Good Governance, Resilience, and Sustainable Development: A Combined Analysis of USA Metropolises’ Strategies through the Lens of the 100 RC Network

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The rapid and intensive urbanization of our world has led to the emergence of sprawling metropolises that rely heavily on their surrounding regions and cities for functionality and administration. However, as these urban boundaries continue to expand, so do the persistent challenges and unexpected crises that cities must confront. To mitigate the adverse impacts of these threats and enhance the safety and well-being of their residents, metropolises must prioritize resilience and sustainability. Within this context, governance emerges as a pivotal element in achieving these critical goals.

This paper delves into the realm of governance, particularly within the framework of the 100 Resilient Cities (100 RC) network program, and endeavors to diagnose the role of effective governance in advancing urban resilience and sustainable development at the metropolitan scale. The study employs a combined methodology, drawing extensively from two key sources: a) The City Resilience Framework, which provides a comprehensive blueprint for enhancing urban resilience, and b) a strategic examination of various metropolises.

Through an in-depth analysis of metropolitan areas within the 100 RC network in the United States, this article aims to shed light on the intricate relationship between urban governance, urban resilience, and sustainable development. It underscores the pivotal role that good urban governance plays as a potent tool for the adept management of chronic pressures and unforeseen risks encountered within cities. By utilizing real-world case studies, this research strives to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of how effective governance can serve as a cornerstone for building resilient and sustainable urban futures.

However, you say that you used questionnaires, interviews, observations as research methods, but I did not see a statistical processing and interpretation of these data, which I think would have been needed.

Or can the article be considered a review?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your valuable comments

All the best

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your valuable comments, we make the revisions at the best way we can

All the best

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In Conclusion, you should briefly conclude your paper, and it is not recommended to give the results of the study in this section. Instead, they should be given before the Conclusion section under Results section by comparing your findings with existing literature.

 

 

Conclusion section should be compact, briefly summarizing the study in a few paragraphs.

 

Conclusion section should be compact, briefly summarizing the study in a few paragraphs.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your valuable comments

All the best

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a well-executed analysis, but it lacks novelty and broader scholarly relevance. For this reason, it is insufficiently clear how this paper makes progress beyond already published work on this topic. Therefore I decided to reject it.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer thank you for the comment

All the best

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx