Sustainable Urban Design Model for Residential Neighborhoods Utilizing Sustainability Assessment-Based Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The Abstract and the Conclusions should be improved by adding more quality results (detailed values). Especially the conclusions should be concise.

2. The research gaps and contributions should be more clearly presented at the end of the Introduction Section.

3. The research innovation should be focused. What are the main differences between the method proposed in this study and those in the literature.

4. What are the performance metrics used for sustainability assessment?   5. Pls. add some mathematic evaluation formula to describe the sustainability assessment method.   6. Some figures were not clearly presented. Fig. 13, the legend is not clear. Fig. 14, what are the weights? Only strength and weakness. How to obtain the weights? 7. the shortage of this study must be added. 

Author Response

Sustainable urban design model for residential neighborhoods: neighborhood sustainability assessment-based approach.

Reply to Reviewers comments:

We thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions to improve our manuscript. We are encouraged by the Reviewers’ constructive and helpful comments which we believe have contributed to produce a better version of the paper. In this revision, we have re-written our manuscript in accordance with the comments by the reviewer.

 

Reviewer #1:

1-The Abstract and the Conclusions should be improved by adding more quality results (detailed values). Especially the conclusions should be concise.

Abstract and conclusion sections are edited, we believe the abstract and the conclusion are more concise now.

2- The research gaps and contributions should be more clearly presented at the end of the Introduction Section.

A paragraph is added to the manuscript -at the end of the introduction section- to emphasize the research gap and contributions:

(Though previous research was carried out on the review of NSA tools, this paper develops an original methodological framework for neighborhood assessment that is extracted from NSA tools and local needs. Since the premiere usage of the model is in Palestine, the study fills the gap of the insufficient urban studies of local neighborhoods, and it expands the exploration of sustainability to contexts of spontaneous planning. The model can be of great importance to local governments, municipalities, and construction developers.)

Also, in the discussion section, the paper explains some gaps in the literature on NSA tools in the discussion.

3- The research innovation should be focused. What are the main differences between the method proposed in this study and those in the literature? 

A paragraph is added to the manuscript -the fifth paragraph of the introduction section-to emphasize the research innovation:

(To point out the differences between the proposed methods in the study to those in the literature, the paper has developed crossings between different accredited NSA tools and has embraced the local context to influence the structure of chosen indicators for the suggested model. Moreover, the study uses innovative tools like Urbano and challenges its inaugural use for studies within local attributes of inconsistent topography and irregular street patterns. Previous studies integrated Urbano into their methods for evaluating street layouts in a mixed-use district, studying the distribution of amenities around a tourist attraction, and designing a TOD area.)  

4- What are the performance metrics used for sustainability assessment?     

And Pls. add some mathematical evaluation formula to describe the sustainability assessment method.

In the methodology section the performance metric used for the selected parameter to evaluate the sustainability of the neighborhood are based on qualitative and quantitative indicators summarized in table 3. The performance measurements for each indicator have been done through different methods (depends on the indicator) the performance metrics include but not limited to the following:

1- field work measurements and calculation

2- software simulation (Urbano tool and GIS) 

3- master plan analysis and examining applicable regulations 

4- International standards e.g. height to street ratio

No specific mathematical formulas have been used, al formulas are part of the tools used (Urbano and GIS) 

This explanation has been added to the methodology section.  

 

6- Some figures were not clearly presented. Fig. 13, the legend is not clear. Fig. 14, what are the weights? Only strength and weakness. How to obtain the weights?

The legend of Fig. 13 has changed.

(Weights mean the count of points. For each studied indicator, a set of weaknesses and strengths is pinned. They are obtained by counting the number of strengths and weaknesses of each indicator. The part of the discussion presents the total count of strengths, the total count of weaknesses, the indicators of the highest count of strengths, and the indicators of the highest count of weaknesses.)

The description of the figure is added to the last part of the results:

(The assessment of Al-Mreij neighborhood has quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated the inclusion of neighborhood sustainability parameters. For each studied indicator, a set of weaknesses and strengths is pinned, see Figure 11. Points of their weight are obtained by counting the number of those strengths and weaknesses. The total count of strengths in Al-Mreij is 13, while the total count of weaknesses is 32.  Strengths are pointed out from eight indicators that relate to transit, density, diversity of uses, and natural open spaces. The indicator of Preferred Location, scored the high-est number of strengths (4 points), followed by the indicator of Access to Quality Transit (2 points). Seventeen indicators, which exceed two thirds of all indicators, scored 1 pointed out weakness. Only one indicator scored zero weaknesses, which is the Preferred Location. Indicators that scored the maximum number of weaknesses are Housing and Jobs Proximity, Safety and Security, and Heat Island Effect.)

7- The shortage of this study must be added

A paragraph is added to the manuscript -the conclusion- to emphasize the research shortage:

(The limitations of this study can be summarized concerning the distinctions of size, spread, and density of neighborhoods in Nablus. Those attributes of local neighborhoods are not uniform, which might create a shortage in the generalization of the study’s findings and recommendations.)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is good and fits the journal profile. The topic is current, but the authors want to cover too many things. It would be worth considering omitting certain elements to make the study more focused. The questions asked in the introduction should be answered in the discussion so that they are placed in an international context and include references. The results are abundant and exciting, but the article becomes too much and rambling. The figures are also exciting, but less would be sufficient. The reader gets the feeling that there are two articles in the study.
The following literature is recommended: 

Ameen, R.F.M., Mourshed, M., & Li, H. (2015). A critical review of environmental assessment tools for sustainable urban design. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 55, 110-125.

Komeily, A., & Srinivasan, R.S. (2015). A need for a balanced approach to neighborhood sustainability assessments: A critical review and analysis. Sustainable Cities and Society, 18, 32-43.

The reviewer would not place Figure 14. in the discussion but in the presentation of the results chapter. It would be worthwhile to explain the figure in the text as well.

Overall, some shortening and simplification would be necessary. At the same time, internationally relevant comparisons and suggestions are needed in the discussion and conclusions.

Author Response

Sustainable urban design model for residential neighborhoods: neighborhood sustainability assessment-based approach.

Reply to Reviewers comments:

We thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions to improve our manuscript. We are encouraged by the Reviewers’ constructive and helpful comments which we believe have contributed to produce a better version of the paper. In this revision, we have re-written our manuscript in accordance with the comments by the reviewer.

 Reviewer #2: 

1- The study is good and fits the journal profile. The topic is current, but the authors want to cover too many things. It would be worth considering omitting certain elements to make the study more focused. The questions asked in the introduction should be answered in the discussion so that they are placed in an international context and include references. The results are abundant and exciting, but the article becomes too much and rambling. The figures are also exciting, but less would be sufficient. The reader gets the feeling that there are two articles in the study.
The following literature is recommended: 

Ameen, R.F.M., Mourshed, M., & Li, H. (2015). A critical review of environmental assessment tools for sustainable urban design. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 55, 110-125.

Komeily, A., & Srinivasan, R.S. (2015). A need for a balanced approach to neighborhood sustainability assessments: A critical review and analysis. Sustainable Cities and Society, 18, 32-43. 

To make the study more focused, we have omitted some indicators of the study; 3.2.3 Housing Types & Affordability, 3.4.1 Economic Impact, and 3.8.3 Environmental Risks. Moreover, some figures are removed such as Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 10.

Suggested literature reviews are now added to the introduction section & in the discussion section as follows:

Regional priorities led to disparity of addressing indicators as mandatory and optional measures [5].

These gaps add up to evaluative studies that pointed out gaps in NSA; lack of equitable consideration of these four sustainability pillars, the lack of cross-scale studies, and the lack of consistent assessment [31].

 

2- The reviewer would not place Figure 14. in the discussion but in the presentation of the results chapter. It would be worthwhile to explain the figure in the text as well.

The figure has been moved to the results section. 

A paragraph is added to the manuscript -at the end of the results section- to explain the figure in the text:

(The assessment of Al-Mreij neighborhood has quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated the inclusion of neighborhood sustainability parameters. For each studied indicator, a set of weaknesses and strengths is pinned, see Figure 11. Points of their weight are obtained by counting the number of those strengths and weaknesses. The total count of strengths in Al-Mreij is 13, while the total count of weaknesses is 32.  Strengths are pointed out from eight indicators that relate to transit, density, diversity of uses, and natural open spaces. The indicator of Preferred Location scored the highest number of strengths (4 points), followed by the indicator of Access to Quality Transit (2 points). Seventeen indicators, which exceed two thirds of all indicators, scored 1 pointed out weakness. Only one indicator scored zero weaknesses, which is the Preferred Location. Indicators that scored the maximum number of weaknesses are Housing and Jobs Proximity, Safety and Security, and Heat Island Effect.)

3- Overall, some shortening, and simplification would be necessary. At the same time, internationally relevant comparisons and suggestions are needed in the discussion and conclusions. 

 

The manuscript has been shortened by omitting less relevant parts e.g. 3.2.3 ,  3.4.1 and  3.8.3 and rewriting the conclusion section to make it more concise. 

International comparisons are introduced in the discussion and conclusion sections through the following paragraphs. 

(The local model is distinguished from other accredited NSA in its cultural, social, and physical characteristics. The notion that it was built from local challenges makes it responsive and extremely related to its context. The process by which the model was established has significantly led to the exposure of highlighting several gaps; gaps in the literature of selected NSA tools, gaps in the application of the methodological framework, and gaps addressed in the selected neighborhood. The coverage of those gaps makes the study available for local and international contextualization.) 

(These gaps add up to evaluative studies that pointed out gaps in NSA; lack of equitable consideration of thee four sustainability pillars, the lack of cross-scale studies, and the lack of consistent assessment [31]) 

(The results from this study are in line with the results comparing the implementation of NSA tools at international level, which highlighted differences in both the quality and the quantity of sustainability and resilience aspects covered by different international NSA systems [32]. These distinctions and similarities in the international NSA serve as a basement towards enhancing these existing systems and establishing modified versions according to the local contests and regional priorities, which was one of the aims from this study. The new proposed model can serve the future sustainability and resilience of neighborhoods taking into account the specificity of different contests.)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most of our knowledge of urban environments comes from large cities in rich countries, which makes studies such as this one, coming from a developing country-to-be, particularly intriguing. Enab et al looked at the potential for urban sustainability in Nalus, Palestine. They compared six existing tools for assessing neighborhood sustainability, found them lacking in some ways, developed their own NSA tool, and looked at how neighborhoods in Nablus measure up – finding room for improvement. This is perhaps not amazing, given that governance in the region can be challenging.

One challenge I found in reading this MS is that neither “sustainability” nor “neighborhood sustainability” are clearly defined. What you want to measure depends on what you want to achieve, and if the goal is not clearly identified, defining an improved NSA can be difficult. There is certainly no doubt that, as the authors state (l 126-127), context is important and a tool designed to measure how well Singapore’s codes are followed, for example, may not be very informative in Nablus. But what is the basis for choosing the particular challenges identified in Table 2? Not that I want to disagree with the authors, but some review of the literature to identify why these are the most relevant measures would be nice. I do disagree with them, however, about the specifics identified under “environmental sustainability.” Not that I think they are unimportant, but these are all social/economic measures, not ones of sustainability as I understand the term.

Most of the MS is given to the Results, and these tend to be highly descriptive. At times, text is more appropriate to a Discussion than the Results. But the lack of numbers is sometimes surprising. For example, section 3.2.3 deals with housing affordability, yet there is no indication of housing values or what residents can afford to pay. Similarly, 3.4.2 deals with economic impacts but no values are provided. To be clear, I think the findings are interesting and valuable, but could be summarized much more briefly. For example, for 3.4.1, the final sentence (l 538-541) might do, and might be further abbreviated if provided in a Table of findings.

To a large extent, the findings can be summarized by l 781-782: “indicates the lack of local consideration of social and ecological and governmental aspects”. I think the conclusions and recommendation (section 5) flow from this, but probably could be stated much more briefly.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

At times awkward, at times confusing, but often fine

Author Response

Sustainable urban design model for residential neighborhoods: neighborhood sustainability assessment-based approach.

Reply to Reviewers comments:

We thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions to improve our manuscript. We are encouraged by the Reviewers’ constructive and helpful comments which we believe have contributed to produce a better version of the paper. In this revision, we have re-written our manuscript in accordance with the comments by the reviewer.

Reviewer #3: 

1- Most of our knowledge of urban environments comes from large cities in rich countries, which makes studies such as this one, coming from a developing country-to-be, particularly intriguing. Enab et al looked at the potential for urban sustainability in Nablus, Palestine. They compared six existing tools for assessing neighborhood sustainability, found them lacking in some ways, developed their own NSA tool, and looked at how neighborhoods in Nablus measure up – finding room for improvement. This is perhaps not amazing, given that governance in the region can be challenging.  

Indeed. The researchers agree on the existence of limitations on the considerations and applications of local governance. Thus, this paper addresses these limitations as an attempt to reform and establish a feasible and scientific-based model. 

2- One challenge I found in reading this MS is that neither “sustainability” nor “neighborhood sustainability” are clearly defined. What you want to measure depends on what you want to achieve, and if the goal is not clearly identified, defining an improved NSA can be difficult. There is certainly no doubt that, as the authors state (l 126-127), context is important and a tool designed to measure how well Singapore’s codes are followed, for example, may not be very informative in Nablus. But what is the basis for choosing the particular challenges identified in Table 2? Not that I want to disagree with the authors, but some review of the literature to identify why these are the most relevant measures would be nice. I do disagree with them, however, about the specifics identified under “environmental sustainability.” Not that I think they are unimportant, but these are all social/economic measures, not ones of sustainability as I understand the term.

A paragraph is added to the MS to cover the identification of sustainability and sustainable neighborhoods. It is added to the introduction. 

(Sustainability of neighborhoods is the extension of the evolution of sustainability as a term for parallel schemes of needs; present and future [13]. This extension is translated into the form of models with lasting social, economic, and environmental value [14], introduced as NSA tools.)

(The basis for choosing the particular challenges identified in Table 2 is the analysis of the master plan, regulations, uses, local context needs, and the researchers’ background knowledge of everyday norms of local urbanism.)

Regarding the specifics identified under ‘environmental sustainability’, we have looked up the three pillars of sustainability: economy, society, and environment. We agree that there is a strong crossing between the environmental and socio/economic aspects, however, we have defined environmental sustainability based on a literature review; expressed in the sentence: ‘Environmental sustainability in neighborhoods encompasses a range of factors, including transport, density, urban forms, and environmental buildings [15]’: 

Accordingly, we assigned the measures described in Table 2. 

3- Most of the MS is given to the Results, and these tend to be highly descriptive. At times, text is more appropriate to a Discussion than the Results. But the lack of numbers is sometimes surprising. For example, section 3.2.3 deals with housing affordability, yet there is no indication of housing values or what residents can afford to pay. Similarly, 3.4.2 deals with economic impacts but no values are provided. To be clear, I think the findings are interesting and valuable, but could be summarized much more briefly. For example, for 3.4.1, the final sentence (l 538-541) might do, and might be further abbreviated if provided in a Table of findings. 

Due to the lack of data concerning these two points (3.2.3 Housing Types & Affordability, 3.4.1 Economic Impact), we found that it is more adequate to omit these indicators from the study. We also omit these indicators as a response to other reviewers’ comments and for the aim of shortening and focusing the findings. Moreover, the text of the findings section was revised and many parts were summarized. 

The numbers in section 3.4.1 have been summarized in table 6. Other findings have been addressed numerically in the conclusion and figure 11, which can substitute the table of findings. 

4- To a large extent, the findings can be summarized by l 781-782: “indicates the lack of local consideration of social and ecological and governmental aspects”. I think the conclusions and recommendation (section 5) flow from this, but probably could be stated much more briefly.

The sentence (This specifically indicates a lack of local consideration of social and ecological and governmental aspects and issues in the inclusion of economic and environmental elements in current urban configurations.) got simplified and is now moved to the conclusion.

The section of recommendation and conclusion has been modified to be brief and concise.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has been improved.