: how many attendees? who attended? their age? their instruction level? occupation? their level of familiarity with digital technologies? etc…). Furthermore, I believe it is extremely relevant to clarify what have been the engagement techniques and facilitating methods put in place by the author-facilitator? If and how the “inclusivity” of the process has been achieved? I would also recommend the authors to introduce a more critical reading of the data gathered through the workshops. These should be put this in relation to the conclusions, as the link between the authors’ intellectual position and their critical analysis of the empirical data seems weak at the moment.
4. Is the article well written?
The article is clear enough and the English is satisfactory. However I would recommend a revision of some extremely long sentences (such as: p.8: “Democratizing the future means that the future is not just framed based on narrow commercial interests, a policy clique, lobby groups or other special interests, but rather that a city’s vision and purpose is driven through the multifaceted and dynamic knowledges and wisdom of its many citizens, which then guides its citizens as experimenters and social innovators to enact transition pathways” and many more). These are very frequent and can make the reading difficult.
5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?
The different sections of the article are balanced and the conclusions introduce some interesting reflections. However, this final paragraph should be expanded by including a self-assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the method described. This would entail a broader reflection, starting from the authors’ experience in Melbourne. Finally, how would the authors go further with this research in the future? Any potentialities of being developed?
Suggestions for improvement:
- Expand literature on ‘city as a commons’ and ‘co-production’ (see section B).
- Clarify methodological aspects related to participants’ recruitment, stakeholders group composition etc. as explained in section D. Most important: clarify engagement techniques and facilitating methods.
- Provide details of how the process was inclusive.
- Expand conclusions with critical reflection on the Melbourne experience and discuss potential to undertake future research. Rewrite the longest sentences (7 or more lines).
