Sustainability and Equity in Urban Development (S&EUD): A Content Analysis of “Bright Spots” from the Accelerating City Equity (ACE) Project

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article highlights the importance of recognizing equity as a core component of sustainable development, and the need to identify effective strategies for promoting sustainability and equity in urban development. The use of the ACE Framework and the 5 P's of sustainable development is a promising approach, as it allows for a systematic analysis of the drivers of equity and sustainability in the case studies. The content analysis process used to identify and select the case studies is also a rigorous method for ensuring that the final results are representative and meaningful. The mention of "exemplary bright spots" suggests that the study focuses on positive examples of sustainable and equitable urban development, which is an encouraging approach. The implication that these examples could be replicated in other contexts is also noteworthy, as it suggests that the study's findings could have practical applications for urban planners and policymakers. The introduction of the manuscript lacks a scientific structure and fails to highlight the problem of the study or the gap in the literature. The author could benefit from using the strategy of a "big umbrella" to focus on the main problem of the manuscript. The internal validity of the article could be improved by citing more than 11 references. Ideally, traditional scientific articles should have at least 30 references. To increase the internal validity of the study, it is recommended to cite articles such as "Mitigating Environmental sustainability challenges and enhancing health in urban communities: the multi-functionality of green infrastructure" and "Urban rights and sustainability in Latin America: First steps towards urban justice operationalization." The thesis statement should come at the end of the introduction, and the keywords used in the article do not adequately represent its approach value. The methodology section should be improved to make it easier for readers to understand. Using graphical representations and referring to qualitative or systematic reviews can help readers follow the research more easily. The author should explain the methods, techniques, and tactics used in the research under a "big umbrella." The discussion section needs to be developed to address the aim of the article and how the author responds to the hypothesis of the manuscript. The functionality of the methodology and tactics used in the article should also be discussed. The conclusion needs to be restructured and expanded. It is missing essential information, such as the findings that support the hypothesis of the study and how the author(s) described the contribution of their study to the existing literature. The conclusion of the study should be more descriptive about the findings mentioned in the discussion section. All cited references should be directly relevant to the research, and the suggestion for future study is missing from the last line of the conclusion. This line should be used to point out important shortcomings of the manuscript, which could be addressed by further research or to indicate directions for future work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is the result of an investigation project with a very pertinent objective.

It has two very strong limitations that leads me to suggest a profound review of the article:

1. Incomplete information on the bright spots and unbalanced geographic representation, as mentioned by the authors in p. 12;

2. Very limited theoretical reference to equity and sustainability and the relation between the concepts.

The first limitation is also related with what seems the authors view that these cases (or bright spots) may represent a sample of a world scale best practice on equity and sustainability. As a consequence looking on how these cases incorporate different forms of equity and the five pillars of sustainability of the United Nations seems reasonable only if they are well chosen and representative of a region and the world. That is not the case, as the authors recognize, as there's only 1 case in Europe and 4 in Asia, while Oceania, with much less inhabitants has 4 cases.

On the theoretical perspective much more has to be discussed about the relation between sustainability and equity, as they are not two separate entities, as the authors treat them. Equity is part of sustainability, as a relation between the social and the environmental dimension of sustainability. I suggest more consideration for SDG and a clear indication on why the 5 criteria were chosen and how they applied (p. 3). If the idea was to look for the best cases (hot spots) what is the importance of geographical diversity? (That was not achieved)! Or of recurring themes. (In fact you could notice that certain themes would be particularly relevant for equity promotion).

Some more notes:

- why mentioning health and well being, as well as climate chance at the beginning of the article if that is not treated or mentioned afterwards?

- do you really think that relating equity with sustainability (in fact equity is part of sustainability) is a new field of knowledge? (p. 2, 55)

- I failed to identify which cases where of what levels mentioned on p. 3, 93-95 and how it worked

- instead of methods I suggest the use of the the word "sources" in p. 3, 97.

- is China or New Zealand Global South? Do you think the concept helps the reader? Is so, please explain what you mean by that.

- pp. 4 to 9 are too much descriptive. A discussion of what you mean by each type of equity would be welcome. And why inclusion is not mentioned? Or spatial cohesion?

- why the spots are global? (p. 10, 419) Aren't they local?

- the discussion (p. 11) needs to be rewritten in view of what is said before. Please also consider the excessive repetition of the words equity and sustainability and the need to explain why you mention what is said on lines 437 to 439.

The conclusion is too short and disastrous. Saying that "bright spots are relatively even distributed" after stating that one of the criteria to choose them was the geographical distribution, means achieving what you manipulate to achieve. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.  The paper aims to identify the elements of equity and sustainability in exemplary bright spots using the ACE Framework and the United Nations 5 P’s of Sustainable Development. The topic is relevant.

2. A content analysis process was used. The empirical research is correct. The logic coherence is high.

3. The paper includes all necessary structural parts.

4. In the Abstract and in the Introduction, please add a broader theoretical context by referring to the relevant literature on the topic you develop.

5. Please add the hypotheses you raise before the empirical research and discuss if these hypotheses are confirmed after research.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been significantly enhanced through the incorporation of the provided feedback. The theoretical and methodological aspects of the article have been further developed, and its contribution is now clearly stated. I have also noticed an improvement in the internal validity of the revised manuscript. In my opinion, the article is now suitable for publication.

Author Response

See attached letter

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I am happy with the answers.

I ask only that any references to "world study" or "global evidence" or any other mention that takes the reader to think that the research has any world representativeness is deleted. As the authors confess, some parts of the world are overrepresented and other are underrepresented, and there's also no evidence that the selected cases are representative of worlds "hot spots".

I would also suggest that any suggestions to climate change would be deleted.

That said, I am happy with all the changes and I am happy to think that I could contribute to reinforce the final result.

Author Response

See attached letter. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf