UN-Sustainable Urbanism: The Challenge of “Lock-In”

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a well-structured and coherent argument regarding the challenges of achieving sustainable urbanism due to the phenomenon of "lock-in." The author effectively highlights the contradictions between current urban practices and the goals of sustainable city development, offering a compelling critique of existing urban models and proposing a framework to address these challenges. The manuscript is both innovative and thought-provoking, making significant contributions to the discourse on sustainable urbanism. However, the "Discussion" section could be further strengthened by addressing the following concerns:

1. The current discussion is somewhat narrow and could benefit from a broader perspective. For instance, exploring the social and cultural dimensions of urban sustainability in greater depth would provide a more comprehensive view. Additionally, the economic and ecological aspects should be further developed within the proposed framework.

2. Including more specific policy recommendations based on the analysis would enhance the practical application of the four-factor model. These recommendations could be directed at various stakeholders, including urban planners, policymakers, community organizations, and individual citizens.

In summary, the manuscript is a valuable contribution to the field of sustainable urbanism, offering innovative and insightful perspectives on the challenges and potential solutions. Its logical structure, interdisciplinary approach, and topical relevance are commendable. Therefore, I am pleased to recommend the manuscript for publication with minor revisions.

Author Response

Author Responses to Reviewer 1 Comments

Sustainability-3144163, “UN-sustainable Urbanism: The Challenge of ‘Lock-In’”

REVIEWER 1:

Reviewer: The manuscript presents a well-structured and coherent argument regarding the challenges of achieving sustainable urbanism due to the phenomenon of "lock-in." The author effectively highlights the contradictions between current urban practices and the goals of sustainable city development, offering a compelling critique of existing urban models and proposing a framework to address these challenges. The manuscript is both innovative and thought-provoking, making significant contributions to the discourse on sustainable urbanism.

Author: Thank you for the kind comments!

Reviewer: However, the "Discussion" section could be further strengthened by addressing the following concerns:

1. The current discussion is somewhat narrow and could benefit from a broader perspective. For instance, exploring the social and cultural dimensions of urban sustainability in greater depth would provide a more comprehensive view. Additionally, the economic and ecological aspects should be further developed within the proposed framework.

Author: I have added language expanding the discussion into these areas (see highlighted text, lines 44-51 and line 90, and also an added citation). I am mindful of the challenge of keeping the scope manageable, but I believe I have been able to do so, and it has improved the text.

Reviewer: 2. Including more specific policy recommendations based on the analysis would enhance the practical application of the four-factor model. These recommendations could be directed at various stakeholders, including urban planners, policymakers, community organizations, and individual citizens.

Author: Thank you, I think this is an important need, and I have added more specific recommendations (see highlighted text at end, lines 552-561).

Reviewer: In summary, the manuscript is a valuable contribution to the field of sustainable urbanism, offering innovative and insightful perspectives on the challenges and potential solutions. Its logical structure, interdisciplinary approach, and topical relevance are commendable. Therefore, I am pleased to recommend the manuscript for publication with minor revisions.

Author: Thank you again for the kind comments!

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article was well-written, aiming to explain the emerging notion of sustainable urbanism. The author did a great job in synthesizing literature in sustainable cities, public space, and sustainable development, along with his insightful observations.

There are a few comments I want to make.

1. First, in section 3, “Modeling the Negative,” the author stated that a methodology to articulate sustainable urbanism would be to review the opposing themes of unsustainable urbanism (page 3). This may be correct, but I suggest that the author present a literature gap in finding notions of sustainable urbanism, which is subjective and multi-dimensional. For instance, the author can give a couple of examples of sustainable urbanism notion and discuss why they are limited. Whie explaining other approaches in prior studies, the author can punctuate the contribution of this study to the scholarship of sustainable urbanism more clearly.
2. The author selected the four items (lines 166-199), 1) over-reliance on low-occupancy, high-consumption vehicular transport, 2) inefficient envelope, size, orientation, and adaptability of buildings, 3) ecologically destructive systems for handling water and energy, a decline of a well-ordered, and 4) walkable, functionally and visually appealing public realm, as factors of unsustainable urbanism. I wish the author could explain the process of selecting the four factors and describe how they are the “key” factors of destructive, unsustainable urbanism. The systematic literature review approach could have been employed to justify how they are the factors, not relying on the author’s judgment-based factor selection.
3. The discussion of public space in line 201 is interesting, but it would be better to improve the logical flow. The author may consider singling out the fourth factor, the “public realm of the city,” as a separate section.
4. In “6. Discussion,” the modernity bias discussion is valuable. I suggest that the author give some suggestions or direction for future studies on addressing modernity bias and removing “lock-ins,” which can strengthen the discussion of the “implementation” of sustainable development in the city setting.

Thanks for the opportunity to review the insightful article on sustainable urbanism.

-The End-

Author Response

Author Responses to Reviewer 2 Comments

Sustainability-3144163, “UN-sustainable Urbanism: The Challenge of ‘Lock-In’”

 

REVIEWER 2:

Reviewer: The article was well-written, aiming to explain the emerging notion of sustainable urbanism. The author did a great job in synthesizing literature in sustainable cities, public space, and sustainable development, along with his insightful observations.

Author: Thank you for the kind comments!

Reviewer: There are a few comments I want to make.

1. First, in section 3, “Modeling the Negative,” the author stated that a methodology to articulate sustainable urbanism would be to review the opposing themes of unsustainable urbanism (page 3). This may be correct, but I suggest that the author present a literature gap in finding notions of sustainable urbanism, which is subjective and multi-dimensional. For instance, the author can give a couple of examples of sustainable urbanism notion and discuss why they are limited. While explaining other approaches in prior studies, the author can punctuate the contribution of this study to the scholarship of sustainable urbanism more clearly.

Author: I agree that this is helpful, and I have added a section discussing this literature gap and the need to address it (in highlighted text, lines 88-110, as well as additional citations from the literature).

Reviewer: 2. The author selected the four items (lines 166-199), 1) over-reliance on low-occupancy, high-consumption vehicular transport, 2) inefficient envelope, size, orientation, and adaptability of buildings, 3) ecologically destructive systems for handling water and energy, a decline of a well-ordered, and 4) walkable, functionally and visually appealing public realm, as factors of unsustainable urbanism. I wish the author could explain the process of selecting the four factors and describe how they are the “key” factors of destructive, unsustainable urbanism. The systematic literature review approach could have been employed to justify how they are the factors, not relying on the author’s judgment-based factor selection.

Author: Agreed, the literature gap and other literature identifying these problems does help to clarify how the four factors have been chosen. I have added a section on this (in highlighted text, lines 139-141 as well as new citations form the literature).

Reviewer: 3. The discussion of public space in line 201 is interesting, but it would be better to improve the logical flow. The author may consider singling out the fourth factor, the “public realm of the city,” as a separate section.

Author: Agreed, this is perhaps the most important contribution the paper makes, and it deserves a clearer explanation with better readability. I have re-structured this section (in highlighted text, lines 205-247) and moved a key citation to a more logical place. 

Reviewer: 4. In “6. Discussion,” the modernity bias discussion is valuable. I suggest that the author give some suggestions or direction for future studies on addressing modernity bias and removing “lock-ins,” which can strengthen the discussion of the “implementation” of sustainable development in the city setting.

Author: Agreed, this is also a major finding and conclusion and it deserves some expansion – although without adding too much to the length of the paper. I have done so, while trying to remain concise (in highlighted text, lines 525-536). I have also added a relevant citation.

Reviewer: Thanks for the opportunity to review the insightful article on sustainable urbanism. 

Author: Thank you again for your insightful review