The Role of Public-Private Partnerships in Housing as a Potential Contributor to Sustainable Cities and Communities: A Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear editors and author(s)
I have reviewed the manuscript " A systematic review of the Role of PPP as a Potential Contribtor to Sustainable Cities and communities", which has been submitted for publication in the Sustainability Journal. I would like to underline some aspects that in my opinion must be considered in order to improve the manuscript.
This Systematic literature review aims to present a research, which goal is to understand how Public-Private Partnerships can be improved to better contribute to sustainable cities and communities.
General remarks about the paper. The manuscript is very interesting and documented. The authors highlight some remarkable aspects of this phenomenon. It’s my perception that, even if the manuscript has several merits, it lacks scientific soundness. Personally, I think that the authors must state more clearly their original methods, their original results and conclusions, the novelty of their study.
In addition to this, the article will benefit if the authors consider the following remarks and address within the manuscript the signaled issues:
Remark 1. The "Abstract" of the paper. I consider the abstract addresses the most relevant issues, nevertheless, I would suggest to pay attention to the avoid the term “we” and referring to “the authors” or “the research”.
Remark 2. The "Introduction" section. In the actual form of the manuscript, the "Introduction" section must state more clearly a gap in the current state of knowledge that needs to be filled, a gap that is being addressed by their manuscript. I would suggest deeper explanation to the gap and less references to the applied methodology. It will be presented and discussed later in the appropriate section.
Remark 3. The "Materials and Methods" section. Why did you use only 6 out 21 issues covered by DE for the study? It seems you never explain it.
The sentence “we argue that…” (lines 190-192) is not appropriate in the “Material and Methods” section, where is supposed that the authors just present the results: “arguing” is dedicated to the following sections (if the authors are discussing about the research’s results).
Moreover, in the table 1 you are indicating if a topic is present or not in your literature review, but you are not indicating if the PPP is criticized or not, as, instead, you affirm “PPPs are being criticized mostly for their lack of 201 social sustainability”. Please, clarify the aims of this first table.
Sntences like “Nevertheless, and guided by [5], our reading has been sufficient for us to identify four contentious issues” (239, 240) should be better specified: in a scientific research, it doesn’t sound so scientific. Please, specify better how you define these issues.
Remark 4. The "Discussion" section. In the "Discussion" section the authors should also highlight current limitations of their study, and briefly mention some precise directions that they intend to follow in their future research work.
Remark 5. Issues regarding the format of the paper.
Generally, I would recommend to avoid references to second plural person (we) and instead reference to “the authors”, “the research”, etc.
I have some concerns for the use of the pictures about copyrights and/or credits. I would suggest to check them with the editors.
Some aspects of formatting should be checked (line 88 i.e.)
Author Response
General remarks about the paper. The manuscript is very interesting and documented. The authors highlight some remarkable aspects of this phenomenon. It’s my perception that, even if the manuscript has several merits, it lacks scientific soundness. Personally, I think that the authors must state more clearly their original methods, their original results and conclusions, the novelty of their study.
The authors have clarified the original results in terms of revealing the anatomy of the possible connection bridging the gap between global sustainability issues and the critical arguments that reveal the potential of PPP (see section 4.3 on pp. 20-21). The originality with regards to the method has also been clarified inasmuch as the authors are using a global model at the local level (see p. 6: 211-219). The authors have tweaked the discussion and conclusions to highlight their originality, revealing participation and all-encompassing collaborations to be the common denominator for both social and ecological sustainability and that the need for more justice and robust social networks is pivotal for the sustainability of future cities (see sections 4.1 and 4.2, pp. 19-20). The novelty of the proposed approach in this systematic literature review is now mentioned on p. 4 (130-137).
In addition to this, the article will benefit if the authors consider the following remarks and address within the manuscript the signalled issues:
1.1 The "Abstract" of the paper. I consider the abstract addresses the most relevant issues, nevertheless, I would suggest to pay attention to the avoid the term “we” and referring to “the authors” or “the research”.
The authors now avoid using second plural person throughout the entirety of the manuscript.
1.2 The "Introduction" section. In the actual form of the manuscript, the "Introduction" section must state more clearly a gap in the current state of knowledge that needs to be filled, a gap that is being addressed by their manuscript. I would suggest deeper explanation to the gap and less references to the applied methodology. It will be presented and discussed later in the appropriate section.
The authors have re-arranged the introduction and now state that they are investigating the extent of the gap and the anatomy of the connection that bridges the gap and have added more references [19-25];[29-32];[33-35] to address the “so what” question (p. 3: 89-102). The authors state what the gap might, and might not, be in the discussion (p. 20-21: 808-814). The structure of the connection between issues of sustainability at the global level is described with a critical assessment of collaborations at the local level, which has not been done before (p. 20: 793-804).
1.3 The "Materials and Methods" section.
1.3.1 Why did you use only 6 out 21 issues covered by DE for the study? It seems you never explain it.
The authors have added a clarification in the text on p. 6 (221-226), that is, these are the issues covered by the reviewed articles:
“The first result is that the authors’ reading of the literature that combines the PPP and housing development (see table 1) found that only seven of the 21 issues touched on by the DE model are covered by the reviewed research. The identified issues are social equity, political voice, justice, social network, climate change, land conversion and biodiversity. The 14 issues that are not mentioned in the literature are therefore not included in the results, but some (or all) of these will be reflected on in the discussion.”
Also, we touch on the other issues in the discussion concerning the extent of the gap in current knowledge.
1.3.2 The sentence “we argue that…” (lines 190-192) is not appropriate in the “Material and Methods” section, where is supposed that the authors just present the results: “arguing” is dedicated to the following sections (if the authors are discussing about the research’s results).
The authors have changed this sentence, now on p. 6 (230-232), to:
“Focusing on these issues will bring the PPP closer to achieving SDG 11, expanding beyond what is acceptable within the parameters of economic growth.“
1.3.3 Moreover, in the table 1 you are indicating if a topic is present or not in your literature review, but you are not indicating if the PPP is criticized or not, as, instead, you affirm “PPPs are being criticized mostly for their lack of 201 social sustainability”. Please, clarify the aims of this first table.
The authors have clarified the aim of the table by adjusting the heading in Table 1 (p. 6: 238) in order to indicate that PPP is being criticized concerning all of the issues. In addition, it has been clarified in the text that all the quotes and arguments are derived from this criticism.
“Table 1. The focus of criticism directed at the PPP in current research in relation to the DE model.”
1.3.4 Sentences like “Nevertheless, and guided by [5], our reading has been sufficient for us to identify four contentious issues” (239, 240) should be better specified: in a scientific research, it doesn’t sound so scientific. Please, specify better how you define these issues.
The authors have changed the text in the manuscript accordingly. As an example, see p. 8; (282-283),
“Nevertheless, and guided by Raworth [5], four contentious issues have been identified in current research.”
A relevant definition to describe each of these issues has been added on p. 8 (286-300) and p. 15 (575-579). As an example:
“Derived from Stopper et al. [76] version of the DE model climate change is defined with supply chain management, reduction of CO2 emissions, energy consumption reduction, increased energy efficiency, and renewable energy..."
The definitions from the DE-model are used to later compare them with the empirical findings in the tables, revealing inter alia how the issues change when translated from the global to the local level.
1.4 The "Discussion" section. In the "Discussion" section the authors should also highlight current limitations of their study, and briefly mention some precise directions that they intend to follow in their future research work.
In response to this criticism the authors have added the following section (6) to the review, which connects to suggestions for future research (p. 21: 885-903).
“6 Limitations and future research
Finally, and highlighting some current limitations of this study, the article does not address the positive aspects of PPP. Instead, focus was on deriving its future potential to achieve sustainability in the city from critical accounts in the literature. Therefore, the authors only focused on criticism of current PPP policy goals in the Nordic countries. The analysis is also limited to seven issues and can only scratch the surface concerning the significance of the remaining 14 issues. For instance, just because current research (2015-2021) does not mention education, pollution, and water does not imply that PPPs are avoiding these issues.
Our article has some implications that need to be addressed by future research. Firstly, the research community needs to know if PPP has the necessary and sufficient institutions to go from potentiality to actuality and from being an isolated problem-solver to becoming a systematic and inclusive player, an avant-garde, in tackling urban unsustainability. Secondly, it is important to determine what facilitators or hinders the movement of PPP towards sustainability. In essence, what will it take for the stakeholders that constitute PPP to get onboard and engage in the process of enabling a transition toward a more sustainable future city? Finally, future research is recommended to find more ways to apply the DE model to the varying contexts of the city and support the transition toward a sustainable urban development..”
1.5 Issues regarding the format of the paper.
Generally, I would recommend to avoid references to second plural person (we) and instead reference to “the authors”, “the research”, etc.
I have some concerns for the use of the pictures about copyrights and/or credits. I would suggest to check them with the editors.
Some aspects of formatting should be checked (line 88 i.e.)
The authors no longer use second plural person. In addition, the editor has been contacted concerning the issue of copyrights and the formatting is checked.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper systematically reviews the shortcomings and limitations of PPP to evaluate its ability to solve the problem of unsustainable urban development. The topic is interesting. Here are my comments to improve the paper:
1- in the abstract you mentioned “The complexity of these issues often exceeds the capacity of an individual urban developer.” This is vague and unrelated to the previous sentences, and I am not sure where it did come from.
2- add a few more sentences about your results and conclusions in the abstract.
3- In the introduction, make clearer what knowledge gaps you identified and how your research addresses them. Also, make the research objectives/questions clearer. Answer the “so what?” question. Why investigating such matter is important?
4- The novelty/originality should be clearly justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective. What new things (new theories, new methods, or new policies) can the paper contribute to the existing international literature? This point must be reasonably justified by a Literature Review, clearly introduced in Introduction Section, and completely discussed in Discussion Section.
5- It doesn't make sense for 'The Doughnut Economy Model Revisited' to be a sub-heading of introduction. Revise the structure of your first few sections. To this end, you will need another literature review section on public-private partnerships or/and the issues you mentioned earlier on in the paper. You cannot have section 1.1, but not 1.2.
6- provide more examples/references of works that applied Doughnut Economy to a similar/related context.
7- the paper draws on a good range of literature. Include these references to acknowledge the issues surrounding the strategies behind policy making:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1817867
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.02.009
8- why did you only include articles from the period 2015-2021?
9- many of the concepts you introduced in the paper have not been adequately defined. For example, how are you defining ‘social equity’ or ‘justice’ in this paper?
10- your discussion section is too short and does not do justice to your work. Make it your key contributions, arguments, and findings clearer.
Author Response
2.1 in the abstract you mentioned “The complexity of these issues often exceeds the capacity of an individual urban developer.” This is vague and unrelated to the previous sentences, and I am not sure where it did come from.
The authors have changed the text, that is, the content of the preceding sentence, in the manuscript accordingly. Now both sentences are related (p. 1: 12-15):
“Today cities face the increasing negative consequences of the unsustainable course society is set on. Climate change, biodiversity loss and increasing spatial segregation are testament to this. The effects of these issues often exceed the coping capacity of individual urban housing developers.”
2.2 Add a few more sentences about your results and conclusions in the abstract.
The authors have added more sentences to cover half of the abstract about the results/conclusion (p. 1: 18-25)
“... The results reveal evidence that PPPs are unjust and excluding local actors from collaborations. Thus, resident participation and inclusion is considered the best strategy for PPP to evolve as a future guarantor of the sustainable city. First, however, major differences in the character of issues that connect the global model of sustainability to the harsh reality of the local context need to be addressed. This gap concerns the city’s social foundation and ecological ceiling. In sum, the DE model is an excellent tool to test the scope and depth of local collaborations such as PPPs and reflect on international treaties such as SDGs.”
2.3- In the introduction, make clearer what knowledge gaps you identified and how your research addresses them. Also, make the research objectives/questions clearer. Answer the “so what?” question. Why investigating such matter is important?
The authors have re-arranged the introduction and state that the literature review supplies research with an opportunity to investigate the extent of the gap (without stating what it is) and the anatomy of the possible connection that bridges the gap (p. 3: 89-94).
“The literature review gives us the opportunity to investigate the extent of the gap between studies that focus on PPP, on the one hand [19-25], and studies that focus on sustainability, on the other [4,5,10,11] …"
“Although only a very small proportion (3-4%) of hundreds of articles were written between 2015 and 2021 they can still be used to determine the anatomy of the connection between the PPP in the Nordic housing context and sustainability, the focus of this article.”
We have clarified our objectives on p. 4 (125-131) and address the “so what” question (131-138). Moreover, we discuss what the gap might, and might not, be in the discussion and added some more references [19-25];[29-32];[33-35] to address the “so what” question (p. 20-21: 794-804).
2.4- The novelty/originality should be clearly justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective. What new things (new theories, new methods, or new policies) can the paper contribute to the existing international literature? This point must be reasonably justified by a Literature Review, clearly introduced in Introduction Section, and completely discussed in Discussion Section.
The authors now connect to international literature on p. 3 (71-78; 94-102;121-124) in relation to contributing a new way of applying the internationally acclaimed DE model to the local level of the municipality (novelty). We describe the autonomy of the connection between issues of sustainability at the global level with a critical assessment of collaborations at the local level, which has not been done before (p. 20: 794-804).
“The DE-model has been adopted by Luukkanen, Vehmas and Kaivo-Oja [13], Roy, Basu and Dong [14] and Saunders and Luukkanen [15], as a first attempt to develop a method that can be used to compare countries and regions. However, in the application of the DE model herein the authors contribute to this international research by determining the actual scope and character of sustainability efforts in collaborations such as PPPS, and by applying it as a broad and new method to guide literature reviews that focus on similar collaborations in local contexts such as municipalities.”
“Most international literature today on partnership between public and private is either focused on how to improve the partnership per se, often by identifying critical success factors [19-22,25-27] or how it can better manage risk [23,24,28]. Moreover, most of the literature on PPP and sustainability either focuses on countries outside of the Nordic context (see [29-32]), or on sectors other than housing such as waste management, [33], water management [34] and transport [35]. Thus, this systematic literature review is a contribution to this literature and is a first step in deepening the current understanding of the role of PPP as a potential contributor to sustainable development in cities in the Nordic context.”
“Continuing from previous work on the DE model, the approach applied herein is a normative one, that is, it is designed to identify the shortcomings and limitations of PPP in order to evaluate its potential as a crucial and essential keystone in the sustainable foundation of housing development in the Nordic city context.”
We justify our approach on p. 3 (113-114) and present the novelty/originality of our study on p. 4 (130-137)
We discuss the novel way of applying the DE model on pp. 19-21, both in relation to shedding new light on the international goals of the UN’s SDG 11 and the connection between the dimensions of global sustainability and the harsh reality of the local Nordic city context superimposed on figure 3 on p. 20 (801-802).
2.5- It doesn't make sense for 'The Doughnut Economy Model Revisited' to be a sub-heading of introduction. Revise the structure of your first few sections. To this end, you will need another literature review section on public-private partnerships or/and the issues you mentioned earlier on in the paper. You cannot have section 1.1, but not 1.2.
The authors have amalgamated section 1.1 into section 1 as also suggested by another reviewer. After our opening statement, we now begin with the DE-model (see pp. 2-3: 51-78), move on to the PPP (p. 3: 79-88) and then discuss our need to investigate the extent of a possible gap and the anatomy of the connection that bridges it (p. 3: 89-102). This move has contributed greatly to making our problem statement and objectives clearer. New references [2,313,14,15] were added to facilitate this move.
2.6- provide more examples/references of works that applied Doughnut Economy to a similar/related context.
Besides already listed references directly to the DE model, the authors have added new relevant references on p. 3 (71-74) and p. 8 (290-292) that have applied the DE model in different contexts. It is important to point out that DE model is not widely referenced in the literature and could not be found to be used in the context of PPP in the literature. Despite that, we reference all of the most recent work that applies the DE model.
“The DE-model has been adopted by Luukkanen, Vehmas and Kaivo-Oja [13], Roy, Basu and Dong [14] and Saunders and Luukkanen [15], as a first attempt to develop a method that can be used to compare countries and regions.”
“Bending Stopper, Kossik and Gastermanns [76] version of the DE model to the context of housing development, engendering social equity is first and foremost about housing developers treating different groups of residents equally.”
“While biodiversity and land-conversion are defined as conservation of regional species and use of raw materials produced by organic farming, effective use of old industrial sites, and laying out greens space respectively [76].”
2.7- the paper draws on a good range of literature. Include these references to acknowledge the issues surrounding the strategies behind policy making:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1817867
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.02.009
Thank you for the suggestions. The authors have added the references on p. 8 (297-299) and p.17 (660-661):
“This definition is narrow in comparison with, for example, Jane Jacobs’ vision of a just city, which advocates among other things that policy makers are open for anti-subordination [77].”
“For instance, land use policy can impact housing provision through incentives and restrictions [78]”
2.8- why did you only include articles from the period 2015-2021?
The authors have added a text on pp. 4-5 (168-175) justifying the time frame in the manuscript. In addition, the authors added two new sources to describe why this time frame is used. See the justification below:
“The main reason for choosing the timeframe 2015-2021 has to do with the fact that the context of the political landscape is rapidly changing. One major change in the political landscape in Nordic countries such as the old welfare state of Sweden is the emergence of neoliberal politics and policies in the late 1990s [47]. The actual timeframe captures the effects of this transformation such as spatial segregation and displacement as they worsen considerably [48]. This ideological transformation, its recent effects combined with an acute need to combat climate change paints an accurate picture of the double-edged sustainability problematic within which PPPs operate.”
2.9- many of the concepts you introduced in the paper have not been adequately defined. For example, how are you defining ‘social equity’ or ‘justice’ in this paper?
A relevant definition to describe each of these issues has been added (p. 8:290-292) and p. 15: 575-580). As example:
“Bending Stopper, Kossik and Gastermanns [76] version of the DE model to the context of housing development, engendering social equity is first and foremost about housing developers treating different groups of residents equally.”
“Derived from Stopper et al. [76] version of the DE model climate change is defined with supply chain management, reduction of CO2 emissions, energy consumption reduction,”
These and other definitions from the DE-model in order to later compare them with the empirical findings in the tables to reveal how the issues change when translated from the global to the local level.
2.10- your discussion section is too short and does not do justice to your work. Make it your key contributions, arguments, and findings clearer.
A section was moved from the introduction to the discussion on pp. 18-19 (724-743) and we address important findings in sections 4.1 (p. 18-19) and 4.2 (pp. 19) and have expanded on Section 4.3 (pp. 19-20) to discuss our contributions (identifying the connection and the possible scope of the gap between PPP and sustainability). Conclusions based on the results have been added on pp. 21-22 (848-883),
Reviewer 3 Report
After reviewing your paper, I have some comments and suggestions for improvement as follows:
1). Check a term in lines 36-37, “Doughnut Economy or Doughnut Economics (DE)?”
2). I can see how you tried to discuss urban sustainability aspects in the Introduction, problem statement and objectives, of your paper, but not clear yet. I suggest two following papers for you to reflect on and to improve your discussion on urban sustainability aspects, especially SDG 11:
Tanguay, G.A.; Rajaonson, J.; Lefebvre, J.F.; Lanoie, P. Measuring the Sustainability of Cities: An Analysis of the Use of Local Indicators. Ecological Indicators 2010, 10, 407–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.07.013
Chan, P. Assessing Sustainability of the Capital and Emerging Secondary Cities of Cambodia Based on the 2018 Commune Database. Data 2020, 5, 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/data5030079
3) In line 49, “Falling partly within the parameters of the UN’s sustainable development goal (SDG) 11 (see table 2 below)…”, I did not see Table 2 positioned close to your point ‘see table 2 below’. I suggest considering the following options:
a. Move Table 2 closely to line 49 and change it to Figure 1; or
b. Revise your indication and do not indicate readers to see Table 2 in that line.
4). Figure 1 was drawn by you or get from the original source? If from the original source, do you have permission to reuse it?
5). The explanation of structure in lines 81-87 is not necessary for a paper and should be deleted.
6). As you do not have Section 1.2, I suggest combining the parts of Section 1 and its sub-section 1.1. After the combination, try to make your problem statement and objectives clearer.
7). In Figure 2, your statement “Records excluded with reasons (n=436)” should be bolded because it can make confused that it is the different thing from the following reasons that you have mentioned: Outside Nordic (108), Not PPP (102), Wrong Subject (95), Not urban development (62), Transportation/Mobility (22), Water management (22), Wrong study duration (9), IT/Digitalisation (7), Agriculture (6), and Waste Management (3).
8). I also have a question, why your review chose only articles from the period 2015-2021?
9). I suggest reconsidering your conclusion in lines 624-625, In conclusion, “human needs first” is the guiding principle for PPPs when converting land for housing development, while biodiversity comes in second place, because does it really reflect the sustainability concept? Towards achieving sustainability goals, perhaps including PPP goals, is not really about which one is first—they all should be first. I think the matter is the priority—of course, when converting land for housing development, human needs must be given high priority, but it does not mean the human need is first.
Author Response
3.1 Check a term in lines 36-37, “Doughnut Economy or Doughnut Economics (DE)?”
The term has been changed to “Doughnut Economics”.
3.2 I can see how you tried to discuss urban sustainability aspects in the Introduction, problem tatement and objectives, of your paper, but not clear yet. I suggest two following papers for you to reflect on and to improve your discussion on urban sustainability aspects, especially SDG 11:
Tanguay, G.A.; Rajaonson, J.; Lefebvre, J.F.; Lanoie, P. Measuring the Sustainability of Cities: An Analysis of the Use of Local Indicators. Ecological Indicators 2010, 10, 407–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.07.013
Chan, P. Assessing Sustainability of the Capital and Emerging Secondary Cities of Cambodia Based on the 2018 Commune Database. Data 2020, 5, 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/data5030079
The authors have made the problem statement and objectives clearer. For instance, concerning the problem statement we have added new text (pp. 3-4: 116-125)
“From the scattered body of knowledge concerning PPP a new understanding of its potential role in facilitating a transition toward a more sustainable housing development in the Nordic context is possible. The authors endeavour therefore to identify, with the support of the DE model, what is missing from the social and the ecological efforts of the current PPP that can be utilized to create a steppingstone in strengthening its future potential. Continuing from previous work on the DE model, the approach applied herein is a normative one, that is, it is designed to identify the shortcomings and limitations of PPP in order to evaluate its potential as a crucial and essential keystone in the sustainable foundation of housing development in the Nordic city context [39,41].”
We have clarified the objectives (see excerpt below, or read it in its entirety on p. 4: 125-138):
“Since collaboration is the norm for current policy implementation, PPP is in a better position than individual urban developers, but not yet sufficient, to bring about a more sustainable housing development [42]. Thus, the need to examine and reevaluate the PPP is clear. The purpose of this critical literature review is to determine if and how the PPP can achieve a sustainable urban renewal of the future city that appeals to its communities (SDG 11) …"
In addition, the authors have added the references in the introduction (p. 1: 38-43 and 44-49):
“First, on the ecological side of the sustainability coin challenges such as energy poverty, bad air quality, noise pollution, waste, excessive consumption, irresponsible land (ab)use, etc., need to be addressed [2-4]. Second, flipping the sustainability coin, the city’s social foundation is threatened by a mix of urban processes such as housing, education, health, well-being, social services, governance, cultural heritages, safety and employment [2,3,5].”
“The point to be made in this review is that these listed challenges to the sustainability of future cities, here defined from indicators and measurements used in Tanguay et al. [2]; Chan [3]; Steffen et al. [4]; Raworth [5], often exceed the capacity and scope of individual urban developers such as private and public companies, as well as municipalities [6,7].”
The authors are of the opinion that Tanguay et al. [2] and Chan [3] are just as relevant in the above quotations that within the context of SDG 11. However, both references are also added to the part of the introduction that mentions SDG11.
“Falling partly within the parameters of the UN’s sustainable development goal (SDG) 11 to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable [2,3], ...”
3.3 In line 49, “Falling partly within the parameters of the UN’s sustainable development goal (SDG) 11 (see table 2 below)…”, I did not see Table 2 positioned close to your point ‘see table 2 below’. I suggest considering the following options:
- a. Move Table 2 closely to line 49 and change it to Figure 1; or
- Revise yourindicationand do not indicate readers to see Table 2 in that line.
In accordance with you second recommendation (b), the authors have decided to remove the reference to table 2 from the sentence (see quote above 3.3.).
3.4. Figure 1 was drawn by you or get from the original source? If from the original source, do you have permission to reuse it?
Figure 1 comes from the original source. However, the editor has been contacted concerning the issue of copyrights and credits. A reply is imminent.
3.5. The explanation of structure in lines 81-87 is not necessary for a paper and should be deleted.
The authors concur, and the concerned sentences have been deleted.
3.6 As you do not have Section 1.2, I suggest combining the parts of Section 1 and its sub-section 1.1. After the combination, try to make your problem statement and objectives clearer.
The authors have amalgamated section 1.1 into section 1 as suggested. After our opening statement, we now begin with the DE-model (see pp. 2-3: 51-78), move on to the PPP (p. 3: 80-89) and then discuss our need to investigate the extent of a possible gap and the anatomy of the connection that bridges it (p. 3: 89-102). This move has contributed greatly to making our problem statement and objectives clearer. New references [2,313,14,15] were added to facilitate this move.
3.7. In Figure 2, your statement “Records excluded with reasons (n=436)” should be bolded because it can make confused that it is the different thing from the following reasons that you have mentioned: Outside Nordic (108), Not PPP (102), Wrong Subject (95), Not urban development (62), Transportation/Mobility (22), Water management (22), Wrong study duration (9), IT/Digitalisation (7), Agriculture (6), and Waste Management (3).
The authors have now changed figure 2 and bolded the concerned texts to avoid further confusion.
3.8 I also have a question, why your review chose only articles from the period 2015-2021?
The authors have added a text on pp. 4-5 (168-176) justifying the time frame in the manuscript. In addition, the authors added two new sources [47,48] to describe why this time frame is relevant (see our justification below):
“The main reason for choosing the timeframe 2015-2021 has to do with the fact that the context of the political landscape is rapidly changing. One major change in the political landscape in Nordic countries such as the old welfare state of Sweden is the emergence of neoliberal politics and policies in the late 1990s [47]. The actual timeframe captures the effects of this transformation such as spatial segregation and displacement as they worsen considerably [48]. This ideological transformation, its recent effects combined with an acute need to combat climate change paints an accurate picture of the double-edged sustainability problematic within which PPPs operate.”
3.9. I suggest reconsidering your conclusion in lines 624-625, In conclusion, “human needs first” is the guiding principle for PPPs when converting land for housing development, while biodiversity comes in second place, because does it really reflect the sustainability concept? Towards achieving sustainability goals, perhaps including PPP goals, is not really about which one is first—they all should be first. I think the matter is the priority—of course, when converting land for housing development, human needs must be given high priority, but it does not mean the human need is first.
The authors have listened to the feedback and concur. We have now changed the first part of this conclusion in the following manner (see p. 18: 707-715):
“In conclusion, human needs are today the priority and the guiding principle for PPPs when converting land for housing development, while biodiversity and land conversion are not that prioritized. In order to create a sustainable city all of these three aspects; human needs, biodiversity and land use will need to be prioritized by the PPP in an equal manner.”
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
thank you to reply to all my observations. I hope that they have been useful for your internal discussion and I consider that the manuscript now improved from the previous one.
Best regards
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for excellent feedback and giving us the opportunity to improve the quality of the review article.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for addressing the comments. The clarity of the paper has been significantly improved and the paper reads well now.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for excellent feedback and giving us the opportunity to improve the quality of the review article.
Reviewer 3 Report
My previous comments are addressed. Though, the following points need to be considered to improve:
1. It is not an appropriate way when writing your conclusion using the subject “the authors”. For example, in lines 848-851, From the authors’ reading of the literature that combines the PPP and housing development it was found that only seven of the 21… I suggest rewriting this sentence.
2. Using the phrases, first conclusion, second conclusion, third conclusion, fourth conclusion, and fifth conclusion are also not an appropriate way. The following styles could be good:
First, ….
Second, ….
Third, ….
Fourth, ….
Fifth,….
3. Using an abbreviation in the title of a journal paper is also not an appropriate way, and cannot be getting attention if readers do not know what it is.
4. After all, I suggest the title below for your paper:
Role of Public-Private Partnerships as a Potential Contributor to Sustainable Cities and Communities: A Systematic Review
Author Response
1. It is not an appropriate way when writing your conclusion using the subject “the authors”. For example, in lines 848-851, From the authors’ reading of the literature that combines the PPP and housing development it was found that only seven of the 21… I suggest rewriting this sentence.
The authors have now re-written the conclusions so that the subject line mentioned above and other similar sentences have been changed in accordance with the reviewers' suggestion (see, for instance p. 22, 876).
2. Using the phrases, first conclusion, second conclusion, third conclusion, fourth conclusion, and fifth conclusion are also not an appropriate way. The following styles could be good (...)
The authors have changed the conclusion, in accordance with the suggestion. (see p. 21-22, line 829; 834; 842; 848; 859)
3. Using an abbreviation in the title of a journal paper is also not an appropriate way, and cannot be getting attention if readers do not know what it is.
4. After all, I suggest the title below for your paper.
Replying to 3 & 4: The authors have accepted the recommendation of the reviewer, but added the words "in housing" (see below):
"The Role of Public-Private Partnership in Housing as a Potential Contributor to Sustainable Cities and Communities: A Systematic Review"
5. After a new reading of the text, the authors have found some small gramatical errors and lack of references. These have now been changed and added respectively using track-changes (see p. 2, 51; p. 3, 89; p. 5, 194; p. 13, 497; (added page number to reference) p. 18, 682 (added authors names to references); p. 19, 740).
We would like to thank the reviewer for excellent feedback and giving us the opportunity to improve the quality of the review article.
