Sustainable Development Goals and Equity in Urban Planning: A Comparative Analysis of Chicago, São Paulo, and Delhi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

 

I agree with the author's thesis that urban social equity is the cornerstone of sustainable development. The starting point for considerations, which is the global trend of urbanization and the agenda recommended by the SDGs, are facts that do not raise doubts and should be developed. However, the proposed article requires significant additions, which I will discuss briefly.

 

First, technically it is poorly written, and it should be corrected. I admit that it is a minor mistake that can be easily corrected, but technical errors (e.g., lack of alignment of the text to both sides) make it difficult to read.

 

Second, I understand the choice of SDG 11 as a starting point, but it is not clear why the 11.3 target was chosen. What I mean is that the choice should be explained more specifically referring to other studies, research, or the literature. In general, the article lacks a review of the literature on urbanization processes with particular emphasis on sustainable urbanization. It is an issue that has been extensively researched in the sociological, urban, and public management literature. The lack of a literature review results in quite general research questions. In addition, closed-end questions are not the correct form of research questions (the first question is such).

 

Third, the author is particularly interested in the issues of participation of the community in the decision-making process regarding sustainable urbanization of cities; therefore, the issue of participation (definition, strategies, results of previous research) should be discussed in the theoretical part of the article.

 

Fourth, the article lacks methodological foundations, such as adopted definitions, adopted theoretical model of urbanization and sustainable development, and logical connections between definitions, indicators, and data selected for analysis.

 

Fifth, the choice of cities that are very different is also not clear to the reader. Why such cities? – more details are expected that justify the choice of them are expected. It is a problem because each city comes from a different state with different policies, different histories, economic development, and a tradition of social participation. Moreover, they represent countries that have implemented National Urban Policy (USA only partially) to varying degrees.

 

Sixth, it should be clearly stated what the author means by framework; four primary elements to sustainable human well-being are mentioned without any reference to literature or research.

 

Seventh, the relationship between social inequality and urban planning is very roughly explained, making the issue unclear to the reader. Generally, I think the chapter “Social equity aspects of policy” is not needed. It rather causes confusion, not explaining the analyzed thesis.

 

Finally, an in-depth explanation of the method used. It is written that 'a content analysis technique of a qualitative research methodology' is used, but there is no explanation of how the research process was carried out. As a result, the outcomes discussed are not comprehensible.

 

In conclusion, the article should be supplemented with theoretical and methodological foundations of the research, a thoroughly presented method of selecting cities, and the entire research process. The research aim, research questions or hypotheses should be clearly defined, along with a reference to research gaps noticed in the literature.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

 

First, technically it is poorly written, and it should be corrected. I admit that it is a minor mistake that can be easily corrected, but technical errors (e.g., lack of alignment of the text to both sides) make it difficult to read.

• The document text has been set to justified alignment

Second, I understand the choice of SDG 11 as a starting point, but it is not clear why the 11.3 target was chosen. What I mean is that the choice should be explained more specifically referring to other studies, research, or the literature. In general, the article lacks a review of the literature on urbanization processes with particular emphasis on sustainable urbanization. It is an issue that has been extensively researched in the sociological, urban, and public management literature. The lack of a literature review results in quite general research questions. In addition, closed-end questions are not the correct form of research questions (the first question is such). 

• I have addressed this by including that most of the research that currently exists in the literature since the SDGs around Goal 11 have not addressed Target 11.3.2 by referencing/citing what already seems to be dominant in the literature and why this exploratory research is addressing the gap. Please refer to lines 47-78 in the document.  It was a very relevant point and hope that it is a bit more clearer now.

Third, the author is particularly interested in the issues of participation of the community in the decision-making process regarding sustainable urbanization of cities; therefore, the issue of participation (definition, strategies, results of previous research) should be discussed in the theoretical part of the article. 

• I agree this was somewhat not clear from the front (introduction) as well as the theoretical part of the article in the first draft. I have addressed this in the front briefly (see lines 57-78) as well as in more detail in section 1.1.3 (lines 222-330) and Chapter 2 (lines 332-400)

Fourth, the article lacks methodological foundations, such as adopted definitions, adopted theoretical model of urbanization and sustainable development, and logical connections between definitions, indicators, and data selected for analysis.

• This has been addressed in lines 383-400.

Fifth, the choice of cities that are very different is also not clear to the reader. Why such cities? – more details are expected that justify the choice of them are expected. It is a problem because each city comes from a different state with different policies, different histories, economic development, and a tradition of social participation. Moreover, they represent countries that have implemented National Urban Policy (USA only partially) to varying degrees. 

• The purpose and choice of cities was to investigate and unpack why participatory planning processes will differ due to historical, political, cultural, and economical differences among nations. Moreover, this justification is to make a point of the difficulty to assess levels of participatory planning practices within the SDGs between nations because of these differences.  It may have not been as clear in the first draft, and I have added some additional context.  Please see lines 411-422

Sixth, it should be clearly stated what the author means by framework; four primary elements to sustainable human well-being are mentioned without any reference to literature or research.

• This has been removed from the manuscript, however, the underlying concept of equity as a significant factor for sustainable urban development that it was conveying has been better explained in section 1.1.3 and Chapter 2 (Lines 223-400)

 

Seventh, the relationship between social inequality and urban planning is very roughly explained, making the issue unclear to the reader. Generally, I think the chapter “Social equity aspects of policy” is not needed. It rather causes confusion, not explaining the analyzed thesis. 

• This section has been extensively revised. The major aspect of this research is centered around equity in urban planning underpinned by participatory planning as a paradigm to mitigate inequities that have long existed, and continue to exist, in cities.  To link these concepts, the section has been reorganized with additional text and the heading changed to “participatory planning and equity”.  See lines 223-330.

Finally, an in-depth explanation of the method used. It is written that 'a content analysis technique of a qualitative research methodology' is used, but there is no explanation of how the research process was carried out. As a result, the outcomes discussed are not comprehensible.

• This has been addressed (see lines 432-476)

Reviewer 2 Report

Very good idea and very well written. Recommendations for further research can be added to expand study and support it with more empirical results. Target research funds in the topic and find institutions that support such analysis, Non profit institutions like the Steven's Institute etc.

Author Response

Very good idea and very well written. Recommendations for further research can be added to expand study and support it with more empirical results. Target research funds in the topic and find institutions that support such analysis, Non profit institutions like the Steven's Institute etc.

• This has been addressed (see lines 828-834)

Reviewer 3 Report

The initial principle of the article is very interesting indeed. The result is less interesting.

The article type is too general and does not cover the topics in depth.

I do not find useful elements for research. However, I find useful elements for future research that can be developed.

Author Response

The initial principle of the article is very interesting indeed. The result is less interesting.

The article type is too general and does not cover the topics in depth. I do not find useful elements for research. However, I find useful elements for future research that can be developed.

• This has been largely addressed throughout the revision, but more specifically in lines 828-834

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 

I still feel a lack a precise explanation of the research methods. As well as research questions or hypotheses. As a result, we obtain a description of the cities examined and not an analysis of indicators that allow for comparative studies. The conclusions are general in nature and contribute relatively little to city management, urban planning, or sustainable development of cities.

 

I believe that the article should be supplemented, for example, with a practical model for implementing UN goals in cities, or recommendations for other cities resulting from these studies.

 

To sum up, I do not have any answers to the following questions: What are the benefits of urban planning? What are the benefits of city management, etc. from the presented considerations? Authors should clearly state their practical and/or scientific purpose.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

 

I still feel a lack a precise explanation of the research methods. As well as research questions or hypotheses. As a result, we obtain a description of the cities examined and not an analysis of indicators that allow for comparative studies.

• I have expanded the research methods by presenting existing UN methods for collection of data, measuring, and tracking Indicator 11.3.2, as well as the reasoning behind the methodology used for this comparative study. (See lines 450-479)
• Related to the overarching research question, I have included three hypotheses to the research (See lines 76-92)

The conclusions are general in nature and contribute relatively little to city management, urban planning, or sustainable development of cities. I believe that the article should be supplemented, for example, with a practical model for implementing UN goals in cities, or recommendations for other cities resulting from these studies.

• Text on two prong recommendations has been added. The first addresses the need and recommendation on incorporating political, economic, education attainment, gender equality indices in the collection and measurement of data in meeting Indicator 11.3.2.  The second addresses the need to build capacity for participatory planning, particularly in rapidly urbanizing developing countries where most urbanization is currently taking place.  (See lines 653-689)

To sum up, I do not have any answers to the following questions: 

What are the benefits of urban planning? What are the benefits of city management, etc. from the presented considerations? Authors should clearly state their practical and/or scientific purpose.

• A brief but concise statement on the benefits of urban planning and city management has been added to document. (See lines 177-186)