Mainstreaming the ‘Brown’ Agenda†
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
While the distinction between the 'Green' and 'Brown' sustainable agendas is topical and of interest, I found your approach somewhat superficial and your methodology weak. I think the article needs major improvements. Specifically, I would consider the following suggestions:
Abstract: I would redraft to articulate your case study methodology and the focus on Nepal 's Bagmati River in Kathmandu.
Biographic details: Remove all the biographic details that seem irrelevant to your investigation from l.107-l.114
Philosophy: Include more references on land rights and hydrology etc. to situate your study in relevant literature.
Methodology:
1) Reason for case study methodology
2) Precise articulation of case study hydrology, informal urban settlements with spatial focus Kathmandu
3) Logic underpinning selection of fluvial settlement (on Bagmatic River) or explanation of pragmatic considerations
4) Articulate logic for focus on informal land rights (“sukumbasis”) to illustrate G vs. B conundrum or sustainability agenda
Interviews: Articulate more precisely the mechanism used for semi-structured interviews and sampling of informants (range of stakeholders should be considered). I would have liked to see evidence from the interviews in terms of quotes explaining why residents were reluctant to move to new settlements.
Other case study evidence needs better articulation in terms of focus group discussions and direct observations & secondary data sources.
Data/facts re Nepal: l.124 - Provide data to support assertions that Kathmandu is one of least urbanized countries in the world; Kathmandu is among the fastest growing cities in South Asia
Discussion: It would be useful to include counterarguments about importance of Land Administrative System (LAS) and formalising informal land rights. Also, risk of flash flooding and waterborne disease for wider population.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article raises a very important problem, which is the issue of sustainable development. Exactly its practical implementation. In my opinion, the article doesn't have a scientific nature. The author described the specific situation. This description, however, is more suitable for a popular science journal than a scientific one. No use of any research methods. The formulated conclusions are at a very high level of generality and require detailing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is an interesting insight into the discussion about the essence of sustainable development. However, some work must be carried out to improve the paper to be suitable for publication. The main weaknesses of the paper are: not clearly stated goal of the paper, lack of method description, lack of proper discussion, outdated cited literature.
The goal of the paper is not stated. It should not be formulated as a case study description. We do not learn what scientific problem the author wanted to solve. What research question (s) he wanted to answer.
The section 2.1. is continuation of introduction.
Section 2.2. is not a method description. Lines 107-115 are beside the point. The author's subsequent degrees of education do not add anything to the studied problem. The method section must be developed. In this section the author should provide information about the content of semi-structured interviews, characteristics of key informants and focus groups, who they are, how many interviews/group discussion have been carried out, how many participants were there. The author should describe the observations from and technique.
Discussion is in fact the continuation of results. In the discussion section author should describe and interpret the significance of obtained findings, on the background of what was already known about the research problem. He should also state how his results extend the findings of previous studies, and underline new insights about the problem being investigated. It is not clear why author do not refer here to scientific papers that tackle the problem of incompatibility of sustainable development goals, e.g. Khan 2014, Sachs 2015, Spaiser et al. 2017.
The literature that is cited is outdated. The paper must be supplemented with the latest literature.
There are many repetition of in the text., e.g. four times is repeated the information that, 250 squatter houses and a school were demolished from the banks of Bagmati River in Thapathali.
Authors should also delete “brown agenda” form keywords list. Key words should not repeat words already used in the title of the paper. The function of keywords is to supplement the information given in the title. Words in the title are automatically included to databases, and keywords serve as additional pointers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear all,
Even if the issues related to sustainability and its development methods are relevant to investigate, the present manuscript has many flaws. I think in the stage it is now, is not publishable.
The introduction is too short and not enough information is provided
A literature section does not exist
The methodology is too short and not explained in detail
Similar cases should be analyzed and referenced
The discussion and conclusion sections are too weak
There is not study limitations and further research lines
The references list is not enough; should be expanded and updated
Others:
The abstract is not well constructed; i.e. - line 14 - is not usual to find references in the abstracts...
The author says: "An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 20th Annual International Sustainable Development Research Conference, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 18-20, 2014"; Have been this research already published??...
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The author has made efforts to make the manuscript stronger, however, after reading this manuscript again, there are two issues that not have been addressed in proper way. The method and discussion sections continues to be doubtful.
The method section should be supplemented by more detailed information about the primary data sources, as it was suggested in my first review.
The discussion section is not improved.The author should pay attention to the fact the larger part of references to sources is usually found in the discussion section. The author should compare her results with those from other studies, to show if they are consistent; and if not - discuss possible reasons for the difference. The author should also state how her results extend the findings of previous studies.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear all,
In fact, the authors have improved the manuscript. However, they not answered all of my questions/recommendations. Thus, I still cannot recommend the acceptance of the manuscript.
Nevertheless, I can reconsider my decision, if the authors can improve it according to my suggestions, mainly to these:
- Similar cases should be analyzed and referenced - also in the discussion and conclusions
- The discussion and conclusion sections are still weak
- There is not study limitations and further research lines
best,
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
