Public Policies for the Design and Implementation of Sustainable Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 In the introduction, you need to connect the state of the art to your paper goals. Please follow the literature review by a clear and concise state of the art analysis. This should clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to your paper goals. Please reason both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals. Clearly discuss what the previous studies that you are referring to.What are the Research Gaps/Contributions? Please note that the paper may not be considered further without a clear research gap and novelty of the study. There is no flow in the text. It partly depends on the lack of proofreading but also on the fact that many statements and claims are made without being followed up by a clear and logical discussion. It is especially problematic in the Introduction that brings up a number of findings from different areas without linking them together.

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the valuable comments and suggestions.

In response, substantial revisions have been made to the introduction and to the literature review (Section 2) in order to improve the coherence of the text and to establish a clear connection between the current state of knowledge and the objectives of the study.

A more detailed and structured analysis of the state of the art has been included, explicitly identifying existing research gaps and justifying the novelty and relevance of this work within that context. Furthermore, the specific contribution of this study and its connection to previous research have been clarified and are now presented more clearly both in the introduction and in the background section.

These changes are intended to directly address the reviewer’s concerns regarding coherence and the justification of the research objectives, and we hope that the revised version presents a stronger and more well-argued article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is relevant to sustainable development and policy design. The topic is interesting. However, the contributions of this manuscript are not highlighted, and the authors should penetrate further and explore more useful insights. 

The recommended revisions are given below:

1. The abstract and introduction present multiple threads. The single, precise research gap and the study's contribution are not crisply stated. Please further highlight the research value.
2. For methods, it is suggested that there be more data to support it.
3. Given the island/ tourism-heavy context, generalizability is a concern. Please provide more material support and explanations.
4. The policy implications are too general. They should be more specific, practical and matched with the research results.
5. Please improve Discussion section concerning the empirical study (comparing results with previous studies, using economic reality to explain the results, …, etc.)
6. The language needs to be polished. There are many grammatical errors in the manuscript.
7. Please check and unify the format according to the journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the language needs further improvement.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback. In response to your comments, the following revisions have been made:

The research gap has been more clearly defined, and the added value and contributions of the study have been articulated more explicitly. In particular, we have emphasized the holistic approach adopted, which integrates a comprehensive set of policies related to sustainable development in island contexts.

The methodology section has been expanded to provide a more detailed explanation of the data collection and analysis process, as well as the selection criteria employed. Additionally, further data has been incorporated to strengthen the validity of the adopted approach.

The policy implications have been reformulated to be more specific and aligned with the study’s findings. Practical recommendations targeting policymakers have been included.

The manuscript has been reviewed and edited by an academic writing expert, and their certification letter is attached for your consideration.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Public policies for the design and implementation of sustainable cities" presents an important and timely contribution, particularly given the global urgency to align construction and urban development with sustainability goals. The focus on Tenerife as a case study is valuable, as it highlights regional specificity and demonstrates how local contexts influence the implementation of broader European policy frameworks. The structure is clear, and the portfolio of recommendations grouped into macroeconomic, regulatory, promotional, and governance-oriented areas is well organized. However, several aspects merit further clarification and refinement. First, the methodology section would benefit from more detail regarding the selection of key agents interviewed, the number of participants, and how the qualitative data were analyzed to ensure validity and reliability of the findings. The reliance on documentary research and interviews is appropriate, but readers would appreciate a clearer explanation of how the data sources were triangulated to strengthen conclusions. Second, while the manuscript references European frameworks, the discussion could be enriched by situating the findings within a broader international context, thereby allowing readers to better understand the transferability of the proposed recommendations beyond Tenerife. The policy portfolio is promising, yet the paper could provide stronger connections between the identified gaps and the specific recommendations, showing how each action directly addresses the shortcomings of existing measures. Additionally, the paper emphasizes that there must be public-private collaboration, but more concrete mechanisms, examples, or case comparisons could make this point more actionable. It would also be useful to reflect more critically on potential barriers to policy implementation, such as institutional inertia, resource constraints, or conflicts of interest between stakeholders. From a writing perspective, the manuscript is generally clear, though some sections could be made more concise to improve readability. Overall, the paper makes a significant contribution, but addressing these methodological, contextual, and practical aspects would significantly enhance its rigor, policy relevance, and impact.

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 3 for the thoughtful and encouraging feedback, as well as for the constructive suggestions aimed at enhancing the methodological rigor and broader applicability of the study.

In response, the information in Section 3 (3.2), focused on the qualitative research approach, has been expanded to include detailed explanations of the selection process for key stakeholders, the number of participants involved, and the data analysis techniques employed. These additions aim to strengthen the validity and reliability of the findings.

Although the original manuscript referenced the international context through the inclusion of measures aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a brief additional short paragraph has been incorporated to describe other relevant international policy approaches. However, given that Tenerife is part of the European Union and is primarily shaped by its extensive regulatory framework, the analysis remains centered on the European context.

To address the reviewer's comments on the alignment between identified shortcomings and the proposed policy actions, each subsection containing recommendations now includes a summary explicitly linking each recommendation to its contribution to sustainable urban development. This is intended to clarify how each proposed action directly addresses the issues identified in the existing policy measures.

We also acknowledge the importance of including mechanisms and examples to support public-private collaboration. While the current version includes some references, we recognize that further elaboration would be valuable and will consider this for future extensions of the research.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the paper provides some important observations, there's room for improvement in its coordination.

As the paper covers several topics related to sustainable in cities and construction, the explanations of concepts are sometimes too condensed and not clear for readers. For instance, lines 55-59 introducing “backward and forward chain” should be more readily comprehensible.

The link between the parts can be loose at times. For example, it is not immediately clear how a line connecting sustainable construction in general to such examples as smart buildings and zero-emission buildings (lines 119-121) can be drawn. A better way might be to explicitly say how these examples are the "paradigm shift" you mentioned at the start.

Section 4, "Recommendations" of the comprehensive list seems quite random. Presenting recommendations in a more thematic way within each type of policy, and with very brief explanations as to how they contribute towards sustainable cities would increase coherence.

The suggestions made are relevant, but they don't always have enough support based on the analysis. The suggestion to strategically combine urban forests (lines 375–388) comes with general benefits, but: Are there any studies or data that show that urban forests work and are possible in environments like this one (Tenerife)?

Overall the content is informative, but the paper could be enhanced with clearer description, better linking of ideas and a more organized presention of recommendations in order to strengthen its coherence and accessibility.

The paper is a valuable attempt to suggest public policy guidelines aimed at addressing an important challenge of sustainable urban development. But the logic they present is less than sound and doesn't follow through till the end.

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 4 for the constructive feedback and insightful suggestions, which have been very helpful in improving the clarity, coherence, and overall structure of the article.

In response to the comments regarding conceptual clarity, the explanation of the value chain has been expanded and clarified. Similarly, the section discussing smart buildings and zero-emission buildings has been revised to better illustrate how these examples represent the paradigm shift. These changes aim to strengthen the connection between general concepts and specific examples.

To address the concern regarding the structure of the recommendations (Section 4), the section has been reorganized thematically, grouping the recommendations by policy type (macroeconomic, regulatory, promotional, and governance-related). In addition, each group of recommendations now includes a short summary that explicitly links the proposed actions to their contribution to sustainable urban development. We hope this improves the internal coherence of the section and clarifies how each recommendation addresses specific challenges identified in the analysis.

With respect to the point on supporting evidence, particularly regarding the proposal to strategically integrate urban forests, we acknowledge that comprehensive studies in contexts such as Tenerife are still limited. However, the recommendations are based on recurring issues and proposals raised by key stakeholders during the research. While empirical data are still emerging at the regional level, this article seeks to contribute to the development of a more integrated and policy-oriented framework for future planning and research.

Once again, we appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of the relevance of the article and its potential to inform public policy in the field of sustainable urban development. We hope that the revisions strengthen the coherence and argumentative depth of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accepted

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

The authors thank you for accepting the article. Your careful reading of our manuscript and your comments have undoubtedly improved its content.

Kind regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the manuscripts has been improved. It is still necessary to further highlight the research value of the manuscript and ensure the standardization of the format.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback.

The new version of the manuscript includes the corrections made, highlighted in red.

The contribution of this study is explained in more detail in the introduction. We hope to have better clarified the contribution and its potential applications.

Kind regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript titled "Public Policies for the Design and Implementation of Sustainable Cities" has significantly improved in terms of clarity, structure, and content. The authors have effectively addressed most of the suggestions from the initial review, resulting in a more coherent and polished manuscript. The title is now concise and accessible, and the overall flow of the paper is smoother, with a more logical organization of sections. The authors have strengthened the justification for the methodology and provided a more transparent explanation of the data sources and analysis techniques. The figures have been reduced in number and improved in quality, with consolidated captions, making them more relevant to the discussion.

Typographical and formatting issues from the original version have been mostly corrected, and the removal of excessive paragraph numbering and subsection divisions has enhanced readability. The expanded discussion on policy implications adds valuable practical insights, and the connection between the findings and real-world applications is clearer. While the manuscript is much improved, there are still a few minor typographical errors that would benefit from a final proofreading round.

The authors could further enrich the policy discussion with more concrete case studies or examples of cities where similar policies have been successfully implemented. Additionally, incorporating a more detailed focus on social equity within the context of sustainable urban policies would add depth to the analysis. A brief comparative analysis with other global cities could also strengthen the manuscript and underscore the broader applicability of the proposed policies. Finally, the conclusion could be enhanced by emphasizing future research directions or specific action points for urban policymakers.

Overall, the manuscript now provides a well-structured, insightful analysis with practical policy implications, and I believe it is ready for acceptance with minor revisions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback. The new version of the manuscript includes the corrections made, highlighted in red.

The contribution of this study is explained in more detail in the introduction.

In the methodology section, which explains the importance of urban forests, several successful examples from different cities on different continents are presented.

A description of future lines of research emerging from this study has been added to the conclusions.

Kind regards