Evaluation of Urban Sustainability through Perceived Importance, Performance, Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Integrated IPA–SEM-Based Modelling Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting paper evaluating  Urban Sustainability through four different factors. The paper is well organized and the literature review session is well supported. Some comments below:

Figure 1 map should have citations of resource

Respondents Characteristics details are not enough, such as any sample limitation, sampling method, and potential bias 

weak conclusion, the finding seems intuitive and reasonable, but what are the importance of the research?

 

Minor editing of the English language required

Author Response

First, the authors would like to thank the Editor for providing the positive revisions from reviewers and for the chance to revise the manuscript for consideration in a reputed SUSTAINABILITY. Each comment are very insightful and carefully addressed in the below sections. Based on the comments and suggestions, we try our best to modify it, and the manuscript with highlighted changes is uploaded for further consideration. Hope for getting accepted in SUSTAINABILITY.

Reviewer 1 Comments and its reply

 

REVIEWER 1 GENERAL COMMENT: This is an interesting paper evaluating Urban Sustainability through four different factors. The paper is well organized and the literature review session is well supported. Some comments below:

General Reply to reviewer 1: First the authors want to express their sincere gratitude to the 1^st reviewer for the constructive and positive feedback and for accepting the significance of our contribution. We very much appreciated your patience in checking, reviewing our paper, and further commenting on it. We acknowledge the reviewer’s in-depth understanding and scholarly knowledge regarding the topic. Further, we have provided the details below on how we have incorporated the changes in the following sections with highlights.

• REVIEWER 1 COMMENT: Figure 1 map should have citations of resource

Authors Reply: Thanks for your comment. Its updated kindly check.

• REVIEWER 1 COMMENT: Respondents Characteristics details are not enough, such as any sample limitation, sampling method, and potential bias.

Authors Reply: We sincerely appreciate your feedback on our paper. Your comment regarding the need for additional details on the respondents' characteristics, sample limitation, sampling method, and potential bias is valid. However, we already mentioned it in the section 4.3. Further based on the comments we have updated it as follows:

“..The research used a convenient sample of people strolling through crucial locations, including a retail centre and a well-known street in the city. Convenience sampling is standard among numerous prominent public opinion polling organizations, political polling groups, and market research firms, exemplifying a nonprobability sample [83]. Participants in the study who were at least 18 years old were asked to fill out a questionnaire about the characteristics of the city, their perceptions of the city's attributes (including their importance, performance, and level of satisfaction), their overall level of satisfaction, and their loyalty to the town. The sampling was done throughout January and April of 2023.

In order to address the issue of missing data, the expectation-maximization algorithm was employed prior to conducting data analyses [84]. Out of the 470 returned questionnaires, 45 were disqualified due to repeated inadequate responses or suspicious patterns, leaving a total of 425 samples for further investigation. Following the initial screening, less than 5% of data were missing entirely, which is considered low [85 and 86]. Moreover, the skewness and kurtosis of the observed variables were examined, and it was determined that the data did not deviate significantly from a normal distribution, as all endogenous variables had skewness values below 2 and kurtosis values below 3, with their absolute values falling within acceptable limits [87 and 88]. The data analysis procedure consisted of four steps:..”

 

• Further regarding the detail and elaboration of respondent’s characteristics, we have added A NEW table as Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. And in support of it we further added an elaboration regarding respondent characteristics in SECTION 5.1 of the results as follows.

“….The respondents who are between the ages of 18 and 30 constitute the most significant proportion of the city's population (29.41%), followed by those who are between the ages of 30-45 (27.06%) and those who are between 45 and 60 (22.82%), who are also significant. Approximately 24% of residents have a bachelor's degree, 27.29 % are postgraduate, and 6.35 are doctorate. Besides, most respondents are engaged in Private Jobs (36.71%), followed by business (25.65%), Government jobs (11.29%) and housewives (9.18%). Also, the majority of the respondents (35.05%) resided in the city for more than 10 to 15 years, followed by 22.35% are 15 to 20 years, 20.94 % are 5 to 10 years, 11.53 % are less than five years, and 10.11 % are more than 20 years. Thus, most respondents have resided in this city for more than 10 to 15 years and have a good experience and perception of the city…..”

• REVIEWER 1 COMMENT: Weak conclusion, the finding seems intuitive and reasonable, but what are the importance of the research?

Authors Reply: Thank you for your invaluable feedback and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered your concerns and have made revisions to the manuscript accordingly. In response to Reviewer 1's comment regarding the importance of the research, we have expanded the discussion section to elucidate the significance and contributions of this study. Also, addressing the concerns of Reviewer 3, we have merged the discussion and conclusion sections, and have extensively elaborated on the findings and their implications in the revised discussion section. Kindly check the revised manuscript with highlighted changes.

• REVIEWER 1 COMMENT: Minor editing of the English language required

Authors Reply: Thank you for bringing this to us. We understand the importance of a clear and well-written manuscript. Therefore, the entire manuscript has been proofread and copy-edited by a professional English writer based on the constructive remarks. Kindly check the revised manuscript. Besides numerous insignificant tautologies, grammatical slips and punctuation marks were updated. All such grammatical and typographical errors were rechecked. Additionally, various reiterative statements were revised and rewritten with added citations to strengthen the paper further.  Once again Thank you for your support and guidance throughout the publication process.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review an interesting article entitled: ‘Evaluation of Urban Sustainability through Perceived Importance, Performance, Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Integrated IPA-SEM Based Modelling Approach’. The aim of this study was to develop a combined IPA and SEM approach to assess the correlation between the perceived importance of elements of urban sustainability.

The strengths of the article presented for evaluation are the statistical analyses used and the citation of current literature.

The reviewer's job, on the other hand, is to help improve the article so that it meets the highest possible standards of the journal, therefore I will focus on its weaknesses.

 

[1].  The notation of „t”, „p”, „r”, „α”, „β” etc., which should be italicised in each case, should be standardised.

[2].  Section numbers should be corrected (some are duplicated).

[3].  A lowercase 'p' is used to denote the p-value coefficient, rather than an uppercase 'p' - Table 3.

[4].  Line 338 lacks a mathematical sign next to the 'p' value.

[5].  A colon is unnecessary in section titles. Similarly in the titles of Tables 2 and 4.

[6].  Footnotes and references should be adapted to the requirements of the journal as described at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions#references

[7].  DOI numbers should be completed.

[8].  No described limitations of the present study and analysis.

 

Author Response

• REVIEWER 2 GENERAL COMMENT: Dear Authors, Thank you for the opportunity to review an interesting article entitled: ‘Evaluation of Urban Sustainability through Perceived Importance, Performance, Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Integrated IPA-SEM Based Modelling Approach’. The aim of this study was to develop a combined IPA and SEM approach to assess the correlation between the perceived importance of elements of urban sustainability. The strengths of the article presented for evaluation are the statistical analyses used and the citation of current literature. The reviewer's job, on the other hand, is to help improve the article so that it meets the highest possible standards of the journal, therefore I will focus on its weaknesses.

General Reply to reviewer 2: Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our article titled. We appreciate your positive feedback regarding the statistical analyses used and the citation of current literature. We understand that your role as a reviewer is to help improve the article and ensure it meets the highest possible standards of the journal. We value your input and carefully considered your comments and suggestions regarding its weaknesses. Once again, we thank you for your valuable feedback and the opportunity to improve our work.

• REVIEWER 2 COMMENT: [1].The notation of „t”, „p”, „r”, „α”, „β” etc., which should be italicised in each case, should be standardised.

Authors Reply: Thank you for your comments. All such notations has been italicised (both in manuscript and table) with highlights.

• REVIEWER 2 COMMENT: [2].Section numbers should be corrected (some are duplicated).

Authors Reply: Thank you for your comments. All such duplicate sections has been rechecked and updated accordingly.

• REVIEWER 2 COMMENT:[3].  A lowercase 'p' is used to denote the p-value coefficient, rather than an uppercase 'p' - Table 3.

Authors Reply: Thank you for your comments. All such 'p' values has been rechecked and updated.

• REVIEWER 2 COMMENT: [4].  Line 338 lacks a mathematical sign next to the 'p' value.

Authors Reply: Thank you for your comments. The mathematical sign has been updated.

• REVIEWER 2 COMMENT: [5].A colon is unnecessary in section titles. Similarly, in the titles of Tables 2 and 4.

Authors Reply: Thank you for your comments. All the colons in the section titles and tables headings has been removed. Besides the Table no. 2 & 4 have been changed to Table no. 3 & 5 due to the inclusion of new respondent sample Table 1.

• REVIEWER 2 COMMENT: [6].Footnotes and references should be adapted to the requirements of the journal as described

Authors Reply: Thank you for your comments. All the reference has been updated and rechecked according to MDPI style.

• REVIEWER 2 COMMENT: [7].DOI numbers should be completed.

Authors Reply: Thank you for your comments. The references with available DOI numbers have been updated.

• REVIEWER 2 COMMENT: [8].No described limitations of the present study and analysis.

Authors Reply: Thank you for your valuable comments. Regarding the limitation, we have included the following with highlights. Further we have elaborated the introduction, methodology, discussion and conclusion of the study. Kindly check the updated manuscript. Thank you once again for your valuable time.

“…Although this study contributes substantially to the practical and theoretical understanding of urban sustainability, it is not exempt from certain limitations. The generalizability of the study is limited due to its exclusive focus on Siliguri City [38,102,103]. Furthermore, there can be substantial variations in cultural, socio-economic, and governance contexts, even considering a single nation. Hence, prudence must be exercised while extrapolating these results to other urban areas. Furthermore, employing a cross-sectional design is a constraint as it solely captures the perceptions and attitudes at a singular moment in time. Longitudinal investigations could yield a greater understanding regarding the development of these perceptions and attitudes over time, particularly in reaction to policy modifications or noteworthy occurrences. Despite its few limitations, the present study has the potential to measure urban sustainability by considering residents’ perceptions regarding satisfaction and loyalty towards the city….”

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper is interesting and original, as it provides insights into an Integrated IPA-SEM Based Modelling Approach for the Evaluation of Urban Sustainability.

Below I would give some comments for better clarify the research path following the MDPI structure:

1. Introduction

The theoretical background is suitable for the aim of the paper, I would suggest explaining the paper Sections for emerging the research structure.

2. Materials and methods

Materials and methods could be better described; I would suggest inserting a research methodology explanation (in a specific paragraph before the case study area explanation) specifying each research step able in responding to the research objectives. Probably the “Figure 3. Methodological flowchart adopted for the sustainable city assessment” could be inserted here for the explanation of the whole research methodological approach.

6. Discussion and conclusions

 

The findings and their implications should be discussed also with the limitations of the work highlighted. The paragraph of discussion should be merged with conclusions. I would suggest extending the conclusions with the discussion of every research step.

Author Response

• REVIEWER 3 GENERAL COMMENT: Dear Authors, The paper is interesting and original, as it provides insights into an Integrated IPA-SEM Based Modelling Approach for the Evaluation of Urban Sustainability. Below I would give some comments for better clarify the research path following the MDPI structure:

General Reply to reviewer 3: First the authors want to thank the 3^rd reviewer for the professional and positive feedback and for accepting the importance of our contribution for publication. Secondly, the authors are grateful to reviewer 3 for pointing out such important aspects which shows the level of understanding and knowledge regarding the topic. We acknowledge the reviewer’s patience in checking and reviewing our paper and commenting on it. In addition, we've included information on how we've implemented the modifications in the areas below.

 

• REVIEWER 3 COMMENT: Introduction: The theoretical background is suitable for the aim of the paper, I would suggest explaining the paper Sections for emerging the research structure.

Authors Reply: We greatly appreciate your constructive feedback regarding our research. We understand the importance of providing a clear structure in the introduction for the benefit of the readers and acknowledge your suggestion as valuable. To address your suggestion, we have elaborated on the structure of the paper by explaining each section in the introduction. We believe that by doing so, we will be offering readers a roadmap that guides them through the logical flow of the paper.

We are enclosing the modified segment incorporated into the introduction section –

“…Therefore, the present study unveils a novel methodology that combines Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to evaluate the multifaceted dimensions of urban sustainability. After conducting a thorough analysis of relevant works, this study presents a comprehensive overview of Siliguri's geographical and demographic characteristics. The purpose of this investigation is highlighted, emphasizing its novelty and significance. The work outlines the theoretical underpinnings, creating a conceptual structure encompassing the perceived importance, performance, satisfaction, and loyalty. The following section delineates the research methodology and analytical rigorousness of integrating IPA and SEM. Subsequently, the results are elaborated upon, providing insight into the complex effects of sustainability dimensions on the satisfaction and loyalty of residents. The subsequent discussion places these findings in the context of existing literature and theoretical implications. The concluding section summarizes the significant findings and provides suggestions for urban planning stakeholders while recognizing the constraints of the study and proposing potential areas for future research…”

• REVIEWER 3 COMMENT: Materials and methods: Materials and methods could be better described; I would suggest inserting a research methodology explanation (in a specific paragraph before the case study area explanation) specifying each research step able in responding to the research objectives. Probably the “Figure 3. Methodological flowchart adopted for the sustainable city assessment” could be inserted here for the explanation of the whole research methodological approach.

Authors Reply: We would like to express our gratitude for the reviewers' valuable comments and suggestions in the methodological section. We have carefully considered their feedback and have made significant revisions to improve the clarity and comprehensiveness of the materials and methods section.

To address the reviewers' concerns, we have incorporated a specific paragraph under the "4. Database and Methodology" section, titled "4.1 Comprehensive overview of the research methodology." This paragraph provides a detailed explanation of each research step undertaken to achieve the research objectives. In accordance with the reviewer's suggestion, we have also inserted "Figure 3. Methodological flowchart adopted for the sustainable city assessment" within this paragraph to illustrate the complete research methodological approach. By providing this additional section, we aim to enhance the reader's understanding of the research methodology employed in our study. We believe that this revision will not only address the reviewers' concerns but also improve the overall quality and comprehensibility of our manuscript. We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewers for highlighting this area for improvement. Their constructive feedback has undoubtedly contributed to the enhancement of our research paper.

“4.1 Comprehensive overview of the research methodology:

The present research utilizes a comprehensive and cautious methodology to evaluate the sustainable city indicators of Siliguri, taking into account diverse indicators spanning across social, economic, environmental, and cultural domains. The methodology involves a series of organized procedures that are combined to achieve the ultimate outcomes. After conducting a comprehensive examination of the available literature and seeking input from knowledgeable individuals, a collection of 26 indicators for sustainable cities (designated as F1 through F26) was selected (See Fig.3). The objective of the selection process was to guarantee the pertinence and practicality of the indicators in relation to the particular circumstances of Siliguri. Subsequently, a survey tool was created, comprising 26 inquiries that align with the chosen indicators. The objective of the survey was to gather the viewpoints of adult inhabitants who have been residing in Siliguri for over ten years concerning the significance and efficacy of said indicators. The study employed a five-point Likert scale to assess the participants' responses, thereby facilitating the collection of detailed feedback [84]. Subsequently, the raw data obtained from the survey underwent a process of data cleansing aimed at detecting and addressing incomplete or inconsistent responses (Fig.3). To ensure the data's suitability for further analysis, a normality check was conducted by evaluating the skewness, and kurtosis [89,90]. The subsequent step entailed performing a gap analysis to discern the discrepancies between the perceived significance and execution of each indicator (see Fig.4). The statistical significance of these gaps was evaluated using t-tests. Subsequently, an IPA [93] was performed to graphically depict the relative locations of the indicators within a two-dimensional plane delineated by their significance and effectiveness. The outcome of this approach was the creation of a four-quadrant matrix, consisting of the categories Concentrate Here, Keep Up the Good Work, Low Priority, and Possible Overkill (Fig.3, Fig.5).  This matrix served to enhance comprehension and enable the prioritization of the indicators. Factor analysis was employed to gain insight into the fundamental constructs among the indicators within each quadrant of the IPA matrix. The study evaluated the degree of contentment among inhabitants with regards to the efficacy and significance of the sustainable urban measurements. The investigation examined the correlation between satisfaction levels and residents' loyalty towards the city, acknowledging that the latter is dependent on the former. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) [94] was utilized as a sophisticated statistical methodology to construct a model that illustrates the interconnections between satisfaction, loyalty, and sustainable city indicators. The utilization of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) [94] facilitated a more profound comprehension of the interrelatedness and impact of these variables (Fig.3, Fig.6).

The methodology employed in this study ensures a thorough, organized, and all-encompassing evaluation of sustainable urban development in Siliguri. This is achieved through the use of primary data and the application of rigorous analytical techniques. The analysis and results in the following sections are based on the research methodology overview, which serves as the fundamental foundation of this research…”

• REVIEWER 3 COMMENT: Discussion and conclusions: The findings and their implications should be discussed also with the limitations of the work highlighted. The paragraph of discussion should be merged with conclusions. I would suggest extending the conclusions with the discussion of every research step.

Authors Reply: Addressing the concerns of Reviewer 3, we have merged the discussion and conclusion sections, and have extensively elaborated on the findings and their implications in the revised discussion section with highlighted changes.

We believe that these revisions and additions have addressed your concerns comprehensively and have greatly improved the depth and clarity of the manuscript. We are grateful for your insightful feedback which has guided these improvements. Kindly check the revised manuscript. Thank you once again.