Analysis of Urbanization and Climate Change Effects on Community Resilience in the Rio Grande Valley, South Texas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Summary reviews:

1. The authors have read through the manuscript and corrected all the spelling errors
2. More literature has been added to improve content throughout the entire manuscript, has been read, succinctly and also contextualized.
3. The conclusions have been re-written to show support from the findings and literature.

Detailed reviews:

1. The logical flow following the journal’s template
2. The introduction section has been re-written to add citations in relation to the state-of-the-art approach to the subject.
3. The aims and objectives are now stated at the end of the introduction section only.
4. Line 28-19 – the indicators of poverty have been provided in the form of income levels.
5. Line 56 – the term “organic city is removed and the section properly re-written.
6. Line 101 – 107 – the references have been provided
7. Methods section (line 177 – 199) – References have been provided.
8. Line 200 - 203 – additional information on how literature review was carried has been added, the data bases provided and a map of the Rio Grande Valley provided.
9. The references in Table 1 are now numbered according to the reference.
10. Conclusion section – this has been succinctly re-written and information from other authors removed.  
11. We have added 16 additional references.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have carefully considered and read the manuscript entitled “Analysis of Urbanization and Climate Change effects on Community Resilience in the Rio Grande Valley, South Texas” and have the following observations:

The disruptive and development events have tested and will continue to test community resilience as people work to balance healthy living, economic growth and environmental quality. Aspects of urbanization, if not designed and guided by healthy living strategies, converts natural areas into built environments, thus reducing the diversity of plant and animal species that are the foundation of resiliency in communities. The study tried to find answers to the following question: what are the most effective ways to ensure that the ongoing urbanization and climate change does not negatively affect ecological services and community resilience in the Rio Grande Valley region? The region is experiencing a high urban growth rate and is also one of the poorest in regions in Texas. Thus, the region has inadequate capacity to prevent or mitigate climate change-related threats and take advantage of opportunities brought about by urbanization. Using qualitative analysis, we consult existing literature to identify relevant leverage points that can help foster regional resilience capacity. The findings show that there are very strong leverage points that can produce cumulative desired resilience outcomes, but these have not been incorporated into policy and natural systems.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

This paper is needing enough clarity about the main theme of your manuscript. There are some spelling errors, and more clarifications and improvements are needed for reconsidering it for the publication in the Sustainability.

In addition to the above, I have a few points for the authors to consider before the publication of this work:

• The abstract has some issues. So, it is recommended that rewrite the abstract with clear and concise sentences without ambiguous illustrations.
• Please highlight your contribution and novelty of this manuscript with accuracy in the introduction part.
• Please update your literature with a few latest studies if applicable:

·       At the end of the theoretical background, you have to present in a summative and concluding way

• Recheck the references and their style are according to the journal requirements, and in-text and end-text should be the same and vice versa.
• In the discussion section, some supplementary literature must be added to compare and contrast the key findings with the existing study.
• The conclusion should be based on your results and discussion. So, do consider it accordingly and improve this section.
• The acronyms should be defined at first appearance in the manuscript and then must be consistently used throughout the manuscript. Furthermore, the manuscript must be checked for typo errors and spelling checks.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Summary reviews:

1. The authors have read through the manuscript and made changes to the flow and language
2. More literature has been added to improve content throughout the entire manuscript, has been read, succinctly and also contextualized.
3. The research design and methods sections has been improved by adding more literature and the IAP2 framework.
4. The findings have been improved – more information provided and the flow is improved.
5. Conclusions have been re-written to show support from the findings and literature.

Detailed reviews:

1. The entire paper has been revised, some parts (introduction and conclusions) completely re-written to improve clarity. The spelling and language have been thoroughly checked.
2. The abstract has been revised and sentences improved.
3. The contribution of the manuscript is now clearly stated in the introduction. Additional literature has been provided and section 1.3 is written in a way that sums up the theoretical background.
4. In-text citations and references and style have been checked to make sure they follow the journal format.
5. Additional literature has been added to the discussion section
6. The conclusions have been re-written to make sure it is based on the findings.
7. The authors have checked the entire manuscript to make sure there are no errors.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have read this article. While the topic is interesting, the paper presents some major limitations:

The introduction is not very useful. Therefore, the introduction should be extended very carefully. The introduction section should be rewritten again. The introduction should highlight the study's novelty and motivation and put some literature without any useful explanation.

I would suggest the author improve their theoretical discussion and arrives at their debate or argument. In addition, the background introduction should be condensed. However, The literature review is presented in a good structure.

In The Discussion part, you didn't compare your achievement with other relative research. This part should be highlighted and clarified the research achievements. 

The conclusion is too wordy, please summarise it. 

There are several grammatical errors in the paper. Proof-read suggested.

Author Response

Summary reviews:

1. The authors have read through the manuscript to improve the language and flow of the manuscript.
2. More literature has been added to improve content throughout the entire manuscript, the manuscript has been read, written more succinctly and also contextualized.
3. More references have been added and improved, the research design, questions and methods have been re-written and improved.
4. The findings section has been revised to improve the arguments and make them more compelling and more clearly.
5. conclusions have been re-written to show support from the findings and literature as well as adequate referencing made.  

Detailed reviews:

1. The introduction has been re-written and carefully extended. The motivation, contribution and more literature were referenced.
2. The theoretical discussion has been improved, see section 1.1 to 1.3 as well as the methods section.
3. The discussion section has now made some comparisons with other literature and is presented with more clarity.
4. The conclusion section has been re-written more succinctly and therefore shortened.  

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks so much for give us this second-round opportunity to improve our manuscript. Your comments were on point, very relevant helpful.  

1. The authors have read through the manuscript and corrected all the spelling errors and further improved the writing and style.
2. We have reduced the introduction section to between 2 pages and at most 2.5 pages, hopefully this is not an overstretch, we felt that there is some information that we wanted to be included. We have also removed the subsections.
3. References for lines 42 to 46 have been provided.
4. We have removed all reference numbers that were in the phrases and used correct intext citations as recommended.
5. Lines 241 – 244; the data bases that were used have been provided, the number of articles that examined provided and finally the number used for analysis and the criteria/filters for selection has been explained – see section 2.1, second paragraph. The only item we have not provided is the internet sources. This is because these articles are readily available in the journal websites. Hopefully this is acceptable.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is very clear and interesting. The authors have done properly all the necessary corrections. The manuscript has considerably improved and so far, it is endorsed for final publication in Sustainability.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are sincerely grateful for your recommendation to publish the article in the journal of sustainability.

We have again read the manuscript and made additional improvement throughout the entire paper, there is always something to add/change or subtract.  

Reviewer 3 Report

English language and style are fine but minor spell check required.

Author Response

Thanks for giving us another opportunity to improve our manuscript. We have  through the entire manuscript to make sure there are no spelling errors. We hope that th apaper is error free.