Stakeholder-Based Optimal Indicators for Urban Sustainability Assessment in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Case Study from the City of Moundou in Chad

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title and Abstract

Title Suggestion: The current title, "Selection and validation of optimal indicators for assessing the sustainability of Sub-Saharan Africa cities," implies a multi-city analysis. However, the empirical study focuses solely on the city of Moundou and is based on a stakeholder perspective. I suggest revising the title to "Stakeholder-based Optimal Indicators for Urban Sustainability Assessment in Sub-Saharan Africa." The authors may adjust this suggestion as they see fit.

Abstract: The abstract should highlight specific findings, such as which indicators are particularly prominent and how they differ from or align with current understandings, emphasizing those unique to the Sub-Saharan Africa context. Additionally, it should mention which indicators have general applicability.

Keywords: It is recommended to include more keywords related to the methods and perspectives used in the study rather than focusing solely on cities and regions.

 

Content and Structure

Language and Academic Tone: In lines 40 and 42, the terms  « sustainable »  «development » should be checked for proper academic usage. The entire manuscript should be reviewed for academic tone and precise English expression.

Introduction: The current introduction is overloaded with information. It would be more effective to introduce the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the beginning to set the context for the research background. Specific existing studies on indicators can be moved to the literature review section. The research question should be clearly stated in a separate paragraph to help readers understand the specific issues the article aims to address.

Section 2: There appears to be a main title missing before section 2.1. Additionally, section 2.3, "Indicators selection framework," would benefit from a visual representation (e.g., a flowchart or diagram).

Methodology

Indicator Weights: The determination of indicator weights should ideally involve an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) or expert scoring method, rather than solely relying on participant feedback. If this is not feasible, it should be mentioned as a study limitation.

General Writing Comments

Minor Errors: The text has minor errors, such as on line 1286. The author team should review the manuscript carefully to ensure academic expression and correct writing errors.

Author Response

Dear Mr./Mrs. Reviewer

 

Thank you for taking the time to provide thorough comments on our manuscript, despite your demanding schedule. In response to your comments, please find our detailed point-by-point responses below.

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR AUTHORS

TITLE AND ABSTRACT

Point 1: Title Suggestion: The current title, "Selection and validation of optimal indicators for assessing the sustainability of Sub-Saharan Africa cities," implies a multi-city analysis. However, the empirical study focuses solely on the city of Moundou and is based on a stakeholder perspective. I suggest revising the title to "Stakeholder-based Optimal Indicators for Urban Sustainability Assessment in Sub-Saharan Africa." The authors may adjust this suggestion as they see fit.

Response 1: Your comment is entirely relevant. Consequently, the manuscript title has been revised, as reflected in the updated version of the document.

Point 2: Abstract: The abstract should highlight specific findings, such as which indicators are particularly prominent and how they differ from or align with current understandings, emphasizing those unique to the Sub-Saharan Africa context. Additionally, it should mention which indicators have general applicability.

Response 2: In the revised version of the manuscript, the presentation of results has been updated to more accurately reflect the distribution of indicators by dimension. Furthermore, particular emphasis has been placed on highlighting the most relevant indicators for evaluation within this context.

Point 3: Keywords: It is recommended to include more keywords related to the methods and perspectives used in the study rather than focusing solely on cities and regions.

Response 3: Additional keywords, encompassing the methods and aspects you referenced, have been incorporated.

CONTENT AND STRUCTURE

Point 4: Language and Academic Tone: In lines 40 and 42, the terms « sustainable » «development » should be checked for proper academic usage. The entire manuscript should be reviewed for academic tone and precise English expression.

Response 4: In the introduction, we employed the terms "sustainable" and "development," which represent the two fundamental components of the concept of "sustainable development" institutionalized by the United Nations in 1992. When we state in our text that developed countries focus on the sustainable dimension of the concept, we are referring to the fact that, in urban sustainability promotion, Northern countries place greater emphasis on the sustainability aspect. For instance, issues such as energy efficiency and energy sobriety are central concerns in sustainability evaluations. Conversely, in Southern countries, studies indicate that efforts to promote sustainability tend to focus more on the development aspect, due to the pressing needs for improving living conditions and reducing poverty.

Point 5: Introduction: The current introduction is overloaded with information. It would be more effective to introduce the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the beginning to set the context for the research background. Specific existing studies on indicators can be moved to the literature review section. The research question should be clearly stated in a separate paragraph to help readers understand the specific issues the article aims to address.

Response 5: In the introduction, we have incorporated specific examples concerning indicators for two primary reasons: firstly, to illustrate how the use of indicators for assessing urban sustainability varies across national contexts, citing countries such as Belgium, Italy, Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom, and China; secondly, to highlight that, within the context of Sub-Saharan cities, although some studies on urban sustainability assessment exist, these studies exhibit significant limitations and fail to provide a holistic evaluation of urban sustainability, as demonstrated by research conducted in Nigeria and Tanzania. By emphasizing these examples in the introduction, we aim to contextualize our study and underscore the urgency and necessity of conducting comprehensive research on indicators that address a wide range of issues. Therefore, relocating these examples to the literature review section would severely compromise the coherence of the introduction and diminish the understanding of the need for such research.

In the revised version of the manuscript, the research questions and objectives have been articulated with greater precision, providing a detailed clarification of the study's direction and aims.

Point 6: Section 2: There appears to be a main title missing before section 2.1. Additionally, section 2.3, "Indicators selection framework," would benefit from a visual representation (e.g., a flowchart or diagram)

Response 6: In the revised version of the manuscript, we have corrected the placement of the section titled 2: Literature Review, which precedes Section 2.1. Additionally, in Section 2.3, titled "Indicator Selection Framework," we have provided a detailed outline of the theoretical framework concerning neighborhoods, emphasizing its potential to serve as a catalyst for implementing sustainability measures. This section is pivotal as it aims to clarify the scale at which these sustainability measures can be effectively applied. We believe that this description is both clear and comprehensive, enabling readers to grasp the essence of our approach.

METHODOLOGY

Point 7: Indicator Weights: The determination of indicator weights should ideally involve an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) or expert scoring method, rather than solely relying on participant feedback. If this is not feasible, it should be mentioned as a study limitation.

Response 7: Thank you for this valuable remark. This aspect has been addressed and incorporated into the section on research limitations.

GENERAL WRITING COMMENTS

Point 8: Minor Errors: The text has minor errors, such as on line 1286. The author team should review the manuscript carefully to ensure academic expression and correct writing errors.

Response 8: The minor errors you pointed out have been addressed and corrected in the revised version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.         The creation of a holistic indicator system to evaluate the sustainability of Moundou is a noteworthy contribution. I recommend that the authors add another significant contribution in Section 5.3 by using real data to validate the practical function of this system and assess the sustainability level of Moundou.

2.         The discussion section should be made more concise and aligned with the research theme.

3.         There are some typographical errors that need to be corrected, such as those in lines 1264 and 1286. Additionally, the "N" in "Not necessary" in line 565 should be lowercase to maintain consistency. Please thoroughly check the paper for any remaining errors before submitting the revision.

4.         In the legends of Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, it should be "not necessary" instead of "note necessary."

 

5.         In Table 5, using the names of each dimension instead of "A, B, C, D, E" would make the content clearer and more understandable.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Mr./Mrs. Reviewer

Thank you for taking the time to provide thorough comments on our manuscript, despite your demanding schedule. In response to your comments, please find our detailed point-by-point responses below.

MANUSCRIPT “Selection and validation of optimal indicators for assessing the sustainability of Sub-Saharan Africa cities: A case study from the city of Moundou in Chad."

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR AUTHORS

Point 1: Language: minor editing language is required

Response 1: In the revised version of the manuscript, we have addressed formulation errors to ensure a more precise and coherent presentation of the content.

Point 2: The creation of a holistic indicator system to evaluate the sustainability of Moundou is a noteworthy contribution. I recommend that the authors add another significant contribution in Section 5.3 by using real data to validate the practical function of this system and assess the sustainability level of Moundou.

Response 2: In this study, we aim to address the central question: which indicators can be used to assess the sustainability of Moundou, considering both its level of development and the major challenges it faces? To achieve this, we have focused our approach on local stakeholders and defined three key objectives: first, to identify local issues; second, to co-define urban sustainability objectives; and third, to select and validate optimal indicators that reflect local realities. These indicators will serve as reference tools for evaluating the city's sustainability. However, this research does not extend to the practical application of data to assess Moundou’s sustainability level. Nonetheless, in the results section, we present each indicator along with its calculation variables.

Point 3: The discussion section should be made more concise and aligned with the research theme.

Response 3: In the discussion section, we initially examined our research findings by contextualizing them within our main theme and comparing them with results from other regions. Additionally, given that our approach is deeply rooted in local issues, it was crucial to relate the results to the specific realities of the studied context and to emphasize the significance of the selected indicators for this particular setting. We believe that a detailed analysis of this section is preferable to a superficial treatment of certain aspects, in order to avoid rendering the discussion incomplete and imprecise for readers. Furthermore, beyond Section 5.3 on the research contribution, we deemed it essential to address data collection issues and present the study's limitations. These factors account for the length of the discussion.

Point 4: There are some typographical errors that need to be corrected, such as those in lines 1264 and 1286. Additionally, the "N" in "Not necessary" in line 565 should be lowercase to maintain consistency. Please thoroughly check the paper for any remaining errors before submitting the revision.

Response 4: The typographical errors you identified have been corrected in the revised version of the manuscript.

Point 5: In the legends of Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, it should be "not necessary" instead of "note necessary."

Response 5: The errors identified in Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 have been corrected in the revised version of the manuscript.

Point 6: In Table 5, using the names of each dimension instead of "A, B, C, D, E" would make the content clearer and more understandable.

Response 6: In Table 5, the letters "A, B, C, D, E" have been replaced with the corresponding names of the dimensions to enhance clarity and improve the understanding of the information presented.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Notes included in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Mr./Mrs. Reviewer

 

Thank you for taking the time to provide thorough comments on our manuscript, despite your demanding schedule. In response to your comments, please find our detailed point-by-point responses below.

 

MANUSCRIPT “ Selection and validation of optimal indicators for assessing the sustainability of Sub-Saharan Africa cities: A case study from the city of Moundou in Chad."

COMMENT

The topics taken up by the authors are undoubtedly actual and relevant and are in line with the theme and objectives of the journal. The work shows interestingly the equations of needs and paths to sustainable development in the context of local conditions, the authors in the discussion also outlined the context of future research on this topic.

Point 1: The text is, unfortunately, quite extensive. There are repetitions of the text, for example, between the introduction and Section 2.2 (see lines about 313), then in the discussion lines about lines 1205. I suggest that the authors rethink the relevance of the various passages. For example, Section 2.3 seems redundant in the context of the authors' study, which, despite collecting data from 5 neighborhoods, discusses the results comprehensively without considering the neighborhood context. Verses 1054 unnecessary repetition of referring to charts that have already been discussed. The text should be more concise and refer to the research.

Response 1: Thank you for this remark. In the previous version of the manuscript, the same examples were indeed used across different sections, albeit for distinct purposes, leading to the repetitions you highlighted. In the revised version of the manuscript, these repetitions have been removed. For instance, in sections 2.2 (Literature Review) and 5.3 (Contribution to the Literature), we have omitted passages referencing prior works on indicators in Sub-Saharan Africa that were already addressed in the introductory section, retaining only their bibliographic reference numbers. These revisions can be found on lines 349, 1307.

In Section 2.3 (Indicator Selection Framework), we outlined the theoretical framework related to neighborhoods, emphasizing how this framework can act as a catalyst for implementing sustainability measures. This section is crucial as it aims to clarify the scale at which these sustainability measures can be effectively applied.

In the discussion section, we examined three of the five selected neighborhoods to illustrate and substantiate our findings. For instance, in lines 1216 and 1291, we cited the neighborhoods of Guelbé, Dombao, and Gueldjem 2 to exemplify and support our arguments.

Point 2: The manuscript needs to improve its structure. It would be useful to clearly separate the results from the method of work. For example, Figures 4-8 and lines 586-645 are the results of stage 4. I suggest that the authors, for the readability of the paper, divide the results into stages according to the stages presented in the methodology. It also appears that Table 1 is a result of stage 3 and not a description of the methodologies. Table 2 and the descriptions of lines 520-527 are results and evaluation even discussion, rather than a description of the methodology. Likewise as above table 3 and lines 530-543 and further 544-554.

Response 2: In this study, we structured our methodological approach into four interdependent steps. The indicators presented in Table 1, derived from data collected during the second step, provided the basis for carrying out the third step. At this stage, we evaluated the indicators and analyzed their primary, secondary, and tertiary effects, with the cumulative sums representing the weights assigned to each indicator. These data were then used to construct the confrontation matrix, which facilitated the selection of optimal indicators based on the application of the simplex algorithm. Table 3 offers an excerpt from this matrix, focusing solely on the selected indicators. To ensure a thorough understanding of the data presented in this table, we deemed it essential to include explanatory commentary.

For greater clarity, we deemed it essential to also present the constraints (Table 2) that were incorporated into the selection matrix. The application of the simplex algorithm requires the inclusion of constraints (thresholds) that the software must adhere to. However, presenting Table 2 without any accompanying explanation would make it difficult for readers to grasp the information provided. Therefore, we provided a detailed description to ensure better readability. In fact, both Tables 2 and 3 result from the application of the simplex algorithm in the third step of our methodology.

Following the selection of indicators, expert validation is essential, constituting the fourth step of our methodology. At this stage, the 31 indicators identified during the third step were subjected to a critical evaluation by experts using the Ayre and Scally (2014) method. This method categorizes indicators into three groups: "essential," "useful but not essential," and "not necessary." The scores for each indicator are presented in Figures 4 through 8. Only those indicators that met the minimum thresholds established by the method were included in the final list, which comprises 20 indicators organized into five distinct dimensions. These indicators represent the primary outcome of our research.

We believe that this organizational structure effectively elucidates the sequence of our approach.

Point 3: In the description of the methodology of stage 3, it would be necessary to explain what the cited methods are, not just cite literature. The methodology should explain what exactly was performed and how.

Response 3: In describing the methodology for the third step, we employed two distinct approaches to guide the selection of indicators. The first approach, based on the method proposed by Gudmundsson et al. (2010), involved assessing the relevance of indicators according to ten criteria, as outlined in the revised version of the manuscript. This evaluation ensures that the indicators are aligned with the study's issues and objectives, and that they are measurable. However, we did not make any substantial modifications to this method; our aim was merely to draw upon it to tailor the indicator evaluation to our specific research context.

Subsequently, in the second method, we utilized the initial list of indicators (Table 1) to construct the selection matrix, followed by complex calculations, including the application of the simplex algorithm and the formulas detailed following Table 3. The selection constraints (Table 2) were incorporated into the selection matrix, and an excerpt of the results, detailing the selected indicators, is presented in Table 3.

Point 4: Currently, the Results section describes the indicators that were selected in the subsequent stages of the study. This section is very elaborate, although it does not always explain how exactly each indicator is calculated. Perhaps it would be worth considering something else, such as a tabular indication of what indicators describe which indicators. And another question - who is the author of these indicators?

Response 4: In this study, we aim to address the central question: which indicators can be used to assess the sustainability of Moundou, considering both its level of development and the major challenges it faces? To achieve this, we have focused our approach on local stakeholders and defined three key objectives: first, to identify local issues; second, to co-define urban sustainability objectives; and third, to select and validate optimal indicators that reflect local realities. These indicators will serve as reference tools for evaluating the city's sustainability. However, this research does not extend to the practical application of data to assess Moundou’s sustainability level. Nonetheless, in the results section, we present each indicator along with its calculation variables.

DETAILED COMMENTS

Point 5: Imprecise section numbering in the manuscript. Section 1 Introduction appears in subsection 2.1 et seq. followed by section 3 Materials and Methods. The text should be reordered.

Response 5: Prior to section 2.1, there is section 2: Literature Review. This section has been revised in the updated version of the manuscript.

Point 6: Figure 1 - the source of the figure is customarily given in parentheses. Add sources to the other figures and tables consistently.

Response 6: The sources for all figures and tables presented in this article are now cited in parentheses in the revised version of the manuscript.

Point 7: Table 1 - standardize the way the table is described. All descriptions in upper or lower case. Explain what the numbers in the table mean (weights?).

Response 7: Table 1 presents the initial list of indicators along with their primary, secondary, and tertiary effects. These effects illustrate the sequential relationships between each indicator and the other indicators. The sum of these three effects determines the weight of each indicator (cumulative effect), which is detailed in the final column of Table 1. In the revised version of the manuscript, this aspect has been incorporated and clarified in the description of the third step.

Point 8: Table 5 - I suggest that the explanation of the designations A, B, C, D be placed next to the description of the table so that it is better understood.

Response 8: In Table 5, the letters "A, B, C, D, E" have been replaced with the names of the respective dimensions.

Point 9: Verse 661 - please check if the table number is written correctly.

Response 9: The table number has been corrected in the revised version of the manuscript.

Point 10: Verse 670 - is this about Table 5? If it is about Table 6 then it should be placed near the passage that refers to it. Maybe you should combine Tables 5 and 6 to reduce repetition of the text?

Verse 1080 - there was no comparative analysis in the paper. Rather, it is a discussion, a review of the results of other researchers.

Response 10: In the revised version of the manuscript, Tables 5 and 6 have been merged. Regarding the comment related to the discussion section at line 1080 of the initial version, this has been addressed and corrected in the revised manuscript, as evidenced by the changes made at lines 1157 and 1177.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work has improved a lot but still needs some adjustments for publication
1. keywords like district, city of Moundou, and Chad could be deleted.

2. Section 2.3 of the research framework could give a diagram to show your research design, more or less similar to Figure 3 but may be more conceptual.

3. Section 2.1 Urban sustainability could be more specific and concerned with your research. I suggest revising the sub-title and improving the content.

4.FIgure 1 contains less information, you might change the figure with a more integrated diagram or just use a framework diagram to replace it.

 

Author Response

Dear Mr./Mrs. Reviewer

 

Thank you for taking the time to provide thorough comments on our manuscript, despite your demanding schedule. In response to your comments, please find our detailed point-by-point responses below.

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR AUTHORS

The work has improved a lot but still needs some adjustments for publication.

Point 1: keywords like district, city of Moundou, and Chad could be deleted.

Response 1: In the revised version of the manuscript, the three keywords—district, city of Moundou, and Chad—have been removed.

Point 2: Section 2.3 of the research framework could give a diagram to show your research design, more or less similar to Figure 3 but may be more conceptual.

Response 2: We have incorporated a diagram in the revised version of the manuscript to schematically represent Section 2.3.

Point 3: Section 2.1 Urban sustainability could be more specific and concerned with your research. I suggest revising the sub-title and improve the content.

Response 3: The subtitle 'Urban Sustainability' has been revised in the updated version of the manuscript. Additionally, the content of this section has been enhanced to better align with our research focus. The changes are highlighted in red.

Point 4: Figure 1 contains less information, you might change the figure with a more integrated diagram or just use a framework to replace it.

Response 4: In Section 2.1, we have provided a definition of urban sustainability tailored to our study context, based on an existing definition. However, we determined that five dimensions are essential for assessing sustainability in our study: environmental, economic, built environment, social, and cultural. To visually represent these dimensions, we have created a schematic diagram. At the center of the diagram is a rectangle labeled 'Urban Sustainability Dimensions,' from which five arrows extend outward towards the five dimensions. This design illustrates that these five dimensions are central to the context of our study. Surrounding the rectangle is a dashed circle that connects the five dimensions, highlighting their interconnections. We believe this representation effectively illustrates and clarifies the concept.

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Exponential/indicators-related papers have academic controversies to a certain extent, and require more solid research groundwork and empirical cases, as well as rigorous methods for verification and application. Here are my comments and suggestions for improvement:

1. Introduction and Research Questions:

The introduction should clearly articulate the urgency of the research problem. This will help establish the relevance and importance of the study, guiding readers to understand the context and motivation behind your work.

2. Methodological Rigor:

Given the potential academic controversy surrounding exponential-type papers, providing a robust research foundation and empirical case studies is crucial. Ensure that the methods used for validation and application are rigorous and well-justified.

3. Figure 3 - Research process:

As Figure 3 serves as the research process, it is essential to describe this section concisely and effectively. Highlight the structure of the framework, the organization of concepts, and their interrelationships. This will give readers a clear understanding of your research design and approach.

4. Theoretical, Practical, and Academic Contributions:

The manuscript currently lacks sufficient theoretical, practical, and academic guidance. I recommend selecting relevant subjects and providing thorough and rigorous argumentation to strengthen these aspects. This will enhance the overall impact and significance of your research.

5. Additional Recommendations:

Enhance the theoretical background by integrating more literature that supports and contextualizes your study.

Consider adding more practical examples or case studies to demonstrate your research's applicability and relevance.

Strengthen the academic contribution by clearly stating how your research advances the existing body of knowledge in the field.

 

Author Response

Comments 1 (Introduction and Research Questions): The introduction should clearly articulate the urgency of the research problem. This will help establish the relevance and importance of the study, guiding readers to understand the context and motivation behind your work.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with your comment and have addressed it in the revision of the manuscript. In the introduction section, we have introduced additional arguments that underscore the significance and urgency of our research. The new elements are highlighted in red in the introduction.

Comments 2 (Methodological Rigor): Given the potential academic controversy surrounding exponential-type papers, providing a robust research foundation and empirical case studies is crucial. Ensure that the methods used for validation and application are rigorous and well-justified.

Response 2: Thank you for this comment. We agree with your feedback and have incorporated it into the manuscript revision. In the methodology section, we have included tables and equations that enabled us to perform calculations. However, we would like to highlight an important change. In this revised version of the manuscript, we have replaced Table 2 (indicators and their scores) from the initial manuscript with Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in the revised version. This change allows for a clearer illustration of the scores obtained for each indicator. Additionally, we have provided commentary on these figures to enhance understanding of the results. All these modifications are highlighted in red and are located between pages 10 and 17.

Comments 3 (Figure 3-Research process): As Figure 3 serves as the research process, it is essential to describe this section concisely and effectively. Highlight the structure of the framework, the organization of concepts, and their interrelationships. This will give readers a clear understanding of your research design and approach.

Response 3: Thank you for this observation; we completely agree. We have revised this section, as you can see on page 8. The modified text is highlighted in red.

Comments 4 (Theoretical, Practical, and Academic Contributions): The manuscript currently lacks sufficient theoretical, practical, and academic guidance. I recommend selecting relevant subjects and providing thorough and rigorous argumentation to strengthen these aspects. This will enhance the overall impact and significance of your research.

Response 4: Thank you for this observation; we completely agree. We have significantly enhanced these aspects, as you can see in the discussion section. We have added comments that compare our results with those obtained in other contexts, thus contributing theoretically. All these aspects are highlighted in red in the discussion section of the manuscript.

Comments 5 (Additional recommendations): Enhance the theoretical background by integrating more literature that supports and contextualizes your study;

Consider adding more practical examples or case studies to demonstrate your research's applicability and relevance;

Strengthen the academic contribution by clearly stating how your research advances the existing body of knowledge in the field.

Response 5: We have taken into account all these aspects in the revised version of the manuscript, which are reflected in the introductory, results, and discussion sections, as you recommended.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The focus on sustainability in developing areas, particularly sub-Saharan African cities, is of significant importance. The sustainability evaluation system proposed in this paper, which can be applied to these urban contexts, represents a contribution to the existing body of research. However, several aspects require further improvement.

Major Issues

1. All the equations referenced in the manuscript are missing. Please include the essential equations to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of the methodologies employed in this study.

2. It would enhance the manuscript's robustness if the authors applied the proposed indicator system to evaluate the sustainability of one or two specific communities. This would demonstrate its practicality and validate its effectiveness.

3. Despite the inclusion of numerous indicators, many lack clear quantification criteria, or are difficult to quantify. Furthermore, the feasibility of collecting data on these indicators is not addressed. The applicability of this indicator system in real-world scenarios should be thoroughly discussed in the discussion section.

4. While the focus on emerging urban areas is commendable, the primary contribution of the paper appears to be the refinement of an existing sustainability indicator assessment system rather than the development of a new one. The significance of the paper's contributions and the novelty should be more clearly articulated.

 

Minor Issues

1. In Table 3, several numbers are missing. Similar issues are observed in Table 1, column 1, and in lines 518, 525, and 537. A thorough review is required to ensure completeness and accuracy.

2. Ensure that the fonts used in Table 2 are consistent throughout.

3. Lines 464-465 are blank and should be addressed.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Good morning,

I would like to begin by expressing, on behalf of all the authors of the manuscript, our sincere gratitude for taking the time to thoroughly evaluate our article and for your pertinent remarks and suggestions that contribute to enhancing the scientific quality of our work, despite your busy schedule.

Major issues

Comments 1: All the equations referenced in the manuscript are missing. Please include the essential equations to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of the methodologies employed in this study.

Response 1: Thank you for this comment. We agree with your feedback and have incorporated it into the manuscript revision. In the methodology section, we have included tables and equations that enabled us to perform calculations. However, we would like to highlight an important change. In this revised version of the manuscript, we have replaced Table 2 (indicators and their scores) from the initial manuscript with Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in the revised version. This change allows for a clearer illustration of the scores obtained for each indicator. Additionally, we have provided commentary on these figures to enhance understanding of the results. All these modifications are highlighted in red and are located between pages 10 and 17.

Comments 2: It would enhance the manuscript's robustness if the authors applied the proposed indicator system to evaluate the sustainability of one or two specific communities. This would demonstrate its practicality and validate its effectiveness.

Response 2: Thank you for this observation. In fact, in this study, our objective was limited to the primary selection of indicators that reflect local challenges and the needs expressed by development stakeholders. However, the measurement of the indicators' performance, and thus their application, is not part of the objectives of this study, as reiterated on page 18, line 654. Nevertheless, in the discussion section, we presented the similarity of our results with those obtained in other studies. This demonstrates that these indicators can be effectively applied within the sustainability context of our study area.

Comments 3: Despite the inclusion of numerous indicators, many lack clear quantification criteria, or are difficult to quantify. Furthermore, the feasibility of collecting data on these indicators is not addressed. The applicability of this indicator system in real-world scenarios should be thoroughly discussed in the discussion section.

Response 3: We also thank you for bringing this aspect to our attention. We have taken it into account during the revision of the manuscript. In the results section (starting on page 19), we have described each of these indicators, specifying how they are measured. Additionally, we have included a summary table of the units of these indicators on page 26, providing further clarifications. Furthermore, the feasibility of data collection has also been discussed in the discussion section on page 30, line 1210.

Comments 4: While the focus on emerging urban areas is commendable, the primary contribution of the paper appears to be the refinement of an existing sustainability indicator assessment system rather than the development of a new one. The significance of the paper's contributions and the novelty should be more clearly articulated.

Response 4: We also thank you for this remark, which aligns with our research approach. Indeed, in our study, we started from existing indicators to select and provide a scientific basis for the most relevant and representative ones of local issues, in order to assess urban sustainability in the Sub-Saharan context. Step 2, page 10, line 454, allowed us to identify an initial list of indicators presented in Table 1, page 10, lines 485 to 486.

Minor issues:

1. In Table 3, several numbers are missing. Similar issues are observed in Table 1, column 1, and in lines 518, 525, and 537. A thorough review is required to ensure completeness and accuracy;
2. Ensure that the fonts used in Table 2 are consistent throughout;
3. Lines 464-465 are blank and should be addressed.

Response: We have taken care to correct all these aspects.

Comments on the Quality of English Language: Moderate editing of English language required.

Response: We have elevated the quality of English throughout the entire manuscript, encompassing every section from the abstract to the conclusion, as per your recommendation.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx