Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

You have gone the extra mile to contribute to scholarship on a complex topic. Building resilient and sustainable communities remains a huge challenge for policy makers and other stakeholders. Your proposed system-of-communities framework is elucidating and moves the debate further on in mitigating the fallout of marginalized communities, trapped with mass incarceration and recidivism. 

The rationale for the paper, its currency and epistemological foundations are really strong. It is unarguable that mass incarceration and prison cycling has knock on effects on communities and the way you go about this as a key driver of social inequality is very novel and grounded.

You refer to the Brundtland report (1987) , this date should be inserted at first usage  p.3, line 83. It is evident that the emerging debates around social sustainability and the shifts from environmental to "just sustainability" perspectives sets a solid tone for the paper. The context is cast through the use of a wider, long-term lens and you do justice on this.

The theoretical perspective of the paper are succinctly captured and you move further forward with useful figures that capture the theme of mass incarceration, intertwined with prison-industrial complex system and foster care, the main thrust of the paper.

Please check sentence structure on p.2 line 56-57

p.13 line 460, should it be an not a examination

line 855 should it be interlinking not interlining.

Overall, the system-of-community framework proposed unpicks sustainability and "sustainable community" from a wide lens perspective and you unveil critically the intertwining linkages, recognizing the negative impacts of the US Justice system on incarceration, prison-industrial complex and foster care.

Author Response

Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful review of the article.  The corrections you recommended were completed.

 

Best,

Muriel Adams, Sonja Klinsky and Nalini Chhetri

Reviewer 2 Report

The theme is relevant and of interest to different communities concerned with sustainability issues.

However, there are some errors in the quotations and standard structure that is used for scientific articles, but you can also consider the use of some methodology as a case study, and/or the use of techniques for the development of bibliometric studies.

I have some observations and recommendations for this document:

1. Clarifying the objective and context of the problem
2. Strengthen the literature review with theoretical currents on sustainability for regions (communities) from political, economic and social perspectives that underpin research. Are there any premises and / or questions to be resolved?
3. In the section of the method, one does not appreciate with clarity the method used for the development of the investigation. Defining the type of study (qualitative-exploratory-descriptive, etc.) There is no clarity about the public or the many that has been the object of study in this investigation.
4. Add results section to all of your important halls
5. Conclusions and discussions. What is your main contribution to the study? Which are the theoretical and empirical contributions of the study to the different interest groups? Who are the future lines and limitations of research?

Author Response

Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your thorough review of the article. 

Recommendations:

Literature:

Thank you for your comments to add literature.  Both you and Reviewer 3 suggested this.  Reviewer 3 had some great literature suggestions which were added.  As you can see, we have deepened the literature and parts of the analysis.

Method:

This is an exploratory conceptual study in which we integrated literature and discussion in a conceptual way and mapped out a descriptive landscape to support the argument for a system-of-communities conceptual approach to addressing sustainability issues in poor, marginalized communities in the U.S.  This is not an empirical study. It has now been clarified in the objective section.  

Results:

Because this is an exploratory conceptual study, there is not an explicit results section. Also, we are not clear about what was meant by asking us to consider "important halls."  If this is an important issue for the reviewer, we request further clarification. 

Conclusion and discussion:

Thank you for reminding us to be clear about the conclusion and discussion. As you can see, we have tightened the final conclusions to make sure the future lines of our work and contributions are clear. 

Best,

Muriel Adams, Sonja Klinsky and Nalini Chhetri

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a refreshingly new approach focusing on social sustainability (along with economic and environment). It sets out ambitious goals. Much good scholarly work is provided for making their point. Perhaps the extensive listing of "barriers" in the second half of article, although quite well summarized, could be shorted, since much is well known in the field. More specifics could be provided on what constitutes "systems of communities" and their characteristics. Table 1 and the advocacy of three components (social cohesiveness, social inclusiveness, and "social equity") could be expanded. Two readings supporting the notion of "barriers" could be usefully consulted: Reiman's The Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get Prison - the thesis that the prison failure is a "success"; Wacquant, "Deadly Symbiosis: When Ghetto and Prison Meet and Mesh"  - the thesis that a pipeline exists between prison and the ghetto (and the school in ghettos); both responding to your call for a "system based" approach" (p.7). Wacqant's article would be a very important article with which to engage, given the authors' goals.

Author Response

Reviewer 3,

Thank you for your thorough review of the article.  We are happy to know that you enjoyed the new approach we took to address social (economic and environmental) sustainability.   

We provided more information throughout the article to clarify what constitutes a system-of-communities and its characteristics.  

Information regarding the three components (social inclusion, social cohesiveness and social equity) and the use of the characteristics in Table 1 was expanded through examples in the article. 

The two readings you recommended, "Deadly Symbiosis: When ghetto and prison meet and mesh" and When the Rich Get Richer the Poor Get Prison, we included in the article along with other literature on the school-to-prison pipeline, and on how the U.S. criminal justice and corrections systems have changed poor, marginalized communities  and schools into places that look more like prisons. As you reminded us, this will add more context to a systems-based approach.

 

Best,

Muriel Adams, Sonja Klinsky and Nalini Chhettri

Reviewer 4 Report

It could be even a theoretical chapter in a book if not a paper! The literature review is extensive and the writing style is adapted to social studies philosophy.

Author Response

Reviewer 4,

Thank you so much for your thorough and kind review of the article.  

We are happy that you also appreciate the writing style used and the extensive literature review.

We look forward to possibly having this article included as a chapter in a book one day.  For now, having it published in the Social Sustainability journal would be great.

Best,

Muriel Adams, Sonja Klinsky and Nalini Chhetri

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The document presents improvements to the initial manuscript. It is an interesting topic that can be useful for the scientific and academic community.

Author Response

Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your second review of this article.  We appreciate the time and effort you took to do so.  We are also happy to know that you believe this topic can be useful for the scientific and academic community.

All the best,

Muriel Adams, Sonja Klinsky and Nalini Chhetri