Urban density and spatial planning: The unforeseen impacts of Dutch devolution

Jip Claassens; Eric Koomen; Jan Rouwendal

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0240738

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 17, 2020
17 Aug 2020 Decision Letter - Eda Ustaoglu, Editor PONE-D-20-22192 Urban density and spatial planning: the unforeseen impacts of Dutch devolution PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Claassens, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. As the reviewers suggest, the submitted manuscript has good scientific grounds and generally the research is well structured and presented. However, there are minor issues as highlighted by the reviewers such as grammar corrections, missing information and minor structural changes. Therefore, I invite you to address the issues in the reviewer reports and re-submit the revised manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by 10 September 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Eda Ustaoglu, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This research was financially supported by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) as a SURF Pop up project." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "The author(s) received no specific funding for this work." [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Urban density and spatial planning: the unforeseen impacts of Dutch devolution”. The authors investigated residential development since 2000 in the Netherlands in relation to the changing planning policies. The study found that while the national policy on residential development is decentralised making it look weak and the share of residential development within existing urban areas increased. The findings of this study contribute to literature especially its methodological approach. In general, this is a well-written manuscript. However, I have a few suggestions that when considered can help improve the manuscript. Topic 1. The topic appears great because it is clear and specific to the purpose of the study. Abstract 2. The sentences should be in the past. For instance, page 2 line 17 and 19 should be we focused… and we quantified… respectively. 3. Keywords: Please add rural women Background 4. The background and problem statement looks great but kindly state the specific objectives. 5. Kindly add the significance of the study to the background. Dutch Context 6. This section was well explained Methods 7. The study design was not too clearly stated. 8. Please check the sentence of page 7 line 150, it should read …, we focused on the… 9. Is there any justification for putting brownfield redevelopment into bracket (line 177)? 10. Please check the sentence of line 181, it is supposed to read we use Results and discussions 11. The results presented were great but the conclusion made could it be all summed in the conclusion and recommendation? If not, kindly state it as your key findings. For instance, line 300 “This is our first important conclusion: the disappearance of national coordination and the abolition of development subsidies did not result in a drop in the number of housing units added to the stock”. Similar of such conclusion could be found in line 309. 12. In some of the interpretations, please refer to the exact table number. For instance, line 303, “The table (Table 2) shows a large reduction in the share of new housing constructed outside existing urban areas: from 58% in the first period to 31% in the third”. This is similar in the following lines; line 323 and 373. 13. In line 372, the saldi stated here cannot be found in table 2. Kindly check. 14. Well synthesised, Good job done! Conclusion and recommendation 15. This was done well but line 466-467 talks about proximity to certain amenities was not mentioned in the results and discussion so how do you draw conclusion on that? Reviewer #2: The manuscript is technically strong and is a good scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. The conclusions is appropriately based on the data presented and the statistical analysis has been performed appropriately and the manuscript presented in an standard English. I would like to be able to offer more precise data on the evolution of housing prices and to establish clearer recommendations for public policy. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer_PONE-D-20-22192.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240738.r001
Revision 1
14 Sep 2020 Author Response Reviewer #1 Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Urban density and spatial planning: the unforeseen impacts of Dutch devolution”. The authors investigated residential development since 2000 in the Netherlands in relation to the changing planning policies. The study found that while the national policy on residential development is decentralised making it look weak and the share of residential development within existing urban areas increased. The findings of this study contribute to literature especially its methodological approach. In general, this is a well-written manuscript. However, I have a few suggestions that when considered can help improve the manuscript. Thanks for your kind comments. Topic 1. The topic appears great because it is clear and specific to the purpose of the study. Thanks again. Abstract 2. The sentences should be in the past. For instance, page 2 line 17 and 19 should be we focused… and we quantified… respectively. We have changed the tense in the abstract and entire method section for consistency. 3. Keywords: Please add rural women In relation to rural development we have listed the keyword greenfield redevelopment. The gender aspect of these developments is not discussed, so we have note included this suggestion. Background 4. The background and problem statement looks great but kindly state the specific objectives. We have now emphasised the objectives in the introduction. 5. Kindly add the significance of the study to the background. We have formulated the significance of the study in a more explicit way in the introduction section. Dutch Context 6. This section was well explained Thanks for this positive comment. Methods 7. The study design was not too clearly stated. We now sketch the basic study design at the start of the Methods section. 8. Please check the sentence of page 7 line 150, it should read …, we focused on the… We have changed the tense throughout this section. 9. Is there any justification for putting brownfield redevelopment into bracket (line 177)? In this research brownfield redevelopment is combined with greyfield redevelopment because of a lack of appropriate data, that has now been clarified in the caption of Fig 1 and the main text. 10. Please check the sentence of line 181, it is supposed to read we use The sentence has been adapted to the past tense and now reads “we used”. Results and discussions 11. The results presented were great but the conclusion made could it be all summed in the conclusion and recommendation? If not, kindly state it as your key findings. For instance, line 300 “This is our first important conclusion: the disappearance of national coordination and the abolition of development subsidies did not result in a drop in the number of housing units added to the stock”. Similar of such conclusion could be found in line 309. We have included more explicit conclusions to the results section and conclusion. 12. In some of the interpretations, please refer to the exact table number. For instance, line 303, “The table (Table 2) shows a large reduction in the share of new housing constructed outside existing urban areas: from 58% in the first period to 31% in the third”. This is similar in the following lines; line 323 and 373. We have added the explicit table number in this sentence and also to two other instances in the Results section. 13. In line 372, the saldi stated here cannot be found in table 2. Kindly check. We have described more explicitly now why the saldi here differ from Table 2. 14. Well synthesised, Good job done! Thanks again for your kind words. Conclusion and recommendation 15. This was done well but line 466-467 talks about proximity to certain amenities was not mentioned in the results and discussion so how do you draw conclusion on that? We now more clearly indicated that the urban attractivity index represents a neighbourhood related amount of amenities. Reviewer #2 The manuscript is technically strong and is a good scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. The conclusions is appropriately based on the data presented and the statistical analysis has been performed appropriately and the manuscript presented in an standard English. I would like to be able to offer more precise data on the evolution of housing prices and to establish clearer recommendations for public policy. Thank you for this very positive review. In response we have now included a precise figure related to house price development in Section 4.1. In the conclusion we now introduced more specific public policy recommendations. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Repliek voor reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240738.r002
2 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Eda Ustaoglu, Editor Urban density and spatial planning: the unforeseen impacts of Dutch devolution PONE-D-20-22192R1 Dear Dr. Claassens, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Eda Ustaoglu, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Urban density and spatial planning: the unforeseen impacts of Dutch devolution”. The authors investigated residential development since 2000 in the Netherlands in relation to the changing planning policies. The study found that while the national policy on residential development is decentralised making it look weak and the share of residential development within existing urban areas increased. The findings of this study contribute to literature especially its methodological approach. In general, this is a well-written manuscript. All concerns raised have been addressed. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer_PONE-D-20-22192-R2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240738.r003
Formally Accepted
8 Oct 2020 Acceptance Letter - Eda Ustaoglu, Editor PONE-D-20-22192R1 Urban density and spatial planning: the unforeseen impacts of Dutch devolution Dear Dr. Claassens: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Eda Ustaoglu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240738.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .