An Analysis of Implementation Constraints of Spatial Planning Tools for Disaster Risk Reduction in Mopani’s Informal Settlements, South Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting and relevant research. However, the title of the manuscript is very long and unattractive to the reader. Theoretical analysis is introduced in the introduction, but the research gap is not revealed. I would recommend creating a separate section to describe the theoretical analysis. It is completely unclear from the description study area why the authors chose to study this territory, why it should be interesting to the readers of the journal, how the material presented in the manuscript relates to sustainability. And this is the focus of the journal. The choice of SWOT analysis is also not described, why this method was chosen and what its benefits are for this study. I would recommend relying on recent works: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780443137013004126?via%3Dihub
The ownership of the photos is not indicated. The conclusions lack a connection with the development of the theory and its connection with sustainability, there are no policy implications, and there are no limitations.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We are positive that our integration of all comments to the manuscript has substantially added to the quality of the paper through the reviewer's suggestions. Thank you very much for all your comments. The reports are attached based on each reviewer’s comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

This paper explores the implementation limitations and optimization paths of spatial planning for informal settlements in Mopani District, South Africa through SWOT-AHP analysis. The study reveals the shortcomings in governance and proposes improvement strategies, but there are deficiencies in the innovation of methods, data analysis and theoretical framework. In particular, the cross-regional applicability is not fully emphasized, which limits the universality and practical application value of the conclusions. The following points deserve further improvement:
1. The definition of informal settlements is unclear. This study does not clarify the classification criteria for informal settlements, and lacks discussion on quantitative criteria (such as area, population, building density, etc.). The impact of the critical point of scale on the research results is not analyzed, which limits the applicability and generalizability of the conclusions.
2. Insufficient data transparency. The sample size is too small (only 30), and the basis for sample size selection is not provided. There is a lack of summary of basic sample information (such as age, gender, occupation, etc.), which affects the representativeness of the data and the reliability of the conclusions.
3. Subjectivity of the SWOT-AHP method. There is a lack of explanation of the relationship between the questionnaire survey and expert judgment. The judgments between the government and the stakeholders are likely to be inconsistent, which needs to be clarified, affecting the accuracy and effectiveness of the research conclusions.
4. Insufficient analysis of weak governance issues in the results section. The specific obstacles such as finance, technology, etc. have not been deeply analyzed, resulting in insufficient exploration of governance issues and affecting the understanding of the root causes.
5. The logical connection between the conclusions and recommendations is weak. The conclusions are not closely related to the results of the SWOT-AHP analysis. It is recommended to summarize them in paragraphs, and it is recommended that the conclusion chapter and the recommendation chapter correspond to each other.
6. The literature update is lagging behind. The literature citations are relatively lagging, and the latest research results after 2020 are not reflected, which affects the timeliness and accuracy of the conclusions.
7 Add a "Discussion" chapter. It is recommended to elaborate on the shortcomings and limitations of the research in the discussion section, such as sample size, data selection criteria, and subjectivity of the method, analyze their impact on the research conclusions, and propose improvement plans. In addition, comparisons with other similar regional or national studies can be added, especially the application of spatial planning and governance models, to enhance the cross-regional applicability of the research.

Overall, this paper provides a useful exploration of the spatial planning of informal settlements in the Mopani District of South Africa. It is recommended that the authors enhance the transparency of data analysis, further discuss the subjectivity of the method, improve the timeliness of literature updates, and strengthen interdisciplinary integration and theoretical application in subsequent research.

Author Response

 

Dear Reviewer 2

We are positive that our integration of all comments to the manuscript has substantially added to the quality of the paper through the reviewer's suggestions. Thank you very much for all your comments. The reports are attached based on each reviewer’s comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. General Assessment
The article addresses a timely and highly relevant topic concerning the use of spatial planning tools for disaster risk reduction (DRR) in informal settlements, focusing on the case of Giyani Local Municipality in South Africa. The application of SWOT analysis combined with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is well-justified and methodologically appropriate, offering a comprehensive perspective on institutional capacity and barriers to effective DRR implementation. The paper clearly demonstrates the interplay between local governance structures, spatial planning instruments, and the vulnerability of informal urban development.

2. Originality and Scientific Value
The article presents original research that contributes significantly to current debates on urban resilience in the Global South. The focus on informal settlements, a critical yet often underrepresented topic in planning literature, enhances the paper’s academic relevance. The study provides practical and actionable insights for urban planners, disaster risk professionals, and policymakers engaged in promoting sustainable and inclusive urban growth.

3. Structure and Writing Style
The manuscript is well-structured, with logical flow and a clear line of argumentation. The language is appropriate for an academic publication, and the key findings are communicated effectively. Nonetheless, some sections—particularly the methodological and discussion parts—could benefit from minor editing to increase clarity and reduce redundancy. A more distinct separation between the methodology and results sections would improve readability.

4. Use and Adequacy of References
The article draws on relevant literature in urban studies, spatial planning, and disaster risk reduction. Expanding the literature review to include more recent publications on DRR practices in other parts of Sub-Saharan Africa would further strengthen the contextual framing. Nonetheless, the theoretical grounding is solid and supports the analysis well.

5. Recommendation
I recommend the article for publication, subject to minor revisions. The research offers a valuable contribution to the field of urban planning and disaster resilience and will be of interest to both academic readers and policy practitioners. The integration of empirical analysis and policy recommendations makes it suitable for a broad interdisciplinary audience.

Final verdict: Accept with minor revisions

Author Response

 

Dear Reviewer 3

We are positive that our integration of all comments to the manuscript has substantially added to the quality of the paper through the reviewer's suggestions. Thank you very much for all your comments. The reports are attached based on each reviewer’s comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hello,

 

Thank you for updates.

 

all the best

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author:

Thank you for submitting the manuscript and the revisions you made. In view of the current manuscript content, it is recommended that you further carefully check the following issues and improve them in the revision to improve the overall quality and standardization of the manuscript:

1.Formula typesetting issues: For example, there is a typesetting misalignment in formula (4). It is recommended to check the numbering and alignment format of all formulas throughout the text to ensure consistency and standardization;

2.Format consistency: The font size of the title of Section 3.2 is inconsistent with the main text. It is recommended to adjust it uniformly;

3.Figure quality issues: The resolution of Figure 2 is low, which affects the reading effect. It is recommended to replace it with a high-definition image and check whether other figures have similar problems;

4.Reference format issues: There are format issues such as misalignment or missing information in references 4, 7, 8, 26, and 59. It is recommended to check and modify them one by one according to the reference standards of this journal;

5.Language and typesetting details: It is recommended to read the entire text and carefully check the details such as language expression, punctuation, format specifications, etc. to further improve the overall expression quality of the manuscript.