Safety Perceptions and Micro-Segregation: Exploring Gated- and Non-Gated-Community Dynamics in Quetta, Pakistan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Review: Safety Perceptions and Micro-segregation: Exploring Gated and Non-Gated Community Dynamics in Quetta, Pakistan.

The paper addresses the problem of the increase of gated communities in Pakistan (differences in residents' fear of crime in relation to their health and socio-economic status) through comparing residential housing schemes in Quetta, Pakistan (gated and non-gated). The results suggest that past experiences of crime victimization strongly affect feelings of safety in both gated and non-gated communities. The paper is interesting and addresses a growing problem in many developing societies: the growth of gated communities due to fear of victimization.

In general terms, I agree with the paper and have only minor observations:

1) the introduction should better incorporate the problem to be addressed and add a short paragraph explaining in a bit more detail the methodology used.

2) the literature should add a brief section to explain the problem of gated communities in that region of the world (if there is literature) and in general, in underdeveloped societies or at least, in the global south where there has been a growing "spatial" discussion about this type of urban concentrations.

3) The results and discussion section is the one that deserves more attention. In my opinion it is better to divide this section. One part with the results (from which I would eliminate the descriptive graphs and photos) and the second with the discussion of the results and in addition, the discussion of those results in light of the literature. This does not happen in the current presentation.

Finally, the conclusions should add a section on the limitations of the study and perhaps some public policy implications.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

We are thankful to your detailed assessment of our manuscript and for providing valuable comments and suggestions. Your feedback has been helpful in improving our paper. We have carefully addressed each of your comments, as outlined in our responses below, and have made significant revisions accordingly.

Thank you for your feedback on Introduction section. We agree that the introduction should better incorporate the problem to be addressed. We have added a short paragraph (see lines 94-98).

Thank you for your feedback on Literature review. This section is already quite extensive, so it may not be favorable to add another section. However, the issues of gated communities are briefly discussed in lines 35-37 and 51-52.

In response to the method section, we have incorporated additional details, including information on the sampling method, a description of the questionnaire design process, and specifics regarding the statistical tests employed. Thank you for your comments.

We are very thankful for your valuable feedback on results and discussion section. We have thoroughly revised the Results and Discussion sections as requested.

Regarding conclusions section, we appreciate your suggestion. The limitations of the study and potential public policy implications have already been addressed in lines 668 to 684.

Once again thank you for your feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

How do you calculate the number of respondents for the four study areas? This is because it is seen that the number of respondents for the questionnaire study is the same, 25 respondents. However, the population size of each area is different.

The description of the systematic observation needs to be explained. What tools are used, and what analysis method is used for observation findings?

In the conclusion section, the discussion needs to be more comprehensive. The study's findings must be examined together with those of previous scholars. Is it consistent or contradicted, or does this study find new findings (novelty).

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

We are thankful to your detailed assessment of our manuscript and for providing valuable comments and suggestions. Your feedback has been helpful in improving our paper. We have carefully addressed each of your comments, as outlined in our responses below, and have made significant revisions accordingly.

In response to your comments on method section, we would like to make it clear that we opted for a uniform sampling approach to support fairness and consistency across all study areas. This method involved selecting an equal number of respondents from each area. By doing so, we aimed to mitigate potential biases arise from uneven sample sizes and facilitate a more equitable comparison between gated and non-gated communities. Furthermore, maintaining an equal representation of respondents from each study area supports the statistical validity of our findings. It ensures that every area contributes equally to the analysis, thereby reducing the risk of sampling bias and increasing the reliability of our results. Additionally, practical considerations, such as time and resource constraints, played a role in our decision to adhere to a consistent sample size across study areas. This approach allowed us to manage resources efficiently while still obtaining sufficient data for analysis. We have also paid attention to include the suggested data in the revised version of the manuscript, from line 307 to 311.

Regarding the analysis of the inductive statistics, we appreciate the reviewer's input. However, we respectfully disagree with the recommendation to include statistically significant correlations in the annotation of Table 3. The purpose of Table 3 is to offer a comprehensive overview of the correlations among various variables within our dataset. Given that our study is exploratory in nature, our intention was to present a descriptive analysis of the data to identify potential patterns and relationships. This approach allows for a holistic understanding of the data, rather than focusing solely on statistically significant findings. Moreover, including both non-significant and significant correlations in Table 3 provides readers with a more complete picture of the data. This approach helps prevent bias in the interpretation of results and enables readers to evaluate the strength and direction of relationships across different variables, irrespective of statistical significance.

Thank you for your feedback on conclusion and discussion section. We sincerely appreciate it. We have thoroughly revised the results and discussion section. Rest assured, we have addressed your comment more comprehensively within the discussion section, providing a clearer response.

Once again thank you for your feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the article "Safety Perceptions and Micro-segregation: Exploring Gated and  Non-Gated Community Dynamics in Quetta, Pakistan 

"

 

The authors delineated the study's aim as follows: "in order to understand how residents in both gated and non-gated communities perceive safety in Quetta city, this paper aims to assess the perception of safety  of individuals residing in gated versus non-gated communities."

 

The theme of gated and non-gated communities is interesting as such settlements emerge in various countries for diverse reasons. The authors focused on the aspect of averting risks associated with crime in the city area. In their publication, they conducted a case study across four neighborhoods, two of which were gated and two non-gated. The research methodology involved administering surveys among residents of these neighborhoods, with a total of 100 households participating.

 

The authors formulated three research hypotheses, which were tested using surveys:

 

1. Residents in gated communities tend to perceive a higher sense of safety and  a lower risk of crime victimization compared to those in non-gated communities. 

2. Individuals who experience high levels of fear related to crime often report  poorer health conditions. Crime victims often report decline in their sense of  wellbeing and overall health. 

3. Individuals with higher socio-economic status generally experience higher   criminal incidents and tend to have higher levels of worry about being vic tims of crime. 

.

Whether the data was standardized before correlational analysis remains unclear and requires clarification.

 

The study was conducted in Quetta, the capital of the Balochistan province in Pakistan, with a population of over one million residents. The authors provided a thorough description of the study areas, including photographs illustrating the neighborhoods.

 

However, despite a well-described research area, there is a lack of detailed presentation of the crime situation in Quetta. It would be valuable to add more information about the scale of this issue, which could enrich the research context.

 

Furthermore, the literature review,  are overly extensive. Consideration should be given to condensing the sections or more selectively discussing the most significant results and their implications.

 

The most crucial aspect requiring improvement is the size of the research sample. The population size in these gated communities and non-gated communities units varies. For instance, Chaman Housing comprises 3350 individuals, while Chiltan Housing has 5400 individuals. Such a small sample size is not representative of the neighborhoods, hence the conclusions drawn from it are limited. It is not possible to make inferences about the neighborhoods based on such a small sample size, as indicated in Figure 6: Perception of safety in four selected housing schemes (a) Jinnah Town a gated housing Scheme. (b) Chaman housing (c) Arbab Town (d) Chiltan Housing. Although the authors provided a good description of the area, the data and results must be improved. Authors need to obtain a larger research sample for each neighborhood to make their conclusions more convincing.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:  

We are thankful to your detailed assessment of our manuscript and for providing valuable comments and suggestions. Your feedback has been helpful in improving our paper. We have carefully addressed each of your comments, as outlined in our responses below, and have made significant revisions accordingly.

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on the Introduction section. We have added a central research hypothesis from line 88 to 92. Inn addition to that to enhance the clarity of our research article, we've included the contribution and novelty of our work from lines 110 to 115.

In Literature review section, we appreciate your attention to details, and we've taken steps to ensure the inclusivity of our literature review. We've thoroughly reviewed both recent and older papers and have made efforts to incorporate recent publications. Specifically, references 4, 30, 31, 33, 34, and 36 are from recently published papers. In total, out of 74 references cited, 34 are from the last decade.

Methods

Regarding sampling method a Systematic random sampling approach was used. Surveys were done by going door to door and asking residents to fill the survey. A starting point is selected at random, and every 3rd number of house is selected to be in the sample. This information has been added to the method section.

We have also addressed the data requirement as suggested, providing the necessary information from line 21-23. This includes a description of our questionnaire design process, which was informed by an extensive review of existing literature on fear of crime in residential gated and non-gated communities. This approach was instrumental in ensuring that our questionnaire items accurately captured the relevant constructs and dimensions of interest.

We have incorporated the details of statistical tests as requested, now available from line 329-333.

The relative frequency (%) for Respondents' responses in each area has been included in the table 2.

Regarding Figure 6, thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. After careful consideration, we have decided to maintain the current format of presenting the data in four separate figures rather than combining them into one or presenting them in a table format with frequency and relative frequency. This decision was made to ensure clarity and organization in the presentation of the information. Each figure corresponds to an individual category, and we believe that combining them into a single figure or table may lead to overcrowding and reduced readability. We appreciate your input and understanding.

 

The limitations of the study and potential public policy implications have already been addressed in lines 668 to 684. 

Regarding questionnaire in Annex, we have decided not to add any additional data. However, the data will be available upon request.

Once again thank you for your valuable feedback. Your feedback has been helpful in improving our paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Introduction

·  You are mention clear the research hypothesis of your research. I would like to see more clearly the central research hypothesis in the introduction.

· Please mention the contribution and the novelty of your research article.

Literature Review

· Please add more updated references from the last decade.

Material and Methods

· The primary survey you conducted is a sample survey. I would like you to specify the sampling method, as well as the population size and response rate.

· Please report on how you ensured the reliability and validity of your questionnaire.

·   Lines 303-305 Did you use statistical tests? Please specify the statistical tests that you used.

·   Table 2. Please include the relative frequency (%) for Respondents' responses in each area.

Results and Discussion

· Figure 6. These four figures could be combined in one figure or better in a table with the frequency and relative frequency

· Regarding the analysis of the inductive statistics is concerned, it is quite descriptive. In the annotation of table 3, I would like some statistically significant correlations to indicate some response rates of the different subgroups of your sample that document the correlations that are being annotated.

Conclusion

· Please add the limitations of your research.

Appendix

· Please add in an annex the questionnaire which used.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 4: We are thankful to your detailed assessment of our manuscript and for providing valuable comments and suggestions. Your feedback has been helpful in improving our paper. We have carefully addressed each of your comments, as outlined in our responses below, and have made significant revisions accordingly.

 

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on the literature review. We appreciate the concern you've raised regarding its extensive nature. After thorough consideration, we have decided not to make alterations to the literature review at this stage. While we understand the concern about its comprehensiveness, we firmly believe that the detailed review is important for establishing a strong theoretical framework for our study. Each section of the literature review serves a specific purpose, aiding in contextualizing the research, identifying gaps, and shaping the hypotheses.

 

Regarding the improvement in the size of the research sample, we thank you for your input, which we value. Unfortunately, at this stage, we are unable to make any adjustments. It's important to note that this project is part of a larger initiative, and we will certainly take your feedback into consideration for future endeavours. Additionally, practical factors, such as time and resource limitations, played a role in our decision to maintain a small sample size. This allowed us to allocate our resources effectively while still gathering sufficient data for analysis.

 

Thank you for your valuable feedback about research area, we have incorporated a detailed presentation of the crime situation in Quetta from line 381 to line 392.

 

Thank you for your inquiry about data standardization. Indeed, before conducting the correlational analysis, the data underwent standardization. This involved transforming each variable to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1, thereby placing all variables on the same scale. This standardization process was implemented to minimize the impact of variable scale differences on the correlation coefficients and to facilitate the interpretation of the results.

Once again thank you for your feedback. Your feedback has been helpful in improving our paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors added information that the survey included not the residents themselves but representatives of the residents of the given residence. Such an approach increases the accuracy and reliability of the research, given the smaller number of residences. Unfortunately, it is a pity that the authors measured on equal groups of residences, even though the neighborhoods differed in size and number of residents.

 

The responses were given by representatives of the entire residence, not specific residents. Therefore, Table 2 should be amended by adding characteristics regarding the entire residence. Please keep only the percentage share in Table 2 and remove the number of respondents (count).

 

In Table 1, please correct the last row "Population", replacing the description with the number of residences (I don't know what the "pluses" are).

 

Please improve some sentences in the conclusions. Replace the word "residents" with "respondents".

 

According to the pattern:

In the Arbab Town Area (Middle Class, Non-Gated), the statistics indicate that in the middle-class, non-gated area (Arbab Town), a significant majority of respondents (76%) perceive their neighborhood as healthy and engage in morning or evening walks (76%).

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your recognition of our efforts to increase the accuracy and reliability of our research by surveying representatives of the residents. We acknowledge the validity of your concern regarding the measurement of equal groups of residences despite differences in neighborhood size and number of residents. In future studies, we will take this into consideration and make sure that our sampling approach reflects the diversity of neighborhoods more accurately.

Regarding Table 2, we appreciate your suggestion for changes. Unfortunately, we cannot add characteristics regarding the entire residence as we only have data for the respondents. However, we have made adjustments by removing the first two rows that explained data for the whole population (adjusted in Table 1). Additionally, we have removed the count of respondents as per your recommendation.

We have made the necessary changes to Table 1 as per your suggestion. The last row now accurately reflects the number of residences instead of the previous description. 

To enhance clarity and accuracy, necessary changes have been made in the conclusions, results and discussion section by replacing the word "residents" with "respondents".

Thank you for highlighting this pattern. This suggests a positive perception of health and active lifestyle practices among the residents in this area.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that your manuscript has been greatly improved, especially on the methodological issues.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read your very interesting research.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback.