Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment Tools for Sustainable Cities and Communities, a Literature Review—New Trends for New Requirements

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

analysis and environmental certification for the development of sustainable cities and communities. Therefore, this manuscript should be considered as a "review" and not as an "article". The topic is topical and interesting, but unfortunately the manuscript has serious gaps in the methodological part and in the overall structure that require serious and accurate revision before it can be published.

Here are the necessary revisions to improve the manuscript:

The abstract does not provide an adequate framework for the problem. Please revise it drastically in its overall structure.

The division into sections is superfluous. Each paragraph already indicates a section. I therefore recommend deleting the word "section" and only mentioning the number of the paragraph with its heading.

Summarise sections 1 and 2. In the introductory paragraph, clearly state the objectives of the paper and then explain the structure of the paper.

In which part of the paper is the meaning of “NSA” explained? It should be at the beginning…

Increase the methodology dramatically: include the method and tools (VOSviewer) used to conduct the bibliometric analysis. The methodology is an important section of the manuscript. It needs to be clear and simple so that researchers can implement and replicate it in their studies. A clearer picture of the methodological process should be given. What keywords were used? How was the data identified by Scopus ? What criteria were used to include data? What data was included in the review? Why was the literature analysed only for 2016 and 2022? On the basis of which selection?

It is advisable to consult one of the official methods for the literature analysis (e.g. the PRISMA method)

How was the number of keyword occurrences determined? What does it highlight? Subdivision into clusters. The other diagrams need to be described.

Subsections 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4 contain only illustrations; there is no text describing them or text for the individual paragraphs. What is the point of the table with the list of papers in paragraph 4.1.5?

The paragraph on the discussions of the bibliometric analysis is missing: What was its purpose? What results do they produce? Why was it important to understand the country producing the most manuscripts on this topic?

Where are the results of the whole review work?

Improve the discussion and conclusions of your study: what does it provide to researchers who will read it? What innovation does it bring to the scientific literature compared to what already exists?

Overall, it is necessary to drastically revise the content of the paper to improve its quality and compression and, most importantly, to add value to the existing literature. Please read the guidelines for authors

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I attach my correction according to your observations, trying to respond in the best way to obtain a good result, thank you very much for your comments, they allow me to improve and deepen as a researcher.

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1) Abstract. Authors mentioned that a total of 203 relevant publications could be identified and reviewed in this paper. But the references are 122 in this paper. Thus please explain how 203 publications were treated to be identified and reviewed.

2) 2. Section 2. Contents and purposes. The overall structure of this paper were explained in this Section. Please modify a little bit different wording to explain each section.

3) 4. Section 3. Please explain why the number of publications are categorized with ‘distribution by year of publication’, ‘by country’, field of knowledge’, and ‘highest number of citations between 2016 and 2022.’ And please explain why this categories are most important factors to consider the object of this paper. And why between 2016 and 2022?

4) In Table 3, number of citations are changing day by day.

5) Lines 184-212. All of the titles in Table 3 were not explained in lines 184-212. 

 

6) NSA, CSD, etc. Please explain what the ‘NSA’ or ‘CSD’ stands for in this paper.

7) 5.2.-5.5. Each count numbers in Tables 6-9 are not necessarily repeated in Figures 8-11.

Section 2. Contents and purposes. The overall structure of this paper were explained in this Section. Please modify a little bit different wording to explain each section. Thus, it is not easy to follow and understand the whole structure for this paper. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I attach my correction according to your observations, trying to respond in the best way to obtain a good result, thank you very much for your comments, they allow me to improve and deepen as a researcher.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The content is succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background on the topic.

2. The research design and methods are clearly stated.

3. Period on Line 56 needs to be deleted.

4. The number of 149 on Line 191 might be revised to 107 in accordance of Table 3.

5. Figure 7 on Line 285 should be Figure 8.

6. Figure 6 on Line 286 should be Figure 8.

7. Figure 8 on Line 339 should be Figure 9.

8. Figure 9 on Line 345 should be Figure 10.

9. Figure 10 on Line 365 should be Figure 11.

10. Figure 11 on Line 378 should be Figure 12. 

11. Table 3 on Line 236 might be Table 4.

12. Table 10 on Line 361 should be Table 8.

13. The word of “Tran-scription” on Line 342 could be “Transcription”.

 

Author Response

Dear revisor

 

Thanks for the comments, we are learning the correct way to interact through review platforms, we thought a short answer was better for you.

1. The content is succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background on the topic.

Thanks for your comments

2. The research design and methods are clearly stated.

Thanks for your comments

3. Period on Line 56 needs to be deleted.

We agree with this comment, Done.

4. The number of 149 on Line 191 might be revised to 107 in accordance of Table 3.
5. Figure 7 on Line 285 should be Figure 8.
6. Figure 6 on Line 286 should be Figure 8.
7. Figure 8 on Line 339 should be Figure 9.
8. Figure 9 on Line 345 should be Figure 10.
9. Figure 10 on Line 365 should be Figure 11.
10. Figure 11 on Line 378 should be Figure 12. 
11. Table 3 on Line 236 might be Table 4.
12. Table 10 on Line 361 should be Table 8.
13. The word of “Tran-scription” on Line 342 could be “Transcription”.

We changed the structure of the paper taking into account all the observations to lines and figures sent in revision 1

 

Please see the  atachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Review of the manuscript, “NSA Tools for sustainable cities and communities, a literature review; new trends for new requirements” for Buildings.

 

I want to thank the editors of Buildings for asking me to review the manuscript. I found the work to be interesting in terms of urban design planning in regard to sustainability, especially for practitioners who want to follow the latest development of theory in this younger discipline. However, I do think there needs to be some further tweaking of things before the manuscript is ready to be accepted for publication. I have a few overall comments and a number of specific ones. Most of the specific ones deal with editorial comments and suggestions.

 

Overall comments:

The authors never really say why the target years for their investigation are 2016 through 2022 even though the literature has been “emerging in the first decades of the 21^st Century.” The 2016 date for the start of their more focused analysis is inferred, given that the authors mention 2015 several times, probably the most important is the mention of the release of “Sustainable Development Goals” in that year. I think the authors need to state explicitly why they start with 2016.

 

A follow on from that is why do the years 2021 and 2002 get the treatment of the use of diagrams found in Figures 7 through 11? Why not 2016 through 2020 as well? I understand that review literature in 2021 and 2022 are the most current that may have citations from practitioners in this field, but it’s not expressly stated that is the reason for the use of these diagrams.   

 

NSA is not defined (what the acronym stands for) anywhere in the Introduction section.

Is “decarbonization” really talked about in this manuscript except under the broad term of “sustainability” or “energy” …?

Odd placement of periods in the middle of sentences: lines; 56, 354, and perhaps another one.

There appears to be inconsistency with the way the reference list is handled, such as with the dates of the listed publications. Please obtain several copies of recent Buildings articles and follow how the references are handled for those publications.

 

 

Specific Comments:

Abstract-

Line 17: Why was the 2016 through 2022 study period selected, why these years?

Line 22: “..the systems in the territory…” comes across as awkward in my opinion given that some readers may not understand what you’re trying to say, I suggest a bit of a reworking.

 

Introduction-

Line 32: Why not just “sustainable development”? If you put “the” in front, then something else is needed after “sustainable development” such as ‘theory”, “field” or whatever.

Line 36: I would add “governments” or “leaders” here.

Line 55: “that” instead of “which” (?)

Lines 58-59: What is the difference between “green” and “sustainably managed”?

Lines 61-63: You are talking about at a global scale here, correct? Probably should put in that context.

Lines 67-68: I would rework the first part of the sentence to be, “The selection of indicators and the data collection/standardization of evaluation systems would allow evaluating…”

Line 73: I would use “because of” instead of “due to” here. You can also get rid of the comma in front of the current “due to”.

Line 80: “Because” instead of “Since” for this sentence.

Line 86: The comma after “engagement” probably isn’t needed.

Line 88: Wouldn’t double parentheses (“) be used when the Voluntary Local Reviews are mentioned?

 

Methodology-

Line 123: “was carried out”, you’ve done the work so shouldn’t it be past tense?

Line 124: Why just “energy certificates”?

Line 139: I don’t think you need “cities” at the end. I think you could end the sentence saying, “…thus becoming more sustainable.”

Line 140: What the “economy” is calling for or is it what “policies” are calling for…?

 

Section 4-

Line 178: “Understanding” instead of “understand”?

Line 195: I would change the beginning of the sentence to be, “In first place was “‘Neighbourhood sustainability….”

Line 198: I would also change the next sentence to perhaps be, “The second-place finisher was “Limitations in assessment methodologies…”

Line 202: “because” instead of “since” and I think the comma currently in front of “since” can be dropped.

Line 203” “appeared”, past tense.

Line 207: To finish off the sentence, I suggest, “…but it manages to identify through case studies, analysis of the weaknesses, strengths and potentials behind the use of NSA tools at the district level [54].”

Line 216: I would tweak the middle of the sentence to be something such as, “…supporting multi-scale urban planning as a synergistic approach as experts pointed out that the trend of individual buildings was insufficient to achieve sustainability objectives [56, 57].”

Line 220: Capitalize “The” at the beginning of the sentence.

Line 221: “In-depth” instead of “deep” (?)

Line 225: I think there needs to be something more at the beginning of this sentence, such as “There is also an acceptance that cities are not just a conglomerate of people…”

Lines 225-229: I would combine these two sentence to be something such as, ““There is also an acceptance that cities are not just a conglomerate of people, but as the foundation for sustainable development at a global level, where the results of the evaluation and planning based on NSA tools can increase citizen awareness about the strengths and weaknesses of their territory, improve decision-making in development plans or perhaps simply facilitate the choice about where to live and work.”

Line 323: “through” instead of “until” (?)

Lines 239-240: If this is a direct quote from the reference, the page number should be included such as [64, pg. ?].

Line 253: I would tweak the sentence such as, “These would be considered the optimal scale to observe social indicators, as well as the interactions between strata and interest groups [69].”

Lines 266-267: I’m not sure what this sentence means. Is “certainty” another cause or sub-cause or are you trying to say there is “certainty” in implementation? I’m also not sure what “territory” means here, is it the geography of the neighborhood or the theory/discipline of the field of study?

 

5. Section 4-

Line 273: Should “systems” be singular here?

Line 288: Was “CSA” defined in the Introduction section?

Line 290: I would delete the comma after 2022 here.

Lines 304-305: I find this sentence awkward. Are you trying to say that community and local government members don’t how they will be measured and recognized in the indicators that are being made with the various ranking processes?

The use of “territory” in this paragraph, do you mean the local areas?

Line 330: Use ‘two” instead of the actual number here? In older formal writing, numbers weren’t used until they reached double-digits but perhaps that has changed…

Line 357: I don’t believe a coma is needed after “contexts”.

Figure 10. The shape of this diagram is different from many of the others presented. Did the original authors have the highest number of remarks towards the middle of their table and the current authors just kept it there? If Table 10 was reordered in the descending number of remarks manner, as most of the earlier diagrams were, then the shape of Figure 10 would be similar to the rest.

 

Conclusions-

Line 380: I would place a period after “established”. And start a new sentence with “First”, instead of “Firstly”.

Line 384: The “word “struggling” is sort of awkward here given that the probably that researchers in either the USA or China are not consciously “fighting” each other to gain “first place”.  I would rephrase to something such as, “…USA and China often switch places as being the leading country for annual publications…” or something similar.

Lines 387- 391: You are talking about the overall theme “urban sustainability” here, correct? If so, it probably needs to be restated to the readers.

Line 400: I would delete “very” here. This word is often just “filler”. In this case, it adds nothing to the sentence.

Line 414: The use of the first three words of “Improve existing adding” doesn’t really start off this “sentence” well. Perhaps rework to something such as, “Improving new indicators or by adding to existing ones…” (?)

Line 423: I would use “because” instead of “since” and drop the comma after “term”. In informal, vernacular writing, “since” has become a substitution for “because” even though in “since”’s first definition, it is a temporal construct. Perhaps just my old-fashioned opinion.

Line 425: I would use “that” instead of “which” here. The comma after “way” can also then be eliminated.

Line 430: I would end a sentence with “essential”. And start a new one with “The recognition…”.

Line 432: The “since” versus “because” situation again.

 

Comments on the writing in English are within the specific comments I've listed above.

Author Response

Dear revisor
Thanks for the comments, we are learning the correct way to interact through review platforms, we thought a short answer was better for you.

Overall comments: The authors never really say why the target years for their investigation are 2016 through 2022 even though the literature has been “emerging in the first decades of the 21st Century.” The 2016 date for the start of their more focused analysis is inferred, given that the authors mention 2015 several times, probably the most important is the mention of the release of “Sustainable Development Goals” in that year. I think the authors need to state explicitly why they start with 2016.

We agree with this comment, we are taking reference from SDG´s 2030, we work until 2023, we defined in a better way NSAT, decarbonization is not the scope so we improve abstract and introduction, done. Thank you for your comments, indeed the turning point that we want to study is the appearance of the 2030 SDGs and how the perspective changes in the development of global and local NSATs, in order to be able to decipher trends in the short and medium term.

A follow on from that is why do the years 2021 and 2002 get the treatment of the use of diagrams found in Figures 7 through 11? Why not 2016 through 2020 as well? I understand that review literature in 2021 and 2022 are the most current that may have citations from practitioners in this field, but it’s not expressly stated that is the reason for the use of these diagrams.

We agree whit this comment, expand the detailed review from 2016 to 2023 in Table 5, where all the papers found and selected for detailed review are listed. The PRISMA methodology is also incorporated with its structure to improve the order and transmission of information to the reader.

NSA is not defined (what the acronym stands for) anywhere in the Introduction section.

We agree whit this comment, expand the detailed review from 2016 to 2023 in Table 5, where all the papers found and selected for detailed review are listed. The PRISMA methodology is also incorporated with its structure to improve the order and transmission of information to the reader.

Is “decarbonization” really talked about in this manuscript except under the broad term of “sustainability” or “energy” …?

Thanks, it was indeed poorly expressed, our focus is not decarbonization, but rather the evolution and trends of the NSAT, taking the appearance of the 2015 SDGs as a turning point, so we start from 2016 to 2023

Odd placement of periods in the middle of sentences: lines; 56, 354, and perhaps another one. There appears to be inconsistency with the way the reference list is handled, such as with the dates of the listed publications. Please obtain several copies of recent Buildings articles and follow how the references are handled for those publications.

We changed the entire structure of the paper based on the structure of the PRISMA method to facilitate the collection of information and improve the analysis and results. Please review the changes because they are substantial.

Dear Revisor please see the atachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, thank you for reviewing the manuscript.

Unfortunately, there are still many points that need to be clarified.

First of all, as stated in the first revision, your paper is a review and not an article. This needs to be changed in the paper before the title.

The title contains the acronym NSA, but nowhere does it state what it means. This is clear from the title of paragraph 1.1 (Neighbourhood Sustanability Assessment); it is important to state this to make it easier to understand and read.

The introductory paragraph should be one, without sub-paragraphs; and it should clearly reflect the objectives and novelty of the following paper.

The methodology is really very poor. I have recommended that you follow the guidelines of the official PRISMA methodology, but this does not mean that you simply paste the frame illustration as you have done in Figure 1. It is necessary that each phase of the method is described in detail in the text; all the reasons for the selection and the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the papers must be given. Authors must remember that a scientific paper must have an accurate, detailed methodology that can be understood by others.

What is the significance of Table 3? Why do you list several papers in paragraph 2.1.2 without providing a critical comment?

What is the purpose of your review? This does not emerge. In what way might it be useful to other experienced researchers in the field? Why should they read it? What is new about the article?

The discussions and conclusions need to be drastically revised.

Is it possible that in line 289 the references range from 94 to 106? 13 references for only one sentence? Please check if this is correct. References need to be inserted according to criteria, not to balance the numbers.

Also, for next time, I recommend a detailed response to the reviewers' comments. Simply replying with "done" does nothing to dispel the reviewers' doubts.

It is necessary to check the structure of the entire manuscript and consequently the various grammatical and syntactical errors

Author Response

Revisor 1 - Answer Point By Point (in red)

 

Dear authors, thank you for reviewing the manuscript.

 

Thanks for the comments, we are learning the correct way to interact through review platforms, we thought a short answer was better for you.

 

Unfortunately there are still many points to be clarified.

 

We are attentive to the improvements requested point by point, thank you very much for the instructions.

 

First of all, as stated in the first review, your article is a review and not an article. This should be changed in the article before the title.

 

The title contains the acronym NSA, but nowhere does it indicate what it means. This is clear from the title of paragraph 1.1 (Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment); It is important to indicate this so that it is easier to understand and read.

 

The introductory paragraph must be single, without subparagraphs; and must clearly reflect the objectives and novelty of the following article.

 

Thank you very much, it was corrected in the title and the acronym was removed.

Furthermore, it is explained in detail in paragraph 1. Introduction, the origin and definition of the initial systems are developed from the first stage.

 

The methodology is really very poor. I have recommended that you follow the guidelines of the official PRISMA methodology, but this does not mean that you simply paste the illustration in the box as you have done in Figure 1. It is necessary that each phase of the method be described in detail in the text. ; All the reasons for the selection and the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the works must be stated. Authors must remember that a scientific article must have a precise and detailed methodology that can be understood by others.

 

We have developed the PRISMA methodology based on the published guidelines, the complete paper changed its structure to comply, we hope it has sufficient detail.

 

What is the meaning of Table 3? Why do you list several articles in paragraph 2.1.2 without providing critical commentary?

 

Table 3 is now 6 and is part of the search findings, it is the updated list of NSAT found in papers.

 

What is the purpose of your review? This does not arise. How might it be useful to other experienced researchers in the field? Why should they read it? What's new in the article?

 

We hope that now the value of the review is clearer, we expanded to 2023 and identified other relevant publications that enriched the evolution of the reviews by also incorporating Scopus.

 

A table 5 is generated with all the papers reviewed in detail for publication, ordered chronologically, with the source and abstract summary and results.

 

Discussions and conclusions need to be drastically revised.

 

Later in the discussion, the guidelines provided by the latest works and their most important findings are reviewed in detail in an accessible way for the reader.

 

They were completely improved with a reflection based on the published findings and a proposal for a new current situation that generates a third wave of NSAT, different from the previous one based on quick gains for the participants, in a context of climate urgency.

 

Is it possible that on line 289 the references go from 94 to 106? 13 references for a single sentence? Please check if this is correct. References should be inserted according to criteria, not to balance the figures.

 

We are sorry this was a mistake, we have already corrected it, thank you.

 

Also, for next time, I recommend a detailed response to the reviewers' comments. Simply responding with "fact" does not dispel the reviewers' doubts.

Thanks for the recommendation, we have taken it for this iteration

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

As requested in the first review, almost all the questions were answered.

Author Response

Revisor 2 - Answer Point By Point (in red)
Dear revisor
Thanks for the comments and your help

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

--