Urban Modeling in the Global South and Sustainable Socio-Territorial Development: Case of Puebla-San Andrés Cholula Urban Binomial, Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor,

Thanks for inviting me to review the paper titled "Urban Modeling in the Global South and sustainable socio-territorial development: Case of Puebla-San Andrés Cholula urban binomial, Mexico".

Some recomendations, I suggest to improve the quality of the paper as follows

1) Prepare a section with the title Case study and describe your case study base on the your subject. you can use Fig 1 there not the end of the introduction.

2) Give a flowchart or conceptual model in Material and method section in which explain your main research action stages and process.

3) Conclusion should be arrenged as follows

5. Conclusion :  A paragraph (8-10 line) that briefly explains your results and fundings --- 5.1. Suggestions for public policy --- 5.2. limitation and future studies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the writing is good.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You for Your observations and suggestions. According to Your indications, a Case Study-section has been prepared and the corresponding, now Figure 2., has been integrated there. Furthermore, a flowchart, now Figure 1., of the research process has been added to the Materials and Methods-section. Conclusions have been also re-structured following Your suggestions, including a summary, and 5.1. Suggestions for public policy, and 5.2. Limitations and future studies.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of urbanization and the factors shaping it today is very important in the process of understanding the directions of spatial development. The issues described in the article fall within the scope of issues described by the Land magazine. In general, the text is interesting, but requires a few corrections.

The general drawback of the article is a slight mess in the structure. Content that should present research background is mixed with results and discussion. This would need tidying up. Additionally, the reference to Figures is missing from the text. I understand the intentions of the authors who decided to include extensive captions under Figures, but it would be more correct if there were also references to Figures in the text. There are many direct quotations from the literature throughout the text, it would be advisable for the authors to describe at least some of them in their own words, relating them to the presented study.

The summary requires clarification. Currently, it is a bit chaotic and does not directly indicate what is the goal and what is the result of the presented research. This should be clarified. Moreover, there should be no references to literature in the summary.

The introduction presents the research background on urbanization. Research questions that should be at the end are well highlighted at the beginning of the chapter. References to the literature are appropriate, but there is a lack of reference to global findings related to urbanization. They only appear in the results in section 3.3.2. and 3.3.3. which causes some chaos.

Figure 1 is more about Materials and Methods than the introduction and should be included in Chapter 2. Figure 3 is illegible and incomprehensible and requires corrections.

The presented results require ordering and perhaps additional summaries in the form of recommendations. The conclusions are a bit too long and would require specification of the presented content.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You for Your observations and suggestions. Guided by Your indications, the following modifications and corrections have been made:

• The presentation of the Case Study is now separated to its independent section 3., apart from the Results-section.
• Figure captions are now integrated to the text, as suggested.
• Most of the direct quotations have been eliminated and their main ideas have been written within the text.
• References have been removed from the Summary (Abstract), and the research goals and main results clarified and included.
• The research questions have been moved to the end of the Introduction-section, and references made there to the global findings.
• Previous Figure 1., now Figure 2., has been moved to a new position in the 3. Case Study-section.
• Previous Figure 3., now Figure 4., has been changed to another, more legible one.
• Results-sections has been divided now into two parts, the first of which is focused on the Global North, Asian and Latin American context, and the second one, on the analysis of the case study. Some compact additional summaries have been added to the section, as suggested. Recommendations, as mentioned below, are now included to the Conclusions-section.
• Conclusions have been totally changed, now including an explanation of results and findings, and sections for Suggestions for public policy, and Limitations and future studies.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary

The paper seeks to demonstrate that the development of a Mexican city into a modern metropolis has been influenced by global models and neoliberal policies allowing speculative development full reign.

It defines five initial statements, which actually are hypotheses.

1.     Urban development influenced by the Global North and SE Asian neoliberal development patterns.

2.     SE Asian style urban and territorial modelling applied to create a global urban image.

3.     Local colonial history and socio-racial discrimination has been inherited and transferred to the 21^st C urban territorial management.

4.     The above has aggravated socio-territorial polarization through the urban inclusion-exclusion strategies of 2011-2017 period.

5.     Territorial processes triggered by neoliberal public policy and land management strategy socio-territorial, environmental balance, quality of life, and urban sustainability.

Paper was informed by bibliographical research, interviews, field studies.

Discussion

The author seeks evidence through the writings of a wide range of authors for each of these hypotheses to be fulfilled in the Pueblo city. She is on strong grounds regarding 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Regarding 1, although she asserts that Pueblo reflects the influence of the Global North and SE Asian cities, I found this less convincing. Section 3.1 and 3.2 provide many references and 3.3 admirably traces the history of San Andrés Cholula and Puebla and the latter’s modernization and urban renewal, culminating it being designated a Smart City and a Creative City in Design. It describes its transformation into the New Puebla with luxury malls, convention centers, universities, and gated communities. It describes well the displacement of the indigenous population, contrary to the Mexican Constitution and the UN Declaration on the rights on Indigenous Peoples. Its reference to the SE Asian global cities (line 427) is based on an interview with the architect of PCID public spaces (reference 29). Section 3.4.1 speaks of the similarities with the land management problems of SE Asian cities and how they use the image of the city to promote the nation’s potential as economic and financial hubs. It cites as notable Pueblo’s adaption of SE Asia’s speculative urbanisation. However, I did not find convincing evidence of a direct influence from the SE Asian cities.

I found the paper fairly heavy going and it requires several reads to cut through the jargon and the complex issues discussed.

There are some issues with its English which hopefully will be corrected before publication.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You for Your comments, and observations. Guided by Your suggestions, the following modifications and corrections have been made:

• More mentions respect the influence of Global North thinking and Asian examples have been added to the text.
• Text has been slightly restructured hoping this will make it “lighter” to read.
• The English language-issues have been revised and corrected.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been significantly improved. The abstract is now much more readable, clearly indicating the goals and results of the article, which was missing recently. There is still no reference this time to Figure 1, which should have been in Chapter 2. There is also no direct reference to Figure 6. The results and conclusions have been improved in a satisfactory way, although the last chapter could be slightly shorter and more specific.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You for Your observations. The following changes have been made and highlighted in yellow:

• The reference to the Figure 1., has been inserted to the text.
• The reference to the Figure 6., has been inserted to the text.
• The last chapter, the Chapter 6., is now slightly shorter, and some specifications have been added to it.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx