Displaced Communities: Can They Be Healthy?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: societies-3660991 entitled „Displaced Communities: Can They Be Healthy?” deals with a timely and highly relevant topic, as the issues under consideration have a significant impact on community or societal well-being and sustainability.

The topicality of the issue, as pointed out in the manuscript, is that displacement due to emergency events for various reasons has, unfortunately, become an increasingly prominent global phenomenon. This means that emergency displacement is becoming more widespread, more frequent and affecting more people and communities.

The significance of the research goes beyond presenting the concept and characteristics of displaced communities and healthy communities. In the manuscript, the authors introduce a conceptual model of healthy displaced communities, based on the healthy communities approach, whose meanings have evolved and broadened over time.

Following a detailed and in-depth presentation of the concepts, the integrated concept and model of healthy displaced communities is introduced as an ideal way of operating and assisting and supporting displaced communities. The model is based on a foundation of communality, trust, social capital, capacities and partnerships that can be improved and developed through community interventions, empowerment and sustainability, long-term commitment.

I completely agree with the foregoing, as a great deal of literature and history shows that one of the laws of development is that groups that cooperate with each other have an advantage, and that human communities that have been better organised have been able to prosper and develop in the long run.

This is why community development, capacity building and engagement are needed to ensure that communities, including displaced healthy communities, maintain and sustain their viability.

It is therefore necessary to reweave the fabric of society, which is the basis for the creation and functioning of healthy communities, including healthy displaced communities.

In the manuscript, the authors note that the concept of healthy displaced communities may seem idealistic and utopian, which is related to the fact that it is a rather ambitious approach. Indeed, it is.

Nevertheless, I agree with the authors that there is a need for an integrated, systemic approach to supporting displaced communities, for which the concept and model presented in the manuscript provides a good basis and framework.

I find very important the statement by the authors that displaced communities can be healthy, but only as part of a wider, healthy society. To this end, as the authors write, a healthy communities approach requires holistic, pre-disaster strategies that enable displaced communities not only to survive, but also to grow and prosper.

The former again draw attention to the role of capabilities, described by Amartya Sen as positive freedom for individuals.

The study provides an honest, committed, creative, comprehensive and forward-looking analysis of the topic.

The study provides a comprehensive and detailed understanding of the topic under study, and the model and concept of healthy displaced community development is well established. The study rightly builds on a holistic approach, emphasising its importance and essentiality for both further research on the topic and the implementation of development policy.

Very well written manuscript.

Some comments:

On page 14, two sentences are duplicated in the text. The lines concerned are 669-678.

On page 15, in lines 737-739, a sentence is incorrectly described as two sentences as follows: "However, while these initiatives are designed for the long term, they are not necessarily inclusive and. As a result, disadvantaged communities are underrepresented in such programs and remain unequally prepared for disasters."

Correctly written as follows: „However, while these initiatives are designed for the long term, they are not necessarily inclusive, and as a result, disadvantaged communities are underrepresented in such programs and remain unequally prepared for disasters.”

I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript with minor revisions.

Recommendation: Minor revision

Author Response

We appreciate the positive feedback generated by the first reviewers, and would like to thank you for the opportunity to improve our manuscript. We followed through with all your recommendations. Please find a revised version of the manuscript.    

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is timely in addressing the increasing impact of community displacement. The model builds nicely on previous work and brings forward the potential to rejuvenate previous work in this area. The three dimensions for intervention are clearly developed and supported.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for a positive feedback!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am reviewing a manuscript titled “Displaced Communities: Can They Be Healthy?”. The text is fairly well written and neatly organized into subsections that facilitate reading. Certainly the topic of displaced communities is of interest to academics and practitioners. There are, however, major and minor flaws that make it unfit for publication, as will be addressed in the following paragraphs.

The title is misleading because it gives the impression that it is going to address the topic of health, which it does not in any clear way. There is no mention of access to healthcare, public health, clean environment, or any related subtopic. Instead, it defines “healthy community” pretty much as a synonym of community development. While this theoretical background is valid, it does not mean that you can separate the word “healthy” in the title and make it unequivocally related to “healthy community”.

The literature cited compounds this problem, as it cites many documents clearly related to healthcare, public health, clean environment, and related subtopics.

There is no clear statement of the objective of the manuscript, as can be seen in the different attempts to present it: examine (Lines 7, 93); explore (Line 89, 101); analyze (Line 94).

The abstract argues that it will bring down a false dichotomy between displaced communities and healthy communities. There is, however, no justification for that because there was never a dichotomy in the first place. In lines 97-101, there is no reference for this claim; instead, the reader is led to believe that this is how it is “typically” considered.

The argument that healthy communities is a better framework than resilience is well argued and interesting. It could be presented in a way that merits publication as a main argument.

The definition of community presented (Lines 243 onwards) is outdated. If the authors want to use this definition, at the very least they would need to acknowledge other more recent and widely used definitions such as Wilkinson, K. P. (1991). The community in rural America. Greenwood Press. The authors would need to explain why Hillery´s (1955) is more appropriate than more recent definitions for the theoretical argument presented in the manuscript.

There are parts of the manuscript that present theoretical arguments without any references or examples. For example: Lines 180-184, 194-205, 214-222.

Section 4.2 presents some quick examples, but these cannot be presented as a “case study” (Lines 750) because they do not follow that methodology. You do not have any “observations” (Line 729), just theoretical arguments. This would need to be further explained: “Studies on resilience in Israel further support the link between social inequality and levels of resilience” (Lines 748-750). How does this relate to the example? What did these studies find?

There is also some value judgments or messianic language that should be avoided. For example: 1) “Our review reveals that…” (Line 72); 2) “Interestingly…” (Line 81); 3) “Research has demonstrated” (Line 235). Just state your findings and let it up to the reader to decide if this is a revelation, if it is interesting, or if it is sufficiently demonstrated.

The discussion section does not cite enough references to be a proper discussion.

Author Response

We appreciate the thoughtful and constructive comments provided by the academic editor. We are particularly grateful for the editor’s careful reading and for recognizing the relevance of our manuscript and its engagement with both classical and contemporary literature. We also appreciate the editor’s careful consideration in recognizing that some of the reviewer’s concerns may have resulted from a misunderstanding of the manuscript’s central argument.