Development of an Evaluation Framework for Smartness and Sustainability in Cities
, Cristina de Torre 1, Miguel Á. García-Fuentes 1, Ana Pérez 2, Isabel Tomé 2, María L. Mirantes 3 and Elena Hoyos 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is about sustainability and smartness indexes but only the former is presented. It is not sufficient to say "they have the same structure" and sweep the smartness index under the carpet. In this case, just change the title to sustainability index.
There is no review of how this index compares with other indexes.
Finally, many of the indicators are unexplained. There are about 100 indicators, so this will pose major data problems. A good index relies on minimal indicators and removes many of the overlaps.
I am not sure how the weights are determined. It seems arbitrary.
Finally, are the main categories sound? I note political sustainability, for example, is missing. Institutions are important, and yet this index has very few institutional indicators. The financial system is also missing. COVID-19 shows cities are neither smart nor sustainable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present in this manuscript the Urban Regeneration Model and the evaluation framework that was developed through REMOURBAN project. It is an interesting tool which contributes to smart and sustainable cities. I would suggest accepting the paper after major revisions.
- Introduction:
- 64-67: How these priorities have been identified?
- Evaluation supporting tool: STILE
- 162-163: STILE tool is a computer-based tool. How can somebody to use it? Is it required an installation? Are there hardware requirements?
- 174-177: What is the contribution of the math algorithms?
- 205: How is the baseline situation defined?
- Sustainability and Smartness evaluation methodology:
- How they are normalized and why?
- How did you define the weights? Did you use any method for this process such as AHP? Is it possible that the weights should vary based on the local characteristics of each case-study?
- Conclusions:
- Could this tool be ameliorated in future work?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been substantially improved to warrant publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors had significantly improved the quality of presentation addressing adequately all the comments. I suggest accepting the manuscript in the current form.
