Review Reports - Evaluating Urban Sustainability in Uzbekistan: A Novel Formula for Empirical Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Many thanks for the opportunity to read the manuscript on the urban sustainability of Uzbekistan. There are a lot of merits but still, some things may improve the manuscript.

1. Citing numbers in the text is not correct. After the thirteen sources coming 56 and 57 at lines 90-91

2. In the literature review there is a part of the text on the Uzbekistan context. It seems that it is better to create a separate section for this text (see lines 161 - 189) and add some more facts.

3. In part of the literature review there is a need to structure information as in the beginning it mainly on urban sustainability and then on indicators, data analysis methods and etc.

4. The literature review can be improved by using some insights about sustainability from Burksiene, V., Dvorak, J., & Burbulyte-Tsiskarishvili, G. (2018). Sustainability and sustainability marketing in competing for the title of European Capital of Culture. Organizacija, 51(1), 66-78.

5. In the part on the method you have described a panel of experts. But it is still unclear what was the initial number of experts under consideration. What are the selection criteria? You mentioned one is from KPMG which is according to your international organization. But it is incorrect at KPMG is a globally operating audit company that differs from United Nations and other international organizations.

6. Have you considered the impact of Ferghana Valley on urban sustainability?

Thank you for your attention!

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for taking the time to thoroughly review our manuscript and for providing valuable feedback and insights. Your input has greatly contributed to the improvement of our work, and we appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns and suggestions.

Your expertise and constructive criticism have allowed us to enhance the clarity, depth, and overall quality of our research. We have carefully considered each comment and made revisions accordingly to ensure our manuscript accurately reflects the ideas and conclusions we aim to present.

Once again, thank you for your valuable contributions to our work. Please find the comments to all the changes we have made below. We look forward to receiving any further feedback you may have, and we are confident that our revised manuscript will contribute significantly to the field of study.

Corrected
Separate section with more information added.
Literature review was divided into sub-sections 2.1-2.4
We could not think of where it can be added in the literature review section, as there was no separate paragraph on sustainability awareness/culture, however it was added it into results section where it was discussed why sustainability awareness should be included into factors classification (306-310).
Corrected (253-258).
The study was focused on addressing urban sustainability issues in a more general context, rather than delving into specific regional or local cases. There is not enough information on Ferghana Valley separately, however all the indicators used in the formula already contain data from Fergana region. Also it is suggested using this formula separately in each region in Uzbekistan to indicate which ones are "the most problematic", however it will only be possible once such data will be available (480-482).

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a clearly written paper that offers a practical instrument for addressing urban sustainability concerns. The instrument or method proposed, uses a combination of literature review and expert opinion to identify, prioritize and weight indicators used in a composite index of sustainability. The authors make the claim is made that this is ‘novel’ or ‘brand new’. However, there are many examples internationally of a composite index being constructed for evaluation sustainability. The authors need to be clear whether the novelty is around its application to Uzbekistan or whether the method of reaching the composite index is original. Is so, what is original about it? Perhaps the authors should include discussing other constructions of urban sustainability indexes, and should reflect on how their method corresponds, diverges or contributes. The claims to originality may have to be modified.

The paper is specifically a method for application in Uzbekistan. It makes a lot of the unique context of Uzbekistan that requires a distinctive approach (e.g., ln 111-114 & 161-164) although it does indicate relevance to other Central Asian countries (e.g., 369-372). However, there is nothing in the text which indicates what this uniqueness is that requires a distinctive method. In fact, the description of the uniqueness in lines 165-189 could apply to many countries including my own. Further, the desire to use the method to achieve international comparison suggests that the method itself cannot be nationally appropriated.

Certainly, we need a method that elicits context specific analysis and evaluation (and the method presented arguably does this) but it is not the method itself which is context specific. If the authors wish to argue the latter then they would have to be far more specific about the cultural, political and other circumstances of Uzbekistan that require a specific approach that could not be used in Latin America, East Asia, or Africa, for example. The authors may be unnecessarily limiting the applicability of their proposed method.

A possible way to address this is to argue that this method was developed in Uzbekistan with Uzbek contexts and challenges in mind, but that it has a wider applicability and that, in using it elsewhere, some adaptations could be made. Use elsewhere has the obvious advantage of allowing for comparison.

Finally, although the paper is well written and easily understandable, further editing may help. As an example, using Page 1:

ln 24, ‘endure’ is a negative term – perhaps use the more neutral ‘experience’

P1, ln 32 ‘brand-new’ is somewhat colloquial; perhaps just ‘new’

P1, ln 35 ‘in the light of’ could be replaced with ‘with’

Similar, minor changes throughout the text could benefit the text. As a minor comment in line 194, there is a reference to the PRISMA method but no description of what this is.

Finally, as a general observation, the text concentrates on the negatives of urbanization for the environment. What about the positives such as the lower resource use per capita with urban concentration, and the hubs of intellectual and professional energy that is produced through urbanization that supports innovation towards sustainability. Hopefully, in the application of the methods a more balanced approach towards urbanization will emerge.

Overall, these comments notwithstanding, this is a useful paper that may provoke improvements in the practice of sustainability evaluation.

Author Response

The novelty of the assessment method lies in the fact that it was developed for Uzbekistan. Other methods are developed primarily in developed countries and region peculiarities are not taken into consideration. This is discussed in the last paragraph of introduction (58-68). For instance, sustainability awareness in Europe is much higher than in Uzbekistan, thus it does not require higher weight in the formula, however in Uzbekistan, where the majority of the people are not familiar with the term sustainable development, do not understand the importance of recycling and have highly sexist society this factor becomes more important. In 67-68 the authors mention that this formula is tailored for Uzbekistan. Please let us know whether we need to explain the originality more specifically.
In Discussion section the authors added some information about how this method can be applied in other regions (444-463).
Vocabulary was adjusted.
Information about PRISMA added (224-229).
Advantages of urbanisation added (88-95).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author/s,

Many thanks for your revision. I would like to accept your manuscript.

Best regards