Assessment of Urban Neighbourhoods’ Vulnerability through an Integrated Vulnerability Index (IVI): Evidence from Barcelona, Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

This article deals with vulnerability as a complex and multidimensional phenomenon. The Authors seek to construct a synthetic index of urban vulnerability, which is applicable to specific urban areas. This index is suitable to place different neighbourhoods of a city on a continuum in terms of their degree of vulnerability, by considering social, economic, urban and residential variables. Authors has validate this tool by applying it to the neighbourhoods of the city of Barcelona. In order to show the descriptive nature of the index, the study has also carried out a comparison between the results of this analysis with those of previous researches. In its Conclusions, the article remarks that “there is a clear series of benefits from working at neighbourhood scale” as well as “Being able to measure and assess indicators at neighbourhood scale is […] desirable” (p. 16). As stated by a famous definition, The neighbourhood is an “area of public space in general (anonymous, for everyone) in which little by little a private, particularized space insinuates itself as a result of the practical, everyday use of this space” (M. De Certeau, L. Giard, P. Mayol, L’invention du quotidian, vol. II, Habiter, Cuisiner, Paris, Gallimard, 1994, p. 15). In this tension between ‘personal’ and ‘social’, ‘inside’ and ‘outside’, the neighbourhood represents the middle term between a macro and a micro dimension of the city, the landscape where struggles, polarizations, and inequalities take place in the social space. Hence the strong relationship between neighbourhood and vulnerability in the urban space. As the Authors state, the vulnerability area represents a complex concept originating from socio-economic, political and institutional forces. In particular, by following the reflection of Castel mentioned in the article, “the vulnerability […] represents the combination of precarious employment with the fragility of relational support” (p. 3). In the light of these statements, according to the writer's opinion, the Authors should discuss the importance of three important dimensions the index does not consider: 1) public services and social welfare at the neighbourhood level, 2) social capital and quality of community and social relationships among people who reside in the district, 3) participation to political power and representation.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you all for taking your time to carefully read and comment on our manuscript. We believe that all of your comments and suggestions from both of our referees have been of enormous value. Thus, they have been included in this new version of the article that, thanks to your efforts and contributions, is now much more thorough, profound and clear. We have made an effort to include each and every one of your suggestions, so we hope that you see your contributions well reflected in this new version of the manuscript.

 

The first referee’s comments recognized the importance of our research, yet he/she suggested that we:

• Discuss the importance of public services and social welfare at the neighbourhood level.

We have tried to answer this very essential question by incorporating some thoughts on the importance of focusing on the neighbourhood level, due to not only the possibility to access to data, but also because of its local importance in terms of welfare institutions, and also because of the recognized value of proximity of the administration by local residents. At the same time, this comment made by the referee has triggered some debates inside the group that will probably generate future research questions, around the concepts of social capital and social infrastructures.

• Discuss the importance of social capital and quality of community and social relationships among people who reside in the district.

We believe that social capital and social relations are very interesting (and certainly very important) variables for understanding urban vulnerability. Although we were planning on including indicators related to social capital in this research, we found no existing quantitative data in this respect, preventing us from incorporating such a dimension into our model, since we decided to work with secondary data. However, we believe that with a qualitative methodology strategy we could approach better this dimension, so we have started working on a parallel work in which we intend to generate primary qualitative neighbourhood-level data on social capital. We very much welcome your suggestion that we will definitely incorporate in future research.

• Discuss the importance of participation to political power and representation.

Participation, which is rarely considered in this type of analysis, is a crucial aspect linked to poverty and vulnerability. We have included an indicator concerning participation/abstention in elections in the construction of our vulnerability index and another one on participation in local associations or entities. Although we believe that the inclusion of more indicators related to participation is probably necessary, in order to make this index replicable in other contexts, we chose only to incorporate these two indicators that are available on a national level. Still, we believe that having taken participation into account in this research is already some sort of contribution and we expect that it will encourage other authors to include this dimension and more indicators related to it in their future research.

As a transversal comment, we would like to say that the whole paper has gone through English language revision, an idea suggested by both referees.

All in all, we would like to thank you again for your time and we would also like to highlight the fact that all of the comments from both of the referees have been of extreme importance towards the improvement of our manuscript. At the same time, we expect that you see your suggestions and comments reflected in this new version of the article, and that it fully fulfils both your academic criteria as well as the journal’s scope and requirements.

 

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

General comments

This study focuses on the Integrated Vulnerability Index (IVI) of urban neighborhoods. The topic is very interesting and it has practical importance, particularly for urban management. Though this topic is quite interesting and of practical significance, the manuscript suffers from a very odd presentation style, poor introduction, methodology, results, and discussion section. The author did a lot of work but due to poor presentation, it fails to convey the exact message of the research. 

 

Title: The title fails to present the insight of the study. It should be “Assessment of urban neighborhoods’ vulnerability through Integrated Vulnerability Index (IVI): Evidence from Barcelona, Spain”. Otherwise, the existing title means the development of a new index.

 

Abstract

It is not well structured. The essential points are missing. There is little connection between the body text and the abstract. The author is advised to revise the abstract by following the IMRAD style by avoiding unnecessary text.

 

Introduction

-The introduction is not structured. The author failed to introduce the issue, its importance, and its practical implication.

-The author could not focus on the research gap and specific objective.

-There is no coherence in the description.

-The author is advised to focus on the issue related to vulnerability, how inequality is related to vulnerability, what will be happened if the nexus work properly, and why this study is important in the context of Spain and other countries.

-Need to avoid unrelated discussions.

-It is not understandable that why the author includes the conceptual issues in the introduction section (1.1 and 1.2).

-The author is advised to add a separate section for the conceptual framework by using 1.1 and 1.2.

-Table 1 is not complete. The author should do the literature review again and add related vulnerability measurement approaches.

-The objectives section is too long without a specific objective. Unfortunately, the description of this section does not match with the abstract.

-Overall, the section is poor and does not meet the criteria as an introduction.

 

 

Method

-This section is very poor. Need to revise the whole section.

-Methodology is not reproducible.

-Need to put the “geographical feature section” because the climate change issue is context-specific.

-Need to divide the section into several sections and explain every step properly.

-Need to mention the indicator selection process.

-Need to add the expected relationship of indicators in a Table.

-Table 2 is not complete. The author should do the literature review again and add expected relationship and justification for each indicator.

-Need to mention the calculation process. Only brief descriptions of methods are not enough for methodological clarification.

 

It is not clear how the author conducted this research. The author mentioned a list of research methods without following anyone properly. Need to revise and rewrite clearly mentioning in detail.

 

 

Results

-This section is also very poor and haphazard.

-There is no planning for presenting the findings properly.

-Figure 1 and 2 are fine, but their calculation process is not mentioned in the methodology section.

-The description lacks coherence due to procedural weakness.

 

Discussion

-This section is also very poor and haphazard.

-There is no planning for presenting the findings properly.

-There is little connection between the research objective and the findings.

 

Conclusion

This section is not structured, and too long. It should be revised by adding key findings, recommendations, and practical implications.

 

References

-Need to check the whole section and follow the journal style.

 

-Need to add recent references.

Author Response

To the editors of Social Sciences Journal and to the referees of our manuscript,

First of all, we would like to thank you all for taking your time to carefully read and comment on our manuscript. We believe that all of your comments and suggestions from both of our referees have been of enormous value. Thus, they have been included in this new version of the article that, thanks to your efforts and contributions, is now much more thorough, profound and clear. We have made an effort to include each and every one of your suggestions, so we hope that you see your contributions well reflected in this new version of the manuscript.

The second referee commented on the relevance and practical importance of our research, yet he/she suggested that we:

• Present the paper better so that it becomes clear what is the exact message of the research.

We have tried to improve the presentation style of the whole article, making it clearer to understand the message we are trying to convey throughout the research. You will find this reflected in an overall change of the style in each of the manuscript’s sections.

• Change the title of the article so it reflects the content of the manuscript better.

We believe that the new title of the manuscript – ‘Assessment of urban neighbourhoods’ vulnerability through an Integrated Vulnerability Index (IVI): Evidence from Barcelona, Spain’ – that was suggested by this referee now depicts the central core of the research.

• Improve the abstract so that it is better connected to the body of the text and follows IMRaD style.

We believe we have addressed this issue by reorganizing the whole abstract, which now follows the IMRAD style, making it much clearer to understand the main parts of the manuscript as well as the contributions of this research. This format style is something we will extend to other presentations and work, so we are very thankful for the suggestion.

• In relation to the introduction, the referee suggested we give it a better structure so as to better introduce the issue of our research, its importance, and practical implication. He/She suggested that Table 1 was completed and that we divided the objectives and conceptual framework into two subsections.

This whole section has now been improved, following the format, style and content suggested by the referee. We believe it now reflects better the current state of the issue, as well as the theoretical context of the paper, and the aim of the research related to the discussion of the concept of urban vulnerability and the construction of an integrated index. At the same time, table 1 has been improved, adding two new indices to the ones already present in the previous version of the manuscript. Furthermore, the whole section has been divided into two subsections (conceptual framework and objectives). Finally, the goals stated in this section are aligned with the ones present in the abstract of the paper, which was not very clear before. We believe the suggestions have resulted in serious added-value of this section as a whole.

• In relation to methodology, the reviewer mentions a revision of the whole section; in particular, he/she proposed that we divide and structure the section, justify the selection of variables and explain the process of calculating the index. Finally, that we justified the lack of geographical/climatic indicators.

Several changes have been implemented to this section and we believe that the proposed comments have contributed to improve it immensely. First, the section has been divided and reorganised into 4 sections. Second, the selected dimensions and indicators have been justified. Third, the reason for not including climate indicators has also been mentioned, mainly related to access to data on a national level. Still, this comment has allowed us to incorporate some new references regarding this subject; these have been included in the conceptual framework section of the introduction. Fourth, the process and steps followed to construct the vulnerability index have been explained in detail.

• As for the Results section, the referee suggest that we presented a better planning of the findings, as well as the calculation for figures 1 and 2.

We believe that this section has been improved following his/her guidelines. In fact, the whole section has been rearranged in order to firstly present the planning on how the findings will be offered. Then, the subtitles have also been changed to reflect this new organization. As for the calculation process of figures 1 and 2 that the referee was asking about, this is now explained in the methodology section and repeated in the results section.

• In relation to the discussion section, the referee suggested that we focus on the connections between the objectives and the findings.

In order to improve this section, we have tried to establish clearer links between the research objective and the findings. It is now organized in the structure suggested by the referee making it much easier to follow.

• The referee suggested that we revise the conclusion section, make it shorter and focus on the practical implications of our research.

Thus, we have tried to more clearly link the results with our initial objectives, and at the same time we have tried to present the information more clearly, focusing on our contributions and the practical implications of our results, mostly related to research but also to public policy.

• As for the references, the referee suggested we check the style and add more recent work.

This section has been corrected following the journal’s guidelines more closely. At the same time, recent related articles and work have also been included, making it more complete. Some of these new articles are related to the climate issue mentioned before and others to alternative methodologies for the construction of different vulnerability indices, as well as conceptual framework of our main concepts. We are very thankful for your suggestions.

As a transversal comment, we would like to say that the whole paper has gone through English language revision, an idea suggested by both referees.

All in all, we would like to thank you again for your time and we would also like to highlight the fact that all of the comments from both of the referees have been of extreme importance towards the improvement of our manuscript. At the same time, we expect that you see your suggestions and comments reflected in this new version of the article, and that it fully fulfils both your academic criteria as well as the journal’s scope and requirements.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The author has addressed all comments that improved the quality of the manuscript.

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 article examines urban inequality and its degree of vulnerability, considering sociodemographic, social & employment and residential variables to construct a synthetic index. This study has a strong potential to add acritical knowledge to the field. The article reads very well, and its scholarly presentation is excellent and well discussed. The study can benefit from addressing the issues identified below.

Title: Please use one complete sentence.

Table 1 does not read well. In particular, the words ‘Socioeconomic’ and ‘Vulnerability’ in bold are not aligned, so it is difficult to read what they mean in Table 1. Please revise it to present it clearly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

the contribution has a solid scientifc soundness. it is based on a well reported and commented theoretical debate. the bibliography cited is appropriate as well as the papers and tables supporting the arguments are effective. the investigation method and instrument are explained in an exhaustive manner.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper attempts to create a new neighborhood index of vulnerability for cities that integrates markers of gentrification and foreign investment into existing area vulnerability measures, using Barcelona as a case study. Unfortunately, the paper is not publishable at present: it is not clear why a new measure is needed, what it adds, or whether it measures what the authors claim it measures. I am sorry to say I have to recommend that it be rejected!

 

If the authors choose to revise and submit elsewhere, a few major points to think about:

1. The front material of this paper needs a major overhaul. This analysis actually addresses a very narrow question: adding specific gentrification-related items to an existing vulnerability scale. The front material must narrowly and comprehensively address why existing scales that lack these items are insufficient and why adding gentrification matters. This is especially true because, in the end, this new measure does not uniquely identify new neighborhoods that other scales don't already identify as being "vulnerable." So: what is the narrow contribution this new scale makes, and is there any empirical evidence that it improves existing scales?

2. On face, the items meant to measure gentrification the authors have added do a poor job measuring gentrification (which is a longitudinal process representing neighborhood CHANGE, and thus cannot be measured cross-sectionally, as the authors have done) as well as a poor job measuring vulnerability. Having a small apartment without a lift is not an inherent marker of being vulnerable if the residents are highly educated and high-income. Living in a neighborhood with a bunch of hotels does not necessarily indicate that a neighborhood has been fundamentally transformed from how it was, say, 20 years ago. The sex ratio of a neighborhood is not an indicator of well-being. The authors need a major overhaul of their measures. E.g., if measuring gentrification, we'd want a measure of whether the neighborhood's average income changed OVER TIME, or whether many people had begun to be displaced from those neighborhoods; as the authors admit in the discussion, their current measure cannot capture that.

3. The factor analysis results themselves also lack face validity. Vocational training and unemployment seem like social class markers; why would they coherently be in the same category as voting behaviors, the elderly population, and the sex ratio? What could these indicators collectively mean other than describing some vague "social and economic" quality?

4. The authors' discussion discusses the utility of this measure for tracking vulnerability over time. But they do not actually do that, nor is it clear how much their index values change over time in particular neighborhoods. If they want to make that argument, make it empirically! Otherwise, the discussion would be better focused on what future research would have to show in order for this index to be useful (especially, more useful than existing indices).

5. This new index is supposed to be applicable to any city, but it appears that some of its items are, for example, available for Barcelona but not for Bilbao. Could the authors discuss how viable this index is for calculating vulnerability even across cities in Spain?

6. One glaring omission is any discussion of racism or residential racial segregation. A number of papers in Spain have shown Spanish cities to experience racial segregation due to systemic housing discrimination, which likely affect minorities' access to resources. It is striking that no area-level measures of racial/ethnic composition or segregation (Dissimilarity index, Index of Concentration at the Extremes, etc.) are included. Why?

https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/79806

https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2018/10/04/inenglish/1538650838_580821.html

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

A topic as urban vulnerability should require a stronger explanation of theoretical basis and more references should be used to discuss about this important topic.

There is a particular weakness in this article, which I think could compromise the publication: the contribution is not well stated and it seams not to give a clear contribution to the field of urban vulnerability.

Moreover, a deeper explanation of the Integrated Vulnerability Index (IVI) is necessary.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

This is my second time reviewing this paper, and to the authors credit they have made many important improvements. Unfortunately, my central problems with this paper are the same and haven't really been addressed, other than to acknowledge them in writing. But they can't just be acknowledged! The analysis has to change!

1. The factors lack face validity. It really is not clear why vocational training and unemployment are in the same factor group as, say, how many old people live in a neighborhood or the sex ratio (the latter of which has nothing to do with social vulnerability at all, and likely does not substantially vary from place to place). This is not a translation issue, as the authors suggest; it's just that the indicators and how they are grouped doesn't make sense.

2. The main contribution here is that the authors added several variables related to the urban environment to an existing vulnerability scale, specifically in an attempt to measure gentrification. But gentrification measures have to be constructed as measures of change over time. The authors misunderstood my concern here: it isn't that this index should be recalculated over time to see how it changes (though that is a good idea). It's that any gentrification measure has to be *calculated* using longitudinal data. The gentrification literature generally creates indicators of gentrification that show that a certain area has had recent, large changes in the income distribution of its residents, or recent large changes in tourist-oriented development. But the authors don't measure that: they just measure levels of hotels or foreign-owned apartments at ONE point in time, which may have been stable (not gentrification) or may have recently increased (gentrification). So, it seems that they are not accomplishing the goal they say they set out to accomplish, nor are they measuring what they say they are measuring. This would need to change if they want to publish a paper about incorporating measures of gentrification!

3. Relatedly, the authors don't really engage with the fact that their index basically agrees with the vulnerability ratings of past indices. That is, adding these urban characteristics DIDN'T actually provide any new information, suggesting that those characteristics actually AREN'T that important for detecting urban vulnerability (at least if you already have all the other indicators in this model). The point of a new index should be to provide new information; theirs just doesn't. Perhaps if they actually calculated measures of gentrification that described how neighborhoods had changed over time, those variables would add new information; but their current indicators don't. Thus their thesis that their new indicators make a big difference for measuring urban vulnerability appears to be wrong. This should have been a major portion of their discussion. Instead their discussion is about how important these new indicators are. Based on what?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

I leave this decision up to the discretion of the editor; my comments are exactly the same as in past reviews.