Achieving Healthy City Development in Ghana: Referencing Sustainable Development Goal 11

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

I thank the authors for being constructive and willing to improve the manuscript.

As I have mentioned in my previous comments, the paper has certain qualities and is very optimistic. It was vag in the part of reliable data. However, the new additions justify the study output to a certain degree. Even though I still feel it needs more in-depth investigation, the study output and limitations are scientifically acceptable.  

Author Response

Please see comments addressed in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Most of my concerns from the first review have been addressed for publication. 

The quality of the English has improved but there are redundancies and some errors so more proofreading is advised. 

Author Response

Please see response to comments in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Article Title: Achieving Healthy City Development in Ghana: Referencing Sustainable Development Goal 11

 

Review Report

 

Recommendation: I would recommend this article for publication pending the following MINOR REVISIONS.

 

The paper is consistent with MDPI Sustainability and fits in with the overall journal scope. The lit. rev., references, and methodology are sufficient and properly weighted toward the study. The research idea is good and its significance novel. As such: novelty is medium. The results are also clear.

The paper looks at the growing responsiveness in creating eco-friendly cities with reference to SDG 11 in Ghana. The findings from this study pioneer knowledge on the scarce literature sources on the topic within the Ghanaian context. It also provides insight into the current level of achievement of SDG 11 targets in Ghana.

 

General remarks:

The paper is appealing to the reader, however, there still remains some revisionary work by the authors to strengthen the paper before it should be considered for publication.

 

Namely, the paper needs a good read through, it is hard to always follow the authors’ points. Please improve the English.

Article Title: Achieving Healthy City Development in Ghana: Referencing Sustainable Development Goal 11

 

Review Report

 

Recommendation: I would recommend this article for publication pending the following MINOR REVISIONS.

 

The paper is consistent with MDPI Sustainability and fits in with the overall journal scope. The lit. rev., references, and methodology are sufficient and properly weighted toward the study. The research idea is good and its significance novel. As such: novelty is medium. The results are also clear.

The paper looks at the growing responsiveness in creating eco-friendly cities with reference to SDG 11 in Ghana. The findings from this study pioneer knowledge on the scarce literature sources on the topic within the Ghanaian context. It also provides insight into the current level of achievement of SDG 11 targets in Ghana.

 

General remarks:

The paper is appealing to the reader, however, there still remains some revisionary work by the authors to strengthen the paper before it should be considered for publication.

 

Namely, the paper needs a good read through, it is hard to always follow the authors’ points. Please improve the English.

Author Response

Please see response to comments in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors explore Ghanaian local authorities' awareness of Healthy City Development, which is relevant to the SDGs. The whole article provides insightful information on Ghana's development plan and has an excellent writing structure. The article aims to highlight how the healthy city concept and SDGs are closely related. However, I believe that the literature on healthy city development is still lacking (subtopic 2.2). Some of the sentences on this subject also needed sources and were confusing. I recommended expanding the literature review for this subject. Authors may elaborate on and examine additional ideas that directly relate to SDG11, such as Healthy Urban Planning (HUP). Hugh Barton and Catherine Tsourou have compared and connected this HUP with LA21 since 2000. Reviewing their book and other recent HUP articles is strongly advised. The manuscript will be more engaging and capable of discussing concept awareness and the relationship between the healthy city concept and SDG 11.

The english is already well-written with good structure.

Author Response

Please see response to comments in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.        The greatest issue I had with the paper was that the conclusion did not mention the major limitation of the study as being based on perceptions of lack of achievements and not actual lack of achievements. It is probably not difficult to bolster the credibility of the paper by noting the expertise of the respondents.

2.        Page 13 mentions proof of a lack of achievements where no such proof has been offered, just perceptions of the level of achievement. It would probably not be difficult to complement this perception with some other data.

3.        The paper does a nice job of orienting the reader not familiar with Ghana to the representative/administrative system, but has the curious omission as to any assessments of the level of development to provide some guidepost as to the challenges of sustainable development. To what extent is this related to new development and to what extent does this represent redevelopment and adaptation of existing systems, for example.

4.        There were curious omissions about the survey. How many questions were there? One per SDG 11 target (with the exception of 11.a, 11.b, and 11.c)? Why are no sample questions provided so that the language employed could be judged? Were the surveys not in English? Were they in a variety of languages? How were the questions scaled? Does the less than 3.5 response mean under 50% (7-point scale) or under 70% (5-point scale), for example, or something else?

5.        Why was 3.5 chosen as the test score? Was there some theoretical or practical justification? Could this be specified and explained as needed?

6.        Why did the table on page ten include non-responses (0s) instead of just the data about the respondents in the table. The text makes the non-response by district chiefs clear, so that is superfluous in the data, while including the lack of diploma holders tells about people who did not answer the survey and not about the respondents themselves.

7.        Finally, I assume that the authors are all native speakers of English, but I did find a number of confusing occasions with the language so I think the text would benefit from being reviewed by someone who is not an author.

For example, pg. 2 has the redundant “widely ubiquitous,” the unusual and illogical match “one solution… is the need,” a superfluous semicolon following “which entails; a sustainable ecosystem,” and “accessibility to resources” which should be followed by a semicolon.

As noted above, I assumed that the authors are all native speakers of English, but the text seemed a little rushed and sloppy in places and could use a more thorough proofreading by someone who is not an author in order to detect unclear and inconsistent usage. 

Author Response

Please see attached a file that addresses all the issues raised by the three august reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Several issues arise in the manuscript due to needing more data and methodological approaches. This is because the study is heavily focused on assumptions and descriptive analysis. To examine a critical subject such as SDG 11 in a country, this should include:

- Official SDG indicators and targets.

- Data from international organizations such as United Nations (UN), World Bank, and International Monetary Fund (IMF).

- National and local data sources, including government reports and statistical agencies.

- Academic research and think tank publications.

- Media articles and expert opinions. 

 

Also, to make the quantitative analysis more reliable, it needs to include: 

- Descriptive statistics and data visualization techniques to understand the current status of SDG 11 indicators.

- Regression analysis to evaluate the relationships between different variables and the progress towards SDG 11.

- Spatial analysis and Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques to map and analyze urban patterns and their implications for sustainability and resilience.

 

All of these are missing, and in the "analysis of data" section, we would like to know in which circumstances the authors hypothesize these statistical test numbers, mainly when all the data are based on this hypothesis. Thus, a theoretical framework is needed, and previous similar studies are required to justify it.  

 

Author Response

Please see attached a file that addresses all the issues raised by the three august reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I received the manuscript entitled Achieving Healthy City Development in Ghana: Referencing Sustainable Development Goal 11. The study seeks to assess the views of personnel working with Ghana’s District Assemblies on the achievement of healthy city development (HCD) through the lens of SDG 11.

 After reviewing the manuscript, I have the following comments:

Introduction

The Introduction needs to be more concise and clearer. The problem description is too ambiguous and needs to be refined. For instance, There are some discussions about GDP but this seems disconnected from the main context of this study.

In the last paragraph of the introduction… In Ghana, there has been a natural increase in the populace migrating to the cities from rural areas since 2010, due to the identification of cities as major economic hotspots [22]…. The author presents the problem again. This reinforces the inconsistency in the structure of the introduction.

The objective is not clearly presented. What is the research gap this study wants to address?

Review of the literature

The literature review must be structured around the theoretical concepts used in the study. In this study, it is mostly focusing on the administrative structures of Ghanaian cities, which makes it difficult to identify the merit of this study.

Final comment: This paper has some merit for publication in this journal, however, a major revision is needed, particularly in the introduction and literature review.

Author Response

Please see attached a file that addresses all the issues raised by the three august reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I still contend that the manuscript severely lacks reliable data to support its conclusions. Since the subject is delicate, official data and reliable statistical figures must support the conclusion, especially with no proof of Official SDG indicators, as well as no indication of the country's current status of SDG 11 indicators.

Even with the minor editions, without crucial evidence, the manuscript's conclusions may be deemed speculative and unreliable. It is imperative to ensure that the research is based on comprehensive and verifiable information to maintain the credibility of the findings. 

Reviewer 3 Report

There is significant improvement. I am pleased with the quality of the final manuscript.