Impacts of Governance toward Sustainable Urbanization in a Midsized City: A Case Study of Uyo, Nigeria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

thanks to working on this interesting topic, I believe that understanding the urbanization process and the relations with economic and social implications, in small and middle-size towns and cities, it's very important.

If it's true that the majority of the studies are concentrated on big cities and metropolitan areas, it's not true that there are no more than 5 references for mid-size cities. So I suggest you to spend a bit more time on the bibliography review, in order to improve the introduction section.

Some data, like land use needs to be updatated. 

The results of the analysis interview are clear and well developed, however, there is a lack of theoretical support to better discuss them, which is also detectable in the conclusion. I suggest you add some theoretical references able to explain the dynamics of acting in Uyo. 

Actually, the paper needs a theoric framework in which to analyze and discuss the interview results. In my opinion, without this, the paper cannot be published.

Author Response

Dear author,

thanks to working on this interesting topic, I believe that understanding the urbanization process and the relations with economic and social implications, in small and middle-size towns and cities, it's very important.

Response: Thanks so much for your kind word of encouragement.

If it's true that the majority of the studies are concentrated on big cities and metropolitan areas, it's not true that there are no more than 5 references for mid-size cities. So I suggest you to spend a bit more time on the bibliography review, in order to improve the introduction section.

Response: Thank you so much for this comment, we agree that there are scientific studies in midsize cities, but we argue that there are not as many studies compared to big cities and less emphasis is placed on how to sustain these cities especially in developing areas like our study area. See number 46

Some data, like land use needs to be updated. 

Response: Thanks for this comment. We have updated a recent land use map from our previous studies. See number 290  

The results of the analysis interview are clear and well developed, however, there is a lack of theoretical support to better discuss them, which is also detectable in the conclusion. I suggest you add some theoretical references able to explain the dynamics of acting in Uyo. 

Response: Thanks so much for this comment. We have added some theoretical references as you suggested. In terms of the conclusion, we have added more as you suggested. See number  192, 215 ,308, 314, 327, 362, 384, 408, 419.

Actually, the paper needs a theoric framework in which to analyze and discuss the interview results. In my opinion, without this, the paper cannot be published.

Response: Thanks so much for this comment. We have added the theoretical framework as you suggested. See number  192, 215, 308, 314, 327, 362, 384, 408

Reviewer 2 Report

review of re-submission:

I acknowledge that the authors followed the indications and comments of the reviewers and revised the article, improving it, therefore. In my opinion, it can proceed for production.

Author Response

Thanks for your positive comments.

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

The paper "Impacts of Governance Toward Sustainable Urbanization in a mid-sized city. A case study of Uyo, Nigeria" touches on an interesting topic. However, sometimes the argumentations are not well developed and rigorously discussed.

The methodology must be improved, the data acquisition does not tell almost anything about data typology, data analysis, and critical review. I suggest you to improve this part with some framework of analysis, highlighting the key steps, and methodology used.

The results are missing. It is important to show the results of the interview, both in a qualitative than in a quantitative way, in order to give strength to discussions.

The discussions are very interesting, but they are not well developed and it is impossible to link this reflection to the analysis results. This section is a description of several questions that do not seem to follow a precise logic or pattern. Some data are needed and some evidence of the problems must be presented in an analytic way more than only a narrative.

For these reasons the paper, in my opinion, cannot be published at present. I suggest reviewing the methodology and to write the results of the analysis in a scientific way not only as a narrative.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Review Land: Impacts of Governance Toward Sustainable Urbanization in a mid-sized city. A case study of Uyo, Nigeria

Authors: Etido Essien, Cyrus Samimi , Burak Güneralp

 

General:

The introduction does not concentrate the key references that support the arguments and this is mainly due to the fact that literature is used as evidence throughout the article. Key references, therefore, appear all over the text, including the analytical parts.

The research design could be improved, namely to confront more directly and unequivocally SDG11, its targets (and eventually some relevant indicators) with evidence collected from the literature/other studies or in field research. Maybe a table could also help following up the arguments.

The methods need to be more detailed (see below).

The results are not clear enough and the conclusions and results (and analysis) are not sufficiently aligned.

English language and style are fine but spell check is required (and formatting).

 

Specific:

• Figure 1. Urban population growth in Uyo (source: NPC, 2015) can and should be updated with more recent data
• 3: The authors state that key informants were based on their rank and number of years they were employed in the ministry; but they do not refer to which rank or number of years they were looking for/or ended up interviewing
• p3: the authors refer examples of questions: “How many projects have been completed, abandoned, or are still in progress since 2000?” – would all interviewed ministries know about this? Was this asked to the ministry of Information as well, for instance? Does it refer to urban projects? Further down this is explained but needs to come up front; “What is the role of the public in every project planning process?” – who/what is the public?; “What are the criteria for compensation and what further provision does the government make to assist the displaced people?” – why is this important for the analysis/SDG11? The authors have listed the interview questions in the appendix, which is not a common practice in scientific articles. If they are extremely necessary to understand the analysis (which is not the case), they could be listed here.
• 3: after the last line, the guidelines and/or aspects of the goals and their targets and indicators should be listed and/or a selection of a few aspects should be made and justified.
• Line 135: what are modest jobs?
• All sub-section 3.1 needs to be linked to the targets of SDG11 (or even some of its indicators) to clearly establish the relation to economic growth
• Same for 3.2: the introduction or/and the beginning of each section needs to have a paragraph linking the conditions in Uyo and the SDG/targets/indicators under scrutiny
• Line 244: not clear the association of sanitary problems with environmental impacts. The link is not well established, not grounded on evidence
• Sub-section 3.3 also needs to be clearly confronted with SDG11/targets/indicators; data from Africapolis (updated) needs to be presented at the beginning of the article
• The text needs language proofing; clearing of repetitions (eg. Lines 278, 281)
• Sub-section 3.4 also needs a clearer connection to the SDG; clarifications about concepts should also be provided: planning, being part of urban governance, is ambiguously equated with governance itself. Especially from this point on, the article becomes more doctrinaire and the analysis is mixed with prescriptions of recommendations. Should recommendations be the practice in scientific articles – which are not – they would have to be properly discussed. The article has too many of them
• Line 379 on: if the authors feel the need of providing the example, it would not need to be so detailed as it is definitely the only example possible
• Line 398: data from the SDG report(s) for Nigeria is not presented
• Line 415: the authors mention that legislation and policy at all levels do not integrate SDG11 sufficiently but do not demonstrate how not
• The causes for poor planning mentioned in the conclusion have not been sufficiently explored or substantiated with evidence and therefore appear disconnected from the rest of the article and its sub-sections. Here too, for instance here, the topics of concern are different from the above and from the analysis (‘creating healthy, just, and equitable environments’) and would require more detailed individual analysis.