Decent Life Initiative and Sustainable Development Goals: A Systems Thinking Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Decent Life Initiative, launched in Egypt in 2019, targets the multifaceted challenges faced by underprivileged villages in the country. This paper adopts a systems thinking approach to provide a comprehensive analysis of the various dimensions of the initiative, and it examines the interlinkages between these dimensions through the lens of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The initiative focuses on enhancing economic, social, and environmental infrastructures, aligning with the SDGs. For the effective realization of the initiative's objectives, this paper proposes three key pillars: raising awareness, embracing technological advancements, and establishing supportive policies and legislation. By addressing these critical aspects, the Decent Life Initiative aims to create a positive and lasting impact on the lives of vulnerable communities and foster sustainable development in Egypt.

Page 1, lines 26-27: Department for International Development (2008). Is it the Egyptian Department for International Development? Where is the reference in the bibliography?

In your introduction, it would be beneficial to clarify the concept of systems thinking and its relevance to your work. Please consider revising the introduction to provide a clear explanation of what systems thinking entails and why it is valuable in the context of your project.

Page 2, lines 59-62: Do you have any academic references to support your statement?

Page 4, line 100: Please give the titles of different SDGs.

Page 4, Figure 2: Although the Venn diagram of sustainability is the most widespread, it fails to accurately depict sustainable development. Please take a look at Dragicevic, A. (2018), Deconstructing Sustainability, Sustainable Development, 26: 525–532.

Page 6, lines 121-127: In fact, systems thinking is an approach utilized to understand complex systems, whether they are natural, social, or organizational. Rather than analyzing individual components in isolation, this method involves studying the entire system as a whole and identifying interactions and interdependencies between its different parts. Causal Loop Diagrams (CLD) are one way to visualize systems thinking, but there are also socio-ecological systems that can be explored. Please take a look at Dragicevic, A. and Shogren, J. (2021), Preservation Value in Socio-Ecological Systems, Ecological Modelling, 443: 109451.

Page 6, Figure 5: The figure is too small. The reader cannot see anything.

Page 7, lines 163-164: “As poverty is mainly linked to unemployment, investment, education, health services, slum development, and reduction of prices [14].” Unclear. Please reformulate.

Page 8, Subsection 4.2.: One aspect missing in your analysis is trust in institutions. Please take a look at Dragicevic, A. (2018), Deconstructing Sustainability, Sustainable Development, 26: 525–532. Please comment on that.

Page 12, Figure 8: There is a typo in your diagram: “Ejnvironmental”.

Page 15, lines 452-454: It is rather “can theoretically achieve many of the sustainable development goals”. Therefore, how do you monitor and control the progress achieved in all these aspects?

Page 15, line 458: It should be “Egypt Human Development Report (Ministry of Planning and Economic Development, 2021)”

Page 16, lines 475-477: "The research suggests three catalysts that can play important roles to maximize the impact of Decent Life Initiative which are: raising awareness, adopting technology, and issuing supportive policies and legislations". You need to cite that literature.

Page 17: I would prefer to discuss "sustainable behavior change" using, for example, social marketing. See for example Lee, N. R. (2017). Policymaking for Citizen Behavior Change: A Social Marketing Approach. New York: Routledge.

Page 17: Your conclusion is incomplete and requires further development. For instance, you could elaborate on the significance of systems thinking for policy making, and additionally, discussing the limitations of your approach would be valuable. It is essential to identify what aspects are not covered by your study and explore other tools that may be needed in such cases. For example, socio-ecological systems better reflect the interrelations between the pillars of sustainability, an aspect that your analysis does not show.

Moderate editing of the English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1.The current Abstract section lacks an outline summary of this paper's research objectives, research methodology, findings, and significance of the study. The authors are recommended to further improve the Abstract.

2.The manuscript currently lacks the compilation and summary of classic literature and cutting-edge research related to this study. It is recommended that the authors strengthen the synthesis of existing related studies to distinguish the innovations and breakthroughs of this research.

3.Authors need to refine the formulation of the research question at the end of the "Introduction" to accurately reflect the core research of the paper.

4. Many of the thesis statements in the paper lack literature or argument support, such as:

Lines 46-48 "The paper uses the systems thinking approach since it is the most suitable methodology to understand the relationship between components that represent this complex system, and their overall impact on system outcomes."

Lines 104-105 "These themes come under the main pillars of sustainability which are social, economic, and environmental."

Lines 475-477 "The research suggests three catalysts that can play important roles to maximize the impact of Decent Life Initiative which are: raising The research suggests three catalysts that can play important roles to maximize the impact of Decent Life Initiative which are: raising awareness, adopting technology, and issuing supportive policies and legislations."

5.The Methods section is too brief in describing the methods used in this study. The underlying theory, specific steps, applicability and superiority of these methods for this study need to be explained in detail. If necessary it is recommended that the authors consider using a flowchart to further illustrate the process of applying the method in this study.

6.The Results section is too lengthy and the authors need to refine this section to keep the core findings. And there is a lack of legend labeling in Figure 5.

7.In the Discussion section, it is mentioned that "The leverage points of the CLD and how to maximize their impact on achieving the SDGs can be discovered using systematic analysis prospection. The proposed catalysts can effect on feedback loops of CLD behavior as follows..." The process of justifying the impact of the three catalysts on feedback loops is lacking. The "system analysis prospection" method mentioned in the text was not previously described.

8.It is recommended that the authors further enrich the Conclusions section. Consideration could be given to including a short summary of the paper, the limitations of the study, and a prospective outlook for future research in the same field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Essential issues that should be explained or revised:

- There is no definition of sustainable development,

- No explanation of SDG's relation with the study's scope, especially in the introduction.

- Decent Life Initiative looks interesting, but the paper remains unclear and fuzzy.

-  Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) needs more explanations. Is it a research method in this context? If so, please add an appropriate description, as it is required for research methods.

_ What are the real benefits of this study? How could it be used in practice?

- What are the practical implications?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This work addresses a topic of great actuality and interest –the impact of a presidential initiative - Decent Life Initiative - on economic, social and environmental life, in accordance with the SDGs.

The first part of the article is dedicated to the introduction to the issue and the detailing of some terms such as economic growth, environmental sustainability, quality of life, and developing countries.

While the analysis is adequate, the statistical analysis is underdeveloped.

Figure 1 (a, b, c, d, e) presents a simple, descriptive statistic, with a focus on highlighting the differences in development between urban and rural areas.

Figure 4 (a, b, c, d, e) should be viewed with caution, even if the official source of the data is a report published by the Ministry of Planning and Economic Development in January 2021. For example, figure 4a illustrates the evolution of the poverty rate, which dropped very quickly: from 76% in 2018/2019 (situation before initiative) to 62% (2019/2020, current situation) to 50% in 2020/2021 (targeted situation). It would be interesting to see if the forecasts have come true and if the poverty rate has really dropped by 26% in three years.

What was the source for figures 2 and 3? If they are owner-owned, this should be indicated.

A positive aspect of the article is the detailed explanation of how systemic thinking was applied to study the real causes of the problems faced by poor villages in Egypt and the creation of Causal Loop Diagrams, which adds value to the article.

The author presented the research results in a clear and logical manner.

Conclusions are not consistent. There are no evidence and arguments presented and they do not address the main question asked.

Observation: limitations and future research directions can also be highlighted.

Connection with Systems: there is a correspondence with the thematic areas of the journal.

Overall, I think this study is certainly interesting, but it seems that the some remarks need to be supplemented or corrected appropriately.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Page 21, line 632: Despite these limitations, WE believe that systems thinking...

Could be improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revised most of the elements of the manuscript that needed revision as much as possible based on the comments made by the reviewers. Although some elements have not been thoroughly revised, it is possible that the authors have their own understanding and it does not affect the quality of the article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept in present form.