Awareness Level of Spatial Planning Tools for Disaster Risk Reduction in Informal Settlements in Mopani District, South Africa
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
· Dear Authors
· The following comments could consider improving the quality of the manuscript.
· Line 36 Author mentioned about the SDG 11. It has many targets and several indicators, of that which is addressed (means which are the indicators and targets were focused) in this research work, that has to be given clearly.
· Line 78; Department of Human Settlement report 2021/21, (Check the year. Or year with the document number).
· In several places, it is mentioned that disaster-prone / risk areas. Authors could give a specific type of disaster and its frequency.
· Results and discussion should be given separately.
· In this manuscript, results are very limited. Authors could make some more statistical analysis (T-test, ANOVA) to enhance the work.
· The entire, result and discussion section was focused on the different spatial planning tools and their feasibility but failed to portray the field-based observations and so on.
· I am very queries to know that the questionaries were asked to the public, those are having the permeant resident of that place (Owner) or rented person (tenant).
· A bit confused, about whether this work addresses the issue and raises awareness to the government or public or both.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please find the attached response
Thank you
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Although this paper "Awareness level of spatial planning tools for disaster risk reduction in informal settlements in Mopani District, South Africa" deals with a concern of great interest to society regarding the prevention of human-caused disaster risks, by evaluating the level of awareness of territorial planning tools at the level of some human communities in a vulnerable area related to South Africa, Mopani district it has some shortcomings:
- the summary must be rewritten to repeat the information from chapter 1. Introduction; (The abstract must be in a structured form and include information about Background, Materials, Methods Results and Conclusions);
- the results and discussions must be treated separately, in distinct chapters;
- the conclusions should be expanded, in correlation with the objective of the study and the research hypotheses.
Considering the topicality of the research, the methodology used, I support the publication of the article entitled "Awareness level of spatial planning tools for disaster risk reduction in informal settlements in Mopani District, South Africa", after making the necessary changes, including those imposed by the journal's requirements.
Good luck!
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam
Please find the attached response.
Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
AWARENESS LEVEL OF SPATIAL PLANNING TOOLS FOR DISASTER RISK REDUCTION IN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN MOPANI DISTRCT, SOUTH AFRICA
The authors in this paper are trying to resolve research problem which is the topic of the great importance, nowadays. Initial idea, as well as chosen methodological approach, theoretical foundation and direction, methods used and first results are correct and well represented. However, in order to better shape and present the aforementioned, certain changes are necessary.
First, it is necessary to check and improve the English language significantly.
The Main Title of the paper depict what the work really represents, however it is necessary to check and improve the style and to be more in the manner of English language.
Keywords needs to be modified. Some of them e.g. spatial or informal are not clear enough and need to be changed into the phrase or term it refers to. I recommend change of keyword Mopani to wider known geographical term like South Africa or if authors think that Mopani is necessary than should be Mopani District.
Introduction and theoretical background are in Paper in the same Section, which is acceptable. This section is well structured and with good references.
In Section 2. Study area, lines 134/135 authors should check the given Longitudes and Latitudes. In Fig. 2, in legend is term roads without sign for it and on the map, roads are not showed.
In Section 3, Materials and Methods, it would be interesting to see the structure and main characteristics of the respondents (sample), i.e. gender, age group, education level, employment status. These characteristics are of crucial importance for respondents understanding of mentioned spatial planning tools. Also, for better understanding of whole picture, it would be interesting to know how or in what way are respondents informed on the main tools and their real meaning. This should be elaborate more in discussion section, too.
In Section 4, subsection 4.1. is overview of the spatial planning tools. This part is clear and understandable, however, its not represents the result of this study and should not be in the part with the results.
Subsection 4.2. which represents the main results of this research is the part of the Results and Discussion, however this discussion part is missing. Authors in this part did not represent scientific confirmation of the obtained results and their connection and integration with the existing theoretical background. Given results must be more elaborate with well-founded explanations. In line 363 some understanding the word some is not the good qualification.
Last section should be called Conclusion, recommendation is more common for strategy document.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam
Please find the attached response.
Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
Thank you for your response. Significantly, the manuscript has been updated, authors try to incorporate all the comments raised by the reviewers. Now it is suitable for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Hello,
Dear authors,
Dear authors, I congratulate you on your efforts to improve study ”Awareness level of spatial planning tools for disaster risk reduction in informal settlements in Mopani District, South Africa”.
Therefore, I believe the manuscript was sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Sustainability.
Good luck!
