Mapping Urban Divides: Analyzing Residential Segregation and Housing Types in a Medium-Sized Romanian City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions made in response to the first-round review comments appear to have been appropriately addressed, and there are no further revision requests. I find the manuscript suitable for publication in the ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for the time and effort dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript, as well as for the insightful comments. We believe your suggestions considerably improved our revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the study emphasizes socio-spatial segregation, it lacks integration of socio-economic data and qualitative insights. The heavy reliance on GIS analysis is not supported by sufficient evidence on income, education, or employment, nor by in-depth qualitative methods such as interviews or ethnographic research.

The six indicators of housing adequacy are not well explained. The meaning of values (0–1), methodological assumptions, and the implications of each indicator should be clarified. Also, the study lacks discussion on methodological limitations, such as indicator validity, data sources, and spatial resolution.

The exclusive focus on hostel residents limits the ability to assess the severity of segregation, as there is no comparison with other housing types.

The analysis is static. If historical data are available, a temporal approach would provide stronger insights into how current patterns emerged.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for the time and effort dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript, as well as for the insightful comments. We appreciate the opportunity to resubmit a revised copy of this manuscript “Mapping Urban Divides: Analyzing Residential Segregation and Housing Types in a medium size Romanian city”. We believe your suggestions considerably improved our revised manuscript. Please find attached a detailed point-by point reply to all suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting topic and the method designs are good. However, there are many points that are not clear and require further clarifications. Some terms need to be better defined. English writing logic and expression need to be improved. See following for the detailed comments.

1. The first sentence is confusing. I’m not so sure what information this sentence wants to pass.
2. Page 1 line 36: Please define “hostel”. Hostel means different type of living in different countries. It commonly means hotel with shared rooms and bathrooms, which is not meant for people living for more than a few days. In this case maybe “communal housing” fits better?
3. Page 3 line 110-113, the claim about Europe segregation level requires reference and better explanations about how to measure the segregation level.
4. The author used “indexes” and “indices” inconsistently throughout this paper. In technical writing, the plural of index is “indices”.
5. Page 7 line 312-319 explains the study area. I am confused about these buildings and apartments. It is said in line 314-315 that “these apartments continue to be lived in, being bought by former tenants or people with limited financial incomes.” I’m not sure how to understand this condition. First, how can people with limited financial income buy apartments? Second, “being bought” implies this is an active ongoing action of purchasing. What does this mean here?
6. Page 7 line 321 mentioned “observations to assess the physical condition”. Can you be more specific about the physical condition? What kind of physical conditions were assessed?
7. It is very nice to see Table 1 summarizing all the indices and their calculation. Can you also provide a column to interpret these indices? Something like the range of each index, smaller number means less isolated and larger number means more isolated, etc.
8. Based on Table 1, these indices are mainly using population living in these housing, the number of units, and the area. How are other variables used in this study?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Grammar is good. Expression and logic flows can be improved. Some expressions and terminology need more clarification.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for the time and effort dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript, as well as for the insightful comments. We appreciate the opportunity to resubmit a revised copy of this manuscript. We believe your suggestions considerably improved our revised manuscript. 

Please find attached a detailed, point-by-point reply to each suggestion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my questions and concerns.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1. This article experimentally analyzes residential segregation and housing types. The shape pattern and history housing policy were validated and reasoned. But, the scientific of this manuscript is relatively weak. It is more like an empirical article or project technical report from the attributes of this work. The methods are general, meanwhile the data is novelty. However, the result and conclusion have less contribution.
2. From the content of this manuscript， it is more suitable for social science journals instead of our journal.
3. It is encouraged to express more concisely, especially in the first section, to describe the research question and background clearly, and avoid report-style writing methods.
4. It was written as “For data collection, both primary and secondary data...”, then, what is the proportion or absolute quantity of data composition?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Specific Revision Opinions from the Reviewer

1. The paper provides background information on residential segregation and housing types, but could be further expanded to include more literature on urban transformation in Romania as well as in other post-socialist countries to enhance the comparative and in-depth nature of the study.

2. The paper mentions field surveys and secondary data collection, but does not describe in detail the methods of data pre-processing and processing. It is recommended that the data processing process be described in detail, including outlier handling and handling of missing data.

3. The paper provides some index values for residential segregation, but there is a need for a more in-depth explanation of the socio-economic factors behind these results and how they relate to urban development and policy making.

4. It was suggested that the discussion section provide more specific and detailed policy recommendations based on the findings of the study and discuss how these recommendations could be implemented and possible challenges.

5. There are some vocabulary and grammatical errors in this paper, and it is recommended that this paper be checked a few more times from beginning to end to make sure that the reader has a clear understanding of the goals and results of the study. For example, For example, in the “1. Introduction” section, “Adequate housing has proven to be to a large extend only a desideratum”, “extend” should be “extent”.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

good

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study addresses the issue of residential segregation in Craiova, Romania, based on housing types through quantitative, qualitative, and historical analysis. It examines the problems associated with hostels built during the communist era to house young workers for industrialization, as well as the transformations and challenges these housing types have faced in the post-liberalization era. Quantitatively, the study employs various segregation indices to analyze the extent of the problem. The research offers valuable insights into Romania's housing issues and historical context.

However, as the ISPRS IJGI journal focuses on the analysis of spatial data, the following revisions could enhance the quality and relevance of the paper:

1. Title Revision: The current title, Mapping Urban Divides: Analyzing Residential Segregation and Housing Types in a Medium-Size City, implies generalizability to medium-sized cities. As the analysis is specific to Romania, a more accurate title could be: Mapping Urban Divides: Analyzing Residential Segregation and Housing Types in a Medium-Size City of Romania.

2. Introduction Structure: The introduction section contains a mix of background, related research, and study area description. It would be clearer to separate these into distinct sections: background and related research in a dedicated chapter, and study area details in the Materials and Methods section.

3. Methodological Flowchart: Since the study integrates quantitative, qualitative, and historical approaches, adding a flowchart in the Materials and Methods section would help readers visualize the overall research framework and methodology.

4. Quantitative Indices: The study utilizes multiple indices to analyze residential segregation. It would be beneficial to present the calculation methods for these indices in separate equations. Additionally, a detailed explanation of how these values are derived and interpreted would provide clarity and strengthen the quantitative analysis.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf